House of Representatives
31 July 1974

29th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 29th Parliament
  3. 1974

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. F. Cope) took the chair at 12 noon, and read prayers.

page 833

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

National Health Scheme

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

The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the proposed ‘free’ national health scheme is not free at all and will cost four out of five Australians more than the present scheme. That the proposed scheme is discriminatory and a further erosion of the civil liberties of Australian citizens, particularly working wives and single persons. That the proposed scheme is in fact a plan for nationalised medicine which will lead to gross waste and inefficiencies in medical services and will ultimately remove an individual’s right to choose his/her own doctor.

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

And your petitioners, as in duty bound w’U ever pray. by Mr Hayden, Mr Drury, Mr McLeay and Mr Wilson.

Petitions received.

Palace Hotel, Perth

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

We the undersigned citizens of Australia do humbly petition the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia that it might take such steps as may be necessity either to direct the Commonwealth Banking Corporation to preserve and restore The Palace Hotel or itself acquire the said Palace Hotel St. George’s Terrace, Perth on its present site so as to preserve and restore it in perpetuity.

Further we do humbly petition this honourable Parliament to make such funds as may be necessary available to purchase the entire contents of the said Hotel from the owners thereof.

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

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 welbeing 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 Garland.

Petition received.

Education

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.) Your petitioners believe in the principle that every Australian child, irrespective of the school fie 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 pupil 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 pupil 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. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that, as an interim measure, the Government will immediately increase the current grants being made to children in non-government schools to at least 50 per cent of the cost of educating children in government schools, thus enabling the non-government schools to continue to exist and fulfill their function of educating Australian children.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever Pray. by Mr Jarman.

Petition received.

War Service Homes

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

The humble petition of electors of the State of Victoria respectfully showeth:

That ex-servicewomen who enlisted during World War II have been discriminated against in the interpretation and administration of the War Service Homes Act 1918-1971.

Whilst on enlistment they were prepared to serve in any area, ex-servicewomen who did not actually serve outside Australia are at present debarred from War Service Homes rights.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that immediate action be taken to grant War Service Homes rights to all wartime ex-servicewomen, whether married or single and without restriction as to dependants, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Jarman.

Petition received.

Industrial Solar Energy

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 world’s supply of fossil fuel is limited, and that research into alternative sources of energy is urgent.

That nuclear energy is a source of dangerous pollution, and contains inherent threats to the very existence of mankind.

That solar energy is increasingly acknowledged as a possible alternative, and deserves the type of research for which Australia’s size and climate are particularly suited.

That the problems of harnessing solar energy could well be solved if efforts comparable with our atomic energy research were applied to it.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will reduce its current spending on atomic energy research, and urgently set aside sufficient funds for meaningful research into industrial solar energy, and take whatever steps may be necessary to see that this research is begun with the shortest possible delay. by Mr McLeay.

Petition received.

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 Australiarespectfully 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 Morrison.

Petition received.

Social Security

To the Honourable 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 nowretired 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 in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Uren.

Petition received.

Taxation Deductions: Rates

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 a fundamental principle of fair taxation system is that any form of double taxation should be avoided.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the law be amended to allow tax-payers to deduct from income, for income tax purposes, all rates and taxes paid by them in respect of their primary home or land bought for the purpose of building thereon.

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

Petition received.

page 835

QUESTION

CHILD CARE

Mr SNEDDEN:
BRUCE, VICTORIA

– I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that an advertisement appeared in the ‘Daily Telegraph’ on Thursday 16 May - 2 days before polling day - which read:

Only Whitlam has a program for child care.

It continued: 500,000 children will benefit from Whitlam’s child care program by 1977. In the first year he will spend $130m on family day care programs, day centres, preschools, outside of school care, emergency and occasional care.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! In no circumstances would I want the right honourable gentleman to think that I am trying to protect anyone, but I remind htm that it is out of order to quote from a newspaper at question time.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Does the Prime Minister remember the advertisement? Did he authorise the advertisement - I do not mean in the strict electoral sense of giving his name and authority? Did he approve that advertisement being used by the Labor campaign committee? If so, will he now apologise to any persons who believed it and in their vote were influenced by it?

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

– Yes, I do remember the advertisement. I remember also a Press release by the right honourable gentleman on 1 May saying that the Liberal-Country Party coalition offered $20m for both child care and retraining. As I pointed out very effectively during the campaign, the right honourable gentleman’s offer involved cutting by half the amount that the Government was already spending for these purposes.

Mr Peacock:

– You have obliterated it.

Mr WHITLAM:

– There has been no obliteration; there will be an increase. There will not, I regret to say, be the full expenditure of $130m this financial year. If honourable gentlemen, who are acting as if they were in a kindergarten, were to read the report of the Australian Pre-schools Committee-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for Chisholm will remain silent.

Mr WHITLAM:

– He is in his second childhood. If the Leader of the Opposition and other honourable gentlemen were to read the report of the committee of inquiry into preschool education by Miss Fry which was tabled about 8 months ago, the report by the Australian Social Welfare Commission which was tabled yesterday and the report by the Priorities Review Staff which also was tabled yesterday, they would see that this is a very complex matter; that in fact there are very great difficulties in carrying out a program of care and education of children before they go to primary school, particularly in the light of the varied circumstances in the different States. The Government has found that it was too optimistic in expecting that it would be able to spend SI 30m effectively in this financial year on these purposes. The Government already is spending and is committed to spend twice the amount that the current Leader of the Opposition promised during the campaign.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I warn the honourable member for Chisholm. If he interjects once more I will deal with him.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I notice that the Leader of the Country Party said that the program would cost $300m a year. It was one of those matters on which he was taken to task by the still Leader of the Opposition. The Government already is committed by correspondence with the States and so on to spending this financial year at least twice as much as the Leader of the Opposition promised that a government led by him would spend. The Treasurer pointed out on Tuesday last week that we would not be able to carry out this year the full program which we had hoped and expected to undertake - that is, the full one. He did not promise in any way that there would be a reduction. There will in fact be an increase which might easily be up to half the amount referred to. The Government takes the attitude that it will not embark upon expenditures of this character unless they are properly planned. We want to see that the money is spent effectively in economic terms and in social terms. The program for the care and education of children before they go to primary school will not be as extensive or expensive as we had thought it would be this financial year, but I can assure honourable members that we will embark on a program which will in fact cater for children with proper economic and social priorities.

The Opposition Parties cannot even make up their minds about the difference between pre-school and child care. There are differences. The Leader of the Opposition is giggling. He is getting more and more hysterical. But the Opposition spokesman on these matters, Senator Rae, has of course differed from him on these matters. I regret very much that the Government will not be able to undertake this financial year the full program. Some of the reasons are economic; others, quite frankly, spring from the complexity of the arrangements which have to be made between the Australian Government, the State governments and local government. The State governments have a very great variety of arrangements already. In some States local government is authorised and in other States it is not authorised to undertake this activity. Quite clearly, if it is to be done with a proper sense of economic and social priorities it requires very full consultation between all 3 tiers of government. That has not been possible hitherto.

page 836

QUESTION

PRICE INCREASES

Mr COHEN:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Minister for Labor and Immigration been drawn to the action of leading Australian retailers in immediately increasing their profit margins on goods already held in stock and paid for when shop assistants were granted a long overdue increase bringing a senior’s wage to a modest $102 a week? Is he aware of the high profits of the large retailers during the past 2 years caused by booming consumer demand and their failure to pass on to consumers the effects of revaluation and tariff cuts? Is he aware that one firm, Grace Bros Pty Ltd, got its staff to work back on the night of the wage announcement to mark items up to 100 per cent gross profit?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– My attention has been drawn to the practices referred to by the honourable member. In the case of Grace Bros it is true, I am informed by reliable informants, that the staff was brought back on the very day that the wage increase was granted to them to mark the prices of all goods then held to a figure representing 100 per cent mark-up. Many instances have also been brought to my notice of supermarkets displaying items on their shelves which have as many as 3 different price-tags, one placed upon the other, each being higher than the original tag, indicating that when the original tag was put on the article it represented a proper and quite generous mark-up on the item, but was later increased and then still further increased without the seller of the article being required to pay any more for the article than when he originally bought it. A delegation of trade union representatives waited on me and the Deputy Prime Minister only a couple of weeks ago. They were able to show us articles of clothing bearing the trade name ‘Levi’. Some of these were produced in Adelaide; others, which were sold by the same company and were of the same material, the same cut and in exactly identical form, were purchased from either Taiwan or Hong Kong.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Hong Kong.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The Deputy Prime Minister tells me it was Hong Kong. The articles from Hong Kong each cost $4 less for the importer or the retailer to purchase than did the. ones manufactured in Adelaide. Yet both articles were marked up to the same price. This presumably represented a fair mark-up on the Adelaide article, so that in respect of the goods from Hong Kong the public was robbed either by the importers, the wholesalers or the retailers. I do not know at which point the robbery occurred but the public was robbed by one or other of the 3 groups I have mentioned, or jointly by them all, to an extent of 300 per .cent profit. If one wants to find the real culprits in our society, the people who are really responsible for the inflationary examples that are now being referred to, one should look at the retailers, the wholesalers or the importers, or the combination of the three, who are responsible for the mark-ups of as much as 300 per cent on the cost price of the articles.

page 836

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I remind the Prime Minister that in his policy speech before the last election he described the areas of schools, health and social security as ‘the only fields where meaningful cutbacks can be made’. He has now cut back on pre-school expenditure and on the abolition of the means test. Will he .now give an undertaking that there will be no cutback in expenditure on primary schools, secondary schools and technical and further education?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– There has been no cutback. The average expenditure by the LiberalCountry Party Government, which preceded the present Government and in which the right honourable gentleman was the final Treasurer, on pre-school education and child care was S5m a year. Under this Government the expenditure rose to $34m a year. This year it will rise still further. Furthermore, under my Government the expenditures on primary education, secondary education, technical education, universities, colleges of advanced education and postgraduate education have multiplied many times. If honourable gentlemen read the 3 reports which have been tabled they will see that it would not be possible effectively to spend the anticipated amount in this financial year.

Mr Snedden:

– You made the promise.

Mr WHITLAM:

– On the best of the information available to me at the time I thought we could spend it,

Mr Snedden:

– Will you table that information in the Parliament?

Mr WHITLAM:

– Yes. I no longer carry around with me the right honourable gentleman’s estimated cost of his election promises. I have scrapped that scrapbook. But I remember very clearly that his proposal for this purpose in this financial year was $20m. I imagine that our expenditure in this financial year might easily be 3 times that amount. But I must confess that it is impossible, in the light of the advice which is now available to us and which we promptly made available to Parliament, to spend 6i times that amount. I do not want to be encouraged to remind honourable gentlemen of what was said during the flection campaign. But I happen to have a report of what the Leader of the Australian Country Party said during the election campaign. He must have said this on 1 May. The report states:

The Leader of the Country Party, Mr Anthony, strongly indicated last night that a Liberal-Country Party Federal Government would reject or reduce Labor’s plans for a network of ore-school kindergartens.

He listed the proposal as one in which a coalition government, if elected on May 18, would exercise moderation.

In other words, this was to be a matter in which the Liberal and Country Parties were to cut back. The Leader of the Opposition, who has now asked me 2 questions about this matter, costed his program at $20m for this financial year.

Mr Snedden:

– That is rubbish.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I thought it was rubbish. 1 am glad that the right honourable gentleman now admits that. The Government is already committed to expenditure this financial year of $34m in this area. 1 expect that we will be spending more than that - maybe twice that amount. I express my regret and disappointment that we are unable to embark on as full a program this year as we had expected and hoped. We cannot do so for technical as well as economic reasons.

page 837

QUESTION

NEWSPAPER ADVERTISING RATES

Mr SCHOLES:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– Is the Minister for the Capital Territory aware that the ‘Canberra Times’, which is owned by one of Australia’s major Press combines, increased its advertising rate by 25 per cent on Wednesday last? Did newspapers owned by this group carry editorials last week calling for restraint on increases in wages and prices? Was an inquiry conducted into the justification of the rises? Was the Canberra ‘News’ closed in the previous week because of accumulated losses? Will the Minister inquire into whether rates charged by the ‘Canberra Times’ were subsidised by the parent company in order to eliminate a competitor? If so, will the Minister ask the Attorney-General what can be done by the Australian. Government to prevent such action?

Mr BRYANT:
Minister for the Capital Territory · WILLS, VICTORIA · ALP

– Do I detect a note of surprise in the voice of the honourable member for Corio? Does he really expect the newspaper proprietors to act as they write? Surely he realises by now that it is all right for them to deliver directions and corrections to people such as ourselves but no such moral values ought to be applied to them when they work on their own behalf. In fact, he has understated the situation. I understand that the advertising rates of the ‘Canberra Times’ have now increased from $319 to $560 for a halfpage - a 75 per cent increase. The rate for a full page advertisment has increased from $638 to $1,102 - a 75 per cent increase and the rate for classified advertisements has increased from 43c a line to 65c a line. It is quite true that putting on their other hat of being the moral directors of the Australian community, the proprietors have produced a couple of very interesting leading articles. One is headed, ‘Setting an Example’. It states in part:

It is to be hoped that members of the Opposition will decide at least to defer consideration of the increase until after the conference -

That is the Moore conference - . . . will depend critically on the willingness of the union rank and file to accede to restraint of their wage claims . . .

Another line is not bad either. It states:

It offers the least painful solution to inflation: voluntary wage restraint.

Another article appeared in the ‘Canberra Times’ on Saturday, 27 July, when the newspaper proprietors took up the pen again. The first sentence is classic.

Mr Katter:

– What paper is this?

Mr BRYANT:

– It is the ‘Canberra Times* and it uses words short enough for you to follow. The article states:

The Senate, perhaps unwittingly-

I hope this is not a breach of privilege- . . . has opened the most momentous phase of the anti-inflation struggle in Australia, the phase of wage restraint . . .

But a beginning had to be made somewhere and the least the rest of Australia can do is to amplify the momentum thus given to the do-it-yourself fight against inflation . . .

The Senate’s example is proof that there is no need yet to despair completely of human nature-

That is, except for the Press. It is true that the ‘Canberra Times’ published those articles. No inquiries have been conducted into the rates of advertising as far as I know. The Canberra ‘News’ did close last week. I will refer the matter both to my prices authority to see whether he can examine the rates and to the Attorney-General to see whether there is any breach of the various statutes which control unfair competition. That is the situation. I think it is a fair commentary upon the general run of Australian business that at the moment the newspaper proprietors want everyone else to practise restraint while they multiply their profits.

page 838

QUESTION

MONDURAN-KOLAN IRRIGATION SCHEME

Mr MILLAR:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister for Northern Development aware that vital work on the Monduran-Kolan irrigation scheme has virtually ceased? Does he acknowledge the Government’s obligation under its pre-election promise to provide. $4.4m for the offsetting of escalated costs of the Monduran-Kolan irrigation scheme? Is he aware of the urgent need for such finance to maintain continuity of work on the project, particularly in respect of the completion of the channel from the dam to the River Burnett? Having in mind the critical role that the Monduran-Kolan scheme plays in drought mitigation and the fact that the area to be serviced by this scheme is currently experiencing very dry conditions, will the Minister indicate when the promised money will become available?

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

– It is a fact that because of the escalation in costs that has been associated with this project since its inception, including years before this Government took office, there has been an approach to me by the Acting Minister for Conservation, Marine and Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Camm, who is the Minster for Mines and Main Roads in the Queensland Government. Approximately $4.4m is involved. The honourable member may not know that some months ago the Government made an emergency grant of $300,000 to keep men at work on certain aspects of the completion of the Monduran Dam. I can say to the honourable member that the letter from the Queensland Government has been received. It contains various propositions. It is under consideration by the Government.

page 838

QUESTION

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr MULDER:
EVANS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– When will the Minister for Minerals and Energy table the Fitzgerald report on the contribution of the minerals industry to the Australian economy? How does he relate its impact to the Senate Committee’s report known as the Rae report?

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

– I will be tabling today the Fitzgerald report to which the honourable member for Evans has referred. I invite the Opposition to come out of its stunned silence which was so obvious in the course of the election campaign and debate the report. The Opposition will be afforded every opportunity to do so.

Mr Sinclair:

– Will you give us the opportunity to debate it? Is that an undertaking?

Mr CONNOR:

– Yes, with the greatest pleasure.

Mr Sinclair:

– Will you have a word to your Leader about that?

Mr CONNOR:

– With the greatest pleasure. The 2 reports are distinctively complementary. In the course of the election campaign the Opposition thought discretion the better part of valour and the word went out to the faithful and to the candidates that under no consideration were they to refer to this report. Certain of them were quite prepared to traduce the author of the report, Mr Torn Fitzgerald, who is one of the best and most respected economic journalists in Australia. They are to be ashamed of themselves for what they did in that regard. With the tabling in the Senate -

Mr Fairbairn:

– I rise on a point of order. The Minister is not telling the truth. I debated it on radio with him.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! No point of order arises. The honourable member for Farrer has been here long enough to know that that is an unparliamentary remark.I ask him to withdraw it. If he claims to havebeen misrepresented, he has ample opportunity after question time to make a personal explanation. But that is an unparliamentary remark. I ask him to withdraw it.

Mr Fairbairn:

– What was the unparliamentary remark?

Mr SPEAKER:

– ‘He is not telling the truth’. (Opposition supporters interjecting) -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! If he has been misrepresented, the honourable member has ample opportunity after question time to raise the matter. But it is an unparliamentary remark on any occasion. I ask the honourable gentleman to withdraw that remark.

Mr Fairbairn:

– I withdraw.

Mr CONNOR:

– Apparently the extent of the support for the honourable gentleman was that he was dumped from the front bench at the first Party election subsequent to the polls. With respect to the Rae Committee report, it fully vindicates every word of the Fitzgerald report. In particular it refers to the recycling that was occurring of funds available under section 77. I would suggest to all honourable members, if they have not already done so, that they have a look at the particular references to the antics - I stress the word antics’-

Mr Nixon:

– Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point of order is that the Minister is giving a long-winded explanation of a report that we have not seen. Let him table the report and make a statement on it. Let it be debated. This is a Dorothy Dix question.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. There is no point of order involved.

Mr CONNOR:

– It hurts. The report completely vindicates the action of the Government in withdrawing the give-aways under sections 77 and 78 of the Income Tax Assessment Act. The antics that characterised the whole conduct of those in charge of Mineral Securities Australia Ltd fully vindicated every word Mr Fitzgerald said. He said that not more than 27 per cent of the funds made available were in fact used for mineral exploration. The rest were used for speculation and for strife as between companies trying to take over one another. The whole matter needs to be fully debated and fully ventilated, and we intend to do so.

page 839

QUESTION

PETROLEUM SUBSIDY SCHEME

Mr LUSHER:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Prime Minister. I would point out that this is my maiden question, and I feel sure the Prime Minister will do me the courtesy of replying in a thoughtful fashion. I refer to the answer given yesterday to the honourable member for Indi indicating that the Prime Minister would be receptive to a suggestion that the Government should subsidise a commuter service to encourage or preserve employment in towns like Wangaratta. Will the Prime Minister consider the reintroduction of the petrol price equalisation scheme as further realistic assistance to the mobility of labour in country areas?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I do not believe that the petroleum subsidy scheme made any contribution at all to the objectives which I was expressing yesterday. The honourable gentleman’s electorate comprises very many towns which were not promoted by any such scheme but whose populations are able to chose from a range of employment because they are within easy reach of Canberra.

Mr Sinclair:

– Have you ever been to Tumut?

Mr WHITLAM:

– I am going down there again at the invitation of the honourable member for Hume on the way to Batlow in a few months time. The occasion will be the 150th anniversary of the district. In a few years time it will be possible for me or for anybody else to travel between Canberra and Tumut and Batlow still more rapidly, safely and economically because the Hume Highway will be re-routed to make for better communications not only between Australia’s 2 largest metropolitan areas but also, incidentally, between the places surrounding Canberra and Canberra itself. The answer which I gave to the honourable member for Indi yesterday and which the honourable member for Hume pays me the honour of asking me in his maiden question to elaborate upon turns upon the opportunities available in selected growth centres for people within easy range of them.

If there are better public transport facilities within SO or a few more miles of a growth centre then the whole quality of life for people within that radius is improved. One ingredient in the quality of life is the range of employment that is available. People, men and women, young and not so young, in the honourable gentleman’s electorate have had their opportunities in life very much augmented because of the growth of Canberra. People in the whole of that area - Yass, Cootamundra, Tumut, Batlow and in places even futher afield like Young - are now having a very much better life in their working hours and in their leisure hours because they are so close and so convenient to a rapidly growing city, the national capital.

page 840

QUESTION

COST OF RENTAL AND PURCHASE OF PROPERTIES BY THE COMMONWEALTH

Mr LUCHETTI:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Services and Property to tell the House about the prohibitive cost of the rental and purchase of properties required for Government purposes. Is it a fact that the acceleration of costs and prices had its origin in the failure of the Liberal-Country Party Government to take responsible action to control speculation and prices from 1949 to 1972? Further, in view of those circumstances, will the Minister take action to have buildings erected in selected towns and cities throughout Australia to overcome those problems?

Mr DALY:
Minister for Services and Property · GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is true to say that the cost of renting, purchasing and building properties is very high today. The cost to the Commonwealth is very great. It is true to say also that that is due to the failure of the policies of those who now sit opposite, during their long term in government. My Department already has opened a number of government instrumentalities. We are decentralising and in every way we will give attention to country districts.

To give more impetus to my reply I wish to say that, like the Leader of the Opposition, I have been reading the newspapers and have gone through some of my old files. On 9 December 1949 the advertisement that I hold in my hand appeared in the newspapers. It is headed ‘This is Our Policy’. It relates to the policy of the Liberal Party. The advertisement promises ‘reduced living costs and increased living standards’. It mentions putting the shillings back into the pounds. The LiberalCountry Party Government had to change the name of the currency to get away from that promise. Under the sub-heading ‘Progressive Social Services’ is a promise of ‘child endowment for the first child, without reduction of the basic wage’. There is also a reference to reduced taxation.

To go a little further in answering the honourable member’s question, there is a reference in a similar advertisement inserted at that time to ‘lower prices’ and the promise of ‘a £’s worth for every £ you spend’. When the Liberal-Country Party Government went out of office in 1972 the cost of living had never been higher and people had never been getting less. There was also a promise in this advertisement of ‘homes and home ownership at reasonable costs’. I think that the only things to fall under the Liberal-Country Party’s administration were the bookies’ prices at Randwick. I think I should add this collection to that of the Leader of the Opposition. After all the Labor Government has had only about 18 months in which to implement its policies and it has had to contend with a hostile .Opposition in the Senate, whereas the Liberal-Country Party Government had 25 years in which to fulfil its pledges but did not do so. I will bring the Leader of the Opposition up to date on policy matters if he cares to come to my office.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I assume that the Minister anticipated this question.

Mr DALY:

– As a matter of fact, Mr Speaker, I was as surprised as you were when it was asked.

page 840

QUESTION

COMPULSURY CONTRIBUTIONS TO : COMMONWEALTH FUNDS

Mr McMAHON:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Treasurer. The Treasurer will know that in the debate in the House on 25 July on the Australian Industry Development Corporation Bill and the National Investment Fund Bill the Minister for Overseas Trade answered no to a question whether compulsion in the taking of people’s savings was involved. The Treasurer will know also that it is not those Bills which at present impose compulsion upon individuals or organisations to contribute to Commonwealth funds. He will know also that the compulsion provisions under what is called the 30/20 rule relating to the income of superannuation funds are contained in section 121c and, I think, sections 23 and 115 of the Income Tax Assessment Act.

Mr Armitage:

– What is the question?

Mr McMAHON:

– I will ask it in a moment, but I want to describe it in sufficient detail first.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I remind the right honourable gentleman that in asking a question he may not refer to debates that have taken place during this session. I ask the right honourable gentleman to rephrase his question.

Mr McMAHON:

– I will rephrase it. The Treasurer will know that the compulsion clauses under what is called the 30/20 rule relating to the income of superannuation funds are contained in section 121c and sections 23 and 115 of the Income Tax Assessment Act. Will the Treasurer assure the House with a clear and unequivocal ‘No’, as the Minister has done, that neither the Income Tax Assessment Act nor any other Act within his administration-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Will the right honourable gentleman ask his question?

Mr McMAHON:

– Yes, this is the question. Will the Treasurer assure the House that none of those Acts will be used to compel the taking of people’s superannuation savings or the income of superannuation funds for the purposes mentioned?

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA · ALP

– As the right honourable gentleman should well know, the 30/20 rule, as he describes it, is in a sense a quid pro quo for the very important tax concessions that those who contribute to life assurance companies and superannuation funds enjoy. The job of life assurance agents would be very much harder if it were not for the concessions which are available to contributors under the Income Tax Assessment Act, and I think the right honourable gentleman well knows that.

page 841

QUESTION

MEAT TRADE

We have also sought the informal reactions of the New Zealand Government to this proposal. It’s initial reaction was that such a meeting should be held under the auspices of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. For this reason we sought to have more detailed discussions with the New Zealand Government, and officials from New Zealand will be arriving in Australia for the purpose of talking with our officials on Thursday and Friday of this week. The best way of approaching this matter is to reach agreement with New Zealand. Such agreement is essential before any meeting is held. It would be premature to put forward publicly any proposal for such a meeting before reaching agreement with New Zealand. We would expect to be taking action within the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade with respect to the specific measures imposed by the European Economic Community and possibly those imposed by Japan. We have taken the view, however, that it would be quicker and more effective to have an international meeting of major meat traders outside the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. I am pleased to see the Press report which indicates that New Zealand appears to be now of the same mind as we are.

page 841

POST AND TELEGRAPH CHARGES

Mr MacKELLAR:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Prime Minister aware that the Postmaster-General in his second reading speech on the Bill to amend the Post and Telegraph Rates Act in the Senate-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member again is breaking Standing Orders. He cannot refer by way of a question to any debate that has taken place in this session. Standing order 144 states this quite plainly. I ask the honourable gentleman to frame his question so that it does not infringe on that standing order.

Mr MacKELLAR:

– Is the Prime Minister aware that the Postmaster-General has stated that the loss which may occur to the Australian Post Office could exceed $100m in 1974-75 if charges are not increased and that if the charges are increased a profit of $60m is forecast? Can the Prime Minister reconcile the statement of the PostmasterGeneral with the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday that losses could be $142m and that if the increased charges were not imposed the taxpayer would be subsidising the Post Office to the tune of $25m? Can he inform the House which of the conflicting statements on possible losses is correct and whether or not the raised charges are intended to bring about a profit?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– The Government’s proposals to increase post and telegraph charges were aimed at making the largest business in Australia, the Post Office, pay its way. On 7 June at the Premiers’ Conference I told the Premiers that we should all help to counter inflation as well as bring about proper economic management by making our enterprises pay their way. In particular I rejected at the Premiers’ Conference the plea by some Premiers that the Australian Government should increase its grants to the States in order to pay the increased losses they were expecting on their business enterprises. The Acting Premier of New South Wales pointed out that on the charges being levied at that time the New South Wales railways would incur a deficit of $170m in 1974-75. The Premier of Victoria pointed out that on the same basis the Victorian railways would incur a deficit of $70m in 1974-75.

I pointed out that we did not expect the States to do anything that we were not prepared to do ourselves. In our view business enterprises run by governments should pay their way. In our view - I believe it is a universal view - it is seriously inflationary to subsidise people to receive a service such as the installation of telephones. They ought to pay for such installations on an economic basis. At all events there can be no excuse for putting up taxes, which in these cases have to be taxes levied by the Australian Government, in order to pay for the deficits of business enterprises run by State governments and by the Australian Government. The Premiers saw that we were resolute in this matter and I believe they are taking steps to make their businesses pay their way. The Australian Government has tried to carry out the same policy in respect of its business enterprise. In particular I assured the Premiers that the Australian Government would not be asking the Governor-General to recommend to the Parliament any larger appropriation for the affairs of the PostmasterGeneral in 1974-75 than the Parliament had made in 1973-74. The consequence is that either the services must be reduced, which would increase the waiting time for telephones and so on, or there must be an increase in the charges for the services. The Opposition has taken the attitude that it will not consider this matter for apparently another 3 months. Then the taxpayers are expected to find another $32m either by increased taxes or by way of tax remissions forgone in order to pay for people to get telephones and other services from the Postmaster-General.

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

– I raise a point of order. The Prime Minister has failed to make any reference to the projected $60m profit under the proposed charges.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is no point of order involved and the honourable gentleman knows it.

Mr WHITLAM:

– The view of the honourable member who took the point of order and the view of the honourable member who asked the question is that there will be no increase in expenses by the Australian Post Office this financial year. That is an entirely overoptimistic view. There will, of course, be an increase. There has been for some years past. But the previous Government was assured by the Director-General of Posts and Telegraphs - the same one who is there now - that it would be necessary to increase the cost of sending a letter to 9c this year. This was all revealed a year ago. The DirectorGeneral of Posts and Telegraphs pointed out to the previous Government that the basic letter rate would have to go up to 9c this year. The present Government appointed Sir James Vernon with two other skilled businessmen - accountants - as a royal commission to look into the operations of the Post Office. The royal commission’s report was tabled on Tuesday last week. It affirmed the forecasts of the Director-General of Posts and Telegraphs in this regard. The Australian Government was able to prevail on Sir James Vernon again to accept a royal commission because we gave the undertaking to him, as we have given to all other businessmen, academics and so on who have undertaken inquiries for the Government, that his report would be promptly tabled, promptly published and promptly considered. The Government did consider it. It took action at the earliest possible moment. As I said yesterday, the Opposition is being thoroughly irresponsible in this matter. It is saying that the taxpayers must for the next 3 months find an additional $32m to subsidise the operations of the Postmaster-General’s Department.

There has been some quoting from newspapers. Although honourable members cannot do so when asking questions, one thing that a Minister can do is to quote from a newspaper in reply. I quote from the editorial of the ‘Financial Review’ under the heading ‘B. M. Snedden’s Seven Cent Heroics’. It reads:

However, Mr Snedden is being irresponsible and if be is not careful he will be seen to be just that. In this case his continued leadership of the Liberal Party must be placed at risk.

I hope that is not right. The editorial continues:

Every so often opportunism can be dressed up to pass muster as considered rational policy. However, Mr Snedden was the man who campaigned on the necessity of pruning the expenditure side of the Commonwealth’s Budget. It is almost ‘ totally inconsistent for him to espouse this and at the same time scheme to prevent the Government increasing postal charges.

The qualification ‘almost’ is entered because it is just possible that Mr Snedden is not being mischievous but is advocating that the shortfall in Post Office revenue is not made up by diverting tax revenue to fill the gap.

This would mean a drastic curtailment of the Post Office’s program of current and capital spending. If the taxpayer is not to subsidise the mail service then it has to be reorganised in such a way as to cover its costs on what is basically a seven cent letter rate.

It is very easy to portray yourself as the defender of the seven cent postal system and the cheap telephone call if you are not called upon to implement the managerial responses such policies require.

Post Office charges are part of the Government’s economic program. It is possible to quarrel with the priorities it attaches to its direct and indirect taxes and also the priorities it accords to spending.

The effect of financing the Post Office through increased charges is as much deflationary as increasing taxation and using that increase to finance the Post Office’s deficit.

page 843

AUSTRALIAN MINERAL INDUSTRY

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

– For the information of honourable members I present a report entitled ‘The Contribution of the Mineral Industry to Australian Welfare’.

page 843

LIFE INSURANCE

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– Pursuant to section 1 1 of the Life Insurance Act 1945-73, I present the twenty-eighth annual report of the Insurance Commissioner for the year ended 31 December 1973.

page 843

CONSUMER STANDARDS

Mr MORRISON:
Minister for Science · St George · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Interim Commission on Consumer Standards dated 1 1 April 1974.

page 843

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr ANTHONY:
Leader of the Australian Country Party · Richmond

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr ANTHONY:

– Yes. I have been misrepresented by the Prime Minister in question time today. He quoted from a newspaper report saying that during the course of the election campaign I said that we would cut down on Labor’s pre-school education program. Such a comment is completely inaccurate and dishonest. During the course of the campaign, speaking at the Country Club Hotel in the electorate of Lilley to a very large audience I said that the Liberal-Country Party would sustain the present program for pre-school education but could not match the new promises that were made during the election campaign. It was reported in one of the newspapers that I had said that we would cut back the program. I questioned the reporter concerned and he had the decency to tell me that that was not what he gave to the newspaper and that the report had been changed in the newspaper. The report was not an accurate reflection of what I had said. But it is interesting that the next day the Teachers Federation picked the matter up and sent telegrams right around Australia stating that I had suggested that pre-school education be cut back. This was seen to be certain strategy, a deliberate plot, to try to undermine our attitude to pre-school education. However, the next day I sent a telegram to the teacher and parent organisations throughout Australia, particularly the main ones and the ones in Queensland, and this is what I said:

Reports that I suggest scrapping of Labor’s current pre-school program are not correct. I have said this program will be continued by Liberal Country Party government but we cannot promise to match at this stage major expansion promised by Labor. We would like to be able to do so but current serious inflationary situation prevents this. Spending on pre-schools and other education programs will increase under us but degree of the increase must be restrained. Regret you may have been misled by reports of my comment.

I think that clears up the matter. That telegram was sent the very next day. But of course the Prime Minister is continuing to make play of the report, and he did so at question time which is to be re-broadcast later today. Mr Speaker, I ask for a ruling on whether the Prime Minister’s answer will be allowed to be re-broadcast tonight. The answer discredits me and members of the Liberal and Country Parties on something which is not true. I say that the question and answer should be omitted from the re-broadcast of question time tonight.

page 844

QUESTION

BROADCAST OF QUESTION TIME

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Leader of the Australian Country Party asked me for a ruling during his personal explanation. It is true that personal explanations are not re-broadcast. I wrote a letter to the Deputy Leader of the Australian Country Party the other day in regard to these matters and about the possibility of making personal explanations during question time immediately after a claim is made by an honourable member that he has been misrepresented. I would be quite happy for the personal explanations to be made immediately during question time so that the person claiming to be misrepresented would not be unfairly treated and the personal explanation would be made on the air at that time. The Deputy Leader of the Australian Country Party requested that if that course were followed question time should be extended from the present 45 minutes to allow for it. It is not up to the Chair to decide on the extension of question time; that is a decision for the Prime Minister alone. It is quite all right with me if honourable members make a personal explanation immediately after they claim to have been misrepresented, but that will not mean question time will be extended unless the Prime Minister agrees to it.

Mr Anthony:

– Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I want action taken immediately regarding the editing for the re-playing of question time tonight. Question time is always edited to conform to the time slot. Some questions have to be removed and any extraneous matter is removed. I believe that the Prime Minister’s answer is completely dishonest as it misrepresents the situation. I believe that it should be erased because I do not have the opportunity to make a personal explanation.

Mr Whitlam:

- Mr Speaker, I ask you to invite the right honourable gentleman to withdraw the word ‘dishonest’. I was quoting from a newspaper report. I did not quote selectively. I do not believe that the right honourable gentleman is entitled to say that I am dishonest in quoting from a newspaper report. It was not a selective quotation. I have the full cutting here. I do not believe that I misrepresented him at all.

Mr Nixon:

– It was a dishonest quote.

Mr Whitlam:

– That may be; but it was not dishonest on my part. In this place people constantly quote from newspaper reports. I had not previously heard of the telegram which the right honourable gentleman sent to the Teachers Federation. But I did not quote the Teachers Federation telegram. I quoted a newspaper report of a meeting which the right honourable gentleman addressed. I believe that I correctly quoted the report.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! This matter quite rightly needs to be cleared up. I shall endeavour to clear it up. Of course, what the Prime Minister has said is correct. I do not think that the word ‘dishonest’ is correct. The right honourable gentleman would be quite in order in saying that the statement was untrue. But, as to a claim that a person is dishonest because he quotes from a newspaper report, I do not think is the correct phrase to use. The facts are:

When a member makes a personal explanation In rebuttal of misrepresentation contained in the question asked that day or an answer thereto the question and answer shall, subject to the next succeeding sub-paragraph, be excluded from the rebroadcast.

This is what applies. This has applied for the last 20-odd years. It applied when the Government was in Opposition for 20-odd years, and no objection was taken to it then.

Mr Snedden:

– We did not misrepresent-

Mr SPEAKER:

– But often personal explanations were made on a Wednesday after question time. I think the right honourable gentleman would appreciate that. Often, when question time concluded on a Wednesday, personal explanations were made. This has been going on for the last 23 or 24 years. Now it is suggested that everything is wrong with the system. The fact is that I am quoting the situation in regard to re-broadcasting and this is what has been going on for the last 23 or 24 years. I believe that in order to alter the re-broadcast tonight a change would be required in the Standing Orders.

Mr Whitlam:

– Is the right honourable gentleman entitled to use the word ‘dishonest’? He has not shown that my quotation was, in any respect, a distortion or a selection or that it was in any way dishonest.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I think that if the right honourable gentleman were to substitute the word ‘untrue’ that would cover the situation. It is not dishonest, because when an honourable member quotes from a newspaper he presumably believes what he is quoting to be true.

Mr Anthony:

– I withdraw the reflection on the Prime Minister. But it is a dishonest report; it is not a true report. I have tried to explain the situation. I think it is quite unfair that if the Prime Minister’s answer is to be re-broadcast tonight it is not being matched by my explanation. But, Mr Speaker, you have given a ruling now that this matter will be erased, and I thank you.

Mr Wentworth:

– Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I know the difficulties in which you are placed. This matter can be cleared up quite easily. If the Prime Minister has said honestly something which is untrue, he should now ask you to withdraw that question from the parliamentary re-broadcast. If the Prime Minister is an honest man, he will take that course. If he does not take that course,, he stands-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. All he wanted to do was to get a point of view over; not raise a point of order.

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

– Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr BRYANT:

– Yes. In yesterday’s Hansard I notice that both the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) and the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon) - I heard one of them - referred to the turtle farming project on the Torres Strait Islands as if it were the responsibility of this Government, as if it were established on the initiative of this Government, and as if in fact I was responsible for it. I think the facts are clear enough. The project was started in a small way when the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Went worth) was responsible for it. Under the previous Government I think about $400,000 was allocated to the project, including, I think, $250,000 in the right honourable gentleman’s own Budget. When the Labor Party took office the project was beyond rational redemption but by the appointment of directors who took it under control and the responsibility-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Minister is not allowed to go into a dissertation on the matter or debate ‘it. He should show how he has been misrepresented.

Mr BRYANT:

– The point I want to make - I think it should be clear even to honourable members opposite - is that the whole project was launched on a large scale on the initiative of the present Opposition. This Government rescued the operation. It was not responsible for it.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

- Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. I would take up this point immediately.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I have been misrepresented entirely. It is true that I did, when I was Minister, make an initial grant of $25,000 -not $400,000- to the turtle farming project. I ask the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Bryant) to put that fact straight. I will not be misrepresented in this manner.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– (Bruce - Leader of the Opposition) - Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Yes. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) in answer to a question - the one that led to a personal explanation by my colleague, the Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony) - insisted upon stating that he had read a document of mine which said that an amount of $20m would be spent by a Liberal-Country Party Government for both child care and retraining. He acknowledged that he saw the document. On reading that document the Prime Minister would know that $20m was in addition - it specifically said so - to all commitments that were made by the previous Government - that is, the Whitlam Government that was elected in 1972. At the election campaign it was pointed out that $20m was a modest amount but that it was to be allocated in addition to all commitments that were made. In fact the Treasurer (Mr Crean) in his speech the other evening to this House said that all commitments had been fulfilled and that an extra $34m would be spent in this field. In the upshot we undertook to spend $20m on child care and retraining. The Treasurer acknowledges that an extra sum of $34m was needed to meet commitments already made. We would have matched the sum of $34m with an additional sum of $20m to be allocated for new commitments. Although the Prime Minister promised expenditure of $130m, in the upshot people did not get any of the J 130m. They would have received $20m from us and all the commitments would have been maintained. That is only a matter of mathematics. The question arises as to the honesty of the Government’s promise. It made a promise to expend $130m and it will not be fulfilled.

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

– Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the Prime Minister claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr WHITLAM:

– Yes. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) said that none of the $130m will be spent on child care and retraining. Expenditure this year in fact will be considerably more than the amount expended last year in this area. There will be an expenditure of more than $34m plus $20m tout there will not toe an expenditure of $130m.

Sitting suspended from 1.10 to 2.15 p.m.

page 846

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr McVEIGH:
Darling Downs

- Mr Speaker, wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr McVEIGH:

– Yes. In the adjournment debate last evening I made the point that not one dollar in Grants Commission money had come through to local authorities, that the only amount of money that had come through to them was a contribution from the Department of Urban and Regional Development, and that this had come through to metropolitan areas. The honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) questioned the accuracy of my statement. I wish to advise the House that I have checked with Mr Lansdown, Secretary of the Department of Urban and Regional Development, who has advised me that I was com pletely accurate in every statement I made. I have checked with my colleague, the honourable member for Paterson (Mr O’Keefe) to whom I was directed by the honourable member for Hunter. The honourable member for Paterson concurs in the evidence that was given to me by the Secretary of the Department. The Minister of Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) did make a statement that a sum of money would be made available, but it has not been appropriated. My statement was that they talked a lot but did nothing.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr JAMES:

– Yes. I thank the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) for his courtesy in consulting me on the matter that he has raised. But I think it is a minor matter - one of semantics, if I may put it that way. In speaking on the adjournment debate last night, the honourable member, who preceded me in that debate, said:

The only money that has been distributed by the Commonwealth Government has come from the ‘Department of Urban and Regional Development to a few suburbs in western Melbourne. That indicates clearly that the present Australian Government thinks Australia begins and end in the western suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne.

That statement reminded me that the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) had stated prior to the last election - and honourable members will appreciate why I hold the statement uppermost in my mind - that his Department was appropriating $2m for the Hunter Valley regional councils, many of which are in the electorate represented by the honourable member for Paterson.

My mind having been prompted by my friend from Darling Downs, I replied that it was true that money was being appropriated to the western suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne. But as recorded at page 825 of yesterday’s Hansard, I went on to say that the Department of Urban and Regional Development. … is appropriating or has already appropriated the sum of Sim for the Hunter Valley regional councils. Most of the money is to go to the local councils in the electorate of Paterson. I ask the honourable member for Darling Downs to check up on that. However, time will not permit me to dwell any longer on what the honourable member said.

It is a minor matter. I was reassured a few moments ago that this money is being appropriated for the Hunter Valley regional councils and that it will be appropriated in the September Budget. Whilst I respect the honourable member for his courtesy and I do not condemn him for raising this subject, I think that it is a minor matter and I hope that it has been cleared up.

page 847

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate: Without amendment - Social Services Bill (No. 2) 1974 Repatriation Bill (No. 2) 1974 Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Bill (No. 2) 1974

Income Tax Assessment Bill 1974 Without requests - Income Tax (Dividends and Interest Withholding Tax) Bill 1974

page 847

ANIMAL HEALTH LABORATORY,

page 847

GEELONG, VICTORIA

Reference to Public Works Committee

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

– I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969-1973, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for investigation and report: Construction of animal health laboratory, Geelong, Vic.

The facility is required to enable work with highly virulent exotic viruses to be carried out without risk to the large population of susceptible animals. The building is also designed to prevent cross infection within the laboratories. Construction of the major elements will be of reinforced concrete, partly poured in situ and partly precast panels. Other elements will be of brick construction. Epoxy finishes will be employed on internal walls. Highly specialised and sophisticated engineering systems - that is, mechanical, electrical and hydraulic services - will be installed to cope with the stringent design criteria of microbiological security to specified areas. Conventional air conditioning and engineering services will be used in non hazardous areas. The site will be fully landscaped. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $56m at March 1974 prices. I table plans of the proposed work.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I listened with attention to what the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Les Johnson) had to say. I seek an assurance that, when the Public Works Committee examines this matter, he will refer to it consideration of the way in which this large expenditure - S56m - fits into the overall quarantine plan for animals and in particular fits into the plans which need to be implemented for helping positively the importation of new animal strains into Australia free from infection.

This is a most important matter. I am not questioning this expenditure in any way. But I do seek the Minister’s assurance that, when this reference comes before the Committee, he will ask the Committee to examine not only the technical matters of air conditioning, crossinfection and so on, but also, as he mentioned in his speech, the way in which this large expenditure of $56m fits into the overall scheme. I have an idea that the Government has been endeavouring to take away from the Public Works Committee its real and proper function of seeing how each one of the works referred to it fits into Government policy, and has been confining the Committee to the consideration of the technical matters of how buildings are to be built, whether what is proposed is economic, and so on. If I can have the Minister’s assurance on that matter I will be vastly obliged.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– I am not sure that the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) understands the full content of this proposal. I support fully the reference of this matter to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. I am glad that an early start is being made on this project. The animal health laboratory will be one of the major scientific institutions in Australia. I think it has little to do with quarantine as such but has a great deal to dd with some of the major industries in the rural areas in that its purpose is to provide protection against infection or outbreaks of exotic diseases.

Mr Wentworth:

– That is quarantine.

Mr SCHOLES:

– No, it is not, it is preventive medicine extended a long way, I hope that the Public Works Committee in examining this proposal will be able to clear up some doubts which have been voiced by people not well informed who have suggested that this project is different from what it actually is. I am not referring to anyone in this place, but there has been some publicity suggesting that people in areas surrounding the laboratory will not be able to keep birds, cats and other pets, that animals from the laboratory will be wandering around in the vicinity, and soon. As has been stated, the laboratory will be a research institution of very high quality. I am sure that the expenditure involved will be a very small outlay for the insurance that it will give to some of our most important industries.

Mr GILES:
Angas

– There are one or two points I would like to clear up in my own mind. I ask the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Les Johnson) whether this matter is to go before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Of course it is. That is what I moved.

Mr GILES:

– Thank you. 1 was just clearing up the point. Some doubt arose in my mind because of the way in which the debate developed. I take into account the remarks of the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) about what is quarantine by definition and what is not. If this matter is to go to the Public Works Committee, I hope that the Committee will take into account very seriously the problem of location of quarantine centres. I stress this again. I am not looking at the animal health laboratory to be established in Geelong as necessarily being a quarantine centre or the only quarantine centre, if it is to be one, in Australia. The Minister for Housing and Construction is referring to the Public Works Committee for scrutiny a proposal for an animal health laboratory to cost $56m. I think the Committee should be able to broaden its own reference so that it can look at the safety of this nation in terms of protection from diseases such as foot and mouth disease. It should consider the question a problem in Indonesia. It should study the potential danger from the Balinese cattle that are roaming loose on Cape York Peninsula and which represent a very real threat to the animal industries of Australia.

The second most serious exotic disease unquestionably would be blue tongue, which is now rife throughout America and is a worry to this country’s livestock industry because of importations. I trust that the very purpose of the animal health laboratory will be to look into the matter of transplantation of pre-fertilised ova, which is the modern method of importing strains into this country to the benefit of the entire livestock industry. This is a very important breakthrough. It is much more effective in the livestock industry than was artificial insemination, which does not produce the pure bred article. The capacity to bring into this country pre-fertilised ova in the womb of, say, a rabbit or any other available animal, subject to restrictions properly placed on such importation by the Australian Government, represents a real way of ensuring the introduction of new strains into this country in many breeds of livestock without many of the consequential risks because of which the Government quite properly stopped the importation of livestock into this country.

Within these parameters - I hope I am not completely outside the ramifications of the motion moved by the Minister - I point those things out. If by chance in the future any quarantine facility is to be associated with the laboratory at Geelong it would be a wrong move. It would be far too close to centres of population. I finish by sounding a brief note of warning in relation to location if the function of the laboratory was broadened to include a quarantine station.

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

– Yesterday when I was referring matters to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works in the traditional way the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) accused me of giving a very cursory account of the proposal and of not knowing what I was proposing or what the subject was about. Clearly he was describing the circumstances in which he finds himself today, because he obviously has no comprehension of the proposition befor the House. It is an absurd proposition that this Government has set out to minimise, circumvent or restrict the work of the Public Works Committee. Let me say that at the very outset. In fact, the honourable gentleman ought to be aware of the very strenuous endeavours being made to examine the processes whereby matters are referred to the Public Works Committee so that opportunities for the Parliament to examine proposals, through the Committee, can be expanded. Reports towards that end are to be brought down in the near future, and everyone in the Parliament who takes an interest in these things has an expectation about the matter. It involves, among other things, the extension of the Public Works Committee’s role to statutory authorities. So the expression of concern by the honourable member for Mackellar is completely unnecessary.

Then we heard all the other talk and mild criticism about what the Government might be proposing and might not be proposing. What it is proposing is a $56m project associated with the rural industry - the largest single investment ever to be made in the country’s history in the interest of rural people. That is what it means. We regard it as very significant, because when all is said and done we are dealing with a massive industry with a gross value of production of $3, 000m a year and with exports valued at $2,000m a year. For 23 years honourable members opposite, who now talk with their tongues in their cheeks, left this industry at risk.

Mr Lloyd:

– Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The proposal for the laboratory in Geelong that is being mentioned was introduced in the time of the previous Government.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I will not accept a point of order from the honourable gentleman when he is not in his proper seat.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– For 23 years the rural industries and their enormous volume of exports have been left at risk. It was left to this Government to take effective action. Never before have we had a high security quarantine facility in Australia. Now the fact is that the Government is actively engaged in an examination of the possibility of establishing an island quarantine station. It will involve considerable expenditure, and inter-departmental activity has taken place on an extensive scale already to achieve that end. It has been talked about and publicised. I am surprised that the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles), who gives the impression that he is concerned about these matters, has not apparently learned anything of that activity or the declared intention of the Government to proceed towards that end.

That is the first matter. Naturally, when we are talking about setting up an island quarantine station we are certainly not considering at the same time using the $56m animal health laboratory for that purpose. Not only have we not had the efficient quarantine facility we need as a safeguard from the exotic diseases that can come into this country, particularly foot and mouth disease with all its devastating consequences, but also we have never had a maximum security laboratory to enable us to isolate those diseases and effectively deal with them. Now we are on the road to enabling the Public Works Committee to undertake in a completely uninhibited way an examination of every aspect of this matter.

What annoys me in these debates concerning the Public Works Committee is that there appears to be an increasing tendency on the part of people who have not the foggiest idea of what it is all about and the lack of competency to talk on anything else that is important in the Parliament to get up here and waffle a few words, I think for the purpose of wasting time or otherwise attracting to themselves a miserable skerrick of notoriety. All the misgivings that have been expressed are without foundation. What has been very well founded by the moving of this motion is the determination of the Government to protect the rural industries of Australia by way of the provision of an effective laboratory in Geelong and also by way of the provision of the quarantine facilities that are to be established subsequent to the tabling of this report.

Mr WENTWORTH (Mackellar)- Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Yes. I resent entirely the misrepresentation by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Les Johnson) in saying that I get up in this chamber and speak just for the sake of notoriety. I point out to the Minister that this is a matter in which I have taken a personal interest and of which I have been an advocate for some 15 years. The Minister upbraided me for not knowing the details of a report that he has laid on the table. Of course I do not know the details. I have not seen it as yet.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable gentleman is now starting to debate the question.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– The Minister upbraided me also for asking for a wider examination of this proposal by the Public Works Committee. I asked the Minister to give me his assurance, which he very graciously gave me, that the Public Works Committee would be able to examine the broadest aspects of this matter, including the location of the station.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable gentleman is debating the question. I am not concerned about his putting of anything before the Public Works Committee; I am concerned about the way in which he has been misrepresented.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– You have every right to be, Mr Speaker.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 850

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr CONNOLLY:
Bradfield

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

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr CONNOLLY:

– Yes. During question time yesterday I asked a question of the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) in which I used certain statistics relating to the anticipated costs of the gas pipeline from the Cooper Basin to Sydney. I said that it had been estimated that the cost of that section of the pipeline would be between $l65m and $200m. The Minister began his reply with the statement that he did not agree with my logic or my statistics. While I do not wish to question the right of the Minister to make his own interpretation of my logic, I wish to place on record that I obtained the statistics that I quoted from his Department. I emphasise that. If he wishes to have his own estimates of the costs, I would suggest that he should table them in this House and also explain them to his Department.

In addition, I indicated that a cheaper and more reliable pipeline in terms of known reserves could be built from Bass Strait to Sydney with links to Wollongong, Newcastle and Canberra at an approximate cost of $120m. That was the estimate of the Australian Interstate Pipeline Co. I asked the Minister whether this alternative had been examined by the Government of which he is a member and, if so, why it was rejected. The Minister did not answer my question.

page 850

NATIONAL HEALTH BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 16 July (vide page 218), on motion by Mr Hay den: That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr HAYDEN:
‘Minister for Social Security · Oxley · ALP

– Mr Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation? Before the debate is resumed on this Bill I would like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill, the Health Insurance Levy Assessment Bill, the Health Insurance Levy Bill and the Income Tax (International Agreements) Bill as they are associated measures. Separate questions may, of course, be put on each of the

Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest therefore, Mr Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of the 4 Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the 4 measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr CHIPP:
Hotham

– It seems as though I spend most of my time in the Parliament standing at this box and being confronted with the not unpleasant but harassed face of my friend the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) while talking about his health scheme, which is what this debate is about. The debate is on 4 Bills, all of which have as their purpose the implementation of the so-called Hayden health scheme. Two of the Bills - the Health Insurance Levy Assessment Bill and the Health Insurance Levy Bill - are designed to cover the collection of the money needed to finance the scheme. The third Bill is the Income Tax (International Agreements) Bill, which was introduced by the Treasurer (Mr Crean) and which deals with double taxation. It is of a minor quality. The fourth Bill is the National Health Bill, which provides for amendments to the National Health Act. One might call it benefits blocking legislation. The amendments are designed to block those benefits being paid under the present scheme which would represent double payment or which would be redundant if - I use the word ‘if advisedly - the Hayden health scheme does become law.

My remarks will be relatively brief, but let that not be interpreted as meaning that my opposition to the so-called Hayden health scheme is not as intractable and intransigent as ever. The Opposition, for all it’s worth, will be opposing the 4 Bills, both here and in the Senate. It will be doing so for the reasons that I have expressed before. We of the Opposition believe that the Government’s so-called health plan would represent a tragedy to the delivery of the health care system of this nation. It is inflationary. Apart from all the other evils of what it would do to the delivery of the health care system it is highly inflationary. The little man is being hit already by the Government with higher charges for cigarettes, spirits, telephone calls and postage stamps - almost everywhere he turns. The imposition of higher taxes in the Budget has been threatened. On top of that the Government plans to impose a levy of $1.35 on every $100 earned to pay for its extravagant health scheme. The levy will be deducted from pay packets and working wives as well as their husbands will have to pay. To a family in which there is a working wife it will represent double taxation. The unfortunate people of Queensland will be hit yet again because by this levy they will be forced to pay through the taxation .mechanism for something that they are already getting free.

The Government is also concealing the high cost of its scheme. Out of any logic, apart from philosophical and other objections we have to this scheme, we would be entitled to oppose it because .we are being asked to agree to legislation which provides for the imposition of a levy without the Minister for Social Security telling the nation and the Parliament the cost of his health scheme. He is asking us for a blank cheque.

Mr Peacock:

– He does riot know.

Mr CHIpp:

– I thank the honourable member for Kooyong for that interjection. I entirely and unequivocally agree with it. The White Paper published last November referred to the subsidy which will be required from Consolidated Revenue. It is said that a subsidy of about $1.50 from Consolidated Revenue for every $1 collected through the imposition of the levy would ,be required after the first year. Yet on the basis of the figures published in the White Paper on the first full year cost of the scheme in 1974-75, simple arithmetic shows that a subsidy of $1.73 would be required for every $1 collected by way of a levy, that is, $l,0l2m less $390m, divided by $360m. I invite the Minister to examine pages 70 and 71 of the White Paper. The White Paper ratio of 1.5 to 1 is not even broadly correct, as claimed, for 1974-75, quite apart from subsequent years.

The Minister has attacked E. S. Knight and Co. I know that he has been gracious enough not to attack that company’s integrity but he has attacked its assumptions. I am sure that he would agree with the statement that it is a very reputable firm of consultant actuaries. It has estimated that if the plan had come into operation on 1 July this year the cost would be between $252m and $393m more than the White Paper estimate. I challenge the Minister to deny in his reply the figuring of that actuarial company. This would mean that a subsidy of between $1.90 and $2.20 would be required for every $1 of levy collected if the levy is to be kept at the present 1.35 per cent level.

I turn now to the matter of cost. I am sure that the Senate will be fascinated to receive these Bills without the Minister telling the Senate the cost of this scheme. He can treat us here with contempt. When we ask for the cost of his scheme he can refuse to give it to us and, because the Government has a majority of the votes in this House, he can steamroll the legislation through this House. He can get away with it here but not so in the Senate. I think there will be a great number of senators - I hope thirty-one of them - who will think so poorly of the Minister’s inability to give a costing of the scheme that they will vigorously oppose these Bills. The Minister at least should have published an up-dated costing. Even he admits that inflation will have had an effect on the cost. The White Paper which published the costing referred to 1974-75; the scheme is now proposed to operate from 1975. Apparently the Minister has not made up his mind as to the date even yet. How pathetic is this Government which is pursuing with the persistence of the stupid the implementation of this health scheme. The Government cannot tell us even now whether the scheme will be implemented on 1 July 1975 or 1 October 1975.

Mr Lloyd:

– They are running blind.

Mr CHIPP:

– As my friend, the honourable member for Murray, says, the Government is running blind. The Minister wants people to pay out of their pay packets $1.35 for every $100 they earn. They are entitled to know what costs this levy will be used to ‘meet. I could list again the arguments that we have listed before. I just wonder, though, how rapidly and obsessively this Government is trying to make 1984 happen in 1974. We are rapidly approaching the welfare state. The people of Australia will be required to pay more than the 1.35 per cent levy which is provided for in these Bills. Really, the levy could not remain at 1.35 per cent for very long without it becoming basically dishonest. It is dishonest to leave it at 1.35 per cent even now because of the inflation which we have experienced in the last 18 months. Let us say for the sake of argument that the levy is 2 per cent. Now we are told of these charming goodies on the horizon from the Government. The Woodhouse Committee report has recommended another levy of 2 per cent of net earnings. The Hancock Committee has recommended tentatively a 5 per cent levy on net incomes for its purposes. If we add these figures together we find that as a result of these measures alone the Government could impose a levy of 9 per cent on people’s net earnings before they can collect their pay packets. I think we are rapidly reaching a situation, created by the socialists on the other side of the House, where a person will collect his pay each Friday from Big Brother only after having paid all his health insurance, all his housing, and all his food. He will then be doled out a few discretionary dollars which he can spend on going to the football or something of that nature. That is Orwell’s ‘1984’; that is the welfare state. The Government is moving rapidly towards it in its obsession to nationalise and socialise us.

When the White Paper was brought down it was admitted by the Minister that the proposed levy represented only 40 per cent of the cost of the scheme. Goodness knows what percentage of the cost it would represent now. There will be a hidden taxation imposed on all people to fund the scheme out of general taxation. Therefore the 3 levy Bills are rejected by the Opposition and will be opposed by the Opposition for philosophical reasons and also for the reason that no costing of the scheme has been given.

I wonder why the Minister has introduced these Bills at this stage. A joint sitting of both Houses of the Parliament is to be held next Tuesday. I was told by the Deputy Leader of the Australian Country Party, the honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), that the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) had informed him that these levy Bills would not be brought on for debate this session. That was 2 weeks ago. On Friday of last week I returned to my office in Melbourne and received a phone call from my friend the Deputy Leader of the Country Party who told me that the Government had suddenly decided to bring the Bills on for debate this week. Apart from being an unsatisfactory way in which to run a House of the Parliament, I wonder what mischief is in the Minister’s mind in taking this action.

Why would he want the levy Bills brought on before the joint sitting is held? Will he rush them through the Senate this evening and have them passed there so that they do in fact become law before the joint sitting is held, or. is his ploy to have his health legislation passed by the joint sitting of the Houses of the Parliament next Tuesday so that he can then go to the doctors, the private hospitals, the health funds and the private nursing homes and say: T have got you where I want you. I have got my health scheme through the joint sitting. I have got the funding of it through the lower House. All I have to do now is present it to the Upper House and you are gone, so do a deal with me now’? They are the sorts of real stand-over socialist tactics which we are now seeing in relation to private health funds, the doctors, the private hospitals and the private nursing homes. The Government is formulating a pattern which is of deep concern to members of the Opposition. I express the fear that if these Bills are not rejected in the Senate we will have nationalised medicine on the doorstep.

I shall now deal with the last of the 4 Bills - the first one listed on the Notice Paper - which proposes amendments to the National Health Act. As I said before, these are benefitsblocking Bills. One of the intriguing and most charming features of this Bill is that it provides that if a registered private health fund- either registered now or registered when the legislation becomes law - carries on the business of private health insurance it will be fined the sum of $1,000 per day for every day it contravenes that provision. What sort of a country are we becoming? What sort of freedoms are left when, if any registered fund - I believe the Minister will, by some intrigue, induce the private health funds to become registered by holding out carrots here and there - dares to take on private health insurance for the purposes listed in clause 16, it will be penalised by being fined $1,000 a day for each day during which the contravention continues.

Mr Hayden:

– Where is this?

Mr CHIPP:

– This is in clause 16. I invite the Minister to read his own Bill because I think even he would be shocked to find out that it contains that provision. He is asking us to accept this Bill with that provision in it, and yet he has the charm to say in his second reading speech that legislation will also be introduced to enable the Australian government to authorise and supervise the operations of private health insurance business under the program. We are being asked to approve a Bill which provides for a health fund to be fined $1,000 a day if it does not do what the Minister says. The Minister then says: ‘But we are going to allow the health funds to do certain things’. He will not tell us what he intends to allow them to do, but he expects a ‘blank cheque in relation to this legislation we are discussing today. That situation, apart from being unreal and naive, borders on the impertinent. For .that reason alone we would reject this particular amendment to the National Health Act.

The Minister mentioned that money will be given to the States under the heads of agreement, and that legislation to deal with that matter will be coming into the House also. Yet the Minister was frank enough to admit to me that at this stage he has not even had meaningful discussions with the State Ministers, let alone the State Ministers of his own political persuasion, as I understand it, about the heads of agreement as outlined in Schedule 2 of the Health Insurance Bill.

We reject this health scheme for the reasons that I have given. I have mentioned the impact that the levy would have on Queenslanders and 1 intend to give some interesting figures. We have said to the Minister time and time again that a free health scheme of his description will result in over-utilisation. Does the Minister not know that the health scheme in Great Britain, which is very similar to his, is about to crash and to crumble? Does he not know that the health scheme in Canada, which is similar to his, is about to ruin that country? Over-utilisation is a feature of health schemes such as the Minister’s. Let me give some interesting statistics. Queensland has free hospitalisation. I am not canvassing the situation there. I am stating facts and statistics on hospital use in that State. In 1971 there were 1,797 days hospitalisation for every 1,000 people. The ratio is 1,797 to 1,000. In Victoria, where there is some kind of curb on utilisation, there were 1,315 days of hospitalisation for every 1,000 people. The national average is 1,556. This simply means that if people are given things for nothing without putting some form of patient moiety, it is human nature to act as though they need them and to use them. This has been exemplified by the Queensland, British and Canadian experience.

Is the Minister not disturbed about the way costs of social welfare are already rising in Australia? Is he not terrified by the remarks of his own Prime Minister made at some hospital function last Saturday? The Prime Minister envisaged a time when the total hand-outs or pay-outs for social welfare would represent 12 per cent of gross national product. The Minister shakes his head. I respect the Minister when he shakes his head. A comparison can be made between the figure of 12 per cent and the present payments which, I think, represent 4.3 per cent of gross national product. If my comparisons are unfair I invite the Minister to query them. To me this is a terrifying concept. Where is the extra 8 per cent coming from? What programs will be cut? Gross national product is, in fact, a finite concept.

The thing that disturbs me is that there are some features in the Health Insurance Bill and the Health Insurance Commission Bill with which the Opposition, in principle, concurs. I have said so in 2 debates in this House. I have told the Minister on 2 occasions in this place that if he wishes to bring these features in through other legislation we will give them expedition. What disturbs me, as an Australian is that we are now in the worst of all worlds. We have not got the Hayden health scheme. We have an old health scheme which I have conceded needed updating, its deficiencies removed and refining because of the dynamic society in which we live. At present the people of Australia are not getting the Hayden health scheme. They are not getting the Liberal-Country Party health scheme. They are getting something in between, and the people who suffer will be the people of Australia.

I say again that the Opposition favours increased financial assistance to public hospitals. If the Government wishes to bring in legislation on that aspect in acceptable form we will give it expedition. We favour the proposal to enable visitors to Australia to participate in the scheme on the payment of appropriate premiums. We favour the concept of special medical benefits for unusual or complex procedures. We favour the right of doctors to appeal against decisions of committees of inquiry. We favour the proposed increase in payments to private hospitals. We especially favour the concept - it is incorporated in our health plan as well - that pensioners and receivers of subsidised health benefits will be integrated into the scheme and become entitled to the same benefits as are enjoyed by all other members of that scheme. We want maximum coverage.

Any reasonable proposition, short of absolute and total compulsion, which the Minister introduces will gain our support. We favour a sliding scale of contribution. We favour the exemption from payment of hospital and medical insurance of those people on low incomes. I ask the Minister: If he is frustrated with the implementation of his scheme, as I hope he will be, will he not at least adopt a bi-partisan attitude on those aspects of national health on which there is agreement between the 2 parties? The attitude of the Opposition is that it looks at these 4 Bills simply as Bills to implement the so-called Hayden health scheme. We repeat our intractable and vigorous opposition to it and therefore to them.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

– These 4 Bills are associated with the introduction of our universal health insurance program. I do not think I gathered one fresh statement, one new message, or one new word after listening to the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp), that I have not heard on previous occasions. His speech was simply a repetition and a re-hash. Much of it is completely inaccurate and much of it has been shown to be inaccurate and untrue.

Mr King:

– At least he knows what he is talking about.

Mr MORRIS:

– That is more than can be said for the honourable member on most occasions. The Bills at present before the House will enable the Government to collect the money that is necessary to finance the scheme. They are based on 2 very simple propositions. Before proceeding to deal with those propositions I draw the attention of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) to one respect in which I think the people of Australia would have been much .better informed if the Minister had followed a different practice. I think that the Minister, in all his goodwill, in allowing in 1973 a period of 6 months for public debate and discussion of our universal health insurance program made an error. That 6 months was wholly abused, not only by the Opposition but also by the interests that it represents. They used that 6 months period not for constructive discussion and constructive criticism, but rather to misrepresent and to distort the facts and provisions of the scheme and to set about a campaign trying to frighten, in the main, sick people.

Our scheme is based on 2 very simple propositions. The first is that it is the birthright of every Australian to have access to the best health care that this country can provide. The second is that the costs of providing for health care should be borne by all Australians based on their capacity to pay. I can think of no 2 more simple principles or more equitable principles than those in relation to health care.

I cannot think of any fairer method of paying for health care than one based on capacity for payment. I received a letter from a man who was stimulated by some of the statements made by members of the Opposition during 1973. The man said that his wife had recently been ill. It had , been a serious illness and he was very fortunate that his wife had been able to have access to the highest quality health care available in New South Wales. She had been able to stop in the best private hospital in Sydney at the time. His wife made a complete recovery. The whole affair cost the man about $95. If we went ahead with our system based on capacity to pay - contributions based on taxable income - his costs would rise per annum from $95 to $150. I thought what a terrible shame for him that he was in a financial position to pay the highest level of medical and hospital contributions so that his wife could have the advantage of the facilities she needed.

I compared that case with a recent incident concerning a widow pensioner who came to me with her son who was temporarily unemployed, who had not registered for unemployment benefits and therefore did not have access to the subsidised health benefits plan. The son had a sudden heart attack and was hospitalised. This aged pensioner was faced with a bill for $150, which is exactly the maximum contribution that we propose to impose under this legislation. I thought of the gentleman who wrote to me and I thought what a lucky world he lived in compared with this widow pensioner and her son who was still ill and still seeking employments

What it boils down to is this: Our scheme has to be financed by all Australians who are above the minimum taxable income limit and there ought to be equity of access to health care. What the Opposition represents are really the reactionaries in society or what we can only call the bastions of conservatism in this country - that is, the Australian Medical Association and the new associates of the voluntary health insurance funds. It is the interests of those people, not the interests of the average Australian, that are being put forward by the Opposition. In short, the Opposition represents a perpetuation of privilege in our society. I refer honourable members again to the gentleman who wrote to me. He was very very happy. He had the best service that this country had to offer. It did not cost him much because many people less able than he to pay were paying more than they ought to have been paying.

We are proposing under the Health Insurance Levy Assessment Bill that 1.35 per cent of taxable income be the contribution under the universal health insurance program with a maximum contribution limit for any one taxpayer of $150. If you compared those figures produced by the Minister and by previous speakers on this side of the House you would find that in the majority of cases our proposal would represent reduction in contributions rather than an increase. One has to look a bit further than simply the Opposition’s performance in this field. It has had the collaboration of sympathetic State governments in this country in holding back hospital fees. For what other reason did the New South Wales Government hesitate to increase hospital fees for a period of 3 years? They held back increases that should have come in last year simply because if hospital fees had risen last year the contribution rates to hospital funds would have had to rise.

The comparisons that the voluntary health insurance funds, the AMA and the Opposition are making in respect of our proposed 1.35 per cent levy would have looked much sicker, so sympathetic governments were prepared to let the hospitals operate at rates lower than they should have charged in order to facilitate and to try to enhance the appearance of the case that they, the Opposition and the AMA, were putting up. We have had funds which have themselves admitted they should have been charging a higher rate, but they hesitated to increase their rate last year when this legislation was before the Parliament - again for the very simple reason that they were doing their bit along with the Opposition in trying to make the combined costs of contributions to medical benefits funds and hospital contribution funds look favourable when compared with the 1.35 per cent levy on taxable income.

The honourable member for Hotham referred continually, as have other members of the Opposition, to a comparison between the United Kingdom national health scheme and the scheme which we propose. Anyone who is honest has to admit that our system is based on a fee for service system, not on a wholly salaried staff scheme such as exists in the United Kingdom. The members of the Opposition conveniently and repetitively skipped that little comparison. They made a direct comparison of what in fact are two incomparable systems. They are incompatible. They cannot be compared because one is based on a wholly salaried staff system and the other on a fee for service system. What the AMA really wants is access to the public purse and the entitlement to be able to fix its own rates. Even parliamentarians might be interested in that. Even members of the Country Party, after last week, would like to be able to set their own rates of pay and not have to account to anybody. That is really what the AMA and the Opposition are after in respect of the scheme that they have tried to prop up. One would think that we are responsible for the present patched-up, run-down scheme. We inherited it.

Again comparison is made by the Opposition with the system in Canada. I am alarmed that the Opposition spokesman on health continually downgrades the quality of the Canadian scheme and tries to make a direct comparison with our proposed scheme, despite the fact that a Minister of the Canadian Government was here early this year and objected to what was being said and expressed the satisfaction of the Government at their scheme. There have been numerous Press statements and reports of satisfaction on the part of the people generally and members of the Canadian Medical Association at the operation of the Canadian scheme. Yet we still have the opponents of this Government coming along and trying to present the Canadian scheme as a failure when in fact it is not.

Let me say a little bit more about the choice of doctor. I have heard so much from the opposite side of the chamber about this wonderful ‘choice of doctor’. If I may relate my personal experience, earlier this year I rang a general practitioner service near to my home for a doctor to call on my son. The lass answered the telephone and said: ‘Has your son been to see doctor before?’ As he had not I said: ‘No’. She said: T am sorry, doctor cannot accept any more patients; you are in the wrong area.’ When I checked that with the doctor later in the day he absolutely denied it and said the receptionist did not have any authority to make a statement like that. That simply adds to what is the general situation, at least in the Hunter region and as far as the Hunter Medical Association is concerned. Choice of doctor, as members of the Opposition have tried to describe it, does not exist. If you are fortunate enough to be in an area where doctors’ books are not full, where doctors have culled out bad payers, where they have culled out those patients they do not wish to be bothered with, you may have access to a doctor. But the general run of things is that if you go to a doctor’s surgery you are told to come back. You are told to come back at some other time. If you specify a doctor you are invited to take the doctor who is on duty, not the doctor of your choice. So this great image of your choice of doctor just does not exist. It is a fantasy as far as actual medical services are concerned.

Mr King:

– You are talking rubbish.

Mr MORRIS:

– The honourable member for Wimmera said this is rubbish. I thought country people were deprived and suffered because they did not have quality of service compared with people in urban areas. I come from an urban area and if what I have related to the honourable member is not the quality of service, or something better is available to him in the rural area, well good luck to him because, if it is, what he has been saying in the past is completely untrue. There must be a better position and a better standard of living in the urban areas which he represents than is available in the Newcastle metropolitan area. I am speaking of fact; I do not know about the honourable member.

Mr King:

– At least I have the choice.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for Wimmera is interjecting from out of his place. Interjections are out of order.

Mr MORRIS:

– Under our proposal the contribution limit of 1.35 per cent of taxable income will be set at $1,041, which is the bottom of the present tax schedule, and the figure derived from the schedule set out in the memorandum to the legislation. In simple terms it allows pensioners, particularly those who are concerned about this and amongst whom, again, the Opposition has attempted to create confusion and fear - a tactic all the way through in respect of our program - pensioners who have an entitlement to the rebate under the tax on pensions scheme as introduced in the income year just ended to be exempt from the levy. So the amount will be that which is described and is currently set at $1,921. It is worth while mentioning that the Government is looking into those cases where there is entitlement, a pensioner medical service entitlement and the income level is above that entitlement. We will be bringing in recommendations to make sure that special provision is made for those people. If a member of a family is entitled to complete repatriation health care this will entitle the remainder of the family to a one-half reduction in the amount of levy to be assessed.

I want to finish my remarks on the argument of the over-utilisation of health services. Over and over again the most common complaint that is brought forward by the Opposition is that if a health care service is introduced in which at the point of sale no money changed hands - not even a nominal amount of, say, 50c- ‘there would be over-utilisation of the service. I have challenged the Opposition on a previous occasion to support this contention. 1 challenge the Opposition to say why this has not happened in the repatriation service that has been in operation for more than 50 years? Why is it that it has not been abused in the manner the Opposition suggests would happen with a universal health insurance program? Why do not repatriation pensioners or those entitled to repatriation medical services reject their repatriation medical officers if, as the Opposition suggests, salaried officers are not able to give the same care as doctors receiving a fee for service? The Opposition cannot answer this question because the repatriation medical service, staffed in the main by salaried officers in a system in which no amount of money changes hands at the time the service is rendered, is held in very high regard in this nation.

I repeat that I challenge the Opposition to answer this criticism. If there is something wrong with a service in which money does not have to change hands when the service is received, why has the Opposition not abolished the repatriation service? If the British and Canadian systems are so bad, why have not the governments in those countries repealed the relevant legislation and returned to the voluntary system to which the Opposition wants to hold Australia. A conservative government was in office in the United Kingdom for 13 years after the British health system was introduced and it saw fit to continue with it and expand upon it. Even though the Opposition makes an improper comparison between the British system and our program, the Opposition’s friends in the United Kingdom saw fit to continue with the British health care system.

Mr STALEY:
Chisholm

– We are debating the National Health Bill which is designed to arrange for the transfer of the present system of Australian health insurance to the Australian Labor Party’s scheme. We are also debating the Health Insurance Levy Assessment Bill, the Health Insurance Levy Bill and the Income Tax (International Agreement) Bill, which provide for a health insurance levy of 1.35 per cent on taxable incomes of taxpayers. This, I would stress, will involve taxpayers who presently do not have to pay a separate or individual amount in paying an amount towards their health care. We are moving away from the notion of the family contribution to a system where all taxpayers who have certain incomes will have to pay 1.35 per cent of their taxable income for health care insurance.

This levy was originally designed to be approximately 40 per cent of the cost of running the scheme. The rest was to come from general revenues. Inflation has made a mess of that percentage, though we are unable to state with any exactness the present figure it represents. The previous speaker in the debate made the extraordinary statement that in Australia there is no choice of doctor. He described the notion that there is a choice of doctor in Australia as a fantasy. I ask him to address his poor mind to a simple matter of fact - that he and anyone else in Australia is legally and administratively and in every sense free to consult any general practitioner in this country. Providing that he belongs to a health insurance fund - that is nearly everyone and we regret that it is not everyone and our policy would have everyone in the voluntary scheme - he is entitled to the treatment by and the care of the best specialists Australia can produce. Common sense and experience tell people this.

It is clear that many individuals from time to time have trouble with individual doctors - getting them out of bed at night and so on and so forth. We all know about that sort of thing. But to conclude from such odd cases, even if they be not as isolated as we would like them to be, that there is no choice of doctor in this country is a fantasy of a most alarming kind. People who can believe that sort of thing are precisely the sort of people who are thrusting upon Australia a health insurance scheme which can only destroy the first-class health care which most - if not all, regrettably - Australians receive.

If there are faults in the present health scheme they should be identified. One of the things I would have thought a government which had come fresh into office after about a thousand years in the wilderness would want to do would be to isolate precisely the areas of real need in health care. If it had set about doing that sort of thing it would have had tremendous support from those of us who occupy the Opposition benches. For instance, we should know whether there are significant groups and where those groups are in Australia who are missing out on health care services. If they are missing out on health care services we would co-operate in solutions to this problem. But to move from the basis of generalised observations and doctrinaire considerations about how health care ought to be delivered, to a massive scheme to change the whole basis on which the great majority of Australian people receive their health care, is an extraordinarily alarming procedure for a government to take in this age when the ideologies of yesterday ought to have died.

We in Australia are in the very happy position of having a typically Australian solution to the problem of health care. I would say that there is a sort of ad hoc genius about the Australian when he looks to the solution of problems. In particular, we have developed in the Australian community a health care delivery system which is both public and private, which involves a mixture of private and public contribution, and private effort, relationship and involvement and public effort, relationship and involvement.

The Australian Labor Party, instead of noting the way the system has evolved, particularly in the last six or eight years, is seeking to turn the clock back to days before this evolution in Australian health care took place. It has rushed through the last few years of Australian history as though they did not exist. It has not opened its eyes and talked to people involved in health care about what, in fact, has been going on. It has taken a sort of Frank Sinatra approach to its journey through Australia’s recent history - talking to no one, singing its own song certainly, but talking to no one. If the Government had talked to anyone it would have noticed that certain features of its scheme are in high disrepute at the moment in other countries, in particular of course in the United Kingdom.

Let us take a lock at the situation in the United Kingdom, the system which this Labor Government with this levy as part of its health scheme would have Australia move towards if it had its way. Of course we on this side of the House hope that the Opposition in the other place will have sufficient wisdom to reject the Government’s proposals. If one looks at the United Kingdom what does one find? One finds that the patients are on lists and that there they do not have freedom of choice of doctors.

Mr Innes:

– They are on lists here.

Mr STALEY:

– They are not on lists here. One is free to take one’s name off a doctor’s list and go to another doctor. That is an indisputable fact. I addressed my mind to this’ matter before. If the honourable member had been here he would have heard the point I was making.

Mr Innes:

– They will not put anybody else on the list unless they are patients.

Mr STALEY:

– That is not true either, as the honourable member knows. The situation in the United Kingdom is that patients are on lists. It is very difficult for patients to get off their doctors’ lists and onto another list unless they go private. The tragedy of nationalised health care is that it hurts precisely those whom the scheme first of all means to help; that is it hurts the poor and the low income groups generally. In the United Kingdom a poor person is left to the public provision of health care services. In Australia the great majority of the population is not left simply to the pay of the public purse. The ordinary, average Australian has some private involvement in his own health care. The point is that if a patient in the United Kingdom needs an operation which is serious but is not highly urgent, then the waiting list extends for 1, 2, 3, 4 and up to 5 years. This sort of situation does not occur in Australia and we must make sure that it never occurs. But this does happen to the patient in the United Kingdom who is on the public purse and in receipt of what is called free health care.

However, if that person has private insurance or if he can pay privately for the operation - it is, of course, desperately expensive - then he can get treatment from a specialist, from a doctor or at a hospital within weeks. Last year when I studied these matters in the United Kingdom I had case after case brought to my attention of people who were on the free list under the nationalised scheme and who had been told by a doctor that they would have to wait 2i years for treatment. So their families got together and raised the necessary resources. Within weeks the patients were receiving the care and the operations which they needed. The central issue in all this is the power of the patient. If we move to a situation where the relationship is basically between a government insurance office, a government department of health and a doctor then, of course, instead of there being some financial and fiduciary relationship between the doctor and the patient, this crucial nexus is broken. Private relationships remain important in this area of community life. They will always be important in this area.

The old-fashioned dictum that he who pays the piper calls the tune applies in this as in 30 many other areas. If there is no close relationship between the individual who is in receipt of health care and the doctor- regrettably, perhaps, through a financial relationship or a contract for services rendered - then the relationship loses much of the merit which it otherwise would have. The doctor becomes a bureaucrat; the patient becomes a number on a list. That is the situation which we seek to avoid in this country. Tragically, that is the situation into which we in this country will plunge almost overnight if this insurance levy, which is the core of the Government’s scheme for the ultimate nationalisation of health care, takes off. Then we have the displacement of the present relationships which, I admit, in some cases, are not all that they should be. We have a sort of relationship between doctors and the Government instead of a relationship between doctors and patients. We have a mistier, a more distant and a more bureaucratic relationship replacing the close individual and personal relationship which is so important. There is no merit in putting politics in this way into the relationship between doctors and patients. That is what the Government is doing. The scheme will end up relying on the electoral processes of this country. The generosity of politicians and of the electorate will be relied upon to provide extra resources to keep the scheme running. There are grave doubts about whether those inexorable electoral forces in fact would provide the extra amount which, under a nationalised scheme, would be needed to keep the system going. In these days it has become more important than ever for there to be both public involvement - certainly significant public involvement - and private involvement in this area of welfare. The community simply will not pay through the nose, through the taxation system. Governments will not vote sufficient funds in this highly generalised way through general revenues. To sum up the argument that he who pays the piper calls the tune, I say that this demoralising approach of moving towards a nationalised scheme with levies and relationships between governments and doctors instead of between patients and doctors has 2 basic consequences. Firstly, it has a consequence on the power of the individual patient to determine both the quantity and the quality of his health care. In particular, it affects the poorer patient. Secondly, there is the effect which I have noted on the power of the health care system to raise sufficient funds to do the job properly.

I come back more precisely to the health care levy. Originally this levy was recommended to be 1.25 per cent of taxable income. When the Government’s advisers went to work it was no time at all before it was 1.35 per cent. There is no guarantee that a Bill will not be introduced into this Parliament to raise the percentage further. In approximately 2 years this matter will come before this House again, anyway. There is something fraudulent about suggesting that this is to be the contribution for health care delivery for patients in this community. It would be more honest of the Government to decide that it would move to funding through general revenue. At least one would know where one stood. It is regrettable that many Australians are not yet fully apprised of what all this means. They are not aware that the 1.35 per cent of taxable income will provide only for public ward treatment. So the average taxpayer, in addition to paying 1.35 per cent of his income to this Government through the levy, will want to take out extra private insurance if he is to continue to receive not better treatment but simply the same level of treatment as he is presently receiving. One can conceive of the average taxpayer in this country - the average family man with 2 children - on a conservative estimate being up for something like $100 extra, or probably more, over and above the insurance levy which he has already paid to the Government fund by way of an insurance levy.

In short, people will have to pay more for less - more money for less services; more money for less quality of service; more money for less choice; and more money for a scheme which has no obvious advantages and which is falling into disrepute wherever it is in existence around the world. The worst crime is that it takes away the power of the poor to have the quality of treatment they deserve. It also takes away the power of the patient to be a determining influence in the sort of health care he or she receives.

Mr THORBURN:
Cook

– It is rare that one ever hears such a low key debate as we have heard this afternoon from the Opposition on a matter that it will oppose in this House. The honourable member for Chisholm (Mr Staley) has resorted to dragging out the old red herrings that have been dragged out in this debate during the period since it was proposed by the Government. He was back on nationalised health again when he knows full well that his assertions are not correct. He put forward exactly the same kind of propaganda as members of the Australian Medical Association have been dishing out to patients in their surgeries over the last 18 months. The honourable member knows that what he said is not true. He knows that there is no comparison between the scheme - (Quorum formed). Before I was rudely interrupted by the honourable member for Barker (Dr Forbes) who called for a quorum to be formed so that there could be more than 3 members of the Liberal Party in the House, I was saying that the honourable member for Chisholm had dragged out all the red herrings that had been used in debates of this matter over a period of time. The purpose of these Bills is for the orderly-

Mr Lloyd:

– Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is it fair to the honourable member for all the other Labor Party members to walk out of the chamber immediately and to talk?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– There is no point of order but I suggest to honourable members that a little less conversation in the aisles would be helpful to the honourable member for Cook.

Mr THORBURN:

– Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The purpose of these Bills is to ensure the orderly transition of the health scheme from the contributive scheme that we have known over the past years to the national scheme that is proposed by this Government. The new scheme will make a lot of changes. One of these changes, of course, is that pensioners will be better accommodated than they have been in the history of Australia. Pensioners will be able to go to their general practitioner and be referred to specialists, and that right is different from the provisions of the scheme that we now have. The new scheme brings in a lot of innovations. A lot of the tripe that has been spoken by honourable members opposite is entirely untrue. The honourable member for Chisholm took my friend, the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) to task over some of the statements that he made. Let me say this: There is very little freedom of choice of general practitioners in the Sydney area at present. One can certainly choose to go to a general practitioner, but only during the hours he works. He does not work at night or at weekends. One enters a lottery by ringing up an emergency service if a doctor is required at those times. A patient cannot even contact his general practitioner because when he telephones the number he finds the doctor has an answering service which gives the patient another telephone number to ring to obtain service.

What type of service are the patients getting from the emergency services? Frequently one doctor has to look after a vast area of Sydney. Invariably people who are seriously ill - they would not have taken the trouble to ring their doctor out of hours if they were not ill - find they have to wait for hours or have to be transported to the nearest public hospital for treatment in the outpatients’ clinic. This is not a fallacy. This is happening daily. It happened to a very good friend of mine the weekend before last when he had quite a severe coronary. He could not get a doctor and had to be transported by his wife to the nearest public hospital - with all the dangers that are inherent in that procedure before he received treatment. He was admitted to the heart clinic in that hospital in a serious condition because he was not able to get a doctor to treat him.

Mr Sullivan:

– Aah!

Mr THORBURN:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is not a matter of ‘aah’. It is a matter of fact. If the honourable member for Riverina lived in Sydney and knew what was happening there he would appreciate the difficulties and would not treat this matter in the cavalier fashion that members of the Opposition have treated it ever since it was first presented to this House. A number of other matters were raised by honourable members opposite. The honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp) raised the question of costing the Government’s scheme. How could the Government cost the scheme accurately when it entered into arrangements with doctors at the beginning of this year for a set of fees to be charged and to be con tinued until Christmas and already the doctors have broken that agreement and are charging much higher fees than were ever anticipated? It is absolutely impossible to cost a scheme either for these funds that are now receiving the contributions and paying the benefits to the public or for this Government under the circumstances that exist at present. I have not heard one word from the Opposition about the doctors breaking their agreement. If a trade union had broken the agreement the Opposition would be crying out to bring in the Army or crying out for the union to be taken to court, or something similar. There has not been one word from the Opposition about the Australian Medical Association breaking the agreement that it entered into with this Government. So that the Government would not force a compulsory tribunal on the association it entered into a gentleman’s agreement which it has broken as readily as it entered into it. I put it to honourable members that one could not trust the Association in those circumstances. Some extraordinary comments have been made in this debate by members of the Opposition.

Again, the honourable member for Hotham raised the question of over utilisation of the scheme. He referred to Queensland’s experience where, of course, there is a free hospital scheme which was started by a Labor government. - This scheme has been continued by various governments and now by the CountryLiberal Party coalition Government which has kept this scheme going obviously because it thinks that it is the best scheme for the people and it thinks that it is the scheme that the people want. The honourable member for Hotham made a number of statements about this matter. He said that the people of Queensland will have to pay under this Government’s scheme whereas they did dot have to pay before. Of course, we all know that that is absolute rot. The situation in Queensland, as the Government freely admits, is that it needs an enormous amount of money to be able to bring its hospitals up to the standard it requires. The people of Queensland have had to put up with old hospitals, old buildings and inadequate hospital services because the Queensland Government has provided a free service to its people over the years. So, if the Government was not introducing this scheme now, the people of Queensland would be faced with the possibility of paying extra State taxation to raise more than $30m, which is needed to bring toe Queensland hospitals up to date. The honourable member casts a grave reflection on those people who work in hospitals in Queensland- What he is saying is this: As soon as a scheme is introduced in Queensland in which the levy is collected by the Government which then is paying for the services, the doctors will become corrupt and will admit into hospitals people who do not require admission.

The present situation in :he Australian public hospital system is that not a great deal of over-utilisation of hospital services occurs. This is because of the procedures through which a doctor must go to gain the admission of a patient to a hospital. But what is the situation with respect to the private hospital sector? Let me remind the House of what the Minister for the Environment and Conservation, Dr Cass, had to say when this legislation was before the last Parliament. I refer to some figures that he gave in which he compared the incidence of tonsillectomy and appendicectomy operations in Australia with those operations in the United Kingdom and the United States of America. In Australia there were 7 tonsillectomy operations per 1,000 persons. In the United States, where the health services are not inhibited in any way by those aspects to which the Opposition has been referring this afternoon in dealing with our scheme, there were 4 tonsillectomy cases per 1,000 persons. In the United Kingdom where the nationalised scheme with which Opposition members love to compare our scheme operates, there were 3.6 tonsillectomy operations per 1,000 persons. These services are entirely free in the United Kingdom. I ask: Why is it that there were so many tonsillectomy operations in Australia? Is it because a private hospital system operates in Australia under which doctors without any supervision whatsoever can admit patients and operate on them?

I turn to the figures with respect to appendicectomies. The same situation is revealed. More than twice as many appendicectomy operations were performed in Australia as were carried out in the other 2 countries. I wish to quote now from an article which appeared in a journal entitled the ‘American Federationist’ of May 1973. Under the heading ‘Doctors Speak Out on Quality of Care’ the article states:

I know of a case where a physician was making a helluva lot of money performing tonsillectomies on a fee-for-service basis for a prepaid group. Then he went on an annual retainer and his tonsillectomy rate dropped sharply.

This article was written not by a member of the Government, not even by one of the eminent doctors whom we have in the Government, but by Dr Kerr L. White of the Johns Hopkins Hospital. I do not want to reflect generally on surgeons or other members of the medical profession. But obviously in this country in the system that has been adopted over the years there is an over-utilisation of services by a certain section of the medical profession.

What is all this rot that we have heard about patients having no choice of doctor? It is dished up in all medical surgeries in Australia as part of the propaganda of the Australian Medical Association which states that patients will not be able to choose their own doctors under our scheme. The scheme proposed by the Government makes no alteration whatsoever to the existing scheme in relation to general practitioner services. A patient can choose his or her own doctor. There is to be a differential of fees, just as there is now. A doctor can elect to collect his fees in whatever manner he wishes to collect them. In New South Wales fees now are collected before a patient sees his doctor; otherwise, the patient does not see that doctor. Under our scheme the doctor can elect to collect his fees in whatever way he chooses. The only point is that he has a greater choice than he had before. No alterations are proposed to general practitioner services.

What is to be the doctor-patient relationship in hospitals? This is a matter that the Australian Government cannot answer because the hospitals are under the control of the States. The Opposition is always reminding us of the sovereignty of the States. If the States are sovereignties, this is their business. In consultation with the States, this Government will enter into a scheme to provide better and cheaper hospital care for the Australian people. I remind the Opposition that our scheme is meant to cover not only those people who are not covered by the existing schemes now in operation. Our scheme proposes to increase the amount of cover that the present schemes afford the Australian people. Lack of cover is one of the big failings of the existing medical and hospital schemes. I am quite sure that once the scheme of this Government is in operation everyone, including honourable members opposite, will appreciate the great benefits of it.

Mr LLOYD:
Murray

– The Government has continued to repeat its tired argument. The Government asserts that arguments propounded against its proposed health scheme are only arguments to protect vested interests. The arguments which are advanced from this side of the House - I believe they contain a tremendously overwhelming quality - are directed to protect the vested interests of the people of Australia. We wish to assist their vested interests by obtaining and maintaining for the Australian people the best welfare service available by way of a scheme whose application is practical. That scheme is in existence now. It certainly can be improved; we all admit that. We wish to continue to provide a service that exists and which is not just ideological theory.

From time to time in the course of this debate honourable members on both sides of the House have mentioned the position in the United Kingdom. Government supporters are very keen to quote the example of the national health scheme in the United Kingdom when they refer to how their Government scheme will keep down health costs in Australia. They say that because of the overall government control of health and medical services exercised in Britain, the percentage of expenditure devoted to the operation of the health service has been kept down to an acceptable level and to a lower figure by comparison with costs in Australia. On the other hand, whenever Opposition members take up the argument made by using the United Kingdom as an example to point out some of the disadvantages of that scheme and what will happen here, Government supporters say: ‘Well, our scheme is not similar at all to the United Kingdom scheme’. But Government supporters use the example of the United Kingdom scheme to support their argument about keeping costs down in Australia by introducing a similar scheme. They cannot have it both ways. If one looks a little further at the situation in the United Kingdom at the moment, one can see why overall costs are being kept down in that country. The reason is that the health scheme is being bankrupted. Plenty of evidence to this effect is coming by way of reports from the United Kingdom at present.

The honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris), referring to the situation in the United Kingdom, said: ‘Ah, but our scheme is different from the scheme in the United

Kingdom. Ours is fee for service; the scheme in the United Kingdom is based on salaries.’ The honourable member should have a little closer look at the community health centre program that is being expanded very rapidly throughout Australia and also at the increasing number of salaried doctor services provided in those community health centres. If he looks at the position a little closer I suggest that he will not continue with his argument that the system proposed by the Labor Government will be dissimilar from that which operates in the United Kingdom.

While referring to the United Kingdom, I point out that at present the second stage of the scheme is being introduced in that country. The introduction of that second stage is being speeded up because of the force of union pressure. Private and intermediate patients are to be forced out of public hospitals altogether. The first stage of the scheme in the United Kingdom program permitted private and intermediate patients to continue to be treated in those categories, as has been the situation in Australia and which this Government claims will continue to be the practice under its scheme. But if we look at the first stage of the scheme in Britain - forget about what is happening under the second stage of that scheme at the moment - and remember what the honourable member for Cook (Mr Thorburn) said about the number of operations of various types per 1,000 persons in Australia when compared with the number of operations of the same types in the United Kingdom, the facts which reveal that more of these operations are performed in Australia per 1,000 persons than in the United Kingdom tie in very nicely with the comments coming constantly from the United Kingdom that people who need non-urgent surgery in that country must wait for anything up to 2 years for that surgery unless they are prepared to pay the full cost of private clinic treatment. That explains the statistics presented by the honourable member for Cook. That explains also what the situation will be in Australia if ever the Labor scheme eventuates. Do not let Government supporters argue that their intention is not to have operating in Australia a scheme similar to that in the United Kingdom. One needs to look only at what is being attempted at present in Canberra where proposals identical to those operating in the United Kingdom are being introduced.

What about the second stage of the United Kingdom scheme which is now being introduced? I think the Australian people have a right to know whether the Government, if it is successful in introducing the first stage of its scheme, will continue its development by introducing a second stage by which people other than those at standard or public ward levels will be prevented from gaining admission to ordinary public hospitals. The Bills before the House concern the financing of the Government’s proposed national health scheme; they do not concern the scheme itself. I believe that these Bills have to be considered in the context of the accelerating inflation in this country at the present time, particularly because a health care system that is labour intensive by nature has an accelerated inflation rate of twice to three times the ordinary inflation rate in the community generally.

The Government made many expensive promises during the last election and has many expansive reports before it at the present time. It has education proposals and proposals for pre-school and child care, a superannuation scheme, a compensation scheme and social welfare schemes. All of these are tremendously expensive, no matter how good they may be for the country. But reality has already caught up with the Government. Before it has even considered 2 of its most expensive schemes, those concerning compensation9 and superannuation, which the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp) mentioned would require massive increases in taxation to finance, the pre-schools scheme so loudly trumpeted during the recent election has already been truncated. The abolition of the means test for those between 70 and 75 years of age has been deferred. Before the cost of all the schemes that have been promised, proposed and considered has been added up the Government has found that it cannot finance all of these proposals or even half of them.

To a large extent by its own pace-setter policies the Government has brought about the highest inflation rate this country has seen. This inflation is still accelerating. Where does the Government’s health scheme fit into the overall budgetary concept that a responsible government must have in the present inflationary situation? A White Paper was presented to the Parliament in early November 1973. One assumes that the figures contained in it were taken out some months earlier. The total of the small parts of these figures is greater than the Government usually states and the White

Paper was vague in some respects. The main point is that the figures are already 12 months out of date. They are for a scheme which was to commence at the beginning of this financial year. The earliest this scheme can commence - I believe it will not commence even then - is 1 July 1975. So these figures will be 2 years out of date by then and a lifetime out of date because of the inflation between now and then. These figures will be so out of date and therefore so unreliable that one will not be able to use them in a budgetary context. The White Paper, after referring to other sources of revenue for the funding of the scheme, states in paragraph 7.8 on page 69: 7.8 The remaining source of revenue of the Health Insurance Fund proposed by the Planning Committee was a special levy on workers’ compensation and motor verhicle third party insurance premiums including the notional premiums paid by organisations which carry their own insurance. The Government will study all aspects of this proposal with a view to developing suitable arrangements to recoup the amounts now provided from these sources which, under the new program, will be met by the Health Insurance Fund. The new arrangements should not result in increased premium costs to insured employers or motor vehicle owners.

How does that fit in with the compensation scheme which has been presented? I presume that the sources of funds available for a compensation scheme have been taken over and therefore the Government will have to find some other source of finance for its national health scheme. Although the figures given in the White Paper are out of date, it would be interesting to know how much the Government would actually have netted? One has to add to the already out of date and incomplete figures in the White Paper a new dimension, and that is the widespread introduction of community health centres staffed by doctors on a salary and free of patient fees. I am not arguing that there should not be health centres. I support them in areas of need. There is an argument about whether the cost of a consultation with a general practitioner in a salaried service at, say, Melba is greater or less than the cost of a consultation with a general practitioner working under a fee for service system. But there is the additional cost of ancillary services which are provided in these health centres by very laudable people. The cost of their services has to be added to the cost of the Government’s program. Therefore we have a completely new dimension. The cost of these ancillary services which will be added to the overall scheme was not taken into account when the White Paper was drawn up over 12 months ago.

Two independent reports have been made on the cost of the Government’s proposals, one by Philip Shrapnel and Co. Pty Ltd and one by E. S. Knight and Co. These are professional groups. As professional people, in honour they have to preserve their accuracy and reliability. Both of them made estimates and expressed certain qualifications. It is no use smearing either of these groups because of the people who commissioned them. The only way the Government can answer the arguments advanced by these groups is to put up figures of its own that are up to date and more accurate. Just smearing the professional groups, which have an honour to preserve, or the people who commissioned them, is no answer, particularly in the present inflationary situation. Both Shrapnel and Knight calculated that the cost of the Government’s scheme would be $400m more than what the Government had estimated. I shall quote the reply of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) to the Knight figures as reported in the ‘Age’. The article states:

Mr Hayden said some of the projections which the actuaries commissioned by the AMA had made about the higher use of services under the new scheme were ‘inaccurate, incredible and unrealistic’.

The article further states:

Mr Hayden said he rejected the ‘questionable assumption’ of the report.

The only way the Minister can successfully question those figures is to produce figures of his own which are up to date and which take into account all the costs that are involved in this scheme. I believe the Senate should demand up to date figures from the Minister or the Government before it is even prepared to debate the Bill preparatory to its rejection. Surely the Minister has these figures, because he must have a responsibility, as Minister for Social Security, to his Cabinet, to his Party and to his Prime Minister because of overall budgetary requirements in an inflationary situation. If he has these figures it is his responsibility to reveal them to the Parliament and to the Australian people. If he has not, not only should he be condemned but I believe the Treasurer (Mr Crean) and the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) should also be condemned because at this time of great inflation in the nation they are not doing elementary national accounting with their Budget. They are not finding out what the up to date cost estimates are for their expensive programs. Surely if this Government claims it is responsible, that it is doing something about inflation, that it is looking at its own expenditure programs, it must have these figures. If it has not, all the more condemnation for it.

Mr Hunt:

– It does not want to face the truth.

Mr LLOYD:

– I think you are right, because the truth is hurting. The reality of life in an inflationary situation is catching up with the Government’s ideology. One could say: ‘The scheme will not start until 1 July 1975. Why do we need the figures this year?’ It must be remembered that the Government has a lot of other expensive programs. Unless the Government is to embark on a stop-start program such as it has with its pre-school program it has to take into calculation not only its programs commencing this year and continuing next year tout also major new programs which it hopes will commence next year. I have the suspicion that the Prime Minister has these figures. Otherwise why would he have said in the last couple of weeks that Australia could possibly have to pay out over twice as much of its gross national product on health care in 25 years time as it does now. That appears to point to an accelerating inflationary situation. Perhaps the Government has these figures, but because of fear of what they will mean to the people of Australia it is not prepared to reveal them. 0

I have referred only to the national accounting figures or the budgetary items. What about the cost to the individual? I think the honourable member for Chisholm (Mr Staley) dealt with this aspect very well. Not only will the ordinary person have to pay a levy of 1.35 per cent of his income, which will have to be lifted, plus additional income tax because of transfers from ordinary taxation revenue, but he will also be forced to continue with private insurance, which will cost just as much as it does now, because there will toe no Commonwealth contribution, if he wants any guarantee of access to a hospital when he needs it. So the ordinary person with his own budgeting, as well as the country, will have to face an increasing escalation in costs.

I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to a possible anomaly. I hope that he will correct me if I am wrong about this matter. It concerns the explanation of the levy. The explanatory memorandum states: . . . a person who is entitled to deductions (for income tax purposes) for the maintenance of dependants of at least $100 and whose taxable income is not greater than a prescribed amount - this amount would be $2,574 for 1974-75 , . .

I take that to mean that anybody whose taxable income is not greater than that amount, after taking into consideration his dependant’s allowances, actually will not have to pay the levy. If so, how does that fit in with the statement by the Minister on 10 July on the new limits for subsidised health benefits in which he said:

Families with a gross weekly income of $68:50 or less will not have to pay health insurance fund contributions at all, provided they apply for the subsidy.

The point I am coming to is that under the present health benefits scheme a person can earn approximately $3,500 and receive a health insurance cover free - he does not have to pay the insurance premium - but under the new scheme, if it were to start this year, a person would have to be earning only about $2,500, or about $1,000 less, before he would be up for the insurance levy. I hope that I have made a mistake and that I will be corrected. If I have not made a mistake it would seem that there is a rather curious anomaly in existence, although the Government has claimed that one of the major attractions of its scheme is that it will assist the poorer section of the community. People earning $10 a week more than the levy minimum in 1974 are being covered without cost but will have to pay under the new scheme. I admit that there are gaps and weaknesses in the present subsidised health benefits scheme, but the Opposition has stated quite clearly that it is its policy that the scheme should be amended and improved to allow the number of children and other factors to be altered so that a complete cover is provided for these people without any special taxation levy being imposed and without an insurance premium being charged.

The Government is obstinately pursuing an ideological, impractical course. It is a course that will add to inflation, which is already bad enough. In the meantime, it is unnecessarily damaging the present scheme in the hope of forcing a desperate public to accept an untried, impractical scheme which, even if it were introduced, would not work, would add to inflation and would lower the standard of health care in this country.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– Originally I had no intention of entering into this debate as I have participated in similar debates on numerous occasions. Whilst I appreciate that this additional legislation is necessary to bring about the introduction of the Government’s health scheme, basically the debate this afternoon has been along the lines of previous debates on this subject. I will not take anywhere near the full amount of time that is allotted to honourable members who wish to speak in this debate. (Quorum formed.) I wish to thank the honourable member for Barker (Dr Forbes) for providing an audience for me, temporary though it may be, by drawing attention to the state of the House. When the honourable member for Barker occupied the portfolio of Minister for Health in the previous Liberal-Country Party Government he was probably one of the most incompetent Ministers to come from honourable members on the other side of the House, which was not an easy thing to be. I well remember the occasion on which he provided an answer to a question on the costing of the introduction of oral contraceptives into the pharmaceutical benefits scheme in which he made the assumption that half of all the women who were not taking oral contraceptives at the time would immediately start to take them because their cost would drop from $1.30 a week to $1 a week. That is indicative of the sort of Minister he was. I suppose that is indicative of the sort of backbench member he is now.

When I began my speech a few moments ago I was about to give the reason why I entered my name on the list of speakers in this debate today. I did so because the moralising tones of the remarks I had just heard from the honourable clergyman from Chisholm annoyed me. He tried to moralise about the merits of the present scheme and proposed scheme. When one listens to the remarks of the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) and to a lesser extent the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp) one gets the feeling that at least they have examined the proposed scheme and have some reasonable or unreasonable objections to it. But the honourable member for Chisholm (Mr Staley), who participates in debates of this nature occasionally, always tries to persuade us that what he is doing is being done for the highest motives, that there is only one way of looking at things and that that is more or less the way in which the diety would wish it to be done.

I would like to deal with some of the points made by the honourable member for Chisholm. Firstly, he said that in the United

Kingdom - and I think that this is completely irrelevant to the debate on the proposed scheme - one cannot change from one doctor to another and that one has no choice of doctors. That is quite ridiculous. The honourable member then confused the position in Australia with the position in the United Kingdom. He told us that in Australia one had to transfer from one list to another and that one could not do that in the United Kingdom. Of course, in Australia there are no lists and in the United Kingdom there are lists and people can transfer from one list to another by notifying the local post office that they are transferring to a new doctor. The honourable member for Chisholm said also that there would be less choice under the proposed scheme. That is completely untrue. There will be the same choice for the vast majority of people under the proposed scheme. There will be a significant group of people - over 1 million people - in Australia who will have a much greater choice. I am referring to those who are pensioners at the present time.

Under the present pensioner medical service, as agreed to by the Australian Medical Association and successive governments, pensioners are entitled to attend the general practitioner of their choice and the Australian Government reimburses the general practitioner on an agreed basis, but if they attend a specialist the specialist is not entitled to be reimbursed at the specialist rate. Therefore, for practical purposes, they cannot attend a specialist in private practice but can see one only at the outpatients section of a hospital. Under the proposed scheme that will be changed. Under the proposed scheme any resident of Australia will be able to attend any doctor in his rooms and the doctor will be reimbursed on the basis of whatever is appropriate for the services of such a member of the medical profession. So under our scheme, pensioners, instead of having to go to the outpatients’ department to have their present honorary physician look at them or their honorary ophthalmologist do an eye check, they will in fact be able to see the particular specialist they need in his roms for the purpose of having carried out the appropriate check-ups or whatever has to be done. The specialist will be reimbursed by the National Health Insurance Commission. So for approximately 10 per cent of the Australian population there is a significant improvement in choice. The same thing will apply also to repatriation patients who at the present time have to see their repatriation doctor.

Mr Kelly:

– I do not think you are really interested yourself.

Br KLUGMAN- I do not feel strongly about the scheme; I am prepared to agree with that and accept that. I think that it will be a significant improvement but I certainly do not feel that it will be the cure-all of the difficulties of delivering health care in this country. I do not think anybody has discovered the cure-all for the delivery of health care yet, any more than anybody has discovered the cure-all for inflation. When one is in opposition one has the benefit of being able to attack whatever the Government is putting up or doing, but that does not mean that the present health scheme is the best one or that what we propose is necessarily the best.

One of the points that arose from what the honourable member foi Hotham said and which arose out of a general discussion about the lack of necessity to change the present scheme is related to this argument of the number of people covered by the scheme. It is often a confused argument, and I often find that many people are prepared to enter it. Even the right honourable member for Lowe (Mr McMahon) came into it during the election campaign. The way in which people like to calculate how many people are not covered by any scheme in Australia is to add together the number of people who are covered as members of medical benefits funds schemes, the number of people covered by pensioner medical services and the number of people covered by repatriation services, and deduct the total from the total population. But the figure obtained is not accurate because a person can be a member of a medical benefits fund scheme or hospital fund scheme - apparently this will arise to an even greater extent in the next few days - without being a financial member of that scheme. None of the funds will supply figures of their financial membership at any one time, and that is where the great difficulty arises.

But a large number of people in the population have their hospital and medical fund contributions deducted at their place of work. They never really know that they are members of, say, the hospital fund, although in the sense that they do make a contribution which is deducted automatically from their wages they just assume that they are members. They might then transfer from that job to a different job - many of these people are in that group in the population which changes jobs fairly often - and their contributions cease to be deducted from their salaries. They therefore become unfinancial members of the fund. They are still members of the medical benefits fund but, for practical purposes, they are not making contributions towards the medical benefits fund or the hospital contribution fund. When they try to make a claim on the fund they are not successful because they find that they have not been members; they have not been paying their contributions for the last few months.

Mr Bourchier:

– But there are no figures on that, you said.

Dr KLUGMAN:

– I did not calculate figures. I have found that the only way to obtain figures - I did this when in Opposition - is to actually work them out. The funds will provide the figure which represents the amount of money they collected from their contributors. They will also provide the figure which represents the number of contributors, both family contributors and single contributors. From those figures one can work out how many financial contributors they have received over the whole year. Having calculated that, if I remember rightly, one finds that something like one and a half million people in Australia are not financial members of any fund, or entitled to pensioner medical services or repatriation services. I think this is a significant figure because only financial members of funds receive the benefits of belonging to a fund.

I wish to mention 2 other points. The honourable member for Hotham made the point about alleged over-utilisation of hospitals in Queensland because they are free. I think it is important to remember that admission into a hospital is not by demand or request of a patient. Admission into a hospital is on the basis either of a reference from a doctor, or at least a doctor at the hospital admitting that patient because he is considered to be a person suitable for admission. So I think admissions to hospital are doctor generated. If one says that the number of people in Queensland hospitals is excessive compared with the number in hospitals throughout the rest of Australia, it is a doctor-generated excess; it is not a patient-generated excess.

I turn now to the general question of cost. I am not sure what the costing figure will be. I do not know whether the Minister for Social

Security (Mr Hayden) in reply will try to give some final costing figure. I think a lair bit of nonsense is being talked by people who argue that the proposed levy used to be 1.25 per cent; it is now intended to be 1.35 per cent; what will it be next year or the year after that?

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The sky is the limit.

Dr KLUGMAN:

– No. Let us face it, the sky is the limit only if we do not put some sort of curb on the costs of medical services. The sky is not the limit. The actual proportion that is paid out of general revenue and the proportion that is paid out of the 1.25 per cent or 1.35 per cent levy does not matter. It is an arbitrary figure as far as the Government is concerned.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– It is all taxpayers’ money.

Dr KLUGMAN:

– It is all taxpayers’ money. Under the present scheme it is also all taxpayers’ money. The argument that is going on at the present time is as to whether the hospital funds will have to increase their charges in New South Wales, for example. ‘Mr Bourchier- But you can claim the hospital fund payment against income tax at the moment.

Dr KLUGMAN:

– But the same people are paying for it; let us agree on that. The people of Australia who are employed and who are earning money are paying for it in some way or another. At the present time they are paying for it partly out of direct contributions, which are calculated on an equal basis, and partly out of a significant subsidy which is made by the Australian Government. The subsidy is much greater in the case of medical funds than in the case of hospital funds. How one alters that situation is purely a political proposition; what can be sold to the public. I think it is hypocritical to say that somehow or other there is some great benefit in keeping the levy down to 1.35 per cent and increasing the proportion of the cost that will be taken out of general revenue.

Because of the argument that is going on at the present time between the Government and the funds in New South Wales I would like to quote the articles of association of the Medical Benefits Fund. The funds state that they will not talk to the Minister because the Minister insulted the directors who represent the contributors. The number of contributors is large. There are some one million contributors to the 2 funds involved, and the Medical Benefits Fund has stated that it received approximately $60m from its contributors last year. Let us look at how the directors of the Medical Benefits Fund are appointed. The position does not alter much as far as the Hospitals Contribution Fund is concerned. Clause 18 of the articles of association of the Medical Benefits Fund reads:

Contributory members shall not be entitled to attend or vote at any general meetings or to receive notice thereof.

Only medical members have a vote. Clause 7 reads:

Medical members of the Association shall be elected by the Council or by a Committee appointed by the Council with power in that behalf.

Only those medical members who have been appointed by the Council do in turn elect the Council. This is quite a ridiculous situation, because 5 medical members, out of a membership of over one million with dependants of another 2 million-odd, are the only members allowed to vote. Clause 37 states that 5 medical members personally present shall be a quorum of a genera] meeting of that Medical Benefits Fund. I think that is a scandalous position. I happen to know that some significant members of the Country Party are on the Council of the Medical Benefits Fund. However, I do not want to get into the sort of argument that we had recently in relation to the Australian Wool Commission. But the point remains nonetheless that to call those people representative of the contributors is just ridiculous. I ask the Parliament to look at the matter in a sensible way and try to work out some scheme which is of benefit to the vast majority of the population of Australia who are not directly involved in being directors of medical funds or hospital contribution funds.

Mr McVEIGH:
Darling Downs

– The Opposition point of view in this debate has been adequately expressed by the previous speakers who have detailed the reasons why we should not have nationalised medicine and who have promoted the cause for a continuation of freedom of choice in all types of medical and hospital benefits and for the best possible quality of health care in Australia. There is no need for me further to strengthen the points of view advocated by them, but 1 wish to participate in this debate for a few minutes to expose one of the neatest tricks of the year concerning Queensland in which the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) and those who have spoken from the opposite side of the House have deliberately glazed the truth. I wish to tell the national Parliament and the people of Australia of the muddled thinking and incompetent execution of the Labor Party’s plans for nationalised medicine, to show that the proposals are riddled with myths and composed of prejudices and that all we have heard from the speakers from the other side of the House are the hoary old arguments of people who are dedicated to destroying the health system as we know it today.

The Government policies are both disgusting in theory and disastrous in practice. One could expect that any government - notwithstanding the fact that its percentage of the national vote decreased by 0.3 per cent a few short months ago and that a recent gallup poll showed that it is rapidly losing its standing in the community by a loss of 0.7 per cent over the recent period - would still think, when it has the responsibility of occupying the Treasury -bench, that it would be at least honest in government. The Government’s policy has been the imposition of nationalised medicine, offering only higher costs, lower quality care and restricted choice of treatment for the vast majority of the people of the Commonwealth. I think it is appropriate to point out, as did my colleague the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) when quoting 2 independent reports, that the Government’s pricing arrangements have drifted into a financial jungle. I share the view of my colleague the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) who complimented the honourable member for Murray on his very great speech a few minutes ago defending the things that matter. The honourable member for Murray referred to the 2 recent reports by Knight and Shrapnel which indicated that the Government’s pricing proposals were rather vague, outdated and certainly wrong. I think it is also appropriate to reinforce the argument advanced by the honourable member for Murray when he quoted from today’s ‘Melbourne Herald’. The article stated:

Health plan maths ‘a shambles’

The Australian Government’s proposed new health scheme will be ‘a mathematical shambles that in some cases will more than double health care costs,’ the Taxpayers’ Association said. The scheme will represent a costly and. retrograde step, the association says in the latest edition of its magazine, the Taxpayer.

A reliable report put out by E. S. Knight and Co. indicates that, notwithstanding the Government’s costing of the plan in its original year to be $l,012m, the cost this year would be at least SI, 264m. One reason for this is higher hospital costs which have risen because of inflation for which the Opposition cannot be blamed and which is now running at 16.4 per cent per annum - the highest rate in 22 years. Other reasons are increased population, qualitative improvements in services and greater use of services because standard wards would be free to all. A contributing factor is that extra use would result from the scheme being free and universal.

It is rather interesting to note that this independent survey states that to meet the cost of the program the Government would have to provide a subsidy from consolidated revenue 1.9 to 2.2 times the amount raised by the Government by the levy. The Government says in its White Paper that the scheme should not need a subsidy of any amount greater than 1.5 times the amount raised by the levy on individual incomes. The report goes on to say that if the Government wanted to keep the subsidy from general revenue at the 1 to 1.5 ratio the levy on taxable incomes would have to be increased from 1.35 per cent to between 1.57 per cent and 1.75 per cent of taxable income. This is why the Opposition makes the charge that the Government has been dishonest in practice and has set out to be both deceptive and treacherous. The Minister, at all times, has flatly refused to divulge his methods of arriving at his answers. I suppose it is reasonable to advance the proposition that he is frightened to do so because he readily realises that the Opposition would not only torpedo his submissions but also would take the heart out of his argument.

I think it is a fair proposition to advance that it would be a lot better and certainly more accurate to cost a scheme on a 5-yearIy basis rather than on a yearly basis. At least we would have a somewhat better chance on account of the greater spread and less risk of factors exercising any great control of coming up with a more accurate assessment. I think it is fair to submit that any program should be costed on a long-term basis and the community should be made aware that increases in the rate of levy are to be expected and some indication should be given of the order of these increases. One way of achieving this would be to cost the program over a 5-year period and announce graduated rates of levy for each year during that 5-year period, at the same time removing from the consolidated revenue subsidy the restriction of permanent linkage so that it can be used flexibly to meet any fluctuations one way or the other from the projected costs.

I submit that it is not the responsibility of the Australian taxpayer, be he rich or poor, to pick up the bill for irresponsible and wrong government projections. This rightly belongs to the Commonwealth pool of taxation. It is inconceivable to the Opposition that the Government can introduce a Bill at any particular stage increasing the net share of tax that could be applicable to the maintenance of a nationalised medical scheme. Under the proposal of this Government most people will be paying more and will be getting less. Also there is the prospect that the future of our health care will deteriorate. Certainly this proposition is applicable to the people of Queensland where the Government, ably led by a grand Australian in the person of Joh BjelkePetersen, has tailored precisely-

Mr James:

– You have gone too far.

Mr McVEIGH:

– I repeat - in case honourable members did not hear what I said - that Queensland has the number one statesman in Australia who will prove in the next few days just how he can humble those who think they are the greatest. As I was saying, the Queensland Government has tailored precisely and sensitively a scheme which meets the. needs of the whole people of Queensland irrespective of their income.

In passing I think I should point out that under the present proposal 62,743 Queenslanders will not be called upon to pay any contribution on the basis of the levy of 1.35 per cent because their income is below the permissible level. Anyone in Queensland can go to a hospital and have top class medical care absolutely free of charge. I have risen in this debate to expose the treachery of the Labor Government’s action and to let the people of Queensland know that under this proposal every one of them will have to pay more for exactly the same type of service that they have at the present time, with the added restriction of not having the freedom of choice of doctor. It is also pertinent to let everyone know, notwithstanding what the honourable member for Cook (Mr Thorburn) said, that under the Government’s proposal to spend an additional $290m on health care in Australia the amount that will flow through to Queensland will be a mere $30m whereas under any formula which anyone may like to devise Queensland would be entitled at least to $66m.

At present Queenslanders enrolled in the voluntary scheme pay less for any level of cover than do people in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia. Queenslanders pay absolutely nothing for standard ward cover which, incidentally, is the level of cover being offered in the Government’s proposed scheme. I will give to the House an example of the variations in the combined hospital and medical insurance weekly contributions per family as at 31 July 1974 to distinguish between the position in Queensland from that which exists in other States. In Queensland medical and intermediate cover costs $2.08, in New South Wales it costs $2.62, in Victoria it is $3.23, in South Australia $2.55 and in Tasmania $1.90. Medical and private cover costs $2.47 in Queensland, $2.86 in New South Wales, $3.84 in Victoria, $2.85 in South Australia, $2.80 in Western Australia and $2.10 in Tasmania. Queenslanders currently covered for medical and standard ward cover under the voluntary scheme pay $63 per annum. As the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Bourchier) rightly pointed out to the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman), that amount is tax deductible. Under the proposed scheme the 1.35 per cent levy will cost $63 per annum at the taxable income level of $4,700 per annum, that is, roughly $6,200 per annum before allowing for deductions for a wife, 2 children and 10 per cent of income for other deductions. Under the proposed 1.35 per cent levy, Queenslanders earning in excess of $4,700 per annum net will pay more than they are paying now for the same degree of insurance cover. On whom will be thrust the main burden of financing the Commonwealth Government’s plan to nationalise medicine?

I want to tell the House that under this proposal the following people will be forced to pay more for an inferior service: Single taxpayers in all but the lowest income groups, family units where both the husband and wife are taxpayers, residents of that great State of Queensland, persons earning taxable income at the middle level or higher, persons requiring intermediate or private ward hospital accommodation, persons unable to obtain standard ward accommodation in public hospitals, and persons who now choose not to insure or have no need to insure for health fund benefits. It is remarkable to hear the various arguments that have been advanced during the course of this debate wherein some people are eulogising the nationalised health scheme in England, Canada and other places. Only recently I heard a news flash that the nationalised health scheme in England was in danger of crumbling unless $800m of national funds was injected into it. It seems to me to be a serious situation when anyone allows the quality of health care in a country to be directly dependent on the amount of Treasury funds that can be injected into the scheme. This seems to be tampering with the substance. The people are very concerned about matters which are of great personal concern and which are treated as private between doctor and patient. The quality of health care must at all times be allowed to increase with the demand that is being placed on it by adopting new techniques and by maintaining a system of incentive on the part of the people who are engaged in it.

Previous speakers have detailed their opposition to this nationalised health scheme and the proposition that we have expressed which we feel can lead to an improvement in the quality of health care. We maintain that there is no need to restructure the present scheme although it needs updating in certain aspects. It is good to know that there is a chink in the Opposition’s armour on this most vital and important matter. The honourable member for Prospect said that he did not have very strong feelings about the Government’s proposition.

Mr Fisher:

– Gave it away.

Mr McVEIGH:

– As the honourable member for Mallee said, in effect the honourable member gave it away. This is quite hopeful. Here we have a man, one who understands this and who has some practical experience in the medical field, saying that he has not got strong feelings about the proposals that one of the Government’s senior Ministers is advancing and has been trying to force upon the Australian people for the last three or four years. Obviously the honourable member for Prospect realises that the quality of health care in this country will deteriorate to such an extent that we will have a system where the doctor is forced, in effect, to be on the common payroll and where his policies, initiatives and directions will be dictated to him by the person who holds the Treasury bag, and wherein any competition at all between private, charitable and public hospitals will be done away with.

We on the Opposition side maintain that there should at all times be a dual system of hospital care wherein the public system is covered by the governmental purse. But we want to encourage those many dedicated people who are both religious and charitable and also the co-operatives to maintain an interest in expressing their views on life by looking after the people who are unwell, the infirm and those in need of hospital attention. We are totally opposed to this deliberate plan of nationalisation of health care. It will encourage inertia. It will develop inefficiency. It will lead to a situation where our highly qualified medical men and women will not tolerate interference in their work from people who do not know what they are talking about. We are totally opposed to the proposition that health care in this country should be expressed simply in economic terms. It is most unfortunate that the main thrust of this legislation will lead, as surely it must, to driving highly qualified specialists out of the medical profession because they are pegged to a salary and are denied the opportunity to do something for themselves and to improve their own quality of life. They will practise their profession for only a limited number of hours a week. This Government’s plan will not hurt them but it will deny top quality medical care to the countless hundreds of thousands of Australian people - men, women and children - who at the present time in certain areas have access to it. They will be denied this access by this deliberate attempt by this socialist Government to centralise all power in Canberra and to dictate its whim and point of view to all people.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Perhaps one of the most interesting speeches this afternoon was that of the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman), a member of the medical profession, a member of the Australian Labor Party, yet a member of the Parliament who has enough courage to suggest to his lay socialist Minister that he does not foresee happy times ahead with the Australian Labor Party’s health scheme as presently proposed. The issues we discuss today are but complementary Bills to the Bill which this Parliament will be discussing next week during the joint sitting. That was a Bill on which the Opposition was prepared to go to the polls last May and a Bill which the Gallup polls throughout Australia recorded as one that the great majority of Australians opposed. Yet the present Government persists in introducing in Australia a system of health care which is doomed before it starts.

We are presently discussing Bills to implement the financial burden or Hayden’s health tax, as it is presently known throughout the country. Before going any further I should like to read an article from a very reputable English newspaper called the ‘Weekly Times’ of 29 June 1974. Mr Deputy Speaker, even you, can see the headline from here, it is so large. It is: ‘Long Queues - And Some Hospitals Going Broke’. The article deals with the crisis which faces Britain’s health services. I shall read the article for all present. It states:

Britain’s National Health Service - much envied by the world - is in a critical state. In fact, on the verge of collapse.

Our 70,000 overworked doctors admit it only needs something like a major flu epidemic to cause utter chaos.

In some hospitals newly admitted patients have to sit on bare mattresses all day waiting for bed linen. Babies are being born in hospital corridors because of a shortage of bed space in the wards.

And the queue of patients waiting for an NHS bed and treatment grows alarmingly every day.

The article states further:

Already, many hospitals are accepting only emergency cases like accidents, coronaries, haemorrhages and birth deliveries. Non-urgent operations are being put off for months or even years.

This is what the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) is trying to thrust upon us, despite his denials. The article continues under the sub-heading ‘Impossible to budget’. It states:

Why is the NHS so sick?

Bluntly, shortage of money and staff.

The Government lopped off £11 lm from this year’s health service allocation of £3378m. The NHS expected to get an increase of £92m.

Many hospital boards claim it has been impossible to budget on the reduced amount and estimate they will run out of money by the end of September.

A little further on the article continues:

A Northampton hospital has closed 5 wards to try to economise and has had to cancel over 30 operations.

Among the longest-waiting sufferers under the NHS are men with hernias and women with varicose veins.

The Minister’s problem will be covered very shortly-

Others on the list are those for hysterectomies, tonsillectomies, eye conditions and piles.

These poor people are being asked to wait because of the crumbling state of the health system in England. The article continues:

Ear, nose and throat operations in some hospitals have a 2-year waiting list. A Kent child waited 4 years for one.

An arthritic person from East London has been kept waiting 3 years for a hospital admittance. In that time his condition has confined him to a wheel chair. ‘We receive hundreds of letters from people absolutely dejected at the long, long wait for their operations,’ said a spokeswoman for the Patients’ Association. ‘We are continually protesting to the Department of Health about the appalling time lag and the everincreasing waiting list of NHS patients.’

Sent home

Hospitals are trying their best to cope with the ever-increasing NHS queue.

Patients who used to stay up to 10 days following an operation are now being sent home after two to three days.

Need I go on? Yet the Minister, this socialist is prescribing for this nation this system as a formula to rid Australia of its problems in the field of health care. As a Queenslander I protest to the Minister, who regrettably will be the only ALP spokesman from my State to speak in this debate today. It is noticeable that every time we have a health debate in this Parliament the Australian Labor Party members from Queensland remain silent. They hide behind the Minister. They know what is going on is not good. I shall read to the Minister another extract from a recent document. It is a letter from the advertising agents of the Australian Labor Party sent to the Queensland Central Executive. It states: … the State of Queensland is a most parochial State, and it is vital that in Federal campaigns they are fought on parochial issues. This does not mean that some light centralised campaign should not be waged from the South, but I’m sure the National Health issue in 1972 and rural problems, inflation and a number of other issues were positive proof that these matters had to be told at a State level in Queensland language, in the May 1974 campaign.

What is Queensland language, might I ask? The Minister has said that the National Health Bill will mean that Queenslanders ultimately will get an extra S34m a year for health care. Yet if we do calculations on the amount of extra tax to be paid by persons within that State to finance this scheme we find that the extra revenue derived from Queensland taxpayers is equivalent to about $34m. The Minister will give us absolutely nothing; he will simply give us back the extra he will take out of our pockets. No wonder Queenslanders view the present Government with suspicion and a complete lack of trust. I ask the Minister to come clean on this issue, as a fellow Queenslander, a man who was born in a part of my electorate, to tell the people what is in store for them. The Minister parades around the rest of the country saying that the system will be good for the people, but he is excessively quiet when it comes to his home State.

I ask him again to come forward when he gets the opportunity to speak and tell us what is in store. I do not regard myself as a representative of the doctors in this place. They have their barrows to push. But the question I ask is: If the Australian Labor Party were implementing legislation in any other field which caused as much concern within the work force involved in that particular industry, would it go ahead prepared to face the disruption which could be caused? I would say no. The Minister for Labor and Immigration, Mr Clyde Cameron, my namesake here, would quickly talk to the Treasurer (Mr Crean) and the Minister for Overseas Trade (Dr J. F. Cairns) or any other relevant Minister and say: ‘You are not going to do this because obviously there is a great degree of reluctance to accept it on the part of the people involved in this industry’. Yet the vast majority of doctors do not want a bar of the Minister’s stinking system. Nevertheless the Minister is trying to thrust it upon them whether they like it or not.

Mr Enderby:

– The patients do.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The patients? The polls throughout Australia indicate that some 56 per cent at least of patients, if my memory serves me correctly, do not want anything to do with the Government’s health scheme. In conclusion, because I know the Government wants to get this Bill through and the Minister wants an opportunity to speak, I add only a few more remarks to this speech. The health scheme of the previous Government needed some more attention, but it was not so bad that it needed to be completely overturned and destroyed.

When one looks at the actions of the Minister for Social Security in recent months one sees that he is starving out the various nursing homes. He has refused to increase the subsidy so that he can make as many of them as possible financially unviable. This is what the Minister is trying to do here. He knows darned well that in the near future with the rocketing costs which have beset this country since the present Government came to power his scheme will require the injection of millions of dollars more than he ever talks about or predicts. I say to the Minister for Social Security: Just because you will succeed with a joint sitting next week, do not take this as the green light to move this nation along the path of madness and of no return. I ask the Minister to recognise that what we have had in the past has been beneficial. The great majority of Australians have been well served. Only a small percentage of the community required perhaps the genius which the Minister has brought to the Parliament. Only a little more effort was required to involve them without destroying everything which has stood in a proven way - with weaknesses - for years past. I remind the Minister of what is happening in Great Britain today. If, in the next few months, the Minister succeeds with his health scheme what is happening in Britain is likely to be the fate which awaits Australians in the future.

Mr HAYDEN:
Minister for Social Security · Oxley · ALP

– in reply - I noted that the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) said for at least the severalth time in this House today, and said with a tinge of pride I gather, that I once lived in his electorate. I say with an even greater tinge of pride that I now live in an electorate which is better represented. A point which intrigued me was that he quoted, obviously with approval, from some newspaper cutting which stated that Queenslanders are a parochial people. I do not want to enter into a debate on that matter, but if that is so I say that at least those Queenslanders who live in the electorate of Griffith would be well represented. Nothing which has been said by honourable members opposite today will disabuse one’s firm conviction - I say this having listened to them speak so often on this subject - that they display a dinosaurian intellect on this issue as on so many others. Before I deal with some of the specific things that honourable members have mentioned I shall quickly make some general statements.

This scheme does not interfere with one’s freedom of choice of a doctor. One may choose any doctor one wishes. One may sack that doctor whenever one wishes. The existing arrangements between doctor and patient will remain under the scheme we are proposing. It is merely a scheme to raise money more efficiently and to distribute it in the community to cover everyone and to distribute the cost on an equitable basis between the people who contribute. In its own way this is a significant effort to try to contain the rate of increase in the cost of health services by using a more efficient system of collection and distribution. (Quorum formed)

I think this is an appropriate time to nail the misunderstanding which has crept into the mind of a number of Opposition spokesmen. It started with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) on the weekend. He asserted that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) had said within the last week or so that the cost of the Government’s health scheme would, by the turn of the century, exceed 12 per cent of the gross national product.

The Prime Minister has said, the Minister for Health (Dr Everingham) has said on other occasions and I have certainly said on several occasions that if we project current growth rates in health costs into the future we will find that they will be about 12 per cent of gross national product. That is an intolerable burden for an economy to bear. Accordingly, this presents a challenge for us to search around and to discover new and more efficient ways to provide health services while, at the same time, maintaining rights of choice, freedom of quality of care and so on. That is exactly what we are doing. The delivery system will be effected through the Hospitals and Health Services Commission. Our commitments, which have already been announced, are firm and material and they can be concretely seen. There are community health centres, community psychiatric centres, school dental health services, treatment for alcoholism and for drug abuse and, of course, real money to the States for the development and improvement of existing and new public hospital services. That is why it is necessary to search around for new ways.

I put one other general proposition to the Opposition. Clearly it has not understood the principles of this scheme. The scheme does nothing to alter the way in which medical services and hospital services are provided, with an exception in the case of public hospital services where it is proposed that there be sessional services instead of fee for service or honorary service. Every State Minister for Health has endorsed that principle at conferences of Commonwealth and State Ministers for Health. They have endorsed it regardless of their political affiliations. But let us put that matter to one side. It does not interfere at all with the way in which the services are provided. It collects from everyone in the community, with some exceptions such as low income earners - of course there is a ceiling level - according to one’s ability to pay. It covers everyone and, most importantly, it minimises to a great extent the cost of the operation of health insurance. A very high cost is involved in the mere collection, payment of commission rates and advertising. At the present time this sort of duplication is associated in the area of health insurance contributions. I only suggest that if the Opposition genuinely believes that it has the chance of becoming a government again, it is being extremely short-sighted.

This collection system with the agency arrangements which are offered to private health insurance organisations prepared to co-operate in this scheme overcomes to an enormous degree the serious criticisms of the present system of private health insurance. In a dinosaurian way the present system of private health insurance is bogging down in a swamp of public dissatisfaction, inefficiency and unsatisfaction in the community. One wonders why the Opposition is unable to bring forward a complete alternative to the present scheme or, at the very least, a major reshaping of the scheme and the way in which it operates. This has not been done. The spokesmen for the Opposition, the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp), has said in this general area - I think it is not without its gentle paradox: ‘What is the costing of the Government’s scheme of private health insurance?’ He has neglected completely that he and honourable members opposite, hoping to form a government, were totally incapable of providing a costing of their scheme at the last election. They waffled and suggested that it was not possible to cost it. I would agree that it is not possible to cost the rather vapid propositions put forward by the Opposition which change from day to day. I remind honourable members opposite of the rigorous disciplines-

Mr Peacock:

– You have changed -

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

Order! I ask the honourable member for Kooyong to remain silent.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I remind honourable members opposite of the rigorous disciplines we were subjected to when in Opposition in presenting the costing of our various proposals. We were always challenged with the query: How much will it cost and where is the money coming from? I suggest to honourable members that they can examine my record, which is freely available in the library record section, when I was in Opposition. It will show how everything I brought forward was costed and re-costed regularly. In relation to the costing of the proposed Government scheme I remind honourable members that there is a costing in the White Paper on health insurance. But, of course, costs have moved appreciably since the time that costing was made.

Mr Peacock:

– Give us a cost.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! I ask the honourable member for Kooyong to remain silent. He knows that interjections are disorderly. If he continues I will name him.

Mr HAYDEN:

– He is unworthy of naming. The only decent thing the honourable member for Kooyong ever did for me was to give me one of his winners after the race was over. The point I was making about our costing, before I was rudely and uncharacteristically interrupted by an interjection from the honourable member for Kooyong, was that we have costed our scheme since the date on which that costing took place. Costs overall of health services covered by health insurance have moved forward quite appreciably. If we were to cost the proposed scheme today, by the time the costing was completed I expect that the figures would have moved forward appreciably. An important point to note is that costs also move forward for the present scheme of private health insurance to which the Government and previous governments have been heavily committed. That is something of which honourable members opposite have lost sight. Another important factor which is lost sight of - it was pointed out in the White Paper - is that on a comparable basis the total cost of our scheme which covers everyone in the community is no more than the cost of the present scheme, but the present scheme fails to cover more than 13 per cent of the community. It fails to cover more than Mm people at any given time. They are facts. Before we are challenged so crudely and irresponsibly again on the costing of the proposed scheme I ask members of the Opposition to do 2 things. I ask them, to read the White Paper to see the principles enunciated and I ask them to come forward with some firm principles on their own scheme.

The question has been raised: Will the levy remain at 1.35 per cent of taxable income? Over what period do honourable members opposite want that levy to remain - for ever, for 5 years or 10 years? Obviously if we examine the record of the private health insurance funds we find that the contribution rate has increased as time has gone by. But there is inequity - the higher one’s income, the less one pays after one claims a tax deduction. The more one has need for subsidisation from public support programs the less one gets under the taxation scheme, as it presently operates. Costs have increased appreciably. We find because of the deficiencies in the present scheme of hospital insurance that in New South Wales alone insurance funds are unilaterally proposing a 40 per cent increase. It will be a challenge that members of the Opposition as well as members of the Government will have to face in this Parliament tonight. We will find out tonight or tomorrow just who is committed to the public interest and who has sold their soul to the private health insurance organisations.

The honourable member for Hotham suggested, as did other honourable members, that the contribution would represent higher taxes but this, of course, is nonsense. People now pay contributions to private health insurance. That is a tax. It is nonsense to talk about it as a voluntary tax. If a person wants to cover himself for health insurance purposes he has no choice. There is no real competition between these organisations. Accordingly, that is a tax. But what is important is that although there will be a levy under the Government’s proposed scheme - there is a levy under the present set up - one will pay according to one’s ability to pay. It was suggested that the report of E. S. Knight and Co. was a document that should have overwhelmed us. Honourable members will recall that this was a report from a commercial firm of actuaries on the costing of the health insurance scheme into the future. I think all honourable members ought to remember that in that report there were 2 pages of reservations by those actuaries as to their assumptions. What the report boiled down to saying was: ‘If our assumptions are correct and if our conclusions are correct, this is our costing’. The work that the Government has carried out shows that their assumptions are not correct in all cases. It shows that they have moved into fields in which they have no expertise at all. It is quite clear that they made serious errors. The Government would have liked that firm to have also carried out a comparable costing of the present system of health insurance, projected into the future.

An honourable member on the other side of the House, I thought with some gall, suggested that the Government should be putting down costings projected 5 years forward. When we were in Opposition the best costing we could ever get of the present system of health insurance was 12 months out of date. It was impossible to get current figures. A succession of Ministers refused to provide the figures, always arguing that it was not possible to make that sort of costing. They were not strictly candid when they made those comments. I remind members of the Opposition of the inconsistency of their approach between Opposition and Government. I repeat for the record that it would have been better for E. S. Knight and Co. to have made a comparable costing of the present system of health insurance.

There has ‘been some rather ill-informed talk about nationalised medicine. Comparisons have been made between the Government’s proposed health scheme and the British national health scheme. The schemes are quite different. Our scheme is based on fee for service and private practice. The British scheme, as should be well known, is based on a system of payment to doctors according to the number of patients they have registered on their list or on their panel. There are enormous differences in the 2 schemes. If members of the Opposition are concerned about delays being experienced by patients seeking elective surgery procedures in Great Britain, I remind them that they do not have to go outside this country to come across an appalling mess in hospitals. In Sydney and Melbourne delays of 12 to 18 months are not uncommon for some surgical procedures. In the western suburbs of Sydney the delays in elective surgery can be as much as 12 months and longer. That is happening right here in Australia with a system that is supposed to be loaded with virtues. The problems are quite serious here.

Other honourable members opposite criticised the Queensland free hospital system which was brought in by a Labor government and which has been preserved toy a succession of Liberal-Country Party governments. There was conflict here between members of the Opposition. The honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) was upholding it and the honourable member for Hotham, speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party, launched what can only be called a rather vigorous attack against the medical profession in Queensland and the Liberal-Country Party State Government. He suggested that there was excess utilisation of the public hospital system in Queensland. People do not go into hospital to have an amputation, an organ removed, to have medical procedures or whatever their needs are, as a result of some whim that afflicted them as they walked along the street passing the hospital. They go into hospital for medical or surgical procedures on a reference by a medical practitioner. This is the way this rather vigorous and I suggest rather ill-informed attack was made on the medical profession in Queensland.

May I add that the system in Queensland, lauded rather colourfully by the honourable member for Griffith, has some similarities with what we are proposing to achieve in other States, namely, sessional’ payments for the treatment of patients in the public wards of public hospitals. (Quorum formed). May I point out that the situation in Queensland, in terms of the standard of equipment which is available, the working conditions which are provided and the imposition which is placed on professional and semi-professional staff and other staff of the public hospital system, is quite grim. There is a need for much more money in the Queensland public hospital system. The Queensland public hospital system has expended on it only about 60 per cent per bed day in terms of the operating costs of what is expended in this respect as an Australian average. The Queensland government quite clearly is not in a position to close that gap. Our contribution of well over an additional $30m to the Queensland government will allow not only that gap to be closed but also will improve hospital standards out of sight and provide improved hospital facilities and improved conditions for hospital staff. Our action will bring about more harmony in Queensland’s hospitals. The Queensland public hospital system is sorely afflicted with what can only be termed industrial unrest that permeates all levels of the staffing, from the professionals through to all other sectors of the service.

The additional payment will allow Queensland to gain great improvements in standards. More importantly, there will be an effective redistribution to Queensland of funds from the rest of Australia. I invite honourable members to do the sums. If they look at the total taxable income in Queensland as a percentage of total taxable income overall and then consider the percentage of the total sum going to hospitals that goes to Queensland, they will find that there will be this effective redistribution in Queensland’s favour. I am surprised when people like the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) launch an onslaught against the opportunity afforded Queensland to improve its hospital standards. The opposition of the Opposition is, as usual, ill-informed, short-sighted and certainly not in the best interests of the public.

Mr DONALD CAMERON (Griffith)- I wish to make a personal explanation.

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

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Yes. I have been misrepresented in a most severe fashion. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) claimed that I am speaking against Queensland’s interests. If he makes an examination of the total amount of tax paid by Queenslanders and takes 1.35 per cent of that amount, he will find that the figure he arrives at is about the same as Queensland is now to be given. Therefore you are not giving us a thing

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member will resume his place.

Question - put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

AYES: 62

NOES: 56

Majority … 6

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

AYES

NOES

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Motion (by Mr Hayden) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr CHIPP:
Hotham

– I will detain the House for but 60 seconds. I have a very strong view that we should be against wasting the time of members of the House. Therefore the Opposition will not be dividing the House on the third reading or on the associated Bills. That kind of reluctance not to divide is not to be interpreted as a lack of opposition to the Bills. I believe it is rather infantile to call the 127 members into this House time and again to divide. However, I do not want members of the Press Gallery to write, as one did the last time I did not call for a division, that the Opposition failed because we allowed the matter to be resolved without a vote.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 877

HEALTH INSURANCE LEVY ASSESSMENT BILL 1974

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 10 July (vide page 80), on motion by Mr Crean:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 877

HEALTH INSURANCE LEVY BILL 1974

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 10 July (vide page 80), on motion by Mr Crean:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to toe moved forthwith.

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

page 877

INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 10 July (vide page 80), on motion by Mr Crean:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 878

EVIDENCE BILL 1974

Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr ENDERBY:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · Canberra · ALP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Evidence Act 1905-1973 to apply relevant provisions of that Act to a joint sitting of the 2 Houses of Parliament. The sections of the Act which the Bill seeks to amend are sections 4 and 7. Section 4 requires all courts to take judicial notice of the signature of a number of office-holders, including the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Section 7 enables copies printed by the Government Printer of the Votes and Proceedings or Journals or Minutes of either House of the Parliament, or of papers presented to either House, to be admitted as evidence in the courts. The amendments contained in the Bill seek to relate the provisions of these sections to a joint sittings of the 2 Houses. Clause 4 of the Bill provides for judicial notice to be taken of the official signature of the member presiding at a joint sitting. Clause 5 of the Bill provides for copies printed by the Government Printer of the formal records of the proceedings of a joint sitting, or of papers presented to a joint sitting, to be admitted in court in evidence.

The Bill does not propose any changes in the principles embodied in the Act. Its purpose, as I have said, is to provide in relation to a joint sitting, in the same manner as the Act now deals with the signatures of the presiding officers and the proceedings of the separate Houses of the Parliament. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Ellicott) adjourned.

page 878

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS BILL 1974

Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr ENDERBY:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · Canberra · ALP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Parliamentary Papers Act to make appropriate provisions in relation to a joint sitting of the 2 Houses of Parliament. The Parliamentary Papers Act protects the publisher of Hansard against actions for defamation or other legal proceedings. The same protection is conferred on a person who publishes a document tabled in either House or evidence given before a Committee of either House or of both Houses where the House or the Committee has authorised the printing of the document or evidence. It is desirable that the same protection should be afforded a person who publishes a document, including the Hansard report of proceedings, the publication of which is authorised by a joint sitting of the 2 Houses. The Bill proceeds on the basis that for this purpose a joint sitting of the 2 Houses should be regarded on the same footing as either House sitting separately.

Section 2 of the Parliamentary Papers Act provides that is is lawful for either House of the Parliament to authorise the publication of a document laid before it. Section 3 of the Act provides that a House of the Parliament or a Committee is deemed to have authorised the Government Printer to publish a document or evidence if the House or the Committee, as the case may be, has ordered the document or evidence to be printed. The section also provides that each House of the Parliament is deemed to have authorised the Government Printer to publish the reports of the debates and proceedings in that House. The purpose of clause 5 of the Bill is to make like provisions in respect of a joint sitting of the 2 Houses.

Section 4 of the Act gives immunity from legal proceedings to a person who publishes a document or evidence where authority has been given by the Senate, the House of Representatives or of Committee, as the case may be, to publish that document or evidence. Doubts have been expressed whether the protection given by section 4 extends to the case where the authority to publish the document or evidence is derived, not from a resolution of either House or of a Committee, but from the operation of section 3 of the Act, which deems authority to have been given in certain cases. To put the matter beyond doubt, it has been thought desirable to include a provision in this Bill to amend section 4 to make it clear that the protection is afforded to a person who publishes a document or evidence the publication of which is deemed to have been authorised by either House, by a joint sitting or by a Committee. This amendment is contained in clause 6 of the Bill.

The Bill introduces no new principles. It is, as I have said, intended to put publication of the proceedings of a joint sitting or of documents laid before a joint sitting on exactly the same footing as the publication of proceedings of either House or of a document laid before either House. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Ellicott) adjourned.

page 879

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS BROADCASTING BILL 1974

Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr MORRISON:
Minister for Science · St George · ALP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this legislation is to amend the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Act 1946-1973 in several major respects* Firstly, it is intended to extend the provisions of the present Act to open up the possibility that the proceedings of a joint sitting of the Parliament convened in pursuance of section 57 of the Constitution may be broadcast. The form of the present Act does not allow for this eventuality. As a consequence of this proposal, it is also intended that the Bill should extend the jurisdiction of the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings to allow the Committee to make determinations governing the arrangements for the broadcasting of the joint sitting proceedings. Further provisions have also been made to extend to the broadcasts of these proceedings the usual protection afforded to parliamentary broadcasts by the existing Act.

The second important feature of the Bill relates to the use in the present Act of the term ‘re-broadcasting’. Honourable members know that it has been the practice of the Parliament that a sound recording is made of question time in either the House of Representatives or the Senate, and this recording is broadcast later that day. The fact that such proceedings are not broadcast ‘direct to air’ at the time of the original recording has given rise to some doubts about the interpretation of the existing Act. This Bill is intended to clarify the situation so that a reference to rebroadcasting of proceedings shall be read as a reference to broadcasting from a sound recording of proceedings.

The third main feature of the Bill is that it provides that, in relation to any joint sitting, proceedings may be telecast direct to air or recorded in a visual form for telecasting at a later time. The Government is of the opinion that an event of this nature would be of immense public interest and that it is important that as complete a record as possible should be preserved for the nation’s archives.

The provisions for the televising of proceedings, as proposed in this Bill, run parallel in most instances with those laid down for broadcasting, including those amended by this Bill. I say ‘in most instances’ here because there are exceptions: Firstly, the provisions for television apply only to the proceedings of a joint sitting - they do not apply to proceedings of the separate Houses. Secondly, it is not proposed that it should be specified within the legislation which of the national television stations should be required to be used by the Australian Broadcasting Commission in televising any joint sitting proceedings. This legislation allows the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings to determine the arrangements for the televising of proceedings, including the station which shall transmit the television coverage.

I should point out that the Committee’s powers of determination of the dates and times of broadcasting and televising of joint sitting proceedings are a little different from those laid down for proceedings of the separate Houses. In considering the proposed amendments the Government was faced with the dilemma that if it followed the procedures laid down for the proceedings of the separate Houses it would not be possible for the commencement of the joint sitting proceedings to be broadcast or televised until such time as the joint sitting had adopted the general principles for such broadcasting or televising. In the circumstances, the Government determined that the simplest and best procedure to be followed was to allow the Joint Parliamentary Committee to determine the arrangements for broadcasting and televising joint sittings. This will avoid unnecessary elaborate and time-consuming procedures and will permit the compiling of a complete record of the proceedings from the very beginning of a joint sitting. I commend the Bill to the House:

Debate (on motion by Mr Malcolm Fraser) adjourned.

page 880

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Social Services Bill (No. 2) 1974.

Repatriation Bill (No. 2) 1974.

Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Bill (No. 2) 1974.

page 880

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 25 July (vide page 652), on motion by Mr Clyde Cameron:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Wannon

– This Bill relates to the amalgamation of trade unions and is designed quite clearly to make amalgamations much easier than they are at the moment. This measure is in conformity with the Government’s policy in this respect. In moving in this direction, as it has attempted to do in the past, the Government is ignoring the rights and responsibilities it ought to have in mind of the individual members of the trade union movement. Anyone examining this Bill will not be helped very greatly by the second reading speech of the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron). I know that he made some remarks about this matter last year during part of his comments on a more complex Bill that was not accepted by the Parliament, but in his speech on this occasion we have been helped even less than normal because in two important respects the Minister did not conform in his speech with the Bill that he brought into this House. I think that at the very least we are entitled to expect accuracy from the Minister in the making of a second reading speech. I also think that at the very least the Minister should have made sure, if he was determined to speak off the cuff, as he did on that occasion, that he was doing so in a proper fashion and not in a way that would mislead - I am quite certain that it was done inadvertently - the House on the substance of the Bill.

This legislation is important because it relates to the rights of individual rank and file members of the trade union movement and to the responsibility that the Government ought to accept to ensure that the proper rules for registration under the provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act are designed to maintain and enhance those rights and not to belittle them. The general plan that the Minister haslaid down involves committees of management of the unions - the deregistering union and the amalgamating union - making decisions and recommendations to their members. The general plans of the committees of management would need to go to the Industrial Registrar and, after procedures which in themselves are perhaps reasonable are followed, a vote could then be taken of the members, although there are exceptions to that, as the Minister has pointed out. But under the provisions that the Minister has introduced there could be elections under the rules of an organisation or, if the committee of management requests, or if 250 people or one-twentieth of the membership of the union, whichever is the lesser, request a ballot controlled by the Commonwealth Electoral Office - a ballot conducted by the Registrar - that ballot could take place. But the general rule that the Minister has put down is that ballots will be conducted under the rules of an organisation unless some specific move is taken to achieve an official ballot.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– But an officially conducted ballot always observes the rules of the union except where it is impossible to carry it out and comply with the Act.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– Responding to the Minister, under the legislation as it now stands there must be a compulsory secret ballot and a postal ballot that is conducted by the Commonwealth Electoral Office. That is provided for in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act as it now stands. The Minister is making it quite plain that if the proposed amendments were adopted an official ballot would be conducted in that instance, as he has said, in accordance with the rules of the organisation concerned.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– But all officially conducted ballots are carried out in accordance with the rules of the union concerned.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– Not all, because the rules in relation to amalgamations as provided for in the Act, at present as opposed to the Bill, require that there be secret postal ballots. That is not necessarily in conformity with the rules of an organisation because while some unions very rightly and very properly have secret postal ballots for the election of officials and on other matters, there are other unions which do not.

Mr Riordan:

– Which are they? Which unions do not have secret postal votes for the election of officials?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– Secret postal ballots?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Which unions do not have secret postal ballots?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– Wait a minute. I have been advised that a member of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union, for example, who wants a secret ballot has to apply for it. There is no automaticity about it. One has to apply for such a ballot.

Mr Riordan:

– Not for a secret ballot.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– For a secret ballot. If that is not so - if one does not apply for a secret ballot - one votes in the evening on a star night and a ballot is then conducted in a room. That is not a secret ballot. Some Government supporters seem quite deliberately determined to try to demonstrate that under the present provisions all unions conduct secret postal ballots. They ought to know very well that that is not so. The Minister knows quite well that that is not so. The Minister has in his Bill a provision which says that in relation to amalgamations ballots will be conducted - even official ballots - in accordance with the rules of the union, the organisation, and that is quite different to the provision in the present Act, which says that there shall be a secret postal ballot. I do not know why the Minister and the Government are always frightened of secret postal ballots in union affairs. If the Minister were really sincere in wanting the rank and file membership of the union to have their rights protected, he would agree that this is the best possible way of doing that and that it is the best possible way of seeing to it that every member of an organisation can, without fear and without favour, have a view on a particular question and put that view in such a manner that it will count.

So that is a significant difference between the Bill which the Minister seeks to bring into the House and the Act that is before us. It is worth noting that the Minister himself said that the Act would require that every member of an organisation affected by an amalgamation be supplied with a ballot paper and be given the right to vote. With the introduction of this Bill, that will be so only in the circumstances in which the union, the organisation, has a rule that requires that to occur, because if that is not the way in which an organisation conducts its business, that situation will not occur. That is not a plain requirement in the Bill or, if it is passed, in the Act. So under the Minister’s proposals there can be no guarantee that every number of an organisation will get an appropriate right to vote without fear or favour. That is a significant objection to the Minister’s proposals. ‘But there is another objection. Under the provisions of the Act, as they now are, half the members of an organisation need to vote and half plus one of those who vote need to record a vote in favour of the amalgamation for it to be carried out. Under the proposals the Minister has brought down, if 5, 7 or 11 members of an organisation with a membership that might be quite small-

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– A membership of 30,000.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I suppose technically it is possible for it to be 30,000 to 40,000. If the majority of those few members who vote cast a vote in favour of the amalgamation it goes through under the provisions introduced by the Minister. Again that provision runs in the face of the rights and responsibilities of the rank and file members of the union. One of the odd things about the Minister is that when he wants to attack union officials and appeal over their heads to the shop stewards and to the rank and file membership, he is doing everything he can, in his words, to uphold the rights of the rank and file membership. Now he has an opportunity to do so but instead he brings in a measure which would deny the membership those rights and deny the position of the rank and file members in organisations. So the Minister is introducing a measure which would further erode the position of rank and file members.

There are other grounds for objection, and these other grounds strike in the same direction, namely, the removal of rights from members of unions. Under the present Act a member can object to an amalgamation on a number of grounds. The measure brought into the House by the Minister reduced quite significantly the grounds for objection. To give but one example, one of the grounds for objection is restricted to the rules that strike at the eligibility of members of the organisation. There can be other rules of a union, an organisation, that certainly affect the rights of individual members of an organisation, and those rules in the case of an amalgamation can be changed in such a way as would affect those rights. A member ought to be able to raise an objection in relation to this aspect. These things can be done under cover of an amalgamation arrangement, and at the same time the rights of individual members of a union, an organisation, are further reduced because in relation to those unions which have a collegiate system of election, where there is not direct election by the rank and file, the Minister is inserting a provision which states that for 3 years after amalgamation the rank and file members will not get a vote. If the Minister were really concerned about the position of the rank and file, again I do not really know why that particular provision is introduced into the Bill.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– But that transitional provision is in the present Act and you agreed to it last year.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– We agreed to a proposal, and if this is the only proposal and the only objection, it is an objection that would probably be allowed to go through. But there are other more major grounds for objection, as the Minister well knows. If the Minister is concerned, as he claims, for the rank and file membership of the union movement, especially after an amalgamation - that is the point I am putting - he would want to give them as soon as possible the opportunity to vote for those who control that union, run that union and determine its policy. That day is being put off for 3 years. I think that in the case of an amalgamation there is all the more reason to see that they have a vote as quickly as possible.

Now under pressure from some unions which no doubt wanted this circumstance, the Minister has agreed that the rank and file will not get a vote in relation to those positions in less than 3 years. Be that as it may, taking a total attitude to the propositions put by the Minister, it is not a question of selecting some clauses and rejecting others because many of the clauses in any case are the same as they are in the Act. The easiest way to indicate our attitude to the total Bill is to vote against it at the second reading stage for the reasons which I have indicated. There are a number of areas in which, although the Minister said that every member will get a vote, they will not and need not get a vote. Even after an amalgamation they would not get a vote in relation to office bearers of a union for up to 3 years.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– But they get the right to vote.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– They get the right to vote if they want to go against something that has happened. It is not an automatic right that comes their way. Getting back to the point again, if the Minister wishes to do so, not every union has in its rules a necessity for secret postal ballots.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The Act says that the rules of every union must provide for an absent vote.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I know that there are provisions for an absent vote, but I have also checked and noted that in many cases nobody ever applies. The Minister has made the point - I think that the honourable member who is to follow me in the debate might try to confuse the point - that if a member is not prepared to go along to the star night in Newcastle and vote toy putting his ballot paper into an upturned hat he can, if he so wishes, ask for an absent vote and then vote secretly. I have been informed that in those elections in that particular branch of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union, for example, nobody applies. In those circumstances, how valid is the claim to industrial democracy?

The Minister used to claim that demarcation disputes were a major reason for industrial unrest in Australia, a major cause of inter-union disputes, therefore creating a major requirement for amalgamations to prevent those disputes from arising. Demarcation disputes occurred within a union sometimes as much as between unions. But the Minister has changed his ground. He is now saying that most disputes between unions are demarcation disputes and that therefore we need to have legislation of this kind. But the latest statistics for the March quarter indicate that about 70 per cent or more of time lost has been lost over disputes concerned with wages and not over demarcation issues. The statistics from the Commonwealth Statistician in relation to the same matter indicate that .5 per cent of days lost in the March quarter were lost over unionism issues, which include demarcation disputes but not exclusively so. So .5 per cent of total time lost, days lost, does not really appear to represent a major reason for introducing legislation that could do a great deal to run over most of the smaller unions in this country. That is not an argument about efficiency. It is an argument about rights and whether or not people ought to be allowed to do certain things.

Much of the argument and discussion about amalgamation is centred around the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union. In the March quarter of this year the AMWU and one or two other unions were involved in the greatest industrial unrest that this country had seen since 1929. Two million man days were lost and $37m was lost in wages largely as a result of activities in one industry. That is not a great example of industrial peace. It is not a great example of the results of amalgamation. That amalgamated union had held up to be a great example of how there would be greater responsibility and more industrial peace. The reverse has happened. There is no indication that there will be greater responsibility and more industrial peace. If one reads anything that John Halfpenny says - and he always prides himself on doing what he says - it will be plain that he is going to see that the fires of industrial unrest continue to burn within Australia. I believe that if members of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union now had a free, secret postal ballot to find out whether they wanted to stay in that amalgamated union under the control of Mr Halfpenny they would vote themselves out and go back to their old situation pretty quickly. This kind of activity is certainly not in the interests of members of a union. The public surely can see that it is not in its interest.

Under the Bill the large unions, such as the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union, could well dominate the smaller unions. The Minister has floating around somewhere a proposal that would indicate that any unions with a membership of under 2,000, with very strict exceptions, could not have the privilege of registration under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. That is going back to the days of the Tolpuddle Martyrs. It is not a question of efficiency. If a reasonable number of men want to band together they have a right to registration and the protection of the Act. This Minister or any other

Minister has no right to legislate those men out of business as the Minister in a recent Press statement said he would do. We will have to wait until we see the legislation. More than 100,000 trade unionists and more than 200 unions would be legislated out of business if the Minister had his way in this respect.

This Bill has its thrust in the same direction to establish the circumstances in which a committte of management of a large dominating union, such as the AMWU, can dominate smaller unions and can run ever them irrespective of what their members really want. Again we get back to the rights of individual members about which I thought the Minister would show more concern. One of the other things about this question is that 33 unions already represent 70 per cent of the membership of trade unions in Australia. The amalgamations that have occurred generally have been between large unions and not between large and smaller unions. If smaller unions voluntarily wish to come together no doubt they could provide better service to some of their members. But there is quite a different thing in having an amalgamation between small unions and having 70 per cent of the membership now in 33 unions banded together in 30, 20, 16 or 10 unions. The Minister, in saying that 300 unions is much too many, is putting a gloss on the total situation which is rubbed away when there are 33 unions and not 300 unions representing 70 per cent of the membership.

I am puzzled by the last third of the Minister’s second reading speach. He was talking about provisions which would give exemption to a large union making it unnecessary for that union to have a vote if the smaller de-registered union has - I ask the Minister-

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Less than 5 per cent.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– Less than 5 per cent of the membership. The Minister in has second reading speech says that in the circumstances of one large union and one small union with less than 5 per cent of the membership the Registrar will have to determine the question. The Minister then goes on to give an example of the Shipwrights Union and the AMWU clearly implying that they are not dissimilar unions and therefore there would not be any exemption in that case.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– No - that there would be an exemption.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I thank the Minister for his correction. The Minister then goes on to give an example of the Nurses Federation. The Minister, with great perspicacity, is able to point out that there is a difference between the activity of nurses and metal workers. The Minister then says that the Registrar would probably conclude that in these circumstances, because they do different things, they ought not to amalgamate unless a vote were taken of all union members.

We have established the facts of what the Minister said. The next matter to which I wish to refer is one that I have checked with more than one lawyer. I hope that I have not been ill-advised. It is one of the few circumstances in which every lawyer with whom I have checked has given me identical advice. I think perhaps the Minister should have done the same thing.

Mr James:

– Have you paid the fee?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– It was all for free.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Advice is only worth what you pay for it.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– Well, the Minister’s advice is for free. He does not pay his advisers. Is the Minister saying - with respect to the House - that the advice is no damned good?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I am not saying that.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-I think that in a moment the Minister might. As I said, we have established the facts of what the Minister was saying in his second reading speech. It is important to note that clause 158L. (8), with regard to the circumstances I have mentioned concerning a big union and a very small union, states: the Industrial Registrar shall, upon application by the first-mentioned organisation, exempt that organisation from the requirements. . .

But there is no discretion for the Registrar at all. The Minister’s speech is wrong. If the clause had said: ‘The Industrial Registrar may’ the Registrar would have had a wide discretion in almost any circumstances at all. In the last third of his speech the Minister was praising section 158K. (8.) sub-section (a) and (b) of the Act, but he is now deleting this section. The section reads: the Industrial Registrar shall grant the exemption-

That is, exemption from the ballot- unless he considers that there are special circumstances

Nurses amalgamating with metal workers may be a special circumstance- by reason of which the exemption should be refused;

The discretion is in the Act. If the Minister had wished to keep that discretion in the Bill we would have been delighted. The thing about the Minister’s second reading speech which intrigues me is that the last third of it is spent in praising a section of the Act which his amendment seeks to delete. It is strange for a person who knows more about the Conciliation and Arbitration Act than anyone who has walked through this Parliament in the past SO years to make that error. I am prepared to concede it was probably an inadvertent action. Maybe the clause should read: ‘The Industrial Registrar may upon application’. I think that if the clause is to be altered perhaps the words ‘special circumstances’ should be added so that the discretion is not completely wide and undiluted. The words of the Act, perhaps with some drafting, if the Minister wanted to insert this sort of thing in the Senate-

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The word ‘may’ is what we want.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– Yes. The point is made and the Minister has admitted that his second reading speech was referring to our Act. I thank him for the compliment. I suggest that in future he pay for advice.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– We did we are paying them $27,000 a year.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– The Minister is not paying them personally. He is one of the fat-cats who does not pay them. He is a fatter cat than most. I thank the Minister for so readily conceding to the Opposition a point in relation to this matter.

There are other minor things in the Bill to which we object. One of them is the discretion that the Registrar has to fix the date for the amalgamation. Under this Bill he can fix it even though there could be proceedings against the organisation for one reason or another, and I think the existing provisions of the Act would be better than that.

The Minister may say that company takeovers are made easy and that we are taking a tougher attitude in relation to union matters than we are to company takeovers. I think, especially in the present circumstances, that is an unreal situation. There is now very tough restrictive trade practices legislation in this country and it does apply to trade unions. If the Minister wants to draw an analogy with company legislation he might find that other people are saying that the provisions of the restrictive trade practices legislation ought not to apply to trade unions. I am doubtful whether you can treat accumulations of capital and accumulations of people with one and the same law. I do not think it makes sense. If that is so it does not make sense to draw an analogy between company legislation and legislation in relation to conciliation and arbitration. But in any case, if one company wishes to take over another it is my understanding that the company has to attract to its offer 90 per cent of the value of the company it wishes to take over, and that of course is much tougher than the provisions we had in our legislation which required that 50 per cent of the members should vote and that there should be a majority vote in favour of the amalgamation.

The Minister might also say that we have in our policy a statement supporting industry based unions. There is all the difference in the world, as the Minister would know, between the amalgamation of craft unions, which spread their tentacles into many industries, and the establishment of a system of industry based unions. The latter could be possible only if the trade union movement itself wished to achieve it, if the Australian Council of Trade Unions wished to apply its policy and the Labor Party tried to apply its policy because they all have a similar policy. In theory it makes sense but nothing in this legislation would advance that cause at all. So we oppose the legislation principally because it runs contrary to the interests of rank and file members in the trade union movement. It would do much to jeopardise the interests and prerogatives of people in smaller unions and even if in bigger unions they could be more efficient, if they wished to remain in those smaller unions they have a right to do so and that right should not be tramped upon by some proposed law introduced into this Parliament. The provisions in this Bill are against the public interest and they would lead to very considerable abuse. I therefore, on behalf of the Opposition, indicate that we will be opposing the second reading of the Bill.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I was rather surprised at the final remarks of the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser) when he spoke about the

Opposition in the Senate opposing this measure. I have advice - I believe it to be good advice-

Mr Hewson:

– Free?

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Yes, free. I have advice that a certain gentleman, Mr George Polites, is not terribly happy about the Opposition opposing this legislation.

Mr Riordan:

– He is not alone; there are plenty like him.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– 1 imagine there would be people like Mr Polites who have a vested interest in maintaining some industrial peace in this country, unlike those who sit opposite us in this place, who seem to have a vested interest in ensuring that there is industrial unrest.

Mr Riordan:

– It is very cynical of them.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– They speak for those who have a vested interest in unrest. The honourable member for Wannon kept telling us about star nights at meetings of the Australian Metal Workers Union. I suppose he was there; he must have been because he seemed to know a good deal about them. But his .information was wrong. I would be delighted if the honourable gentleman would show us his union ticket and let us know which trade union he belongs to or has belonged to and with which one he is currently financial.

Mr Riordan:

– He is confused with the Liberal Party star chamber.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– As the honourable member for Phillip reminds me, he is confused. At least in trade unions ballots are held and the opinions of members sought. When there is an open vote members hands go up, the hands are counted and it is announced to the meeting how many voted one way and how many voted the other way. My advice about certain meetings held in this place in a room that we occupied for 23 years is that when hands go up they are certainly counted but the tellers whisper the result to the chairman who announces whether the question is carried or not. Nobody ever bothers to find out how many voted one way or the other. What an incredible operation. Honourable members opposite come into this place after such a great display of democracy by their Party and start talking to us about democracy in the trade unions. (Quorum formed.)

Sitting suspended from 6.13 to 8 p.m.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

- Mr Speaker(Quorum formed). We have just had the usual inane action by the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland). It is interesting to note that even after he drew your attention to the state of the House 2 Liberals and 3 Country Party members walked into the House, which makes a complement of 3 Country Party members and 5 Liberals in the chamber at this moment. We are discussing the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill which provides for an amendment to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to permit more efficient and easier amalgamation of trade unions.

Before the suspension of the sitting the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser) treated us to a great dissertation on the thing that he holds dearest to his heart, that is, democracy. He started to tell us about all the undemocratic things that this Bill tries to do, versus the very democratic things in the Act which was brought in the year before last by the Government of which he was a member. He went on and made a pretty broad statement. He said, when speaking of the need for ballots to be conducted by the Industrial Registrar, that some unions do not have ballots to elect their officials. He even suggested - if he did not say so, and I believe he said it - that some unions elect their officials without holding a ballot. He was asked by the honourable member for Phillip (Mr Riordan) and me, across the table - quite out of order, of course - to name those unions. He did not do so. The reason is obvious. He does not know of them because there are none. He seems to have some sort of penchant about talking on the question of secret postal ballots. More than once he mentioned the need for secret postal ballots.

Mr Morris:

– Tell us about Coogee.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I shall tell honourable members about Coogee and about a recent trade union election in New South Wales in which the Miscellaneous Workers Union was involved. A matter occurred there which gave rise to a court hearing and the court found in favour of the union. It is a pretty serious business. I shall tell the honourable member for Wannon about that situation. When the ballot papers were sent out by post people arrived at the door of union members when the ballot papers were delivered by postmen and told the unionist: ‘There has been some sort of a mix-up in this. In fact there is not a postal ballot on at all. The whole thing has been cancelled and I have been asked to collect your ballot paper and take it back’. One of the alert members of the union thought he would check on that and he talked with the Industrial Registrar and found out that the story he had been told was not true.

There are elements in this community - their representatives sit on the other side of this chamber - who are out to destroy the trade union movement. I worry about that. I have never heard honourable members opposite stand up in this House and say that there ought to be any hard and fast rules for the amalgamation of commercial enterprises, banks or any other organisation. Nobody is concerned about any sorts of amalgamations except those of trade unions. The Opposition always says that the amalgamation of these other concerns are certainly in the interests of the community as a whole and therefore should not be interfered with. But if one starts talking to members of the Opposition about an amalgamation of 2 trade unions one sees how they go off.

The proposal that was brought in by the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Lynch) when he was the Minister for Labour and National Service was that in a union amalgamation ballot half of the ballot papers had to be returned and, of those returned, half plus one had to be in favour of the amalgamation if the proposal was to be carried. At the time the measure was introduced it was put to us that that was a fair requirement for the amalgamation. However, when one looks at it critically, and it was explained then, in this situation which has applied one sees that there is no way in which one can compel people to vote. There is not even a way to compel people to return their voting papers. In fact, even though we speak about compulsory voting in Australia, there is no such thing; there is a requirement on people to attend the polling booth. Nobody can make somebody vote. Nobody can make anybody put his mark on the paper. The situation is similar to that in the saying: You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.

If half of the ballot papers are required to be returned, and there is no compulsion in the. matter, the question can be easily defeated by people not voting. That is exactly what happens. History tells us that a 30 per cent return in a union ballot is a very good result. In those circumstances the conditions applied by the Liberal Party to the Act make it virtually impossible for an amalgamation to take place. Everybody would agree that that is an absolutely chaotic and ridiculous state of affairs.

The honourable member for Wannon endeavoured to justify that position by saying that 33 of the 303 unions in Australia have comparatively large memberships and represent about 75 per cent of total union membership. (Quorum formed.) I have been used to this sort of treatment all my life. It does not bother me one bit.

Mr Morris:

– But it is still not fair.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– But, of course, it is still not fair. How can we expect any sort of sincerity from honourable members opposite? There were 5 honourable members from the Liberal Party in the House when that quorum was called and there are still only five. So let us see who is interested in what is going on in this place. Is the honourable member who makes a fool of himself interested? Are the others who are in this place interested? The only degree of sincerity the honourable member for Wannon displayed was in the only real contribution he made to the debate, when he pointed out to the House - I have discussed the matter with the Minister for Labor and Immigration - that somebody somewhere made a typographical error. Proposed new section 158l (8) which is found at page 6, line 27 of the Bill states: the Industrial ‘Registrar shall, upon application by the first-mentioned organisation, exempt that organisation from the requirement that a ballot of its members be held in respect of the amalgamation and the application of this Fart is modified accordingly.

The missing words that should be inserted after the word ‘shall’ are: unless there are special circumstances. It is not competent to move an amendment during the second reading debate. I give notice that during the Committee stage of this Bill I shall make sure that the clerk has the necessary information and I shall move that as an amendment. It is important that that be said before somebody else does something silly and time runs out. I now get back to the matter of ballots. The honourable member for Wannon is not a member of a union and he has never been to a union meeting. He thought that a ballot meant putting pieces of paper in an upturned hat at a meeting on a particular night.

Once again I draw his attention to proposed new section 158l (3) which makes it a requirement that a ballot be held. The honourable member is even now counting to see how many honourable members are in the House. Well, once he gets past ten he will have to take his shoes off.

I do not know whether I have to spend time explaining to the honourable member for Wannon what a ballot is. As a member of the Liberal Party I do not think he would know. In that Party they never get around to having ballots. But for the information of the honourable member I point out that a ballot occurs when papers are delivered or given to people on which they are to make a mark and then return the papers. Essentially it is a secret ballot although that word is not used. There is a requirement in the Bill for that to be done. A requirement exists in the Act for that to be done. Yet the honourable member made great play of the fact that somebody was ignoring the rights of individual members. He seemed to suggest that as it was only a requirement to have a ballot, that in some way ignored the rights of rank and file members of unions.

In relation to the question of amalgamation the honourable member speaks from ignorance. He must know, because he must be connected with organisations, that an organisation with a very small membership of necessity has a very small income. If there is a small income then the resources which can be used to look after the members must, of necessity, be small also. So it seems to me that a great disservice is done to members of small unions if it is difficult for them to amalgamate. They are left in this limbo, this half world. Certainly they have their own domain but they are without any industrial back-up in terms of research staff. The industrial scene, like every other scene, is becoming more and more complicated, complex and sophisticated as time goes on and as pressures increase.

We find that large unions are able to do the most for their members. We find that the small unions have great difficulty in competing in any area in which unions traditionally engage. The Bill which is presently before the House takes away the onerous part of the old Act which required half of the ballot papers to be returned. We know that that is impossible. This makes amalgamation of industrial organisations easier. Surely that is in the interests of the members of those organisations. To make it even easier the Bill provides that for a ballot to toe held a petition or request is required which need be signed by only 250 members of the organisation. The Act speaks about the application being signed by 1,000 members. Once again we are looking after the interests of the rank and file unionist. We are making sure that he can reach the leadership of the union and have his voice heard. We are making sure that if he believes that it is in his interests that there be an amalgamation with another union this will not be almost an impossibility.

If we go through the procedures which are provided in the Bill we find that the committee of management of each organisation is required to pass a resolution proposing amalgamation and adopting a scheme of amalgamation. That scheme, supported by the resolution of the committees of management, is to be filed with the Industrial Registrar. Each amalgamation is to be approved by a majority of members who vote in a plebiscite of each of the unions proposing to amalgamate. Of course, that excludes those unions which are large, if the Registrar agrees. In accordance with the regulations the Registrar determines the application following a hearing, if necessary, of any objections. So a scheme is evolved under which protection exists all the way down the line. The Bill goes on to provide that if the Registrar determines that the proposed amalgamation is to proceed he will carry out the necessary formal steps of registration and the alteration to rules and deregistration without delay.

In addition to those provisions under which the procedures for amalgamation would be generally similar to those already applying to registration, it is believed that it is desirable to adopt further provisions to. enable the membership of an organisation to seek an officially conducted ballot. The critical words are: ‘An officially conducted ballot’. If the honourable member for Wannon or anybody else thinks that the Registrar of the court is not in a position to carry out a ballot in the intended manner, then he should not stand up and criticise the Bill because the Bill covers exactly that situation. The weaknesses which the honourable member spoke about but never quite identified are not clear, are not apparent and, in fact, they do not exist.

Mr Morris:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I draw your attention to standing orders 42 and 45 which deal with the calling of a quorum and the time that a member must remain in the chamber. I draw your attention to the fact that the honourable member for Bendigo a few minutes ago called a quorum in this House. Immediately the quorum was formed he left the precincts of the House. I ask you for a ruling as to whether that is in contravention of standing orders 42 and 45?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– No, it is not. If the honourable member reads standing order 42 he will see that it states:

A Member shall not be permitted to withdraw from the Chamber within five minutes after the time appointed for the meeting of the House unless a House is formed.

There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr Morris:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I suggest that standing order 42 be read in conjunction with standing order 45 which deals with the calling of a quorum.

Mr McMahon:

– On the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have good reason to believe that the honourable member who raised the question is mistaken as to the identity of the person to whom he referred.

Mr Enderby:

– Somebody else on the honourable member’s side was guilty.

Mr McMahon:

– I know that it was not that honourable member.

Mr Morris:

– Yes, it was.

Mr McMahon:

– No. I think the honourable member for Shortland is seeing double. I ask him, next time, to identify the person before he gets up and lakes a point of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– There is no substance in the point of order raised by the honourable member for Shortland. The standing orders involved are from two separate section of the Standing Orders.

Mr VINER:
Stirling

– This is the third or fourth time that we have had the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill in one form or another before the House. Each time that it has been before the House previously, whether in its own right or as part of another Bill, it has been opposed by the Opposition and rejected by the Senate. In the face of that, there is one thing that can be said for the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) and that is that at least he is a trier. Maybe he believes that, if he follows the old saying ‘If at first you don’t succeed then try, try and try again’, in the end he will succeed.

Maybe he believes he will tire out the Opposition and the Bill will be passed by default and by exhaustion. At least the Opposition has been alert enough to see that in the second extempore speech that the Minister has made on this and another Bill, his statements were quite inaccurate.

The honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has already made it quite clear to the Minister where he went wrong in his exposition of his own Bill. Now the Minister can only fall back on the pitiable statement that there was a draftsman’s error. It simply cannot be that there was a draftsman’s error made in sub-clause 8 of clause 158L of this Bill. That clause states that in certain circumstances the industrial registrar shall exempt the organisation from the requirement that a ballot of its members be conducted. In the Bill as it stands the word ‘shall’ appears. There is no discretion for the registrar to say whether the exemption should be granted. That is in contrast to sub-section 8 of section 158K of the Act which clearly gives to the registrar a discretion to grant or not to grant an exemption. The Minister, as I said, gave the pitiable explanation that a drafting error accounted for his inaccuracy in the second reading speech. If honourable members compare the 2 sub-sections they will see that in the existing Act the registrar can exercise his discretion in favour of exemption only when there is a special circumstance by reason of which the exemption should be refused. Of course, those words do not appear in the Minister’s Bill. By no stretch of the imagination can it be said that a draftsman’s error was made.

It was rather a poor sight to see the Minister, having been caught out like this, trying to hide behind the coat tails of parliamentary counsel. If the Minister is correct in altering the word ‘shall’ to ‘may’, as he has suggested, the registrar would not know on what basis he has to exercise his discretion whereas under the existing legislation he knows that he must be satisfied that there are special circumstances. How can anyone accept that this Minister knows what is in his own Bill and why he is introducing it when we find that one-third of his second reading speech was taken up in explaining the virtues of the existing legislation, though he believed that what he was doing was justifying the Bill? That was not the only error that the Minister made in his second reading speech. In referring to the right of members to vote in a ballot on whether they agree to the amalgamation, the Minister said at page 651 of Hansard:

The Act will require-

It will become the Act if the Bill is passed- that every member of every organisation affected by the amalgamation shall be supplied with a ballot paper and given the right to vote. It wE be up to him to decide whether he exercises the right.

There is one important distinction between the Bill and the existing legislation. The Bill refers all the time to a financial member as the member entitled to vote in a ballot, whereas the existing legislation refers to a member. Anyone who has any knowledge of union, affairs - indeed anyone who does not have any particular knowledge of union affairs but has simply read the Act as against the Bill - would know that there is a great deal of difference between a financial member of an organisation and a member of an organisation.

Mr Bourchier:

– You would think that the Minister would know.

Mr VINER:

– As the honourable member for Bendigo points out we would think that the Minister would know what the distinction is. But in his second reading speech the Minister said that every member of every organisation affected by the amalgamation will be supplied with a ballot paper. That is simply not correct. Two unmistakable errors were made by the Minister in his second reading speech. A second reading speech is intended to outline the purpose of the Bill and the means by which the Bill seeks to achieve that purpose or objective. On 21 March 1974 the Minister gave an extemporaneous speech when he introduced a Bill. Now he has given another one. I think we ought to suggest to the Minister in all humility that next time he presents a Bill to this House he should have a prepared speech. I am sure next time he will. The Bill will have a much better chance of being passed if the Minister properly informs the House of what it is all about.

This Bill is intended to facilitate the amalgamation of unions. It is intended to make it easier for unions to amalgamate. One wonders why it is the desire of the Government to make amalgamations easier. We have heard more than once from the Minister an attempt to give reasons why this objective is being sought by the Government. In his second reading speech on this Bill, the Minister said: . . . that we have too many small and inefficient trade unions. We should have fewer of them. We should have more efficient ones, ones that are able to represent their members in a more meaningful way than is possible with the work force divided among 303 separate organisations.

That is a fine statement indeed, except that we have been given no information to justify the assertions made by the honourable gentleman. Why are there too many small unions? What is wrong with a small union that represents the particular interests of a small section of the work force, following a particular calling, a particular craft or a particular vocation? Why is it wrong for a small group of craftsmen to form their own union when the clerks throughout Australia can form their union because they follow their own particular calling? So, what is wrong with having a small union? Why is size to be equated with efficiency? The Minister does not tell us why a large union should be more inefficient than a small union? Is size alone the qualification - the determinant - for efficiency? Why should we have fewer unions?

I challenge the Minister - if he dares to reply, in view of the appalling effort that he made when introducing this Bill - to justify these assertions because until now he has not made any attempt to justify them. What he is really asking this House to do is to approve the formation of conglomerate unions within Australia. Is he really on this occasion following the multi-national conglomerates of the world in their rise to size and power through the accumulation of capital by the eating up of smaller competitors or corporations which, for the time being, have run down? Does he really want the unions of Australia to follow the examples of the conglomerate corporations of the world? Is he really calling upon the unions of Australia to embark upon the takeover course undertaken by corporate takeover merchants within Australia? If he is asking this House to do that he is asking us to approve the concentration of power within a small number of unions. He is not asking us to approve the concentration of power in small unions but the concentration of power in a small number of unions by larger unions gobbling up and submerging the special interests of the group of individual workers who, by reason of their particular craft, calling or vocation, wish to form themselves into a union of their own.

If that is to happen in Australia, we can see then a path to confrontation between these large unions, few in number with concentrations of power, and Parliament itself and the Government itself. In other industrialised countries of the world concentrations of power in a few unions have led to the most dire consequences for the community itself. That is what will happen if amalgamation is made easy. The large unions will naturally follow the takeover path and the small unions will find it very difficult indeed, if not impossible, to withstand the pressure that is put upon them to amalgamate. We know that, quite apart from the legal protection that might be given to small unions through the legislative provisions of the existing Conciliation and Arbitration Act, large unions can exert a nonlegal power in a way which small groups cannot withstand. I do not think for a minute that the Australian public would want to see that state of affairs develop in Australia. Large unions and small unions have played their own part in their own way in the history of unionism in Australia.

I wonder why when a debate of this kind is proceeding in the House on a Bill introduced at least for the third time by the Minister for Labor and Immigration the honourable gentleman is not in the House. He has been scurrying around like a squirrel since the honourable member for Wannon pointed out how wrong the Minister was in the statements that he made in his second reading speech. The Minister either is frightened to come back into the House, shamefaced as he must be, to face the continuing debate or is scurrying about to find out what he can do about the error that he has made. There is simply no way that he can alter his Bill to rectify his own error except by deleting that provision of the Bill so as to allow section 158k of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to continue in operation. Why is the Minister not in the House at present? 1 think we are entitled to know. It is his Bill. Why has he gone? Why has he left the House? Perhaps he is trying to whip up the numbers to gather a quorum so that the House can carry on.

There is great virtue in smaller unions being allowed to continue and to flourish within the trade union movement in Australia. There is great virtue in allowing those workers who follow a specific calling to form their own union to look after their own special interests.

I think that anyone from within the union movement or anyone who has had anything to do with the union movement will know how the special interests of a group of workers can be submerged and forgotten within a larger organisation. It is not without significance that, within the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, provision is made for a group of workers to apply to break away from an existing registered organisation. That provision exists in the present legislation. I know that it exists also in the legislation of Western Australia under which many unions are registered as State unions whilst at the same time their members are part of a Federal union. I notice that the Minister for Labor and Immigration has returned to the chamber. I am glad to see that he has. I wonder what it is that he has written on the paper before him. I will be interested to see whether, at the Committee stage, he will move any amendments to overcome the deficiencies of his own propositions.

As I said, there is great value in allowing for a diversity of unions which, at the grass roots level, can represent the true interests of the workers who form the membership of those small unions. There can be great damage to the union movement in Australia if continued concentrations of power are allowed to develop into ever larger and larger unions. We know from recent history that these large unions will seek not only to exercise that power in respect of industrial matters but also will seek to exercise that power for political purposes which are quite alien to the objectives for which those unions are registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

Although there was a great spate of talk after the amalagamations which brought about the formation of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union, there has been little subsequent movement towards amalgamation. I wonder whether this is because it is thought that under the existing legislation amalgamation is too hard and whether those who might be parties to further amalgamations simply have been holding off in anticipation of the Minister for Labor and Immigration eventually tiring out the Opposition and the Senate so that, at his fourth try, his legislation will be passed.

When we look at the formula that presently exists and which must be met before amalgamation can proceed, what can be said against it except that it makes amalgamation a little bit harder than the Minister now proposes? I was rather shocked to hear the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson) say that a 30 per cent return on a ballot in a union is a very good result. In a ballot for amalgamation why should a 30 per cent return, which represents a minority of the members who are affected by amalgamation be considered sufficient to allow a proposed amalgamation to proceed? Surely the honourable member for Burke cannot be proud of unionism if a union can achieve only that result. The Government ought to aim at setting up some procedure whereby at least a 50 per cent return of a ballot can be achieved. I believe that a decision on any union amalgamation should be determined by the voluntary exercise of choice by the members who form the union, because a union is only the creation of the members of that union. They join together for their common good. Therefore, only a majority of that membership should at any time be allowed to alter the basis of organisation of that union.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. (Quorum formed.)

Mr HEWSON:
McMillan

– I have the responsibility to represent an electorate which has in it a number of trade unions.

Mr Bryant:

– You represent only 16 per cent of them.

Mr HEWSON:

– Your figures do not add up correctly, because if you add 10 to 16 you get 26. A gain of 10 per cent in 16 months is a pretty fair gain. However, as I was saying, it is my privilege to represent an electorate which has in it a number of trade unions and a varying number of industries and occupations. Whilst it may be theoretically convenient to limit the number of unions by amalgamation, it is not desirable to interfere with the rights of individuals who responsibly establish organisations and unions so that matters pertaining to their occupation or interest can be considered.

As a member of the Opposition, I view the Bill now before the House as an infringement on the rights of individuals and dangerous to the members of unions. My observation is that many industrial disputes arise because there are too many classifications within an occupation or industry. This will not be cured by the Bill before the House which recommends the amalgamation of unions. Let us have a look at amalgamation. Suppose all unions wish to amalgamate. Can anyone tell me how this can be done? How can a variety of interests be amalgamated into one union with one voice? It is not possible.

Mr Innes:

– Have you not heard of unions?

Mr HEWSON:

– I have heard of lots of things, but they do not always ring true. Many years ago the same sentiments and ideals were promoted within the primary industry. Because of the diversity of interests and people’s Individual talents it is not possible to have one union for a group of individuals or a group of varying occupations. However it is possible to have affiliation of unions and affiliation of ideas too. The difficulty can be overcome by affiliation. This would leave only one autonomous organisation to represent each occupation or industry and to put its case and point of view. It then emerges that if the body of affiliated unions reaches a decision it carries sufficient authority to speak on behalf of its individual members, having first obtained their consent.

The procedures which are advocated in the Bill could apply equally as well to affiliation as to amalgamation. I am amazed at the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) promoting the establishment of a monster which could become an embarrassment to the Government. Of course the Government has plenty of embarrassments. Goodness only knows, it is embarrassed often enough now by its own trade unions and their masters. I suppose what the Minister really wants is what he said in this statement:

We should have fewer of them.

On reflection, I suppose one monster would be preferable to numerous bosses. After all, this Government is in the hands of the unions - and there are so many of them, all making so many demands and always in conflict.

I believe in unions, but I would offer them something better than the proposals in the Bill. I would pursue policies that support the system of negotiation, conciliation and arbitration as provided for in an Act which is already operating and maintain the many proper protections of employees and employers provided by the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, because I believe that voluntary agreement encourages closer communication between employee and employer. I recognise the right of an employee to withdraw his labour in an industrial dispute as a last resort so long as the provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act have been complied with. After all, the Conciliation and Arbitration Act contains provisions to safeguard the public interest. Industrial agreements freely entered into and awards should be observed by all involved. Th law must support that observance.

In pursuing this matter of amalgamation further, I am intrigued by the statement by the Minister that ‘before an amalgamation can be finally registered there will need to be a ballot of all members of both organisations, or, if there are more than 2 organisations, of all the organisations involved; but it will not be necessary to hold up an amalgamation merely because less than 50 per cent of the members eligible to vote fail to do so’. How many standards do we have? In other words, the poor Industrial Registrar is charged with the responsibility of bringing about an amalgamation under the rules but if the rules are inconvenient he is charged with bringing about an amalgamation anyway. It is the most ragtime approach to a very important issue that I have ever encountered.

I believe that the Minister should concern himself not with the amalgamation of unions but with the welfare of unionists. He should have a good look at their domestic problems and, as I have said earlier, have a look at the great range of classifications in each category of occupation with a view to eliminating this festering sore which is now very evident in the trade union movement. Today a variation to an award, for instance in the electrical trades, sparks off a chain reaction of demands by the dozens of qualifications listed in that trade. If there were fewer classifications, there would be less jealousy, less opportunity for irresponsible threats of strikes and better opportunities for negotiation. Many union leaders today make unreasonable demands for wage increases in the belief that they can extort what they want. They brush aside the realities of inflation and the possibility of inflation leading to the creation of unemployment by taking arrogant decisions not to grant any options. This illustrates a destructive foolishness. We have to put a stop to this contempt for our traditional ways. Industrial disputes should be open reasonable, negotiations. The Minister for Labor and Immigration should enforce the principles of rank and file control of oganisations through the provision of a secret ballot under Commonwealth Electoral Office supervision for the election of the officials of all organisations.

I oppose the Bill on the grounds already stated by my colleagues in the Opposition. We believe that we have made an honest assessment of the effect of the proposed legislation and ‘that we have demonstrated our concern for the trade unionists of this country by indicating that we will vote against the measure. We will do so in the hope that trade unions will accept their responsibilities and endeavour to consolidate their interests. I refer particularly to those in the numerous classifications which I have already said create irritating flow-on demands following the making of awards to any one section. We need complete harmony between the employee and the employer. It is the responsibility of this Parliament to ensure that such harmony exists. In a world that is suffering from an overdose of socialism it is very important that we take heed of the direction in which our work force is heading and that we take heed of what our work force is demanding. As responsible members of Parliament we ought to take a look at what is happening around the world and see what has happened in those places in which the trade unions have got out of hand and have become the force behind government. I oppose the Bill.

Question put.

That the Bill he now read a second time.

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

AYES: 61

NOES: 57

Majority . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.

Clause 6.

Part VIIIa of the Principal Act is repealed and the following Part substituted: “PART VIIIa- AMALGAMATION OF

page 893

QUESTION

ORGANIZATIONS

” 158a. In this Part, unless the contrary intention appears - “158l. (1) If a direction that an amalgamation may proceed is given in accordance with section 158k, arrangements shall, subject to sub-section (7) of section 158r and sub-section (8) of this section, be made in accordance with this section for the conduct, in respect of each of the existing organizations concerned in the amalgamation, of a ballot of the financial members of that organization on the question whether they approve the proposed amalgamation of that organization with the other existing organization or organizations concerned in accordance with the scheme or, if the scheme has been amended in accordance with this Part, the scheme as so amended. “ (2) The ballot of the members of an organization shall be conducted under arrangements made by the organization except where a request is made in accordance with sub-section (3). “ (3) Within l month from the date of the direction under section 158k in respect of the amalgamation, a request may be made to the Industrial Registrar that a ballot of the members of an organization to be conducted under this section be officially conducted. “ (4) A request under sub-section (3) in relation to an organization shall be in writing and may be made -

  1. by or on behalf of the committee of management of the organization; or
  2. by 250 members of the organization, or by members of the organization constituting onetwentieth of the total number of members of the organization, whichever is the less. “ (5) Where the Industrial Registrar is satisfied that a request has been duly made in accordance with sub-sections (3) and (4), the Industrial Registrar shall-
  3. conduct the ballot himself;
  4. direct a Deputy Industrial Registrar or an officer employed in the Registry to conduct the ballot; or
  5. make arrangements with the Chief Australian Electoral Officer for the conduct of the ballot by an Australian Electoral Officer or by a Returning Officer holding office under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918-1973, and’ the ballot shall be conducted, so far as is reasonably practicable and is consistent with this Part, in accordance with any rules of the organization that are applicable. “ (6) Where a ballot under this section is conducted under arrangements made by the organization, it shall be conducted in accordance with any rules of the organization that are applicable, so far as is reasonably practicable and is consistent with this Part, and, so far as the ballot is not conducted in accordance with any such rules, it shall be conducted in accordance with arrangements approved by the Industrial Registrar. “ (7) At every ballot referred to in this section, a copy of the scheme of amalgamation submitted under this Part or, if the scheme has been amended in accordance with this Part, of the scheme as so amended, shall accompany each ballot paper. “ (8) Where-
  6. an organization is a party to an amalgamation otherwise than as a de-registering organization; and
  7. the number of members of the de-registering organization or, if there are 2 or more deregistering organizations, the number of members of each of the de-registering organizations, as at the date of a direction under section 158k that the amalgamation may proceed, is less than one-twentieth of the number of members of the first-mentioned organization as at that date, the Industrial Registrar shall, upon application by the first-mentioned organization, exempt that organization from the requirement that a ballot of its members be held in respect of the amalgamation and the application of this Part is modified accordingly. “ 158m. Where an amalgamation is submitted to a ballot or ballots in accordance with this Part, the amalgamation shall be taken to be approved if, in the ballot, or each of the ballots, if more than one, more than one-half of the members who duly record formal votes vote in favour of the amalgamation.
Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– As was indicated during the second reading debate on this matter, I wish to move the amendment which has been circulated in my name. I move:

In proposed section 158l (8), after ‘organisation’ (fifth occurring) insert ‘for an exemption under this sub-section, unless he considers that there are special circumstances by reason of which the exemption should be refused’.

If the amendment is agreed to section 158l (8) will then read: the Industrial Registrar shall, upon application by the first-mentioned organisation for an exemption under this sub-section, unless he considers that there are special circumstances by reason of which the exemption should be refused, exempt that organisation from the requirement that a ballot of its members be held in respect of the amalgamation and the application of this Part is modified accordingly.

It is in no way a substantial amendment. Its purpose is simply to make section 158L read exactly the same as the Act. It gives discretion to the Industrial Registrar, which the Bill at first sight does not appear to do. As the matter was raised by the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser) I understand that he will express no opposition to the amendment to section 158L(8) which I have proposed. It simply explains the situation a little more clearly than the Bill does.

The CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

– To put the matter in order, I think that the honourable member for Wannon should move his amendments at this stage.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Wannon

– I wish to move two amendments to clause 6. The first is in relation to proposed new section 158l. I move:

Omit sub-sections (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of proposed section 158L, substitute the following subsections: “(2) A ballot referred to in the last preceding subsection shall be a secret ballot by postal voting and the Industrial Registrar shall -

conduct the ballot himself;

direct a Deputy Industrial Registrar or an officer employed in a Registry to conduct the ballot; or

make arrangements with the Chief Electoral Officer for the Commonwealth for the conduct of the ballot by a Commonwealth Electoral Officer or a Returning Officer holding office under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918-1973. “(3) A copy of the scheme of amalgamations submitted under this Part or, if the scheme has been amended in accordance with this Part, of the scheme as so amended, shall accompany each ballot paper sent to a person entitled to vote at the ballot. “(4) Subject to the next succeeding sub-section, the roll of voters for a ballot shall be a roll of the persons who were members of the organization on the day on which the Industrial Registrar gave his approval under the last preceding section. “(5) The name of a member shall not be included in the roll if -

he became a member more than twelve months before the day referred to in the last preceding sub-section; and

he is, on that day, an unfinancial member within the meaning of the rules of the organization and has been such an unfinancial member at all times during the period of twelve months ending on that day. “(6) Subject to this section, a ballot referred to in this section shall be conducted in accordance with the regulations.”.

If that amendment is agreed to it will delete from the present Bill the provisions which allow ballots to be held merely in accordance with union rules, whether or not there is an opportunity for a secret ballot to be held, and re-insert the provisions contained in the existing Act, which would make it mandatory for the Registrar of the Commonwealth Electoral Office to undertake all ballots and ensure that a secret postal ballot was made available to all members of a union, an organisation, involved in amalgamation. The Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron), I know, is concerned about union democracy. The Minister, I know, is concerned about rank and file control. For these reasons I believe that the Minister will support that amendment. Mr Chairman, I seek your guidance. Should I move both amendments now or should we deal with that amendment first? My second amendment also deals with clause 6.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Is leave granted to the honourable member for Wannon to move his second amendment at this stage?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Yes.

The CHAIRMAN:

– There being no objection, that course will be followed.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I move:

The proposed new section again is in the interests of control by the rank and file over union affairs in that it ensures that a reasonable number of people within a union, within an organisation, will have the opportunity to vote. Indeed, there will be a requirement upon them to vote if the amalgamation is to take place and if their union is to be taken over. If the Minister is really concerned, as he has said he is on a number of occasions, about the place of the rank and file in union affairs and their control over union officials, I think that he will support both of these amendments. The reason I am not moving a third amendment, whose effect would bring the Bill into line with the Minister’s second reading speech and into line with the previous Act, is that earlier during the second reading debate the Minister gave an understanding that he himself or some member of the Government would move an amendment that would achieve that objective.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Which sub-sections of the existing section 158k are you wishing to substitute?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– If I could go back, proposed section 158m is to be deleted and section 158n of the Act will replace it.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– That is the first One?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– That is the second one. The effect of the first amendment would be to delete sub-sections (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of proposed section 158l and insert sub-sections (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of section 158k of the Act. If there was to be a guarantee under the legislation of free and proper postal ballots, as I think every honourable member of this House would want and as the Minister certainly indicated in his second reading speech that he wants when he said that under the legislation there would be a requirement for a postal ballot to be placed in the hands of every member of a union, the amendment I have moved will achieve that purpose; the Bill which the Minister has introduced will not.

Mr VINER:
Stirling

– It is quite clear that the Bill before the Committee does not refer to a ballot to be conducted amongst the rank and file members to determine whether the amalgamation should proceed. The words ‘shall be a secret ballot by postal voting’ are the. precise words used in section 158k sub-section 2, of the existing Act. Those words do not appear in the equivalent clauses of the Bill. I wonder why not. What is it that is wrong with a secret ballot by postal votes that causes the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) to delete those words from the Bill and use the word ‘ballot’. The word ‘ballot’ can mean something different from a secret ballot by postal voting.

Nowhere have we been told why there should be a change from a secret ballot by postal vote to some other kind of ballot. I would have thought that if the honourable gentleman’s concern for the protection of rights of the rank and file is as genuine as he has stated it to be on a number of occasions before this House he would retain the protection of a secret ballot by postal voting. So I support wholeheartedly the amendment that has been proposed.

Equally, for the reasons that I expressed in my speech during the second reading stage of the Bill, I support the amendment that is intended to include or to retain in the legislation the present requirement of a majority of the members approving of the amalgamation before it proceeds. I ask the Minister to explain to me one point in consequence of the amendment that has been moved by the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson). The effect of this amendment is to now provide in the Bill that proposed new section 158l, sub-section 8, read the same as section 158k, sub-section 8, of the Act to permit the Registrar discretion in special circumstances to exempt a ballot. But the existing section has in addition to that provision another one and I draw the attention of the Minister to it. It provides that if an exemption is granted reference in section 158n of this Act to ballots in accordance with this ballot shall be read as reference to the ballot or ballots in respect of the deregistering organisation or organisations. The honourable member for Burke is not proposing in his amendment to include that provision or its equivalent in the Bill. I ask him why not?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– First of all, the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser) seeks to eliminate sub-sections (2) to (6) inclusive from the proposed new section 158L. The honourable gentleman is proposing to delete from the Bill the very safeguards about which he pretends to be so concerned. I refer to the safeguards which are written into the Bill to ensure that where the rules of a union do not provide for a compulsory postal ballot of all members, then the members of that union will have the right to petition the Registrar for a ballot to be conducted by the Registrar or by the Chief Electoral Officer in accordance with the traditional way in which the Chief Electoral Officer has always conducted the ballots. I know of only one union the rules of which provide that ballots may be held at the union meeting-

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– Which union is that?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The Amalgamated Metal Workers Union.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– You have to apply for an absentee vote and they take your name and put it on a blacklist.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Nonsense. A unionist can get a postal vote or an absentee vote whenever he likes and the question about putting-

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– Nobody applies because they are afraid to.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The honourable member has been talking to a National Civic Council agent because that is the sort of rubbish that organisation peddles.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– I was talking to AMWU blokes in Newcastle.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– They must have been members of the NCC.

Mr Wentworth:

– What is wrong with that?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Well, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) is in it. I do not know of any better reason for steering clear of it. The only union, I repeat, which does not have provision in its rules for postal ballots and for a ballot paper to be posted to every single member is the AMWU. It is a union with 160,000 members. All that is needed to be obtained out of the 160,000 members is a paltry 250 signatures which is provided for in the Bill. When those 250 signatures have been obtained all of the 160,000 members of that union will be supplied with ballot papers direct from the Chief Electoral Officer and the ballot will be conducted in exactly the same way as any other ballot conducted by the Chief Electoral Officer for union elections.

Mr Reynolds:

– Could I do that with my medical benefit fund?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Of course you could not do it with your medical benefit fund.

Mr Reynolds:

– Could I do it with my hospital fund?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– You cannot do it with your hospital fund either. The honourable member who has moved the amendment seeks to delete that most admirable portion of the Bill altogether. He does not want members to have that right. But it is only to unions the rules of which do not provide automatically for postal ballots that this provision could ever apply. Therefore we say that the unions’ rules shall apply wherever they provide for a postal ballot and where they do not provide for a postal ballot 250 members out of 160,000 AMWU members simply have to sign a petition and a ballot will be conducted in the way that most union ballots are conducted.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– How is that?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Most union rules that I know of - I only know of one already that does not do so-

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– There are 180,000 blokes in the union that has caused more public harm, more public hurt and more public confusion in the last year than any other union.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The honourable member makes 20,000 better points than I make. I said there were 160,000 members. He says there are 180,000 members. I say, then, you only need - I amend what I said - a miserable 250 names out of 180,000 to get a ballot conducted in this way. The honourable member is seeking to take that right away from them.

Mr Viner:

– No, we are not.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Honourable members opposite are seeking to take that right away from members and they intend imposing upon them an obligation to comply with the provisions of the existing Act.

I now move to the second amendment moved by the honourable member for Wannon. It relates to the silly provision that was put into the Act under pressure from the Democratic Labor Party. Everyone knows that. Apparently Mr George Polites has not yet rung the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) yet. He is going to though. He is going to tell him what an ass he has made of himself. I beg your pardon, Mr Chairman, I withdraw that. Mr Polites will tell the honourable member that what he is doing is very detrimental indeed to the best industrial relations of this country. I think that if I listened in on the phone - which of course I would not attempt to do - I would hear Mr Polites accusing the honourable member of paying more attention to the NCC than to the employers national organisation. The amendment provides for a ballot of mem bers and unless 50 per cent of the total membership vote then even if 49 per cent of the total membership vote in favour of the amalgamation the amalgamation proposal is declared lost. How can you be so silly? I amend that. There has to be 50 per cent of the 50 per cent. If less than 50 per cent of the total membership vote it does not matter whether the whole of the 49 per cent are in favour of the proposal; the ballot is deemed to be lost. That is the main objection by the unions and by the employers who are discerning enough to see where the Opposition is heading. The Government has to reject the 2 amendments moved by the honourable member for Wannon.

I thank the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson) for the machinery amendment, the need for which he was sharp enough to pick up. He told me he intended to move that amendment. It is a very technical thing. One could describe it as a machinery amendment. We imagine that that amendment will be supported by the Opposition because the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Viner) also picked it up, I understand. We would assume there is no opposition to that amendment. The Government has to reject both the amendments which have been moved by the Opposition.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– Although I support both the amendments which have been moved by the. honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser) I propose to speak only to the first. That does not mean in any sense that I do not support the second. I listened to the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron). I think he described himself as Old Snake Eyes, but that is in the past. I listened to him with a certain amount of incredulity because he seemed to be arguing against himself all the time. The first amendment moved by the honourable member for Wannon simply puts the obligation on a union to have a fair ballot. What is wrong with that? The Minister, from his own experience, knows that union organisations are frequently crook and he himself has gone into court and maintained the proposition.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– He had to use our legislation to win.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– We gave him the protection of our legislation, as the honourable member for Wannon reminds me, and he was very glad to avail himself of that protection.

Why does he deny this protection to other unionists? Why does he believe that he can get protection and other unionists are not allowed to have it? He said that there can be a ballot if 250 miserable unionists - I use his phrase - ask for it. They would be miserable all right because they would be victimised and he knows this perfectly well. He knows the kind of pressure which the left wing communists, the leaders of the union - particularly the Australian Metal Workers Union - can bring to bear on capitalists and trade unionists.

We on this side of the chamber are out to protect individual unionists from the tyranny of the corrupt left wing in the unions. The Minister, who knows from his own experience how corrupt these unions can be, will, when he thinks of his position, surely come on our side and will surely accept this amendment. What is wrong with it? He said a few moments ago that we are taking a right from the unionists. That is exactly the opposite of the truth. The Minister cannot have read the Bill because I do not believe he is a deliberate liar. I do not believe he would say things knowing them to be. untrue. Yet he said something which is completely untrue. I am sure he has done it only because he has not read or has not understood the legislation which he has brought into this chamber. All we are saying in this amendment is that there should be a fair ballot. What is wrong with that? All we are saying is that no 250 miserable unionists - I again use the Minister’s own phrase - should be made miserable by having to stand up against the tyranny and intimidation of their own left wings.

The Minister earlier in his. life may have had the courage to stand up against the tyranny of the unions. Perhaps that courage was reinforced by the fact that he was a member of this Parliament, which gave him some standing. But what of the little men, the people who do not have the good fortune or whatever it is to be members of this Parliament? Are we to abandon them? The Minister used his privilege as a member of this House to protect himself but these 250 miserable unionists will not have that same kind of privilege. Does he want to kow-tow to the communists and the left wing? Does he want to make these 250 miserable unionists the target of black bans, of all the kinds of corrupt pressures which the left wing and the unions can organise against them? He knows that the left wing of the unions in Melbourne for example, did not hesitate to stoop to murder in order to intimidate union members. He knows this perfectly well. Yet here he is coming to this place and abandoning the individual members of the unions to the tyranny of the organised left wing. He knows perfectly well that once that left wing gets command of the ballot machinery no election will be fairly conducted. The only way in which to ensure fairness and equity is to ensure that the ballot is conducted by the electoral officers. We intend to move for that. The honourable member for Wannon has brought into this chamber a proposal which should commend itself to every member of the Labor Party who is opposed to the corrupt left wing.

I see that the honourable member for Phillip (Mr Riordan) is in the chamber. I pay a tribute to the honourable member. I believe he is one of the people who not only has stood out against this corrupt communist left wing but who, before he had the privilege of being a member of this place, suffered considerably for his expression of opinion which 1 would entirely commend and his exhibition of courage which all of us should commend. The honourable member for Phillip knows perfectly well the truth of what I am saying because in the Federated Clerks Union a small corrupt communist coterie got control of the balloting machinery and by abuse of that machinery was able to maintain itself in power. If it had not been for the dedicated work of people like the honourable member for Phillip, that corrupt communist coterie would be in control of the Clerks Union today, irrespective of the fact that 90 per cent plus of the members of that union would repudiate it. This was done by a manipulation of ballots, by intimidation and by requiring those who stood out against the left wing to identify themselves so that they could be cut down by the corrupt communist machine. The Minister now comes out in defence of these people. I ask the Minister now to realise the nature of the things that he has been saying. He does believe in union democracy. He does believe that members of a union should have their right to express their views, whether on a ballot or on an election of officers, free of intimidation and corruption. Now he is saying they cannot be free of corruption unless they are prepared to undergo individual intimidation. This is not a fair thing to ask, even of 250 miserable unionists. Again I use the Minister’s term because he used it and not because I would consider them miserable myself. I know that if they did this kind of thing - if they stood out against the organised corrupt communist minority - their lives would be miserable indeed.

The Minister says quite wrongly that I have been a member of the National Civic Council. I would not be ashamed if I had been, but as a matter of fact I have not been a member of the NCC. I say again without any reservation that I have had some objectives which seemed to me the same as those of members of the NCC. What is wrong with that? Why does it not have a right to organise in the unions? Does the Minister give this right only to the communist minority? I believe that when the Minister thinks of what he is doing here he will think again.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

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

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Wannon

– I should like to make a final plea to the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) because I really believe that this amendment strikes at everything the Minister believes is important for the rank and file members of the union movement. He himself has fought with a union in the past and he used the machinery of the law to assert the rights of an individual member, and he won. That was his right under the law and it would have been wrong if the law had been amended to prevent that happening - to prevent the Minister having his victory over a situation in a certain union. We know that that has left scars on the Minister and on the union for 30 years. But the law was right and I have some pride in it being our law that enabled the Minister to demonstrate a certain position.

However, in his second reading speech the Minister said that the Bill will require that every member of every organisation affected by the proposed amalgamation shall - not may - be supplied with a ballot paper and given the right to vote; not put in a position where he has to go on his knees to vote; not put in a position where he has to mark his name up with 249 other men where their names are known, and vote; not put in a position where he must go along and apply to the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union for an absent vote. Anyone who votes absent in that union is a marked man and nobody does because he knows that it would indicate him immediately as against the hierarchy and against those in control. That is a procedure that gets around the secret ballot and the proper provisions of the registration of organisations under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. If there were an opportunity that section ought to be amended.

It is significant that the Minister has said that the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union, which has demonstrated itself to be probably the most powerful union in Australia - certainly one of the most militant; certainly one of those that has visited more harm on its own members because of the money lost through strikes - has gained no more and much less than the waterfront unions have for their members but has used much more militant tactics and done more harm to its own members and enormous harm to the Australian community. That is the one union which the Minister, on his own admission tonight has recorded in Hansard, has indicated does not have a secret postal ballot. Members of that union have to apply for an absent vote if they want to get a secret vote. Nobody does that because they know the penalty for such an application. The way around this problem is for the Government to accept this amendment to make sure that people can vote under an Electoral Office controlled secret postal ballot. The amendment does not compel them to vote; they do not have to vote, but if they want a secret postal ballot at least the amendment will give them the opportunity.

The Minister was earlier at pains to point out that the Parliamentary Counsel was at fault in relation to this Bill; not his speech. Well the Counsel is at fault again on a much more serious matter and the Minister should surely re-assess the situation. Under the proposals put forward by the Minister even if there is a court controlled ballot, a Registrar controlled ballot or an Electoral Office controlled ballot, under the amendments that the Minister is introducing there is no provision for secret postal ballots. Where we had plain provisions for an Electoral Office secret postal ballot in the Act, under this new legislation there will firstly be a ballot under the rules of the organisation concerned. If 250 men or a committee of management ask for a secret officially conducted ballot under the provisions of the Bill, that ballot must still, as far as practicable and possible, be in accordance with the rules of the union. For the AMWU that is not a secret ballot; it is not a postal ballot; it is the very travesty of a secret postal ballot. It is honoured completely and utterly in the breach, confirming the present hierarchy in charge with the damage that it does to its own members and to the Australian community.

That is not an attack on the union movement; it is comment made against one particular trade union and its management. I only wish that when union leaders engage in responsible activities, as they have, the Press would give them as much publicity as the truly irresponsible and damaging actions of other unions. The Minister has a responsibility in these matters and if anything that he has said in this chamber or outside it about rank and file control over union affairs means anything at all, he will accept this amendment even if it is only for the sake of one union, even if it concerns only the AMWU, because that union is very much at the forefront in national affairs. With the greatest respect, if the Minister is not prepared to accept this amendment - if he is prepared to let the ballot provisions go on as they do in that particular union - we know that we need not believe anything he says about rank and file control or union democracy ever again.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I wish to make just a few corrections. I did not say that there would be 250 miserable unionists; I said there would be a miserable 250, meaning only a small number of unionists. The honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser) said that when the 250 petitioners sign their names, their names are put up on a blackboard for all to see. The honourable gentleman is picking up industrial relations fairly rapidly, but there is one small thing that he has not yet discovered. When a petition is sent to the Registrar that petition is strictly confidential. No one can look at it. The petition is taken by the Registrar’s officers and the Deputy Registrar takes the petition to the union office and asks for the roll of union members to check the names. No one sees the petition. I have been through the procedure myself. The Deputy Registrar there ticks off the names of those who signed the petition to ascertain whether they are members of the union in fact or not. Indeed, they do not even have to be financial members of the union in order for their names to be accepted on a petition.

It is an odd thing that the Opposition should go to all this trouble about a compulsory postal vote for an amalgamation. All the time that Opposition members were in government they never sought to impose the same kind of provision for the election of officers. Surely it is much more important to have the election of officers conducted in a way that is proper than it is for an amalgamation ballot to be conducted in this way. Yet never once did it occur to honourable members opposite when they were in government to make it a compulsory requirement of the Act that all union ballots for the election of officers shall he conducted by an electoral officer. The ballots conducted under the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union rules are secret ballots. They are not postal ballots unless petitioned for under the provisions of the Bill. But they are secret ballots because the ballot papers are distributed on the night of the star meeting. The members record their votes which are put in the ballot box and counted by the scrutineers.

I shall talk about two other things. Reference was made to sub-section (2) of proposed new section 158 G which deals with the requirement to publish the resolution in a periodical, journal or other publication of the organisation or, in any case, in a metropolitan daily newspaper in each State. I was asked to clarify this matter and to indicate the Government’s intention. We intend - if need be we can do it by regulation - that notification shall be published in a morning daily newspaper and not in some obscure afternoon newspaper. I want to clear up another matter in response to some questions which were directed to me during the week. Proposed new section 158 Q states: 158q. On and from the day on which an amalgamation takes effect in accordance with this Part -

  1. an award that was, immediately before that day, binding on a de-registering organisation and its members becomes, by force of this Act, binding on the amalgamated organisation and its members; and
  2. such an award has effect for all purposes, including the obligations of employers and organisations of employers, as if references in the award to a de-registering organisation included references to the amalgamated organisation.

That does not mean that a State Act of an award of a State tribunal will be automatically cancelled. It applies only to Federal awards. It simply means that a Federal award will not cease to exist just because the union which was the applicant or even the respondent to the award has ceased to exist as a separate entity. That is all that the proposed new section means.

Mr Viner (Stirling) (9.43) - Mr Chairman -

Motion (by Mr Daly) put:

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 61

NOES: 58

Majority . . . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

– The question is:

That the proposed new sub-section proposed to be omitted stand part of the proposed new section.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I move:

In proposed section 158l (8), after ‘organisation’ (fifth occurring) insert ‘for an exemption under this sub-section, unless he considers that there are special circumstances by reason of which the exemption should be refused’.

As the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) has said, this is a machinery matter. It has been thoroughly discussed and does not need any further discussion. I will leave the matter there.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Wannon

– The Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) has asked the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson) to move this amendment because the Minister knows full well that his second reading speech was not in conformity with the Bill. Whether the Minister simply did not know what was contained in the Bill or whether he blamed the Parliamentary Counsel and accused him of not doing something that ought to have been done, it is plain that there is a significant difference between the Bill without this particular clause in it and the Bill with it. The Opposition supports this amendment. If the Minister had not arranged for somebody to move this amendment the Opposition would have moved a similar amendment, as I made plain earlier I would do and as the Minister invited me to do in the second reading debate. I can only suggest that in future the Minister read his Bills.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Wannon

– I move:

Omit proposed section 158m; substitute the following section: “158m. Where an amalgamation is submitted to ballots in accordance with this Part, the amalgamation shall be taken to be approved if, in each of the ballots -

ballot papers are received by the person conducting the ballot, on or before the day fixed for the closing of the ballot, from at least one-half of the members on the roll of voters; and

more than one-half of the members who record formal votes of those ballot papers vote in favour of the amalgamation.”.

This is a provision that would provide for a reasonable proportion of the people within a union to vote in a ballot for an amalgamation. I have spoken to the amendment. I will not add to my earlier remarks.

Question put -

That the subsection proposed to be omitted (Mr Malcolm Fraser’s amendment) stand part of the proposed section.

The Committee divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Ayes . 62

Noes . 58

Majority 4

In division:

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

– Order! There is nothing to stop the Speaker being here.

Mr Nixon:

– What is the Speaker-

The CHAIRMAN:

– -Order! I point out to the honourable member for Gippsland that when the counting of votes in the Sydney electorate finished the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Cope) was well in front. Therefore, he is entitled to be in the chamber.

Mr Nixon:

– Mr Chairman, is it true that the Speaker is still in the shadow of Lennie Devine?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! If the honourable member for Gippsland takes frivolous points of order I will do something about it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Remainder of Bill - toy leave - taken as a whole, and agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment, report - by leave - adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr Clyde Cameron)- by leave - proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr WENTWORTH (Mackellar) (10.3)- Mr Speaker, I want to raise one major question. I will detain the House for 5 minutes only in connection with this Bill -

Motion (by Mr Daly) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time. NATIONAL HEALTH BILL (No. 2) 1974

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

Second Reading

Mr HAYDEN:
Minister for Social Security · Oxley · ALP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Bill before the House has been introduced as a matter of urgency to correct a serious defect of the National Health Act. It deals with the controls over health benefits funds in relation to ‘benefits payable and contributions which they may charge and provides greater protection to members of funds who may be disadvantaged by the actions of fund managements. Under the existing provisions, an alteration by a registered medical or hospital benefit fund to its contribution rates is inoperative and has no legal effect unless and until approval of the alteration has been given by the Minister for Social Security. The existing law also requires a registered medical or hospital fund to comply with any direction given to it by the Minister regarding the rates of contribution payable by its members. The present law is, however, uncertain regarding the Minister’s powers in cases where a registered organisation presents a ‘package’ application for a variation in medical or hospital benefits and contribution rates. One interpretation is that the Minister’s power is limited to acceptance or rejection in toto of an application by a fund to vary benefits and contributions.

First the Bill includes a provision that funds which fail to comply with conditions of registration relating to levels of benefits or contributions as directed by the Minister are acting illegally. Any person aggrieved by such action has recourse to the Australian Industrial Court which is empowered to grant an injunction against such an organisation. Second, the Bill makes it clear that in considering an application for variation of hospital and medical benefits and contribution rates, the Minister is empowered to consider and decide on levels of benefits and contributions separately. Third, the Bill will also give clear legal authority to the policy which the previous Government adopted, and this Government has followed, that in considering whether to approve or refuse to approve of changes in relation to contributions or benefits, the Minister may have regard to any excess of the moneys standing to the credit of the fund over the amounts reasonably required for the purposes of the fund including the maintenance of adequate reserves. Finally, the Bill provides for a fund which is dissatisfied with a decision by the Minister in relation to the fixing of contribution and benefit rates, to appeal against the Minister’s decision and for such an appeal to be heard by a Judge of a Federal Court or a Supreme Court of a State or Territory.

Recent events have made it abundantly clear that some funds intend to take every step within their power to ensure that, when the present system of private health insurance ends and the new universal program commences, they retain intact the vast and excessive reserves which they have built up through consistently overcharging contributors over many years. The excessive levels of reserves, especially in the hospital funds, has been recognised by our predecessors as well as ourselves but inadequate legislation has allowed the situation to reach an intolerable position. The Government’s view is that excessive reserves held by health insurance funds should be used for the direct benefit of contributors by holding down contribution rates to the lowest level compatible with the financial viability of the funds.

Mr Chipp:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I apologise to the Minister for interrupting him, but I wish to assist the proceedings of the House. I know that the Leader of the House has some problem in getting certain business through the House. The Minister has paid me the courtesy of giving me a copy of his speech. I have read the speech. The proceedings are not being broadcast. Unless the Minister wants to hear the sound of his voice, I would be quite happy to support the Minister if he sought the indulgence of the House to have his speech incorporated in Hansard.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I thank the honourable member for Hotham for his co-cperation. I suggest, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you might permit that course to be followed.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Luchetti)It is a most unusual procedure. Does the Minister seek the indulgence of the House for that procedure to be followed?

Mr HAYDEN:

– Yes.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– It is the will of the House that that course be followed There being no objection, we will adopt that procedure.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I thank the House. (The remainder of the second reading speech read as follows) -

In a desperate endeavour to pre-empt Government authority 2 of the major Australian funds, the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia and the Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia, publicly announced 40 per cent increases in contribution rates as from 1 August 1974, the date on which hospital charges in New South Wales are to be increased. These 2 funds inserted large advertisements in the Press of 28 July and, as well, released Press statements concerning the increases which received wide coverage on Saturday, 27 July.

Formal applications for the Minister’s approval to vary the benefits and contribution rates were received in my Department on 26 July. On advice from the Registration Committee established under the National Health Act, I refused approval of the proposed contribution increases.

One can reasonably apprehend that, if adequate action is not now taken to protect the public interest, health insurance funds throughout Australia may be encouraged to flout the reasonable instructions on contribution rates and benefit levels issued by the Government on advice from the Registration Committee. Honourable members will, of course, be aware that this Committee was set up by the Liberal-Country Party Government in 1953 and has continued to operate throughout the succeeding period under a succession of Liberal-Country Party governments and the present Government.

If the MBF and HCF funds succeed in increasing contributions without the authority of the Government, the Government’s control over benefits contributions and reserves will be in jeopardy. I would like to make it clear, however, that the health insurance funds generally are displaying a responsible attitude. In fact the Victorian health funds have announced that they will not seek to increase contribution rates before 1 January 1975 despite heavy increases in hospital fees in that State. The major funds in South Australia and Western Australia, where heavy increases in hospital fees have been announced, have applied for increases in hospital contribution rates which will not lead to the accumulation of excessive reserves. Furthermore they are, quite properly, abiding by the established procedures and awaiting the approval of the Minister.

Honourable members will understand from the facts which I have just outlined that MBF and HCF have deliberately flouted the intention of the National Health Act enacted by and administered for so many years by our predecessors that increases in contribution rates should be approved by the Minister before they are implemented. The managements of both of these funds are well aware of the procedures for varying benefits and contribution rates and that these procedures necessarily take time. It is quite evident that the funds, by their actions, have, in collusion, decided to defy the Government. This is plainly shown by the fact that 6 weeks earlier, on 11 June, I made a public announcement reiterating Government policy, a bi-partisan policy shared with our predecessors, concerning the use of reserves. A month later, on 1 1 July, officers of my Department addressed representatives of the New South Wales funds to explain again and reiterate the Government’s policy in the context of the current increases in hospital charges. The deliberate intent of the MBF and HCF funds to defy the Government is further evidenced by the fact that applications to vary their contribution rates were not received from those funds until 26 July, the day their announcements to the Press were made.

Government policy concerning levels of reserves has been in line with that of the previous Government, which in turn was based on the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry into Health Insurance, commonly know as the Nimmo Committee, of 1969. The recommendation was:

The Committee believes that the larger funds should follow’ a policy under which their free reserves would be limited to an amount equal to 3 months’ contributions.

The recommendation went on to say:

Reserves of this magnitude should be sufficient to cover temporary fluctuations due to epidemics or other adverse experience, to provide for losses due to poor management until the fault has been corrected, and to meet final claims should the fund be wound up for any reason.

In a major policy statement on behalf of the previous Government on 4 March 1970, Dr Forbes, the then Minister for Health, said in this House:

The Government has decided to substantially adopt the proposals contained in recommendations 32 and 33 of the Nimmo Committee. These relate to the financial reserves of registered health insurance funds. In future, a policy will be applied under which the ‘free’ reserves of the larger funds - that is, reserves in excess of amounts held against unpresented claims and contributions paid in advance - will generally be limited to the equivalent of 3 months’ contribution income.

The reserves levels of medical benefit funds is generally acceptable, but, throughout Australia, hospital benefits funds hold execessive reserves.

It is also this Government’s policy that excessive reserves should be used for the direct benefit of contributors by damping down increases in contribution rates. Despite recommendation and efforts made by my Government and the previous Government, due to the inadequacy of the legislation, hospital fund surpluses have continued to grow as is shown by the following table, taken from the reports of the Operations of the Registered Medical and Hospital Benefits organisations which have been tabled in both Houses:

HOSPITAL FUND SURPLUSES

This reduction was due to a transfer from reserves to provisions.

In addition to the above amounts, funds have substantial amounts allocated for specific provisions, for example, claims outstanding, fluctuations in values of investments, claims in respect of contributions in advance, etc. These provisions, plus further surpluses which accrued in 1973-74, take the total reserves of Hospitals Contributions Fund and Medical Benefits Fund combined to over $50m.

I should point out here that equating reserves to 3 months’ contribution income is merely a guideline. One would also want to look at aggregate levels but in all decisions there must be fairness, not only to the funds but also to contributors to the funds. Too often, the position of the contributors in these matters is forgotten and only that of the funds is put forward. It has been claimed on behalf of the funds that implementation of Govenmenty policy at this time will induce liquidity problems leading to losses on realisation of investments. To this I would point out that the funds have known for 5 years the Government policy on reserves and their portfolios of investment should have been designed to fit that policy. Further, most funds have substantial provisions against losses on realisation of investments.

Honourable members will note that, contrary to Press speculation, this Bill does not propose financial penalties against health funds. It is basically designed to clear up doubts about the authority of the Australian Government to control the benefits and contributions of health funds - an authority which the Opposition must surely support since, during its term as Government, Ministers of that Government showed concern about the enhancement of that authority and also about the principle that health funds should not amass excessive reserves but should use reserve moneys to avoid or to cushion contribution increases. In this respect, I again draw the attention of the House to the statement made on 4 March 1970 by the then Minister for Health, Dr Forbes, concerning consideration the then Government was giving to the introduction of penalties against health funds and their officers. Honourable members may also recall that in June and July of 1971 the authority of the then Minister, Senator Greenwood, to direct the health funds on hospital fund contributions and benefits was challenged by New South Wales funds led by MBF and HCF.

I am sure all honourable members will agree that the legislation controlling health insurance should be amended to ensure that it is capable of achieving its intentions. We are, in fact, seeking legislative authority to effectively discharge a policy which is very much the same policy enunciated by past LiberalCountry Party governments on the matter of reserves.

In summary this Bill is designed to make certain that the intentions of the present National Health Act can be positively implemented in the interests of the public and that the avenue of appeal against the Minister’s decisions in relation to contribution and benefit levels should provide proper opportunities to have the whole question of what are adequate reserves judicially resolved. The Government is requesting honourable members to consider this Bill as a matter of urgency because the MBF and HCF have arbitrarily instructed paymasters to begin deducting increased contributions from contributors and have also indicated that contributors who do not pay their unauthorised contribution rates will not receive benefits after today at a level sufficient to cover hospital charges in New South Wales.

In conclusion, I wish to point out that, when this legislation has been passed by the Parliament, the contribution rates determined in accordance with the proper procedures provided, will give all contributors to health funds full entitlements to benefits without paying unauthorised contributions which fund managements may impose. Avenues will be available to them to ensure that their rights can be effectively protected in law. Without this legislation, the Government’s legal authority to protect contributors’ interests is not as clear as it should be and the public could be gravely inconvenienced and unfairly imposed upon with illegal charges for health insurance coverage. This is a Bill to protect the public interest, nothing more, nothing less.

It is, I repeat, a Bill to ensure that the policy declarations of past Liberal-Country Party governments on the matter of health fund reserves is achieved in the public interest. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Chipp) adjourned.

page 906

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion (by Mr Daly) - by leave - agreed to: That the resolutions of the House this day making the second readings of the Evidence Bill 1974, the Parliamentary Papers Bill 1974 and the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Bill 1974 orders of the day for the next day of sitting be rescinded, and the second readings of the Bills be made orders of the day for this sitting.

page 906

EVIDENCE BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 878).

Mr ELLICOTT:
Wentworth

– This Bill amends the Evidence Act in a way which will enable the signatures to be judicially noticed of any person presiding at a joint sitting of the Parliament and which will facilitate the proof of proceedings which take place in a joint sitting. The Opposition does not oppose this measure and it is happy to facilitate its speedy passage. It will apply to any future joint sitting of the Parliament.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 906

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 878). Mr ELLICOTT (Wentworth) (10.13)- The Opposition will also facilitate the passage of this measure. It is one that amends the Parliamentary Papers Act in a material way in relation to a joint sitting of the Parliament. I am very happy to see that the Government is amending the Parliamentary Papers Act in order to carry out a suggestion made by the then Attorney-General, Senator Greenwood, and the then Solicitor-General, myself, in a paper we presented to the Parliament in 1972 in relation to the powers over and protection accorded to witnesses before parliamentary committees. We suggested that the Act was defective in certain respects. It is salutary to notice that the Government has taken note of that and has included the suggested amendment in the Parliamentary Papers Bill now before the House. The Opposition will not oppose this measure and will assist its speedy passage.

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

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 906

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS BROADCASTING BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 880).

Mr PEACOCK:
Kooyong

– The Opposition does not oppose the Bill to amend the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Act, but it ought not be regarded as a precedent. As I understand it, the Bill vests power in the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings to determine the manner in which the joint sitting of the Parliament next week is to be televised. This reposes a great deal of power in that Committee, and I assume that we are not reposing it without due consideration of the objectivity of the members of that Committee while conferring on the manner in which the joint sitting will be televised.

Mr James:

– There will be no make-up, you know.

Mr PEACOCK:

– I do not need it, but I cannot speak for others and would not hazard a guess whether they need it or not. I think it is well to bear in mind on this matter of televising of Parliament that there is a division of opinion on both the Government and the Opposition sides. I hope that on some f future occasion there will be a free vote on the report of a committee that has been considering the matter. I am aware that many people are very wary of the televising of parliamentary proceedings and the effect it may have on the checks and balances of the parliamentary system and the performance that people will produce merely for television cameras. I would be particularly wary if a particular committee was exposed to the televising of its processes and investigations. It is well to reflect that, the Supreme Court of the United States has found that a person has been denied due process of law through the televising of proceedings of a committee, because allegations can be made, not answered and not presented in a balanced way.

Notwithstanding that and notwithstanding the reservations of many of my colleagues and friends, who I see in this Parliament and, who are opposed to the televising of parliamentary proceedings, I would like to present a personal view. I have put to the House that the Opposition does not oppose this Bill as long as it is not regarded as a precedent. My own personal view is that in fact the televising of important occasions in this Parliament would serve the community well. I do not mean occasions like tonight. I am talking about a statement by a Prime Minister after returning from overseas, a statement of a Leader of the Opposition in reply to it, a Budget speech or a motion of no confidence in the Government, provided both sides of the Parliament agree. I think that those who argue against the televising of parliamentary proceedings are turning their backs on the most effective means of communication in the community. If they have no desire to adjust to it as a medium they ought not allow viewpoints that motivate them in that way to stand between the Parliament and the people. For better or for worse, the overwhelming majority of people in the community use television to a substantial extent during their leisure times. It is unquestionably the most important means of communication in society today.

Those who argue against the presentation of parliamentary views from the chambers of the Parliament itself but who allow political debate to occur in the sterile and antiseptic atmosphere of a television studio, with the chairman perhaps not knowing anything about the matter upon which he is probing those who are proceeding before the camera, are inconsistent, to put it mildly. It seems to me that those who are proffering views from the Government or Opposition side of the chamber ought to be able to communicate them through the most effective means available today and that the agreement of both sides of the chamber ought to be able to be reached.

Those are solely my personal views at this moment. I have expressed those views in a personal capacity at this stage because I believe that the Parliament must turn its attention beyond merely the Committee reporting on the matter to whether in fact its proceedings on occasions can, by agreement of both sides of the House, be televised in order that the people can be properly informed. That is not merely a recognition of television as an authoritative and popularly accepted medium in the community. It is also a fact of life in society today that authority itself is not respected. Parliament must be recognised as a party principle to authority in the community. We ought therefore to provide for Parliament to alleviate the concern and the misgivings in the community today by televising aspects of its proceedings. Again I reiterate, in deference to those of my colleagues who seemingly have totally and utterly different views to those I am proffering, that in that aspect I am speaking solely in a personal capacity. But, on behalf of the shadow minister for the media, whom I represent in this chamber, I say that the Opposition on this occasion and in no way establishing a precedent supports the legislation.

The legislation provides that the Committee will determine the means whereby the joint sitting will be televised. The test of objectivity lies not only on it but also on those who will be the cameramen, producers and directors of the program. I trust that those who have supported the concept that Parliament ought to be communicated by means of television cameras in the future will pay heed to the manner in which the joint sitting is televised next week, if that is to be when it is to be held. As I have said, debates in television studios tend to be artificially conducted. They tend to be conducted and chaired by those who, on many occasions, are singularly uninformed. Whilst many might feel that those who sit opposite are no better informed when they speak on some matters, nevertheless that is for the electorate, to determine. The televising of various parliamentary proceedings would not only enhance the stature of the Parliament if properly conducted but also would enable a full and effective appraisal of the parliamentary system as such. It is not my desire to detain the House further on this piece of legislation. I repeat that we of the Opposition support the Bill.

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– I thank the Opposition for its co-operation in relation to the passage of this Bill and congratulate the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) on the splendid exhibition he gave at extremely short notice. Might I say that I would use what little influence I have with the authorities to ensure that when the proceedings of the Parliament are being televised he plays a prominent part because with his distinguished looks, ready wit and pleasant speech he would be undoubtedly a real riot in the first televising of the Parliament.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 908

QUESTION

JOINT SITTING

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– by leave - I move:

That this House resolves that it be a rule and order of the House of Representatives that at a joint sitting with the Senate the proceedings are proceedings in Parliament and that the powers, privileges and immunities of members of this House shall mutatis mutandis be those relating to a sitting of this House.

This motion has been moved as a result of, to give him due honour, a suggestion by the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Ellicott) in connection with the application of section 49 of the Constitution in relation to a joint sitting of the Parliament. It is one that has been thought fit by the honourable member for Wentworth, in consultation with the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy), to be one that should apply to the joint sitting.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 908

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment.

Canberra Water Supply (Googong Dam) Bill 1974.

Northern Territory (Administration) Bill 1974.

Excise Bill 1974.

Customs Bill 1974.

page 908

QUESTION

JOINT SITTING

Mr DALY (Grayndler- Leader of the

House) - Mr Speaker, the honourable member for Wentworth would like to make a brief statement on the rules for the joint sitting and I would suggest that leave should be granted for him to do so.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is leave granted to the honourable member for Wentworth to make a short statement on that subject? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Mr ELLICOTT:
Wentworth

– My only reason for wanting to do so is to indicate the Opposition’s attitude to the motion that has just been passed in case it goes by default. It had been suggested that section 49 of the Constitution might itself give protection in a joint sitting, but if one refers to section 49 of the Constitution one will find that it does not refer to a joint sitting and that it only picks up the powers, privileges and immunities of the House of Commons. Of course, the House of Commons does not have provision for a joint sitting. It has been suggested that it is extremely doubtful whether section 49 would provide sufficient protection to members engaged in a joint sitting with senators. It is for that reason that discussions took place with the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) about the working out of some method of ensuring that the full powers and immunities of protection normally afforded to members of this House would be appropriate to them when sitting in a joint sitting. The motion was really based on section 50 of the Constitution, which provides that each House of Parliament may make rules and orders with respect to the order and conduct of its business and proceedings jointly with the other House. Basing it on what is thought to be an effective way of ensuring that the powers, privileges and immunities which normally apply to a member when sitting in this House will apply to him when he is in fact sitting in this physical building at the time of a joint sitting. That, of course, in its terms would not apply to any particular joint sitting but will govern a situation in future joint sittings.

Of course, there has been a question before this House for some time as to whether the House itself - indeed, the Parliament - should be concerned about the privileges of the Parliament being committed to further legislation or rules that might be more clearly defined. That is a matter which was raised in the time of the Liberal-Country Party Government - before 1972. The question of privileges was raised at that time and inquiries were set in train. It is to be hoped that the present Government will continue the inquiries that were set in train. Some work was done on the matter with a view to declaring more precisely what those privileges would be. In those circumstances the House would, of course, be enabled to know more readily and the public would know more readily what are the powers and privileges of the Parliament. Unfortunately we are still in the rather archaic situation whereby, in order to determine what are the powers and privileges of members of this House, one has to go to Erskine May’s ‘Parliamentary Practice’ and through all sorts of customs in the English parliaments in order to define them. The motion was a motion which we of the Opposition were very happy to support.

page 909

ADJOURNMENT

Personal Explanation - Ukrainian Historian - Local Government - Secretarial Assistance for Members of Parliament

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order, it being 10.30 p.m., in accordance with the order of the House, I propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Farrer

- Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to make a personal explanation concerning the Hansard record of yesterday, Thursday, 30 July. A mistake has been made in the voting record which I wish to correct. The House divided at approximately 9.41 p.m. when the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Ian Robinson) whose speech I had heard had concluded speaking and while my colleague, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) was attempting to get the call. He was gagged by the Government Whip, the honourable member for Bonython (Mr Nicholls). I recall thinking at the time that it was most unfair of the Government to gag the honourable member for Mackellar because he had for many years exhibited a great interest in transport - I served with him on the Government members rail standardisation Committee - so I voted against the question moved by the honourable member for Bonython: ‘That the question be now put.’ My vote was not recorded with those of honourable members who voted against the motion.

Immediately after this vote was taken the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) took the Chair, and I was happy when he called first the honourable member for Mackellar. I was glad when the honourable member for Mackellar congratulated the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) on his intention to complete the standard gauge pro posals. After listening to the speech of the honourable member for Mackellar I heard the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) attempt to get the call, but the Government Whip again moved ‘That the question be now put’, and I again voted with the noes, which vote was so recorded at 9.58 p.m. I have no doubt whatsover that I was in the House during both these ballots. The honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) who normally sits next to me in the chamber has confirmed that he saw me sitting in my normal position during this division. A mistake obviously has been made and I ask that my name be recorded as being present during both these divisions.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I am sure that the record will be rectified.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– Last Sunday in the Sydney Domain there was a meeting to support a protest in relation to the treatment that had been accorded to Mr Valentyn Moroz, a Ukrainian in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. This gentleman, who is a distinguished Ukrainian historian, has been gaoled on a political charge, not for any activity but simply for expressing a political opinion. He was gaoled, I think under the provisions of section 62 of the Soviet Constitution. His gaoling is a monstrous violation of normal human freedoms and he has been subjected to very bad treatment. It may be that he will die in gaol. He is at present engaged in a hunger strike.

There should be throughout the world some kind of protest on behalf of this distinguished and heroic man. I believe that the Association of Ukrainian Organisations has written to all members of Parliament in regard to this matter. I have a copy of that organisation’s letter. It asks us to do 3 things. First, we are asked to arrange a consultation with the Ambassador of the USSR in Canberra and the Department of Foreign Affairs in order to obtain information and to take steps necessary to prevent cruel and inhuman punishment. The members of that organisation are concerned with this individual case. Secondly, they ask us to advise the government of the USSR of our continuing interest in this case and request that, in the event of his release from custody, an exit visa be accorded to him to allow him to leave the USSR if he so desires. Thirdly, they ask that the Government inform itself fully of the circumstances of this case.

I support these 3 requests. I believe that the Government itself would support them. I say this because, although members from this side of the House were present at the protest meeting at the Sydney Domain on Sunday and although no members from the Government side of the House were present, I understand that 2 members from the Government side of the Parliament have associated themselves with this protest. One of the Government supporters to whom I refer is Senator Mulvihill and the other, I am so informed, is the Deputy Prime Minister, Dr J. F. Cairns. I am informed that he has made some kind of protest in this regard but, as it happens - it is unusual in the case of a Deputy Prime Minister- his protest has passed unregarded and no publicity has been accorded to it. If the Deputy Prime Minister is honest in this, as I am sure he must be - we should give him the credit of being honest in this - I am sure that he would like publicly to be associated with this protest. It is not good enough, as he would know, just to do something secretly and in private. If a protest is being made by a member of the Government, by a Government Minister, by a Deputy Prime Minister, it should be accorded the whole weight of the Australian Government. I would think, therefore, that the requests made are very reasonable ones.

I hope that the Leader of the House (Mr Daly), who is sitting at the table, will take the opportunity to intervene in this debate and say that the Government will officially back up the initiative taken by the Deputy Prime Minister in relation to this matter. I suggest that the Government might do 3 things in this regard. I put these suggestions to the Government and I ask that they be put into effect. First, I suggest that the Government might make known to the Australian people where it stands in relation to this case and in relation to cases like it. If this were an isolated case one could perhaps take’ less notice of it, but one knows that it is typical of the circumstances of millions who are suffering under Soviet tyranny. I suggest that the Government should - perhaps it will - associate itself with this protest publicly so that the Australian people can know where it stands in relation to cases such as this. The second thing I ask is more concrete and definite. I ask that the Government make an official protest at the United Nations General Assembly which will be convened in a month or so. The USSR has been consistently evading and violating the covenants it has signed in regard to human rights. The Soviet Union has demonstrated the most utter hypocrisy in regard to human rights and I think it is time that the Government officially associated itself with a protest in the United Nations.

I know that the Minister at the table will not be able to give an opinion off the cuff but I ask him to see that this matter is referred to the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) so that when the Parliament meets for the Budget session he will be able to tell us that an official protest has been made to the United Nations. It is easy to say and I know that it will be said: ‘Why has this not been done earlier when the USSR has been consistently violating its international obligations in the United Nations?’ This would be a powerful thing to say, but I do not think it would bear much weight, I have represented Australia at the United Nations on 2 occasions. On both occasions I have come under censure from the Soviet authorities because I made this kind of protest in the United Nations. I ask now that the Government officially bring to the notice of the United Nations the consistent violation of all human rights which the Soviet Union is perpetrating against its .own citizens inside its own borders. This is something which concerns all humanity. If we are to make this kind of protest against one nation, let us make it against the Soviet Union. I know that when these matters are raised the represenatives of the Soviet Union in the United Nations in the past have used the elegant phrase: ‘Let them keep their pig snouts out of our Soviet garden’. This is what they have said. I believe that because we have bowed down to this kind of Soviet intransigance we have lost a great deal of the moral authority which should be ours. Here is a concrete thing which we can do and which we should do.

The third point I make is that the Government should use its resources to see that people in Australia are better informed about factual developments inside the Soviet Union. Censorship in the Soviet Union even extends sometimes to prohibition of normal Soviet newspapers reaching us in time. This is intolerable. We have an embassy in Moscow and it should be used to see that proper factual information about what is happening inside the Soviet Union reaches us here in Australia. We open our gates in Australia to Soviet representatives - and perhaps rightly so. But if we do this we are entitled to ask for equal opportunity for our diplomats and our representatives - whether they be private citizens or government officials - inside the borders of the Soviet Union itself. We are entitled to ask for freedom of movement. We are entitled to ask for-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable gentleman’s time has expired. I remind the honourable gentleman and all other members of the House that Hansard immediately ceases to record a member’s speech once the Speaker has said that the time allowed for the speech has expired.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

– Last night we were treated to a discourse by the yodelling cowboy from the southern sector of Queensland, the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh). I am sorry he is not in the chamber this evening. I informed him I was going to remark on his speech of last evening. He came into this chamber and cried crocodile tears about the problems of local government. He set out what was supposed to be happening in Queensland and who was responsible for what was happening. He ought to have a discussion with his State leader - his hero, jovial Joh, the Premier of Queensland - and draw the attention of the Premier to his activities during the recent referendum in respect of the financial situation for local government. The financial problems that exist in local government are problems that developed in the 23 years of Federal Liberal-Country Party administration. They occurred in Queensland, in particular, under a long period of Country Party administration.

Let us look at the position of State and local government debt and borrowing since 1947. In that year the total debt of local government authorities was $140m or about 7 per cent of total State government debt. In June 1971, on preliminary figures provided by the Government statistician, the debt had risen to $ 1,730m or almost 15 per cent of estimated total State government debt at that date. In the 24 years local government authorities debt had increased twelve-fold compared with an increase of not quite six-fold in the State government total outstanding debt. Yet after that period of enormous growth in the range and cost of local government responsibility, local government’s voice was not being heard in the place where the nation’s broad public borrowing programs were being determined. After almost a quarter of a century of

Liberal-Country Party administration local government was effectively a vassal of State bureaucracies.

I am quite delighted that the honourable member for Darling Downs told the House that he recently had talked to Mr Fred Rogers, President of the Queensland Local Government Association. He said that he had had numerous discussions with the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) and Mr Seventeen Per Cent, the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Hewson). He said that the two honourable members are both men who have devoted many years of their life to local government. Both these gentlemen, in collaboration with the honourable member for Darling Downs, ought to have conferred with the Secretary of the Queensland Local Government Association and they might have learned something to their benefit. Interim regions in Queensland were created for the first year of the Grants Commission operations last December. Applications for approval of the new long term regional organisations have just been received. All local governing bodies in the regions which have so far applied have opted voluntarily into the scheme. Only 2 regions were the subject of negotiations with the Queensland Government and the Department of Urban and Regional Development. A satisfactory arrangement has been reached in these regions with the assistance of Mr Max Armstrong, secretary of the State Local Government Association. A close and amicable arrangement has developed between the association and the officers of the Department of Urban and Regional Development.

Local government in Queensland has welcomed the Grants Commission initiative, and the Association has provided secretarial assistance to the regional organisations of councils in the person of its secretary, Mr Armstrong. The honourable member for Darling Downs quoted Lord Rosebery as saying: ‘He who wants to serve his fellow man cannot serve him in any better way than by engaging in local government.’ I suggest that that is the only factual part of the honourable member’s contribution last evening. I should like to draw the honourable member’s attention and his colleagues’ attention to a report which appeared in the ‘South Burnett Times’ on 27 February last. The newspaper reported on the visit of the Premier of Queensland to the local government conference held at Wondai and the reaction of the Mayor of Bundaberg, Alderman Nielsen. Alderman Nielsen said that the Premier was inclined to have handed out a threatbut stated that local authorities were quite capable of making up their own minds on the best interests of local government. The article quotes Mr Armstrong as saying:

For the Premier to introduce politics to the conference was quite out of place.

In effect what the Premier said was that in respect of any money for local government in Queensland received from the Federal Government there would be a corresponding reduction in assistance from the Queensland Government. I do not know whether or not that is co-operation from the Queensland Government -maybe in its terms it is - but certainly it is not assistance for or recognition of local goverment.

This Government has done more in 20 months for local government than any Federal Government since federation. The honourable member says that the Australian Country Party has definite plans to submit for the solution of local government ills. The plan it has appears to include opposition to referendums, opposition to local government and a threat by the Premier of Queensland to local government delegates meeting at Wondai. The honourable member went on to claim that the Department of Urban and Regional Development had not done anything in Australia outside of the western suburbs of Melbourne and Sydney.

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

– That is right.

Mr MORRIS:

– Perhaps he was not in the House and I am certain the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Ian Robinson) was not in the House - he does not understand anyway - when the Sewerage Agreements Bill, was passed in December of last year. It provided for the sum of $30m to be allocated to the constituent States of this Federation for sewerage works. A particular amendment was made to that Bill and to the grants that have since flowed following representations from Queensland. Queensland received its share but, as I said, the honourable member for Cowper probably would not have noticed that. His mind would have been on other things. I am certain that the honourable member for Darling Downs would have been catching up on his yodelling practice. Apart from the sewerage backlog there has been a flow of money from the Department of Urban and Regional Development under the national estate program and funds have been made available through the lands commissions. But again that modern government in Queensland, under the leadership of the Country Party, has not seen fit to participate in the program that would reduce the price of home sites. It does not want that.

It would be very interesting to know whether the Federal Country Party now supports federal assistance for local government. Knowing the way that the Country Party operates I would not be in the least surprised if it is not at the head of the queue making representations to this Government for assistance to be given to local government. I venture to say that it probably is. In any case it would be typical of the attitude the Country Party adopts in following the policy of what can only be described as hypocrisy and duplicity. Having opposed not only the local government referendum but also having opposed in this House the constitutional referendum Bills which would only enable us to ask the people-

Mr McVeigh:

– The people of Australia opposed them.

Mr MORRIS:

– You did not even want to ask the people.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! This is not the time for a private argument or conversation. I ask the honourable member please to address the Chair and to ignore interjections. I ask the honourable member for Darling Downs to restrain himself. He has a voice like a soprano.

Mr MORRIS:

– I thank you for your guidance, Mr Speaker. I had interpreted the noise as a yodel but I accept your interpretation. Although I am under extreme provocation I will restrain myself. I was addressing my remarks to the membership of the Country Party as a whole even though in this case they could well be directed to certain members. The honourable member for Darling Downs is recorded at page 824 of Hansard as having said:

Those of us who sit on this side of the House- that is, the Opposition side- maintain that the supporters of the Labor Government are merely a mob of political bikies who are pack-raping the local government associations of this country.

That is probably one of the most colourful expressions I have heard coming from that side of the House. But I think in that case we would have to plead ‘with consent’ because after seeing the co-operation that was received from local government authorities in Queensland, particularly the assistance of the Secretary of the Local Government Association of Queensland. The fact is that out of all those regions I mentioned every constituent council has participated in the deliberations and is participating in the benefits that will become available from the Australian Grants Commission. I will conclude on this note. The Grants Commission-

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

– You have not told us anything yet.

Mr MORRIS:

– You would not understand anyway. The grants from the Grants Commission will be available in the 1974-75 Budget. That” was always the promise. That was always the indication and I am sorry to have to repeat it again for the benefit of the Australian Country Party membership.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I rise tonight to reply to a tirade of abuse which came from the Government side of this House on both Wednesday and Thursday nights of last week. On those occasions I presented certain accusations and allegations about the way the Government was allocating various facilities to members of the Parliament. The response I received on the first night was the tirade which I have already alluded to and the response on the second night was a rather weak explanation. Regrettably, the final speech which was made on Thursday night came from the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh). Certain accusations which were again made have forced me into a position in which I have no alternative but to rise again on this rather unpleasant subject. If honourable members look at page 622 of the Hansard record for Wednesday 24 July 1974 when I first made allegations about favouritism displayed by the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly), who is seated at the table, towards members of the Australian Labor Party in marginal seats when allocating secretarial assistance they will recall these words which the Minister used:

I do not allocate secretaries to people; my Department does it.

What a pathetic man the Minister turns out to be when he is under fire. Year in and year out he acts as the court jester but the moment he is found out he hides behind the Department he administers and the people in that Department. He told the House an untruth because Senator Marriott of Tasmania rang him well before the election and complained that the entire secretarial typing pool in Tasmania had been allocated to the Australian Labor Party. It is not for me to bring out in this Parliament the details of the conversation because no doubt there was a degree of privacy involved. The other night the Minister claimed that he had no knowledge whatsoever and this in itself shows that the Minister was not being completely frank with the Parliament. In that same speech on 24 July the Minister claimed he had never been consulted in respect of the allocation of office space in Brisbane. He said:

I have never been consulted about the allocation of rooms in Brisbane.

But the following night, as is recorded at page 727 of Hansard, he said:

Subsequently and after the allocation of space the Honourable Kevin Cairns wrote to me about the allocation of the office to Senator Milliner and seeking information concerning the normal principles observed in allocation. I have written to him . . .

The previous night the Minister had the audacity to stand up in this place, looking lily-white and disclaiming any knowledge whatsoever of the allegations and accusations that I had made. The Minister’s credibility makes President Nixon look like the fabled Eva Peron.

I will go back further in time and refer to Liberal members who obtained assistance from the Minister’s Department. No matter what the Minister says, he is responsible for what happens in his Department. He cannot hide behind clerks and junior officers who have no way of replying in this Parliament. Senator Lillico, an aged senator who retired, came from Tasmania. He needed additional assistance to help him wind up his office affairs after having been in public life since the 1940s and a senator since the late 1950s. In South Australia 2 men who became members of this Parliament on the same day as I did in 1966 witnessed the blatant misuse of political power, but they were not prepared to display the same patience and tolerance as I did. They started before the election and demanded rights equal to those which had been given to the ALP members who had been allocated the relieving typing pool to help them in their bid for re-election. They moved after they saw that the ALP member* had the pool sewn up. Senator Jessop said to me: 1 had to roar like a bull to get help.’ The other person, the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay), said: T spoke to some peanut and I had to put on quite a performance. It was begrudgingly given.’ It turned out that in Queensland, Western Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and in Tasmania - with the exception of the retiring aged Senator Lillico - the relieving typing pools were made available to the members of the ALP. We are supposed to believe that this happened just by chance. The same thing would have happened in South Australia except for the outspokenness displayed by the honourable member for Boothby and Senator Jessop and their preparedness to stand up for their rights.

I will very briefly refer to the debate the other night because there is insufficient time tonight to go into detail. The speech that the honourable member for Bowman made was as despicable as that which was made by the Minister who raved on about a woman who used to be my secretary. I can tell the Minister that when this lady retired she was in her early 60s and well and truly a grandmother. As far as the Minister’s accusations are concerned, he did her an injustice when he claimed on Wednesday night that she was going to oppose me for pre-selection. That is the worst possible form of disloyalty to a member. Although we did not agree on all occasions it is intolerable that she should be left with this stigma because of character assassination by the Minister. His claim that she had given a lifetime of service-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! It being 11 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

page 914

TREATIES

The following treaties were deemed to have been presented on 31 July 1974, by command of His Excellency the Governor-General:

Agreement between Australia and the International Atomic Energy Agency for the Application of Safeguards in connection with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, signed for Australia on 10 July 1974.

Protocol Suspending Safeguards applied in Australia under the Agreement between the International Atomic Energy Agency, Australia and the United States of America for the Application of Safeguards pursuant to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, signed for Australia on 10 July 1974.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 915

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Department of the Environment and

Conservation: Liaison with State Departments (Question No. 65)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for the Environment and Conservation, upon notice:

  1. Will he provide a list of all formal committees, councils, etc., that have been established which enable him or officers of hisDepartment to maintain contact with State government ministers or State government officers.
  2. When was each body established and by whom.
  3. What is the (a) composition and (b) function of each body.
  4. On what occasions has each body met in the last 2 years and for what purpose.
Dr Cass:
Minister for the Environment and Conservation · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. The following Councils are serviced by the Department of the Environment and Conservation:

Australian Environment Council

Council of Nature Conservation Ministers

Australian Water Resources Council.

These Councils are advised by Standing Committees which are assisted by a number of Sub-Committees and Working Groups.

  1. , (3) and (4) Details of the operation of the above Councils and Standing Committees are as follows:

Foreign Aid to Fiji, Western Samoa and Tonga (Question No. 127)

Mr Kerin:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. What was the total value of Australian aid to (a) Fiji, (b) Western Samoa and (c) Tonga during 1973/74.
  2. What form did this aid take.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. The amount of Australian aid to Fiji, Western Samoa and Tonga during 1973/74 was as follows:
  1. Fiji received the flour equivalent of 14,000 tonnes of wheat. The main projects undertaken included assistance to irrigation development and rice production, provision of rural road building equipment, assistance with land surveys and mobile education units. Aid under the CCE Scheme provides training, experts and scholarships in the field of education. 30 students received training in Australia and 6 in a third country. In Western Samoa the major project was the supply of equipment and advisers to the Public Works Department. Training was provided for 4 students in Australia and 7 in other countries. Tonga received the flour equivalent of 1,000 tonnes of wheat, and projects included the provision of road plant, a mobile dental clinic, telephone equipment and equipment for water supply schemes.

Foreign Aid Projects in Fiji, Western Samoa, Tonga, New Hebrides, Solomon Islands (Question No. 130)

Mr Kerin:

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

  1. How many Australians are engaged in projects as part of aid programs in (a) Fiji, (b) Western Samoa, (c) Tonga, (d) New Hebrides and (e) the Solomon Islands.

    1. On what projects are they engaged.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

– The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: 1 The number of Australian experts, advisers and consultants engaged on projects under the Australian aid programs in Fiji, Western Samoa, Tonga, Naw Hebrides and the British Solomon Islands Protectorates:

Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies (Question No. 160)

Mr Lynch:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

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

  1. What progress has been made by the National Committee for Sites of Significance formed by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
  2. How many sites have so far been delineated.
  3. What action has been taken to ensure that these sites will be preserved.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

  1. The Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies established a Sites of Significance Committee early in 1973 and the Committee met in April and October 1973 and in February 1974 to discuss the allocation of funds provided for the program of identification of important sites. Twenty new positions have been provided as a result of grants made to the various

State and Territory authorities responsible for the protection of such sites: five in Western Australia, four each in New South Wales and the Northern Territory, three in South Australia, two in Queensland and one each in Victoria and Tasmania. Most of the positions (fifteen) are for site recorders, and others include a conservationist (Western Australia) to work on the causes of deterioration of rock art, and salvage archaeologists in Western Australia and New South Wales. In addition to the location and documentation of sites, programs for the training of Aboriginal workers have been developed.

  1. Some 1,600 sites in Western Australia, the Northern Territory, South Australia and New South Wales have been identified in this initial period.
  2. The protection of sites is primarily the responsibility of the State and Territory authorities which administer the relevant legislation. Once sites have been located and documented, action is taken to give the sites the benefit of the appropriate forms of legal protection available in the legislation. Special grants have been made to support scientific studies of conservation problems in Western Australia, which will be relevant in other areas and grants have been made for protective work on some particular sites. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs has provided grants to local Aboriginal bodies in the Northern Territory and elsewhere for the protection of sites by such means as fencing where this is considered necessary and desirable.

Defence Training Establishments: Intakes (Question No 152)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. What were the intakes of each defence training establishment in (a) 1970, (b) 1971, (c) 1972, (d) 1973 and (e) 1974 to date.
  2. What is the planned intake of each establishment for 1975.

Defence Forces: Strength and Composition (Question No. 200)

Mr Drury:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. What was the strength and composition of the Australian (a) Navy, (b) Army and (c) Air Force as at 2 December 1972.
  2. What is the strength and composition of these Forces at the present time.
Mr Barnard:
Minister for Defence · BASS, TASMANIA · ALP

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

Australian Government Public Servants: Geographic Distribution (Question No. 204)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

How many Government public servants are there in (a) Sydney, (b) Canberra, (c) Melbourne, (d) Brisbane, (e) Perth, (f) Adelaide, (g) Hobart, (h) Darwin and (i) other centres.

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

The number of public servants in each State and Territoryis published in the Public Service Board Annual Report. I expect to table the 1974 Annual Report in September.

Information on the number of public servants in each capital city is not available and cannot be obtained without a special large-scale survey (Hansard, 2 May 1967, page 1634). Information on the number of public servants in, say, Sydney and Melbourne would give little idea of the service they are able to give throughout the respective metropolitan areas. As the Government proceeds with its program to relocate Australian government employment in, say, Parramatta and Ringwood, I expect that regional statistics will become more relevant.

Aborigines and Islanders: Fishing and Transport Facilities (Question No. 261)

Mr Snedden:

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

  1. How many Aborigines are taking advantage of the transport and fishing facility that has been provided for Aboriginal and Islander communities in the north of Australia.
  2. How many Aborigines have been trained or are being trained to use the vessels that have been provided.
  3. Who has been responsible for this training.
  4. Who will have responsibility and overall control of the facility.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

  1. The only area where there are large-scale fishing and transport facilities is in Queensland. In Western Australia, pilot studies are being carried out at One Arm Point towards the possible provision of fishing facilities. In the Northern Territory there are now proposals being investigated for the provision or upgrading of fishing facilities at Bathurst, Galiwinku, Port Keats and Maningrida. In Queensland two vessels have been provided for general fishing purposes, the facility to which I presume the honourable member refers. These are ex-pearling vessels purchased by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs for the Thursday Island Co-operative. (2), (3) and (4) Responsibility for the two vessels based at Thursday Island lies with the Thursday Island Co-operative which employs six to eight Islanders on a co-operative profit-sharing basis.

Crocodile and Turtle Farming (Question No. 263)

Mr Snedden:

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

  1. Has any decision been taken to curtail or suspend the crocodile and turtle farming ventures in Western Australia which are being undertaken at Kalumburu and One Arm Point.
  2. Are those projects currently under examination as to whether Government funds should continue to be expended in these areas.
  3. If so, who is undertaking the examination, and when is it likely that it will be completed.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

  1. The Crocodile Farm at Kalumburu will continue to operate as a research project. The turtle farms at One Arm Point were closed because of staffing and management problems.
  2. and (3) Such projects are under constant review by Applied Ecology Proprietary Limited and the Department.

Commission of Inquiry into Transport Charges to and from Tasmania (Question No. 403)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Special Minister of

State, upon notice: .

  1. Who is undertaking the inquiry into freight rate disadvantages suffered by Tasmania
  2. When will the inquiry be completed?
Mr Lionel Bowen:
Special Minister of State · KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. Mr J. F. Nimmo, C.B.E., was issued with Letters Patent to conduct the Commission of Inquiry into Transport Charges to and from Tasmania.
  2. This depends on the nature and extent of the evidence submitted.

Medical Aids: Working Party (Question No. 424)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. What is the membership of the working party established to investigate the provision of new medical and surgical aids including _ oxygen supplies to pensioner medical patients in their homes.
  2. What progress has been made in the investigation.
  3. What specific types of aids are under consideration.
  4. Will a report be prepared for him.
  5. Will the report be made available for public scrutiny.
  6. When will the working party conclude its investigations.
Dr Everingham:
Minister for Health · CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP

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

  1. The working party was established in February 1973 to examine the provision of medical and surgical aids and appliances to those who need them and is not limited to examining only the needs of patients with Pensioner Medical Service entitlement. The working party has a membership of nine and is constituted by six senior officers of the Department of Health (including the chairman), two of the Department of Social Security and one of the Repatriation and Compensation Department.
  2. In two areas the investigations of the working party have been completed and the proposals made implemented by the Government. These areas are, firstly, the provision of artificial limbs, free of charge, to those who need them, and, secondly, the abolition of the $10 charge previously paid by eligible pensioners supplied with a hearing aid by the National Acoustic Laboratories and the provision of free hearing aid batteries to these pensioners.

In addition the working party has under various stages of investigation the provision of the following aids and appliances: hearing aids, spectacles, ostomy appliances, home dialysis equipment, insulin syringes, electronic larynxes, oxygen and oxygen equipment, equipment used by cystic fibrosis patients, medical wigs, breast forms.

The working party is not examining as a separate item the provision of oxygen supplies to pensioner medical patients in their homes, but is considering it in the context of the provision of oxygen to all persons who require it, e.g. those patients with chronic cardiac and respiratory disease who would benefit from oxygen in the home.

  1. It is intended that the working party will eventually investigate the provision of most medical and surgical aids and appliances. As well as the items in (2) above, this will include wheelchairs, calipers and braces, orthopaedic shoes, aids to daily living, certain prostheses, dressings, mobility aids for the blind, and so on. The investigation is ongoing, however, and other items may be included as they are brought to the working party’s attention.
  2. Yes. Reports will be made to me as Minister on all investigations made by the working party.
  3. The working party consists of departmental officers. It is not a public inquiry Commission. It was formed to advise me as Minister for Health on alternative policies for the provision of medical and surgical aids and appliances. Its reports will not be published prior to examination by the Government, unless public discussion is sought to assist policy elaboration in particular cases.
  4. See 3 above.

Hooker Creek Settlement (Question No. 438)

Mr Snedden:

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

  1. ‘Does the Minister intend to send a team of experts to plan and develop activities at the Hooker Creek settlement.
  2. If so, when will the team go to the settlement.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) Members of the Council for Aboriginal Affairs visited Hooker Creek in March at my request as an initial step in examining ways of increasing effective Aboriginal involvement in the affairs of the community, especially the provision and management of community services, economic enterprises and social control.

Government Bachelor Flats: Australian Capital Territory (Question No. 486)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

  1. Is a means test being applied to applicants for Government batchelor flats in the Australian Capital Territory.
  2. If so, what is the permissible income for approved applicants for bachelor flats.
  3. Does this means test prevent a large percentage of unmarried public servants from obtaining bachelor flats.
  4. Is it a fact that the continuance of this policy could attract an increasing number of low income bachelors to the A.C.T.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Up to $110 per week gross income.
  3. Yes.
  4. No.

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea: Diplomatic Relations (Question No. 538)

Mr Connolly:

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

  1. In view of recent reports that Australia’s recognition of the People’s Republic of North Korea is imminent, will the Minister advise whether the governments of the following countries were consulted on this matter: Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore and the United States of America.
  2. If they were consulted, what has been the reaction in each case to Australia’s proposed action.
  3. Will the Minister provide the reasons why it is in Australia’s interest at this time to negotiate the question of diplomatic recognition with the North Korean authorities.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. Australia has discussed its intended recognition of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea with the governments of a number of countries including the Republic of Korea, Japan and the United States. The Prime Minister also referred to this matter in the course of his visit at the beginning of the year to South East Asian countries. Malaysia, of course, already has diplomatic relations with the DPRK.
  2. It is not the Government’s practice to disclose details of discussions of a confidential nature with other governments.
  3. Yes. I shall be issuing an explanatory statement at such time as I announce the establishment of diplomatic relations with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Department of the Capital Territory: Vehicles (Question No. 581)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

  1. Has the Department converted any cars in its fleet to LP gas.
  2. Does he use battery-powered vehicles for activities in his Department.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

  1. One utility truck has been converted for assessment.
  2. There is one battery operated motor cycle at the Canberra Botanic Gardens and one light truck is on order for assessment.

Dial-a-Bus: Australian Capital Territory (Question No. 582)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for the Australian Capital Territory, upon notice:

When will dial-a-bus operate in Canberra.

Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

It is hoped that dial-a-bus trial can be carried out in Canberra in 1974-75 but a final decision will rest on the availability of funds and staff.

Motor Vehicle Pollution: Taxation System (Question No. 585)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for the Environment and Conservation, upon notice:

  1. Does he still wish to make changes to the taxation system so that car owners pay the full cost of pollution from their vehicles.
  2. What was the result of discussions he has had on this matter with the Treasurer.
Dr Cass:
ALP

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

  1. Yes. The Labor Government like the previous Government has endorsed the polluter pays principle and the use of the taxation system is a possible means of applying this principle in the case of pollution from motor vehicles.
  2. Any action would be a matter for consideration in a Budget context. As a consequence it would be inappropriate for me to comment on possible courses of action.

Australian Constitutional Monarchy (Question No. 656)

Mr Garland:
CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Would he elaborate on his attitude towards the Australian Constitutional Monarchy and the position of the Crown in it.
  2. Has his attention been drawn to the concern expressed by many persons and organisations referring to overt and covert attempts by his Government, and the Party which he represents, to diminish respect for and authority of the Crown.
  3. If so, what was the tenor of his reply.
  4. If no reply has been given, why not.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. The honourable member should read my speeches on 1 and 24 May 1973 (Hansard, pages 1488-1489 and 2641-2642).
  2. There have been no such attempts.
  3. and (4) See my answer to (2) above.

Conservation (Question No. 159)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for the

Environment and Conservation, upon notice:

  1. Which conservation groups, other than the Australian Conservation Foundation, have received (a) financial, (b) technical and (c) legal assistance from the Government.
  2. What was the nature and purpose of the assistance in each case.
Dr Cass:
ALP

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

The information sought by the honourable member will be contained in my Department’s annual report which I intend to table.

Conservation (Question No. 586)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for the Environment and Conservation, upon notice:

  1. Will he provide a list of all requests received by the Government for grants to enable environmental/conservation groups to receive assistance in preparing cases on specific issues of importance to them.
  2. What is the purpose of each request.
  3. To whom have grants been made to date.
Dr Cass:
ALP

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

The information sought by the right honourable member will be contained in my Department’s annual report which I intend to table in the Parliament.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 31 July 1974, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1974/19740731_reps_29_hor89/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant