House of Representatives
1 August 1974

29th Parliament · 1st Session

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

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. F. Cope) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers.

page 925

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

National Health Scheme

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

The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the proposed ‘free’ national health scheme is not free at all and will cost four out of five Australians more than the present scheme. That the proposed scheme is discriminatory and a further erosion of the civil liberties of Australian citizens, particularly working wives and single persons. That the proposed scheme is in fact a plan for nationalised medicine which will lead to gross waste and inefficiencies in medical services and will ultimately remove an individual’s right to choose his/her own doctor. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take no measures to interfere with the basic principles of the existing health scheme which functions efficiently and economically.

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

Social Security

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 inflation which now besets so many countries today and in Australia is now at the rate of 14.4 per annum is most seriously affecting and making life intolerable for those least able to take corrective action to maintain their position, namely pensioners and those now retired living on fixed incomes. Whilst the Australian Government is giving effect to its election policy of making $1.50 per week pension increases each Autumn and Spring such actions have been completely nullified by the stated rate of inflation.

This fact of life impels your petitioners to call on the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to: Make a cash loading of $5 per week to those pensioners who have little means other than the present inadequate pension eroded by inflation. That each Autumn and Spring the increase of 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 to 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,

Petitions received. by Mr Garrick and Mr James. 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 necessary 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.

Petition 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 well being 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.

Human Rights Bill

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 Human Rights Bill:

  1. Insofar as it attempts to legislate regarding the exercise of religion and religious observances, is in contravention of Section 116 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia,
  2. Will tend to deprive free Australian citizens of religious liberty and freedom of worship, and parents and guardians of the right to choose the moral and religious education of their children in that:

  3. The Government could introduce regula tions as to the time, place and manner in which people may manifest their religion and beliefs.

    1. The Bill excludes the recognition of the family as the natural and fundamental group unit of society, and its right to protection by society and the State,
    2. The Bill does not explicitly recognise the liberty of parents, and when applicable, legal guardians, to ensure the religious and moral education of their children.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House not proceed with the Human Rights Bill.

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

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 Australia respectfully showeth:

That we strongly oppose the easing of restrictions on the importation, production in Australia, sale or distribution of pornographic material whether in films, printed matter or any other format.

That any alterations to the Television Programme Standards of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board which permits the exploitation of sex or violence is unacceptable to us.

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

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

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 is particularly suited.

That the problems of harnessing solar energy could well be solved if efforts comparable with our atomic 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.

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 a 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 926

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION LEGISLATION

Notice of Motion

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– Mr Speaker, I give notice that at the next sitting I shall present a Bill for an Act to allow electors in certain Territories as well as electors in the States to vote at referendums on proposed laws to alter the Constitution.

page 926

QUESTION

SYDNEY’S SECOND AIRPORT

Mr CADMAN:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Did the Minister for Transport in May make a recommendation that the site of Sydney’s second airport not be at Galston? Has the Government considered his recommendation? If no consideration has been given to this matter, when will it be considered? In the hiatus of decision what will be done to alleviate the noise problem for people living near Sydney (KingsfordSmith) Airport at Mascot?

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

– It is true that during the election campaign I made an announcement that I would recommend to the Government that we do not proceed with the Galston development. The honourable member would be well and truly aware of that factor. That is the present position. A considerable amount has been done in alleviating noise problems in areas near the Sydney Airport. The Government has rigidly enforced the curfews under which aircraft are not permitted to operate into Sydney after 11 p.m. or before 6 a.m. This is something which the honourable member’s Party when in government was not prepared to enforce. It allowed aircraft to operate after 11 p.m. whenever required by the airlines. This caused considerable discomfort to the people nearby. In this respect alone the Government has considerably reduced the noise level.

With respect to the running of engines in the early hours of the morning, when Qantas Airways Ltd blatantly breached the understanding concerning the testing of aircraft engines a circular letter was sent to Qantas, to Trans-Australia Airlines and to Ansett Airlines of Australia informing them what penalties would be imposed if they breached the morning curfew on the testing of engines. They appreciate the position and the result is that engine testing in the early hours has been almost eliminated. The domestic airlines have been asked to introduce at least 12 months earlier than they planned the wide bodied jets which will have 2 effects. Firstly, they are much quieter than existing aircraft which are operating in Australia and, secondly, their introduction will reduce by half the frequency of aircraft operations. The Government has done much much more than the previous Government would have had the intestinal fortitude to do.

page 927

QUESTION

OIL AND GAS SHORTAGES

Mr WHAN:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Minerals and Energy aware of the serious shortage of fuel oil and gas in the Queanbeyan and Cooma areas? Can he give the reasons for these shortages? What prospects are there for those shortages to be overcome in the near future?

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

– The present shortages of liquid petroleum gas in particular and, to a lesser extent, of fuel oil are matters that give me great concern. I state positively that contrary to current conventional wisdom and fallacies there are adequate supplies of LPG available at Westernport in Victoria at the price of $42 a tonne fixed by the Prices Justification Tribunal. The problems are those of distribution allied with an attempt by the major oil companies to overturn the 20 per cent reduction in the pricing structure of crude oil derivatives as contained in their submission to the Prices Justification Tribunal.

I refer honourable members, and the honourable member for Eden Monaro in particular, to pages 86 and 87 of the report of the Prices Justification Tribunal of 3 May in which it stated its dissatisfaction with the statistics as given to it by the applicant, the Shell Company. It decided, as a result of its dissatisfaction, to cut by 20 per cent the proposed price structure. By so doing it meant that there was a price differential in favour of fuel oil of about $6 a tonne. Consequently the major oil companies decided to take a new approach in the processing and handling of LPG. In reply to representations that the Government has made to them we have had replies of this type: The Total company, in reply to our request for adequate supplies to be made available, said: . . . current prices selling of LPG indicate that the use of LPG as a refinery fuel and gasoline blending component thereby reducing salable volumes of LPG and increasing output of fuel and motor spirit.

The Mobil company advised:

Due to recent decisions of the Prices Justification Tribunal we may not be able to maintain production of LPG indefinitely. Most of our LPG volume is associated with commercial contracts which we will continue to honour.

Mr Hunt:

– How many have they not honoured?

Mr CONNOR:

– .They have not honoured quite a number. It so happens that the responsibility for the supply of LPG for New South Wales and Queensland comes from the refineries located in Sydney and Brisbane, and quite deliberately and systematically to offset the 20 per cent profit reduction imposed by the Prices Justification Tribunal they have diverted LPG to other uses. What they are doing is contrary to the spirit, at least, and possibly to the letter of the Prices Justification Act. I would invite Opposition members in particular, if it is necessary for us to put further teeth into the legislation, to join in so doing. For the future, the big problem is that LPG is not easy to handle in terms of transport.

Mr Sinclair:

– Have you heard of strikes?

Mr CONNOR:

– That has nothing whatever to do with this. LPG is costly to handle in terms of transport. At the present time we are examining a project by which we can arrange for its transportation by rail tanker, because it will be a considerable time - at least 2 years - before natural gas will be available in New South Wales.

Mr Anthony:

– What about Canberra?

Mr CONNOR:

– Canberra is in no better or no worse position than anywhere else.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Leader of the Country Party keeps asking further questions and then complains about the length of the answers. He has been here long enough to know the rules.

Mr CONNOR:

– There are more than 400,000 people, in families, depending on LPG at the present time. The position needs to be stated with great clarity. It is suggested that LPG is being exported to the detriment of available supplies for Australia. That is incorrect. Naturally to export is an attractive proposition, because the current going price in the world today is at least twice that fixed by the Prices Justification Tribunal. But there is a very real need for the major oil companies to realise their responsibilitties and the fact that they have access to possibly the cheapest crude oil in the world today. They have reponsibilties to the Australian people and the Australian Government, and we intend to see that they meet them.

page 928

QUESTION

OVERSEAS RESERVES

Mr LYNCH:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

– Is the Treasurer aware that, in the absence of changes in government policy, Australia’s overseas reserves could be reduced to less than $2,000m by the end of this financial year? Is the honourable gentleman further aware that the accelerating reduction in reserves will seriously impede the Government’s flexibility in controlling inflation? Has the Government considered the adoption of a flexible exchange rate policy or the abandonment of the variable deposit requirement? If so, why have these courses of action been rejected?

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA · ALP

– The Government does not regard the present levels of reserves in Australia as dangerously low. If anything, they are still quite -

Mr McMahon:

– Absolute nonsense.

Mr CREAN:

– Judging by the right honourable gentleman’s previous conduct as the

Treasurer he would be a good judge of nonsense as far as economic policy is concerned. The Government has deliberately encouraged imports in recent months, and this has led to a run down in reserves. After all, what does one have reserves for?

Mr Peacock - You keep them for a rainy day. (Honourable members interjecting.)

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I call the Treasurer.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Which one?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I shall be pointing out which one in a moment if this interruption keeps up. No further business will be conducted until the- House comes to order. I intend taking action immediately, if there is any more rowdyism.

Mr CREAN:

– If the honourable gentleman who asked the question had confined himself to what the position was at 30 June 1974 instead of making a projection as to what he thinks it will be in 6 months time, it might have been a little easier to answer his question. In relation to the variable deposit - I emphasise the letter ‘V - in the first place it is variable and it has been varied twice, the first time upwards and the second time downwards. It is possible to vary it again. I repeat what I have said on many occasions that a lot of things can be done about exchange rates. You can leave them where they are. You can put them up. You can put them down. You can float them in a variety of ways. All of those options still remain open.

page 928

QUESTION

NOMAD AIRCRAFT

Mr GARRICK:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– Can the Minister for Manufacturing Industry inform the House of any details concerning sales of Nomad aircraft being made by the Government Aircraft Factory, at Fishermen’s Bend?

Mr ENDERBY:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · ALP

– I am happy to be able to inform honourable members that” the Government’s efforts to obtain sales have been very successful. General approval has been given to construct 70 of these aircraft. Eleven aircraft are committed to the Australian Army, four to the Indonesian Navy - Defence Cooperation, six to the Northern Territory Aerial Medical Service, twelve to the Philippines Air Force, one to Nationwide Air Services, one to Aeromaritime Italia SPA and two to the Peruvian Army. There are 6 options with regard to the aircraft - two to Hawker de Havilland, two to Nationwide Air Services and two to Aeromaritime Italia SPA. That list, which accounts for all but 26 of the total number of aircraft so far authorised to be constructed, does not include 5 aircraft for which the Peruvian Army has been granted a right of first refusal subject to its first 2 aircraft, to which 1 have referred, satisfactorily meeting performance requirements.

In ‘addition to those firm commitments, negotiations are now actively in progress for 16 aircraft for Venezeula, ten for the Malaysian Air Force, six for the Philippines Aerospace Development Corporation, six for the Philippines Navy and an unspecified number for Ethiopian Airlines and Olympic Airways. In addition, negotiations have commenced with the air forces of Nigeria and Kenya and there are good prospects that another half squadron of aircraft will be purchased by the Philippines Air Force. Because of design changes and the unfortunate accident of which members are aware the first production aircraft is not expected until September, but success to date is better than that for the de Havilland Twin Otter at a similar stage of its development.

page 929

QUESTION

PETROL SUBSIDY

Mr ANTHONY:

– Can the Minister for Northern Development give the House any information on the impact on costs in northern areas of the abolition from today of the petrol subsidy? Can he say whether the abolition of the subsidy is expected to have any effect on northern development? Can he give any specific examples of the increased prices to be expected to apply for fuels in central and northern Queensland as well as the Northern Territory?

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

– The Prime Minister has made a statement of the Government’s intention to do away with the petroleum subsidy which will affect various areas of Australia. That decision has the endorsement of the Cabinet and the endorsement of the Caucus.

page 929

QUESTION

COOGEE BY-ELECTION: NAZI UNIFORMS

Mr RIORDAN:
PHILLIP, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that in the recent by-election for the electorate of Coogee in the New South Wales Parliament in which he played such a decisive role by waging a strong campaign and which resulted in an outstanding victory for the Australian Labor Party - it was not even close - there was a candidate representing the Nazi philosophy? Is the Prime Minister also aware that the Nazi candidate appeared on election day, 20 July, dressed as a Nazi storm-trooper complete with the swastika displayed on his arm? As this display caused serious distress to many residents and a continuation of similar displays will have the effect of reviving memories of horror and inhumanity unparalleled in history, will the Prime Minister examine the possibility of introducing legislation to prohibit the display of the swastika and the wearing of Nazi uniforms in public places?

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

– I would have some qualms about introducing legislation of this character unless there were substantial grounds for believing that there was going to be an outbreak of public disorder resulting from such a display. It is true that a great number of people have been distressed from time to time by the display of war-time emblems. I do not believe there are any cases so blatant as that which the honourable member brings to notice in his question. However, among migrant communities there have been for some time a great deal of distress, resentment and even some outbreaks of violence through the display of emblems associated with Nazi allies during the. war. It will be remembered that just over a year ago these matters were debated in the Parliament in the context of terrorists of Croatian background. I know, naturally, of the gentleman to whom the honourable member refers - ‘The Skull’ - because he opposed me on 18 May.

Mr Hunt:

– How many votes did he get?

Mr WHITLAM:

– I think he got about 50. I had 11 opponents and ‘informal’ did better than any of them except myself or the Liberal candidate. ‘The Skull’ on this occasion was fractured again. I do not believe that people are impressed by the antics of people like that and I do not want to dignify them or magnify them by bringing in legislation. The Government has acted in respect of the Ustasha’s activities. Those, activities have been exposed and they have been reduced.

In general, however, on the Coogee byelection, I must express gratification that this litmus seat in New South Wales has shown the trend which has been very marked in New South Wales in recent months. On 18 May, 53 per cent of votes in New South Wales were cast for the Labor Party. All 4 referendums were carried in New South Wales. The people of this most populous and sophisticated of Australian States and metropolises showed their good judgment in giving to the New South

Wales Parliament an active, effective man in Mr Michael Cleary as the new MLA for Coogee. I believe he will go far. He certainly will do so at the next general election for the New South Wales Legislative Assembly.

page 930

QUESTION

COUNTRY FUEL SUPPLIES

Mr SINCLAIR:

– Is the Prime Minister aware of the extent to which country areas, and indeed areas throughout Australia, ‘are rapidly drawing to a position where there will be virtually no supplies of oil or petrol available if the present wave of industrial unrest continues? What action does he intend to take to ensure the maintenance of supplies of petroleum products to consumers throughout Australia?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– Most of the trouble in delivering petrol supplies in New South Wales has been due to the deficiencies of the New South Wales industrial laws. Honourable gentlemen ought to realise that the Transport Workers Union has 2 separate legal identities in New South Wales. One is a legal identity under the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Act and the other is a legal identity under the New South Wales Industrial Arbitration Act. Ever since February 1969 the New South Wales Government has been on notice that its laws ought to be harmonised with those of the Australian Parliament in this respect. My colleague the Minister for Labor and Immigration will be tabling today the report of Mr Justice J. B. Sweeney on this matter. His Honour reports after an exhaustive inquiry that it is highly, necessary that there should be the one system of registration for industrial organisations of employers and employees throughout Australia. For 5i years Liberal Party Governments have stalled on this question, which in February 1969 the present Governor-General, as a member of the Australian Industrial Court, Chief Judge Spicer and Mr Justice Smithers, recommended as matters for urgent consideration by the Australian, New South Wales, Queensland, South Australian and Western Australian governments.

Mr Snedden:

– Mr Speaker, on a point of order: We again run into misrepresentation by the Prime Minister. What he is saying is quite false.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! There is no point of order involved.

Mr Snedden:

– There may not be a point of order, but it is a point of truth.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! There is no point of order involved.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I am correctly quoting the concluding paragraphs of the decision in the case of Moore v. Doyle - a unanimous decision by the Australian Industrial Court in February 1969.

Mr Snedden:

– It reveals your ignorance. No wonder you cannot control your Caucus; you cannot control your tongue.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Daly:

– The Leader of the Opposition did not lose, but he did not win.

Mr WHITLAM:

– And he is the worst loser in Australia’s political history. (Honourable members interjecting.)

Mr WHITLAM:

– I do not mind taking on a fight, and I have yet to lose one.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The House will come to order.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I have correctly stated the advice that was given urgently to the Australian Attorney-General in February 1969 by a unanimous decision of the Australian Industrial Court. Chief Judge Spicer, Mr Justice Smithers, Mr Justice Kerr - later Chief Justice of New South Wales and now Governor-General of Australia - urgently recommended that the Australian AttorneyGeneral should bring to the notice of the 4 State Attorneys-General concerned-

Mr Snedden:

– We have a national fuel crisis and we are having this nonsense being stated.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I warn the right honourable Leader of the Opposition that points of order are taken on points of procedure, general practices of the House or the Standing Orders. The matter the right honourable gentleman has raised is not a point of order and he knows it.

Mr Nixon:

– Well, sit the Prime Minister down.

Mr SPEAKER:

– 4 warn the honourable member for Gippsland.

Mr WHITLAM:

– You will be out for a week next time. When the people first elected my Government to office I found that throughout 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972 the Liberal-Country Party Government in this Parliament and in the New South Wales Parliament had done nothing to carry out the urgent advice given by the Australian Industrial Court in February 1969 in the case of Moore and Doyle. Under the new Government the first instance of industrial strife in this industry occurred in January last year. I immediately wrote to the Premier of New South Wales - he was at home at the time - and asked him to carry out the recommendation of the Industrial Court, pointing out that by that time one of the judges was Chief Justice of New South Wales. In the intervening year and a half the Government of New South Wales has still not acted. My colleague the Minister for Labor and Immigration asked Mr Justice J. B. Sweeney to inquire into this matter. He did so. I believe that honourable members will be appalled to learn from his report how negative and obstructive was the attitude of the New South Wales Government in the inquiry which he conducted. I hope that honourable gentlemen, not only in this House but also insofar as they can control their colleagues in the Senate, will carry through the legislation of this Parliament.

It makes our industrial system a farce when the same unions or the same employer organisations, if they are to get the benefits of industrial arbitration, in some cases have to register in 5 separate jurisdictions - Australia, New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia. South Australia has acted effectively, and, industrially, there is more harmony there than anywhere else on the continent. But until the New South Wales Government which has a majority in both Houses of the New South Wales Parliament brings in complementary legislation we shall be dogged by continuing disputes arising from the conflict of laws. It is absurd that organisations which operate in more than one State have to register and take on a legal identity separately in those States. It is interesting that the right honourable gentleman should speak about petrol. Why the Opposition did so dismally in the elections on 18 May was very largely due to the Country Party Leader’s advocacy for putting up petrol prices throughout Australia.

page 931

QUESTION

TRADE COMMISSION OFFICES

Mr CLAYTON:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

– Has the Minister for Overseas Trade received a letter signed by the Australian Council of Churches, Action for World Development and the Roman Catholic Church’s Commission on Justice and Peace requesting him to close Australia’s 2 trade commission offices in South Africa? Does the Minister in tend to take any steps to close these offices in the near future? Does he intend opening more trade commission offices in independent black African countries?

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I would like to give a considered answer to that question. Representations have been received from those church bodies and the Government takes them very seriously. The Government’s policies in relation to racism and colonialism and its abhorrence of the practices and policies of a number of southern African countries are well known and well justified. When the United Nations international economic sanctions are in existence the Australian Government has acted in accordance with them. There is an embargo, for example, on Australia’s economic relations with Rhodesia.

Mr Peacock:

– I rise on a point of order. I refer you, Mr Speaker, to question No. 832 on the notice paper. I submit that this question cannot be answered orally in the House today.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question asked by the honourable member for Isaacs is similar to the question that appears on the notice paper in regard to the closure of trade offices. I think the question would be out of order.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– There are other aspects to the question as well, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The Minister would be in order in answering the question provided he does not touch on the matters that are included in question No. 832 on the notice paper.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– The question on notice relates only to the representations by the church bodies. I have dealt with that part of the honourable member’s question anyway. The other part of the honourable member’s question allows me to say in answer to it that I have asked for an examination to be made in conjunction with the Department of Foreign Affairs of the full representation we have in South Africa. When that study has been made the results will be taken into account. We have also taken action to extend our diplomatic and trade relations with a number of black African countries. I think the level of Australia’s relations with those independent black African countries is closer to and more in general accord with proper international relations than they ever were before in the history of this country.

page 932

QUESTION

INCREASED PETROLEUM CHARGES IN RURAL AREAS

Mr SNEDDEN:

– 1 ask the Minister for Transport whether he has at any time called for a report which will measure the impact of the removal of the petroleum price equalisation subsidy on the cost of transport in rural areas of Australia. In particular, has he called for an inquiry to examine the added burden on local government and other administrative bodies in rural areas in meeting the increased charges which the Government’s inflationary economic policy has created and which were so evident in all the replies that I received from local government bodies in rural and provincial towns in Australia? If such an inquiry has been held, will the Minister table the report? Has he provided any information to any other body, for example, the Caucus? If so, will he provide to the public what he provided to the Caucus? If no such inquiry has been held, will he immediately order his Department or the Bureau of Roads to do so and, after receiving the report, table it in this House?

Mr CHARLES JONES:
ALP

– No inquiry has been conducted. In fact, the decision was made only last night to terminate the subsidy -

Mr Snedden:

– You mean you made a decision?

Mr Whitlam:

– It was made on 7 June.

Mr Sinclair:

– That is what he thinks of his Ministers.

Mr Hunt:

– Who made the decision?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I call the Minister for Transport.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– Mr Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! There will be no more business conducted until the House comes to order. Members of the Opposition in particular complain about the small number of questions asked at question time. They are the cause of it. If members of the Opposition want question time to be conducted properly they must keep order properly. I call the Minister for Transport.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– If I can repeat myself -

Mr Snedden:

– When was the decision made?

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– It is perfectly true that the Cabinet made the decision on the date stated toy the Prime Minister. The Caucus reaffirmed that decision last night.

Mr Viner:

– Tell us about the vote.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– Read it in the newspapers.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Minister will resume his seat. If there is any more rowdyism, I will not call for any more questions. I warn that I will deal with the next person who starts rowdyism.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– Our ballots are open and everyone knows what they are - not like the Deputy Leader of the Opposition who, when his Party had a ballot just recently, carried the decision around in his pocket for some hours and was not prepared to make the information available.

Mr Whitlam:

– Concealed the ballot papers.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– That is right. I am wondering what-

Mr Peacock:

– What about rowdyism on the part of the Government?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order!

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

– I rise to take a point of order. You informed the House, Mr Speaker, a few moments ago that you would deal with the next person who introduced rowdyism.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

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

– Mr Speaker, I am entitled to take a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. I know what his point of order is. There is no substance to the point of order.

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

– Mr Speaker, I am perfectly entitled–

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

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

– . . . to take a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I name the honourable member for Robertson.

Mr Calder:

– Shocking! Absolutely shocking!

Mr Snedden:

– Outrageous!

Mr Cohen:

– You mean the honourable member for Cowper.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Yes I have named the honourable member for Cowper.

Mr Daly:

– Before I move th* appropriate motion, I wonder whether the honourable member for Cowper would care to express his regret to the Chair for his misdemeanour?

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

– No. I took a point of order.

Mr Daly:

– Mr Speaker, I move–

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

– No, Mr Speaker, I took a point of order which you failed to allow me to express.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member knows that when the Speaker rises to his feet to address anyone and asks an honourable member to resume his seat that honourable member must resume his seat. The honourable member did not do that. That is the reason why he was named.

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

– I am prepared to concede that, and that part of the situation only.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I accept the apology. I call the Minister for Transport.

Mr Lusher:

– I rise to a point of order.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– As far as the question of–

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I will hear the honourable member for Hume on a point of order.

Mr Lusher:

– As a new member, I wonder whether you will advise me, Mr Speaker, how many Ministers are allowed to answer the same question.

Mr SPEAKER:

– No point of order is involved. I call the Minister.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– The decision of the Government to terminate the subsidy will have a very minimal effect on numbers of people, but if one examines this policy decision as against the policy decision which was advocated by the Leader of the Australian Country Party in the recent election campaign one sees that, if his proposition had been adopted - that is, if the Opposition Parties had by some mischance become the Government of Australia - it would have represented an increase of about 20c a gallon–

Mr Anthony:

– I rise to a point of order.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– . . . on every gallon of petrol sold in Australia–

Mr Anthony:

– A point of order!

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr Anthony:

– Is this deliberate misrepresentation to be allowed in this House? I have answered that allegation publicly on a number of occasions.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! No point of order is involved.

Mr Anthony:

– Well, it shows the integrity of this Government when it goes on like that.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Leader of the Country Party will contain himself. No point of order arises, and he knows it.

Mr Anthony:

– Well, there is just no justice.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Leader of the Country Party will remain silent.

Mr McLeay:

– You had better wind , up question time quickly.

Mr SPEAKER:

-And so had the honourable member for Boothby. I issue a warning to the Leader of the Country Party that if he keeps defying the Chair I will name him.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– I reaffirm my statement that what the Leader of the Country Party was advocating would have represented -

Mr Anthony:

– You provoked me.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I issue my final warning to the Leader of the Country Party. If he interjects once more I will name him.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– It would have represented substantial increases in the cost of fuel to everyone whether they be in country electorates or in city electorates, and the right honourable gentleman knows that.

Mr Snedden:

- Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

– What are you doing?

Mr Snedden:

– I am drawing . . .

Mr SPEAKER:

– The Leader of the Opposition knows that he cannot get up and speak without getting the call from the Chair. He must state whether he is rising on a point of order or on some other matter. He must address the Chair.

Mr Snedden:

– I raise a point of order. The point I wish to make to you, Mr Speaker, is that you have issued a warning to my colleague, the Leader of the Country Party. He has made it clear that he is being misrepresented.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr Snedden:

– Allow me to make the point, please. You have issued a warning that if the right honourable gentleman interjects again you are likely to name him, but while the misrepresentation continues he is being continually provoked. It is not fair.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Leader of the Opposition must be aware that the Chair is not in a position to know whether or not an honourable member is being misrepresented. Does the right honourable gentleman expect me to know the details of every question and answer that is given in the House? The Leader of the Country Party knows that if he has been misrepresented he has an opportunity after question time to make the appropriate personal explanation. There is no point of order involved, and the Leader of the Opposition knows it full well.

Mt WHITLAM - I ask that further questions be put on notice.

page 934

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr FRY:
Fraser

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

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr FRY:

– Yes. I refer to a report by the political correspondent of the ‘Canberra Times’ on the front page of that newspaper this morning. It states:

The Member for Fraser, Mr Fry, also walked out, telling journalists he was ‘disgusted’ . . .

I would like to point out that I left the Caucus meeting yesterday in order to conduct to the dining room some guests who had been waiting in my room for an hour. I returned to the Caucus meeting to vote. I did not tell the journalists whether I was disguested or. not.

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

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

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Does the Prime Minister claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr WHITLAM:

– Yes. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) challenged the accuracy of some statements I made in the course of a reply to a question. I want to quote the legal case to which I was referring in order to substantiate the accuracy of what I was saying. I quote the Federal Law Reports, Volume 15, the judgment of Chief Justice Spicer and Justices Smithers and Kerr in the case of Moore v. Doyle, given on 25 February 1969, and in particular I quote from the last paragraph of their Honours’ unanimous judgment:

A system of trade union organisation is urgently needed which would enable the one body to represent its relevant members in both the federal and State arbitration systems and it should be possible for federal and State authorities to examine the question whether organisations and trade unions can be provided with such a system. It will, of course, be appreciated that what is dealt with in this section of the judgment is only the matter of legal personality, structure and organisation and not matters of substantive law in relation to which federal and State policy may be and, indeed, is different. One obvious field in which different policies operate is in relation to penalties for illegal or forbidden strikes. This is not the field to which we are directing attention. Our sole concern is with legal personality, structure and organisation for the purpose of both systems. We have decided to refer our judgment in this matter and these remarks to the Attorney-General for the Commonwealth in the hope that it may be possible, after consultation between Commonwealth and State Attorneys-General, the trade unions, both federal and State, and other interested government authorities to arrange for the examination of the important organisational matters to which we have referred.

I need only say that there has been no subsequent legislation in the parliaments of New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia. Legislation has been passed by the South Australian Parliament. Legislation was introduced in this Parliament, was passed by this House but rejected in the Senate.

Mr SNEDDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Bruce

Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Yes. It is unfortunate that the Prime Minister just does not understand the point. Moore v Doyle is a case that occurred some 5 years ago.

Mr Whitlam:

– It was 5i years ago.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– All right, 5i years ago. I am sure the Minister for Labor and Immigration is just as well aware as I am that it threw union organisations into serious turmoil. After that case there was a bi-partisan attempt to find a solution so that the Moore v Doyle case would not fracture unions. As a consequence of that the Minister for Labor set up through the employer bodies - .the national employers policy committee - and the Australian Council of Trade Unions a working party to advise the Commonwealth Government and the State governments how the problem could be overcome. It was a very difficult problem. Both sides, with the greatest goodwill, worked towards solving that problem. It was a long job.

Mr Whitlam:

– Mr Speaker, this is not a personal explanation.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Tt is a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I appreciate that the right honourable gentleman is now getting a little away from his personal explanation but I think the circumstances permit some latitude. However, I ask the right honourable gentleman to keep to the point of his personal explanation.

Mr Whitlam:

– Mr Speaker, while I was giving an answer to a question put to me a point of order was purported to be taken by the Leader of the Opposition. He then stated that my statement was inaccurate. I forget his exact words. Surely I have demonstrated that what I said was accurate. The right honourable gentleman is not entitled, I submit, to debate it. He stated I was wrong. I have shown that I was right. He is not entitled to debate general issues in a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I ask the right honourable gentleman to keep to the point where he has been misrepresented.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I will keep to the point. Those discussions reached a point where there was a report. The Minister for Labor, Mr Cameron - I give him full credit for this - acted to solve the problem, because nobody was more aware of the difficulties than he, and he appointed Judge Sweeney to examine the matter. I understand that Judge Sweeney’s report will be able to be published soon. Am I correct in saying that?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Today.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Today. Everybody is looking for a solution to this problem. I come now to where the misrepresentation occurred. The Prime Minister said that the Moore v. Doyle case was Si years ago and that the Liberal Party-Country Party Government that was in office until December 1972 did nothing about the situation. The fact is that it did do something about it. It was the Government which initiated, in co-operation with the unions-

Mr Uren:

– Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In what way can the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented when he is talking about a Government and an Opposition? The Prime Minister has not referred to Mr Snedden personally. The only time an honourable member has the right to make a personal explanation in this House is when he personally has been misquoted or there has been some misstatement about him personally. The Leader of the Opposition has spoken about the Government of which he was a member.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The point is quite valid. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to keep to the point where he has been personally misrepresented and not to debate the question.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– It was the Prime Minister who said I had misrepresented him in the point of order I took while he was answering a question. I am explaining that he has misrepresented me by not understanding that he was making a blue himself.

Mr Whitlam:

– The right honourable gentleman is far too juvenile in these matters. I can understand that in those circumstances you treat him with a great degree of tolerance. The fact is that he challenged the accuracy of a statement I made about a court case. I have quoted the case and my references to it were spot on. If it will help the right honourable gentleman, I remind him that I did not blame the Liberal-Country Party Government only federally; I did so also in New South Wales.

Mr SNEDDEN:

- Mr Speaker, let us have one person speaking at a time. If the Prime Minister wants to say something further, I suggest that he should allow me to finish my remarks first. Anybody can get the report and read it as the Prime Minister did. Everybody knows the problem. It is finding the solution to the problem that was identified in the case that is difficult, and that is what everybody has been seeking to do. To allege that we did nothing is to totally-

Mr Whitlam:

– You did not introduce one single piece of legislation on the subject and you opposed the legislation that we brought in on the subject.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! This could go on indefinitely.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– It is clear that this kind of attitude is wrong because there needs to be the greatest possible co-operation to solve a very difficult problem. The Transport Workers Union is registered as a State union and as a Federal union. It is a difficult problem that needs to be overcome.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The right honourable gentleman is debating the question. I would ask the right honourable gentleman to conclude his remarks.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The point is taken, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I am asking the right honourable gentleman to conclude his remarks in relation to where he has been misrepresented.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I think that the matter has been cleared up to my satisfaction. The Prime Minister read from a report. If he reads ‘from a law report, of course, he is reading something that is accurate. The misrepresentation comes from his attempting to use politically something which should not be used politically because we must have a settlement of the problem.

Mr ANTHONY:
Leader of the Australian Country Party · Richmond

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

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr ANTHONY:

– Yes. During the course of question time I was misrepresented and, indeed, provoked. 1 am sorry if I caused you any anxiety, Mr Speaker, but I think that mine was the natural reaction of any honourable member who was being deliberately provoked by dishonest statements. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) also made some statements yesterday which were inaccurate. I was very interested to read the comments he made at his Press conference when he was asked about the statement of Dr J. F. Cairns about-

Mr Uren:

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

Mr ANTHONY:

– Just one minute. He said-

Mr Uren:

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

Mr SPEAKER:

– This is not a personal explanation. I think I can anticipate the point of order.

Mr ANTHONY:

– Relating my remarks to the personal explanation, the Prime Minister relies on texts and not on newspaper statements. I have here the text of my personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I ask the right honourable gentleman not to touch on what the Government has done or what the Opposition might do but simply to state how he has been personally misrepresented. The right honourable gentleman is supposed to be telling the Chair how he has been .misrepresented, and I ask him to keep to that point.

Mr ANTHONY:

– Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wish to correct the completely false and dishonest statement made by the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) when referring to what I said during the election campaign.

I have here the text of the statement I made and it explains the situation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I think the use of the word ‘dishonest’ is going too far. A statement is either inaccurate or it is untrue. To call it dishonest is to make a personal reflection on the Minister, or on any member of the Parliament for that matter.

Mr Hunt:

– It was.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! There are too many experts giving advice in this chamber. If they would only keep quiet we might get on with the business of the House properly. The trouble with this House is that there are too many experts.

Mr Wentworth:

– There are not enough.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for Mackellar is one of them.

Mr ANTHONY:

– On 10 May- I think this covers my personal explanation - I put out in a Press statement: The published policies of the Liberal and Country Parties -

Mr Charles Jones:

– Mr Speaker, I ask that the right honourable gentleman withdraw the word ‘dishonest’.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The Minister for Transport has asked for a withdrawal of the word ‘dishonest’. I suggest that the right honourable member withdraw the word because I think it would be applicable to every member of the House.

Mr ANTHONY:

– I withdraw it and say it was an untrue statement. The Press statement I issued will refute exactly the accusation. It read:

The published policy of the Liberal and Country Parties is that policy on oil pricing will be rivised to consider what should be done after the expiry of the current agreement. I have suggested that the revision of policy should occur as soon as possible so that exploration companies might have some indication of what to expect when the agreement is renegotiated next year.

I have not suggested an immediate increase. I gave the example in Perth of a 40 per cent increase in the present well head price of crude oil representing a cost to the motorist of about 3c a gallon.

Mr Whitlam has dishonestly claimed that I want the price of crude oil to rise to world parity.

Mr Whitlam:

– Mr Speaker-

Mr ANTHONY:

– I am not saying it. This is a statement.

Mr Whitlam:

– Mr Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I think that the Prime Minister could claim a misrepresentation about dishonesty in the newspaper report but not on what the honourable gentleman is quoting now. The Prime Minister can make a personal explanation on the basis of the newspaper report.

Mr Whitlam:

– But I think he is quoting-

Mr ANTHONY:

– I am quoting. Let me quote it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Leader of the Country Party will proceed.

Mr ANTHONY:

– I continue:

Mr Whitlam has dishonestly claimed that I want the price of crude oil to rise to world parity. He has further dishonestly claimed that a 40 per cent rise would add 20c to the cost of a gallon petrol.

Mr Whitlam:

– I submit that one cannot get away from a disorderly statement in the House by quoting a disorderly one outside the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The Chair is not responsible for what is quoted from statements made outside the House. I have no control over what is said outside the House.

Mr Whitlam:

– He is quoting inside.

Mr ANTHONY:

– You have deserted the north.

Mr Whitlam:

– Petrol will not go up by a fraction in your electorate.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Let us get a bit of sanity into this matter. We have too many experts here. I have one expert who is telling me. It is true that the honourable gentleman is not entitled to make quotes in regard to matters of this nature.

Mr ANTHONY:

– I have stated categorically before that I have never supported an increase of oil price to world parity or an increase of 20c a gallon as the Government is trying to suggest. It shows the desperation of the Government when it has to rely on misquoting people to try to justify its own complete and utter failure.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
NewcastleMinister for Transport · ALP

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– Yes. The fact of the matter is that the statement which the Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony) has endeavoured to read into Hansard in his explanation of what happened after the blunder he made early in the election campaign of what the Opposition was going to do to pay off-

Mr SPEAKER:

– The Minister is starting to debate the question. I want him to say where he has been misrepresented.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– I have been misrepresented in respect of the claim that what the Leader of the Country Party put forward originally would cost 20c. What he said originally would have cost 20c. He said that after the blunder was made. That was to have been the pay-off for the-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Now the honourable gentleman is debating the question.

Mr ANTHONY (Richmond- Leader of the Australian Country Party) - I wish to make a further personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr ANTHONY:

– I have been misrepresented again. I challenge the Minister to verify any statement I have made. I challenge him to show proof of any statement I have made supporting the accusation that he makes here today. It is nothing more than a scurrilous smear campaign that we have seen so much of by Ministers of this Government.

Mr Charles Jones:

– They have made statements

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Minister will resume his seat. Personal explanations are becoming more of a farce every day. My predecessor had the same thoughts. I have been in this House for 20 years. We did not have to go through this years ago, but now practically every day there are about 6 personal explanations. What is the reason for it? It is propaganda. (Opposition members interjecting) -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Honourable members know the reason. It is for the purpose of propaganda over the radio. Personal explanations have reached the stage now where they are becoming a farce every day.

Mr Snedden:

– Mr Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Is the honourable gentleman taking a point of order?

Mr Snedden:

– Yes I am.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Well, state the point of order.

Mr Snedden:

– The point of order is that you, Mr Speaker, have just made an accusa- non against the Opposition which I find is totally unacceptable to me.

Mr SPEAKER:

– That is not a point of order at all.

Mr Snedden:

– Yes, it is.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

The honourable gentleman would be aware that my predecessor had the same trouble with personal explanations. He made a statement concerning the farcical situation which was being reached in the House every day when people were wanting to get propaganda over the radio, in question time in particular. It has also been a point, particularly on a Wednesday, to take a point of order so that a question would be erased from the rebroadcast of that particular night. We know all of these points as well as everybody else does.

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr COHEN:

– Yes, I shall be brief, Mr Speaker. During question time, when an altercation occurred, you referred twice or 3 times to the honourable member for Robertson. I think it was a mistake, Mr Speaker, you were referring to Mr Ian Robinson, the honourable member for Cowper. I would not like it to go over the airwaves that I was the person you named.

page 938

CONFERENCE OF AUSTRALIAN AND STATE MINISTERS FOR IMMIGRATION

Mr Clyde Cameron:
Minister for Labor and Immigration · HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– For the information of the honourable members I present the report of the conference of Australian and State Ministers for Immigration dated 9 November 1973.

page 938

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION

Mr Clyde Cameron:
Minister for Labor and Immigration · HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– For the information of the honourable members I present the text of the following International Treaty adopted ‘by the International Labour Conference at its 58th Session in 1973:

Convention No. 137 concerning dock work.

Also tabled are the texts of Convention No. 86 concerning the maximum length of con tracts of employment of indigenous workers and Convention No. 83 concerning the application of international labour standards to nonmetropolitan territories adopted at the 30th session of the International Conference.

I also present the report of the Australian Government delegation to the 58th Session of the International Labour Conference. The relevant laws and practices are in conformity with the conventions and with the approval of the Executive Council. Instruments of ratification in respect of the conventions have been lodged with the Director-General of the International Labour Office.

page 938

COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY ON CO-ORDINATED INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATIONS

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present a report of the Committee of Inquiry on Coordinated Industrial Organisations by the Honourable John Bernard Sweeny, a Judge of the Australian Industrial Court.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– May I ask the Minister a question about this report?

Mr SPEAKER:

– After the presentation of papers the honourable member may seek the indulgence of the Chair.

page 938

GROWTH CENTRES (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) ACT 1973

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

– Pursuant to section 15 of the Growth Centres (Financial Assistance) Act 1973, I present the reports of the agreement between the Australian Government and the South Australian Government in relation to the City of Monarto and the agreement between the Australian Government and the Government of Victoria in relation to the south-east area of Melbourne.

page 938

LAND COMMISSIONS (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) ACT 1973

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

– Pursuant to section 15 of the Land Commissions (Financial Assistance) Act 1973 I also present the agreement between the Australian Government and the South Australian Government and the agreement between the Australian Government and the Government of Victoria in relation to Emerald Hill, South Melbourne.

I also present the following statements of principles which are attached to the various agreements:

  1. Land price stabilisation legislation.
  2. Urban land council.
  3. Statement of the purpose, structure and functions of a land commission to operate in South Australia.

page 939

CONFERENCE OF HOUSING MINISTERS

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

– For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the proceedings of the Conference of Housing Ministers held at Port Hedland, in Western Australia, on the 13th and 14 June 1974. Because of the limited number of copies published copies have been placed in the Parliamentary Library for perusal by honourable members.

page 939

STATES GRANTS (DWELLINGS FOR AGED PENSIONERS) ACT

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

– For the information of honourable members, under section 11 of the States Grants (Dwellings for Aged Pensioners) Act 1969, I present the fifth annual statement of operations under the Act for the year 1973-74.

page 939

COMMONWEALTH RAILWAYS

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minis ter for Transport · Newcastle · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present the Financial and Statistical Bulletin of the Commissioner for Commonwealth Railways for the year ended 30 June 1973. This Bulletin is to supplement the annual report which was tabled in the House on 27 September 1973.

page 939

TERRITORY OF NORFOLK ISLAND

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report on the Territory of Norfolk Island for the year ended 30 June 1973.

Mr Peacock:

– Will there be an opportunity for discussion of that report?

Mr BRYANT:

– It is well governed. I will see the Leader of the House (Mr Daly).

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr BRYANT:

– Mr Speaker, 1 will speak to the Leader of the House about it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– If an honourable member wishes to make a speech on papers which have been presented he can only do so by leave of the House.

Mr Peacock:

– I ask for leave of the House to make a statement on Norfolk Island.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is leave granted?

Mr Bryant:

– No.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Leave is not granted.

page 939

PALM VALLEY NATURAL GAS

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

– I present, pursuant to an undertaking given by me to the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), the minutes, dated 30 June 1972, from Dr W. T. McFadyen of my Department, of an interview with Sir William Pettingell relative to Palm Valley natural gas.

page 939

COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY ON CO-ORDINATED INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATIONS

Mr SPEAKER:

– I call the honourable member for Wannon who has already indicated to me that he wishes to seek the indulgence of the Chair.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Wannon

– I should like to ask the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) whether he could let the House know when legislation flowing from the report of Mr Justice Sweeney might be before the House because, as we heard earlier this morning, it is an important matter and one that has gone forward for a long while. I would not like to think that the report is tabled and that is the end of it. Can the Minister also confirm that this report really has nothing to do with the current oil dispute over a $50 a week pay increase, and that therefore the reply this morning by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) was utterly irrelevant.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The Government will be bringing in legislation to give effect to the report by His Honour Mr Justice Sweeney in the Budget session. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), of course, was quite right - not quite wrong - in what he said about the oil dispute in New South Wales.

page 939

PRE-SCHOOL AND CHILD CARE PROGRAM

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

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

The repudiation by the Government of the public undertaking to commence a full-scale pre-school and child care program in 1974.

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

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

– It should be made clear at the outset what this debate is all about. It does not concern the program of child care services, if I may use that compendious title, as such. It does not concern who or which government was responsible for taking initiatives in various fields. It does not deal with the difficulties associated with preschool education - the social consequences of child care activities. This matter of public importance deals with one matter alone, and that is political repudiation which can only be described as being on a conspicuous scale, the like of which this country has seldom, if ever, known before. I will seek in the time available to me to justify every syllable of that charge. When the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) delivered the policy speech for his Party on 29 April of this year he gave the clearest of undertakings regarding child care services - and I use that term ‘child care services’ for the sake of convenience to cover both preschool education and child care in the sense that we understand it. I would like to read to the House what the honourable gentleman said in his policy speech:

Child care services will be subsidised with parents contributing to the cost according to their means, the main thrust of the program in the first years being to assist disadvantaged children. It is estimated that the cost of this program in the first year - a program of vision and imagination based on a compassionate understanding of the needs of the child, the parent and the community - will be $130m.

No person should have any difficulty whatsoever in comprehending the meaning of those words. They are quite clear. He said that in the first year $130m would be spent in this field of activity. It is not a case of adjudicating and saying whether or not that was too much or too little. I am dealing now with the clear understanding given that $130m would be spent. Just a few days ago the Treasurer (Mr Crean) announced on behalf of the Government that that program had to be trammelled, truncated, and he used language to this effect: ‘With the greatest of regret we feel that we cannot embark on a full scale program.’ The word ‘program’ is ‘governed by the descriptive expression ‘full scale*. When the Prime Minister made his policy speech on 29 April he made references to 3 reports. It is of importance to this House to notice this. On 29 April, 3 reports were mentioned by the honourable gentleman. He said:

The Government’s program for these children reflects the recommendations of the Pre-School Committee, whose report was tabled last December, . . .

Report No. 1; that is the first report to which the honourable gentleman referred - the Social Welfare Commission, . . . You cannot refer to the recommendation of a body unless the recommendations are before you - at least refer to them in the sense that they influenced your judgment. That was the second matter that influenced the judgment of the Government. As to the third one, the honourable gentleman went on to say: and the Priorities Review Staff.

It was the recommendations of those 3 bodies that persuaded the honourable gentleman on 29 April to declare on behalf of his Party that there would be this program involving the expenditure of $130m in the first year. Yet just recently the honourable gentleman, referring to the Social Welfare Commission’s report, said that it was tabled yesterday. Recently was yesterday, so this was tabled on Tuesday. That is rather curious, is it not? I am sure this will occur to honourable gentlemen: If the report was tabled only yesterday why is it that the honourable gentleman was influenced by it when he made the declaration on 29 April this year? That is the first consideration. Yesterday the honourable gentleman said that the report of the Priorities Review Staff would be tabled today, which it was. How is it that the honourable gentleman was able to say on 29 April that the recommendations made concerning child care services throughout Australia were based on the recommendations of these 3 reports? Were they or were they not available to the honourable gentleman on 29 April? The House must decide for itself where the truth lies in this matter because the truth is not available, on both occasions.

Mr Beazley:

– The Priorities Review Staff gave Cabinet a report on child care last year.

Mr KILLEN:

– I would be most grateful to the honourable gentleman if, when he replies to me, he would make this quite clear because there is no indication in the-

Mr Beazley:

– This is a different one that has now been tabled.

Mr KILLEN:

– I am most grateful. Certainly that ambiguity lurks over the entire scene and, I suggest, much to the embarrassment of the Government. I do not seek to thrust my honourable friend into any position of discomfort, but any person reading the policy speech of the Prime Minister made on 29 April would and must reach that conclusion. This was not a policy speech penned overnight. It is a matter of public notoriety that a great deal of thought went into its preparation. The Minister for Education (Mr Beazley) by way of soft and, as one would expect from him, courteous interjection said that the report of the staff of the Priorities Review Committee now available this week is different from the one available last year. Conceding that that is the case, let me for the purposes of argument accept my honourable friend’s statement completely. Does the honourable gentleman also say that the Social Welfare Commission report which was tabled on Tuesday is different from the Social Welfare Commission report of last year? With great respect, the honourable gentleman seems to me to be very much in a corner on this point, and the Government is in a corner on this point. A clear undertaking was given about ‘vision and imagination’ - those lovely encouraging, warming words. Unquestionably thousands of people throughout Australia were impressed with the proposals put by the Prime Minister on 29 April this year. The honourable gentleman’s Party advertised its intention in this field on a very lavish scale. The newspaper advertisment 1 hold in my hand is typical of many hundreds of advertisements placed through the country. It states:

Only Whitlam has a program for child care. 500,000 children will benefit from Whitlam’s child care programs by 1977. In the first year he will spend $130m onFamily day care programs.

Day centres.

Pre-schools.

Outside of school care.

Emergency and occasional care.

The House will notice the declaration that in the first year he will spend $130m. Last week the Treasurer shattered the vision of his Leader and of his Party. Where is the imagination which possessed the Party on 29 April this year? To where has that gone? As I have said, it is not a case of adjudicating and saying: ‘This is too much’ or ‘too little’. Of course the Government is in trouble. All governments get into trouble and the sense of profligacy which consumes this Government has got it into trouble. But it will not be allowed to get away with this conspicuous example of repudiation - one of the most conspicuous examples, I suggest, in Australia’s history.

But it is not only the repudiation which rouses one to indignation and which has roused the countryside to indignation. There is also a complete absence of frankness by the Government and the Prime Minister. Let me illustrate this to the House. When the Fry Committee report was tabled, my friend the Minister for Education was ill and the special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen) acted on his behalf as the Acting Minister for Education. In a statement in this House on 1 1 December 1973 the Minister said that in the case of both child and pre-school facilities there are serious inequalities in existing services and the need for action is urgent. That is a statement from the Government; it is not mine. The need for action is urgent. Where is the urgency now? The vision and imagination are shattered and have dissapeared and the sense of urgency has also disappeared. When the Prime Minister announced on 18 February that the Government had asked the Social Welfare Commission to examine the Fry Committee report he made this announcement in this House. He said:

The Commission has been asked to make proposals consistent with the Government’s policy commitments and the ALP Party Platform on pre-school opportunities and day care. ‘Consistent with the Government’s policy commitments’. I suppose it is a matter of interpretation where one puts the emphasis in these issues. But it would seem to me and, I suggest, to the reasoned thinking of most people, that here is the first major shift by the honourable gentleman to seek to escape from some of the heavy burdens of the Government’s policies which, nevertheless, it cheerfully declared on 29 April that it would accept.

I come now to the views put by my friend the Minister for Education on 2 March 1974, shortly before we went on our way, cheerfully or otherwise, to Philippi. This is what the honourable gentleman had to say dealing with the Fry Committee’s report:

The report of the Fry Committee had what the Government regards as many interesting and valuable suggestions which undoubtedly will be implemented. But the conviction of the Government was that what the Fry report recommended was not fast enough in view of the spread of pre-school education throughout Australia. Whilst this may have meant a few weeks’ delay, and whilst we have been getting a second opinion on the matter and also asking the Fry Committee to discuss this question with the Social Welfare Commission to see what can be done to accelerate the whole program the whole intention of the Government is to accelerate.

I invite the House just to look back on what was done. I shall recapitulate the major points before I sit down. The Prime Minister, on behalf of his Party, on 29 April announced this program. There was no ambiguity about it whatsoever. He proposed in the first year of the program to spend $130m, in a program of ‘vision and imagination’. When the Special Minister of State, as the Acting Minister for Education, made his statement in this House in February he said that action in this field is required urgently. When my friend the Minister for Education spoke on this matter in this House in March he said that the whole program of the Government was to accelerate. So we have visual imagination, urgency and acceleration. But despite the vision, the imagination, the urgency and the acceleration, a few days ago the Treasurer - I can understand the sense of melancholy which no doubt consumed the honourable gentleman - said:

Given these delays, as well as the now extreme need to restrain the further growth of government spending, the Government has reluctantly decided to postpone until 1975-76 the commencement of the full-scale program.

The vision has gone; the imagination is now harnessed; the urgency has fled; and as for the program being accelerated, it has been virtually brought to a stop. I finish where I began: This is a conspicuous case of political repudiation. I hope the Government, if it does nothing else, will learn the lesson that it is easy and tempting to promise, but the road to political infamy is marked all the way by acts of repudiation.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Minister for Education · Fremantle · ALP

– Firstly, I should like to congratulate the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) on his first exercise as Opposition spokesman on education. I should also like to congratulate him on certain features of his speech. Although I do not presume that it is a major part of his argument, I should like to explain to the House why it was perfectly possible to refer to the Priorities Review affair. As the honourable gentleman said, I was ill last November-December and when the Fry report - which was the report of a committee which I had appointed - was presented to Cabinet it might be said that it was presented to Cabinet with 2 demurrers. There was a demurrer from the Priorities Review Committee and one from the Social Welfare Commission. The demurrers were about the lack of diversity and speed in the projected program. The honourable gentleman will recognise that in the child care program at present I am implementing legislation of the Liberal and Country parties, which envisages the establishment of expensive and quite elaborate child care centres.

If the honourable gentleman wishes to quote from the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), let us go on from the part where he refers to the Social Welfare Commission and the Priorities Review staff. He goes on to say:

The program will develop a variety of services including the development of family day care programs, day centres, pre-schools, play groups, outside of school care, emergency and occasional sitter care, toddlers groups and baby-sitting pools.

That diversity adds to the number of people in the community with whom we must negotiate. Honourable gentlemen opposite will recognise that in their legislation they left the initiative for the development of child care centres to local groups. We have under construction and approved 262 pre-schools and 122 child care centres. Last financial year - let me inform the. honourable member who is getting excited about repudiation - SI 2m was approved for pre-schools and $ 13.5m for child care centres. Of that $25. 5m, $3. 3m or oneeighth of the capital was spent. In relation to these private organisations upon whom the legislation of honourable gentlemen opposite rests, we have found that the time between the approval of the. project and its completion is 2i years. These organisations negotiate with local Governments. They get approval that the land which they have is in the zoning area. They may not get the approval of local Government. They enter into a contract with me. Their plan is approved. They then have to get their builders and so on. It would have been perfectly in order to appropriate $130m. I have no doubt that about the same proportion of it would have been spent as was spent of $25. 5m last year.

Before the honourable member gets excited about repudiations I point out that there are a number of other expenditures in this area. If we are to talk about accelerations I remind the honourable gentleman that expenditure on the pre-school area and the child care area in the last five years of his Government was $8.35m. This year the expenditure will be at least $43m with an indicated probability by the Prime Minister that the amount will be greater. As long as I am responsible for this matter - I am adamant on this - there will be qualified staff in pre-schools and adequate staff in child care centres. I am not going around being rigid by saying that everybody in a child care centre has to have a degree from a university or any sort of formal qualification like that. If honourable members wish to know my philosophy on this matter - it relates to the expensiveness of staff, perhaps, or at least the time taken to get the staff - it is this: It is unfortunate that some of the justifiable agitation for child care centres and pre-school institutions assumes the eclipse of the family. The discussion on child care centres touches on a fallacy that has gone out of fashion and another fallacy expressing the same error which is becoming more and more fashionable. The unfashionable fallacy is the view that a child care centre exists to encourage a stable and contented female work force with reduced absenteeism. The fashionable fallacy is that a child care centre exists to release a woman to express herself in society.

Child care centres may encourage a stable female work force and may release a woman to express herself in society, but neither is the purpose of a child care centre. Child care is for the development of the child, for the ability of the child to cope with the world around about it and the people in it. Child care is a preventive service to prevent emotional and health problems. It is a remedial and compensatory service to reverse psychological damage. To be adequate a child care centre needs to give a child responsiveness, appreciation and predictable warmth - the role of a mother for a child whose mother is not able to assume a mothering role at least for some part of the day. A whole series of researchers has indicated that infants in institutions who receive no individualised care beyond feeding, diapering and being kept warm were found to be profoundly retarded or damaged in physical, social, emotional, intellectual and especially language development. My department is engaged in a massive exercise of negotiation with local government. The report which the Prime Minister had long before I did, and which I call the Coleman report or the Social Welfare Commission report, refers to the need to spend $130m.

Dr Edwards:

– When did it become available?

Mr BEAZLEY:

– The Prime Minister had it during the election campaign. It was perfectly in order for him to refer to it as he could not table it in a non-existent parliament. That deals with the second point made by the honourable gentleman.

Mr MacKellar:

– Did the Prime Minister tell you about it?

Mr BEAZLEY:

– The honourable member knows what an election campaign is. I have no resentment about the matter. I was at one end of the country and the Prime Minister was at the other. He had a comprehensive report on child care which spoke about a vast diversity of services. I have no objection to the fact that at the time I did not know the details of the Coleman report. I think the diversity of services is excellent. If local government is to have the role of spending $82m one has a number of problems on one’s hands. There needs to be a number of changes in State law because in some States local government bodies cannot spend money. That is not a role of local government. We need to have willingness on the part of local government. One thing which my Department has encountered is the great unwillingness of local government to assume this sort of responsibility. Some local bodies can be talked into it but if it is merely a question of their willingness honourable members will find that in some areas where child care centres are least needed there is a local government body willing to establish them. In areas where they are needed they are not being established. I make one thing perfectly clear. The Social Welfare Commission report speaks about the areas where it considers priority would be given. But I want negotiation beyond that. It is not merely a question of disadvantaged areas but of disadvantaged people. In some of the most advantaged areas like Toorak there are a lot of disadvantaged children and a lot of disadvantaged people. There are deserted wives, widows and people whose circumstances are quite bad. The identification of those people will take time. Part of the Coleman report points out that when in operation expenditure of $130m is involved. The report speaks of spending $885m over 5 years estimated at the values at the time when the Commission was making its consideration.

In all these things we will clearly encounter a problem of revving up. This is why in the Karmel Committee Report there is an expenditure of $280m in 1974 and of $42 lm in 1975. The problem is that if we do not have qualified teaching staff on the pre-school side there will be an upheaval in every teachers union in every State. The problem is getting the buildings erected in competition with other forms of educational buildings. It is a fairly formidable program. I have mentioned 122 child care centres and 262 pre-school centres under way. We have received applications. These will not necessarily be the most urgent because people will apply in the future. I am speaking of the elaborate child care centres envisaged by our predecessors. My Department regards 23 of the 85 applications for child care centres as urgent. We have received 236 applications for pre-school centres and my Department regards 128 as urgent. It is no use honourable members opposite saying that either the Treasurer (Mr Crean) or the Prime Minister stood there and said that a flat $34.1m would be spent and that would be it. That is not the complete expenditure. For instance, it does not take into account the $4.6m that is being spent on the training of teachers at the present time and an unidentifiable amount of money that is being spent on training people at colleges of advanced education. The figure has not yet been extracted.

I believe that we will have to move to the British position in relation to nursery schools. Every teachers college in Britain which is engaged in training primary school teachers has to give an option of pre-school - nursery schools, as they are called in England - training for 1 year out of the 3 years training. We will have to follow the same procedure if we are to get adequate staff. We will have to have all the teachers college in Australia working on it. The Treasurer has indicated that at the present time he is prepared to approve $34. lm in addition to other expenditures on child care, which brings it up to a total of $44m which is the figure I have mentioned. The Treasurer mentioned also that there would probably ‘be a review and perhaps an increase of this expenditure. The Prime Minister indicated in answer to a question yesterday that there would be a probable trebling of the $20m that the Opposition promised. Instead of an expenditure of $34m, of which the Treasurer spoke, it is probable that there will be an expenditure of $63m. My Department has planned for that accelerated expenditure. When I say it has made plans, approval may be given to expend $29m on construction but the construction might not get under way until the next financial year. There could be a program of the most massive approvals. It was a comparatively massive approval last year when $25m was appropriated but only $3. 3m of it was able to be spent.

Because of commitments made by our predecessors we are working through local and voluntary groups at the moment on the child care centres and, because pre-school is not compulsory, we are working through locally inspired individuals as well. Officers of my Department are visiting areas and trying to inspire local government bodies. Where people show interest the officers negotiate with them. There is no repudiation of the idea that one has to rev up to an expenditure like this. There is the sheer physical problem of the negotiations with all these sorts of people. The Budget will be brought down in September. There will be the enactment of legislation to make available any money that may be allocated in the Budget, and the unspent money of last year to which I have referred will still be available to be used by these local groups. But the concept of a financial year and a Budget has nothing to do with the establishment and organisation of pre-schools. It has nothing to do with the establishment and organisation of child care centres.

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

Mr FISHER:
Mallee

– This discussion that the Opposition has introduced deplores the repudiation by the Labor Government of its public undertaking to commence a full scale pre-school and child care program. We do not criticise the principles of that program but we do deplore the action of a government which, for political expediency, was prepared irresponsibly to use this issue as an election gimmick. It was a gimmick that undoubtedly had a strong appeal and influence on the result of the past 2 elections, despite the fact that it is now obvious that no coherent or workable policy had been developed that would allow for a successful commencement of this program and which not only recognised the needs of the children but could also operate within the bounds of our economy. We have had the Fry report, the Social Welfare Commission report and now, of course, the Priorities Review Staff has recommended that the commencement of the program be postponed so that the Government and the community would have time to prepare for its implementation. The Priorities Review Staff report has even suggested that if the Government’s program were continued it would not be consistent with the stated objectives and priorities of the Government. What an indictment it is of this Government that it embarks upon a program it cannot deliver or finance and, more importantly, that does not even follow its objectives.

There is no doubt that pre-school and child care policies were dangled like a carrot on a stick before the nation - a nation that because of the disastrous economic initiatives of this Labor Government now finds that changes have taken place that have transformed the care of our pre-school age children from an isolated, individual problem into a subject of national concern. In 1 972 there were 1 ,092,000 married women in the work force. This figure is increasing dramatically. More women are having to work out of economic necessity. They are either the sole supporters of their households or are supplementing the earnings of their husbands that are inadequate owing to the scourge of inflation - a scourge which is developing at an increasing rate and which is devastating the savings and incomes of our work force.

There is also the view that women have a more viable place in society and a role that will add to the work force many women who wish to work for the personal satisfaction of using their education, their skills and their creativity. I mention these 2 factors because this influx of women into the work force has made the child care problem visible in our society. If we analysed the need for child care solely in terms of the increased number of working mothers, we would run the risk of the inadequate considerations of the range of possible solutions to our problem. The Government - I probably should say the Priorities Review Staff - has discovered this, raising doubts as to the Government’s credibility. It can become all too easy to say simply that places must be found to park the children while the mothers are at work. Such a solution leaves out the critical ingredient, that is, the needs of a growing child. The circumstances of our rapidly changing society give the issue of child care a wider dimension than the mere need for baby sitting services while mothers are at work. When we discuss pre-school and child care programs we should be showing a humane concern for a program of national commitment that is both feasible and capable of full development, not one that has stirred the hopes of the nation and now has become a frustrating exercise in political expediency.

The motion deplores the callous manner in which the Government has seen fit to sacrifice the interests of women and their children. The Labor Government gave a public undertaking which it now does not intend to fulfil. Of course, the child care area is not the only one in the list of promises which have been broken. In the 1972 election campaign the Australian Labor Party, through the present Prime Minister, announced a proposal to allow income tax deductions in respect of payments to a recognised centre up to a maximum of $260 per annum. In answer to a question by the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Bourchier) on this subject in May of last year the Treasurer said that in the circumstances it did not appear practicable to render such payments as an allowable deduction. That is another broken promise. The electors of Australia are now asking - they have every right to ask - questions that an article in yesterday’s ‘Australian’ asked. It stated: … Mr Whitlam and his 27-man Cabinet have bought a somewhat questionable anti-inflation miniBudget at the expense of one part of society - working mothers.

The $134m child care program, they decided, was dispensable. Nothing else would do. Not their defence or foreign aid expenditure, not their new departments, increased salaries, health schemes . . . . industry assistance, repatriation perks and other pet ministerial projects. But child care centres.

At yesterday’s Press conference the Prime Minister also announced that the Government intended to buy Boeing 707s for the VIP fleet and his own overseas trips. The purchase and running costs of those 2 planes over just one year would go a long way to meeting the costs of the … . child care scheme.

The honeymoon is over, Frank, Mr Whitlam told his Treasurer, Mr Crean, after their mini-Budget. He should have said the same thing to the women who had voted for him in the hope that the preferred new deal might be theirs too.

Pre-school and child care programmes, of course, are a philosophical consideration. Let us hope for the sake of Australian children that at least this matter has been settled within the Government. If another ministerial squabble develops over child care as it did at the Australian Labor Party Conference in 1973, it will be some time yet before the objectives and attitudes of the Government are known.

The Opposition parties made it quite clear before the May election that they would continue the programs which had been developed. At all times they emphasised that having regard to the serious economic situation facing the nation they could not responsibly match the promises made by the Australian Labor Party. Those promises have now been completely repudiated. What did the Government say in the course of the election campaign? The honourable member for Moreton referred to the previous election campaign. I wish to go back to the 1 972 campaign in which the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) said:

Our program will develop a variety of services including the development of family day care programs, day centres, pre-schools, play groups, outside of school care, emergency and occasional care, toddlers groups and baby-sitting pools. Provision will be made for payment of care by relatives, friends or neighbours. The scheme will be diverse and flexible to recognise different needs of different communities.

The promises were great vote getters but unplanned, dishonoured and now proving to have been a sham.

The Prime Minister’s adviser on women’s affairs said on the radio program ‘AM’ before the last election:

The essential test of whether either any party’s words are genuine, is the amount of money the politicians have said that they are going to be prepared to spend on the important issues, and if you just take child care and retraining. Liberal-Country Party have said: ‘$20m we will set aside next year for child care and retraining.’ That’s not sufficient to keep the present programs going. $130m the Labor Party has promised for an adequate child care program which would benefit every child in the community, whether that child is at or in somebody else’s care.

She went on to say:

Words are all right, but the sad thing is that when politicians learn the jargon, exploit it for political ends and then forget to put their money where their mouths are.

On the same radio program on Thursday last, when questioned about future Government proposals, the answer given by Ms Reid was:

I can assure them that the whole future is definitely in the melting pot, because what’s going on is a total reassessment of what we have now, anil that is why we are taking great care about implementing it. But at present the second report hasn’t even been tabled in Parliament.

She said further:

At Federal level you can’t have action if you don’t have a program. It doesn’t impress me to say that the Government is not acting, I don’t want the Government to act stupidly, I don’t want the Government to act hastily, just due to pressure from whatever sources, and I don’t want the Government to spend money foolishly.

That is what the Prime Minister’s adviser on women’s affairs had to say before the election and following the election. She is admitting quite openly not only that the Government is unable to meet its financial commitments but also that it did not even have a comprehensive and detailed plan available.

The Government by its actions and its promises has let down the Australian people generally and our women and children in particular. It has repudiated a public undertaking. It has lost its credibility and it must be concluded that political expediency prompted its professed concern. When politicians use an emotional and sensitive area like child care and exploit it for their own ends, they deserve the nation’s strongest censure and condemnation.

Mr OLDMEADOW:
Holt

– I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate. I agree with the Opposition that education and particularly child care are matters of great public importance. But I go further and say that the Whitlam Labor Government has made the Australian Parliament aware of the important role that the Parliament can play in education whether at the tertiary, secondary, primary or pre-school level. Prior to the election of the Labor Government, the performance of the Australian Government in the area of education had been most restricted. The Whitlam Government is the first government to have prepared a full comprehensive scheme or to have gone through the necessary stages to do that. As a government, we have not acted in an ad hoc way. Before we act, we require that adequate research should be carried out and reports written from which policies can be implemented. Only this week have we received the report of the Social Welfare Commission - the Coleman report - and also the report of the Priorities Review Staff. The tabling of these reports reflects the high level of interest taken in child care and other education matters by this Government.

I am particularly pleased to note this newfound interest in child care by the Opposition. I hope that the interest will spread to the whole field of education. In the 20 months that I have been a member of this Parliament, the performance of the Opposition in matters affecting education has been most miserable. In the 23 years prior to the election of this Labor Government, I was able to watch through my involvement in education just what the Liberal-Country Party coalition did with respect to education. Its record was a miserable one of limited interest in tertiary education with some action taken at the secondary level to provide libraries and science blocks and to grant Commonwealth scholarships. In its last 5 years of office the LiberalCountry Party Government managed to spend the great total of $8.35m on pre-schools. A last desperate act by that Government, taken almost as a recognition of its sins of omission in the previous 23 years, occurred in the dying days of the 27th Parliament in 1972 when action was taken to pass legislation relating to child care.

Since the Labor Party has been in office, the attitude of the Liberal-Country parties in the way in which they think about and react to initiatives in education have not changed. Let us not forget that the Liberal Party voted against the funding of some $70 lm for school purposes last year. Let us not forget that earlier this year the Opposition parties in order to force an unnecessary election were not afraid to reject supply in which money was appropriated for child care purposes. No concern was expressed for child care at that stage when the Opposition parties were intent on forcing this Government to the people.

The honourable member for Moreton said that he should look very carefully at the wording of the matter that he proposed for discussion as a matter of public importance. It is:

The repudiation by the Government of the public undertaking to commence a full-scale pre-school and child care program in 1974.

I do not think that any question arises whether this Government will commence a full-scale program for these purposes. I do not think that anything that has been said or done to date should give anybody in Australia the idea that there is to be any relaxation in the effort of this Government to go ahead with its program. A commencement will be made. It may be made a little slower. There are good reasons for that. But that is all that can be said against our actions. I remind the honourable member for Moreton of an answer given in 1971 by the present Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) to a question asked by the present Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Les Johnson). As reported at page 2430 of House of Representatives Hansard of 4 May 1971, Mr Les Johnson asked, inter alia:

When will the Government implement the undertaking given 18 months ago at the opening of the Senate election campaign to establish pre-school child minding centres throughout Australia?

What was the answer given by the then Minister for Labor and National Service? After he had pointed out that the then Gov ernment subscribed to the great need for child care, 18 months after it had made a promise in an election campaign - not a couple of months later which is the position we are in now - the then Minister said:

These facts have not changed and neither has the Government’s appreciation of them, but what has changed of course is the economic situation.

The then Minister stated further:

It is because of this Government’s appreciation of the importance of restraining inflationary pressures within the general community that the Government has embarked on a deliberate policy of curtailing Commonwealth expenditure. It is in the light of that policy, and having regard to the need to determine priorities in relation to Commonwealth expenditure, that this project, although a most valuable and important one, has been deferred for the time being.

Mr Sherry:

– Who said that?

Mr OLDMEADOW:

– That was said by a member of the then Government 18 months after it had welshed on a promise. We need to look very carefully at the facts. In the last year the Government appropriated about $10m for pre-schools and $8.3m for child care facilities, but we were not able to spend all the money. This was through no fault of ours, because the money was there and we were prepared to give it to anybody who could use it and could have his schemes approved. It was possible to spend only $8. 6m.

Why was this so? I can tell the House why, because I happen to wear 2 caps. I have been the president of a. child care centre organisation, or as we call it in Dandenong, a day nursery organisation, for 4 years. The organisation with which I am associated applied for money to be spent on fulltime child care for those in need in the community. I went through the processes step by step. After a certain time has elapsed it has been given the nod, as have many other organisations, as has been indicated by the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley). It is now at the stage of consulting with architects and having drawings prepared. I submit that it will probably take about 2 years from the time an organisation is given the go-ahead by both the State Government concerned - in the case to which I have referred local government was involved as well - and the Australian Government until a project is completed. Of course, it takes time to arouse interest in the community and some local government organisations are very tentative at the present time in relation to the support that should be given to embarking upon any further projects in the social welfare field. So it takes time.

Mr Graham:

– Why is that?

Mr OLDMEADOW:

– I do not know why local government authorities take this view. I cannot answer for local government. I was a local government councillor for a number of years. I would have thought that local government authorities would have welcomed the generous offers that are being made by the Australian Government through State governments in relation to pre-schools. Interestingly enough - I do not think this should be forgotten - it was a Liberal Government which first introduced child care legislation. Under the Government’s scheme money will go from the Australian Government through to the local committee by way of a much more direct approach. It was the Opposition which put forward the centralist idea that has been jammed down our necks. The Government very gladly implemented its program because we believe it is very necessary to remove the clutter at the State level. We know about it only too well in Victoria, where things are delayed unnecessarily by the State Minister concerned. I can see the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) nodding his head, and I would not blame him, because we all know just how difficult it is to convince the Minister in Victoria to move things along.

Why local government authorities have procrastinated for so long I cannot say, but the fact remains that they have. These are the sorts of reasons why it was necessary for us to cut back to $34m at this stage. It has been said by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and the Treasurer (Mr Crean) that this amount could be increased. It is likely that it will be increased, but it is doubtful, given the resources and the doubts in the community at the moment, whether we will be able to spend more than that.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Motion (by Mr Daly) agreed to:

That the business of the day be called on.

page 948

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

– On the dissolution of the 28th Parliament the Australian delegation to the Constitutional Convention lapsed. Therefore, I move:

That the House of ‘Representatives affirms the decision taken by resolution of the House on 31 May 1973 that the Australian Parliament join with the Parliaments of the States in the Constitutional Convention to be convened to review the Australian Constitution in September of that year, and at such subsequent times as the Convention from time to time determined, and agrees:

That, for the purposes of the Convention -

a delegation from the Australian Parliament consisting of sixteen members of the Parliament take part in the deliberations of the Convention, of whom six shall be members of the Senate and ten shall be members of the House of Representatives;

the ten members of the House of Representatives comprise five members of the Australian Labor Party, three members of the Liberal Party of Australia and two members of the Australian Country Party:

That-

the Prime Minister, the Honourable E. C. Whitlam, Q.c, and four other members of the House of Representatives, being members of the Australian Labor Party, nominated by him;

the Leader of the Opposition, the Right Honourable B. M. Snedden, q.c, and two other members of that House, being members of the Liberal Party of Australia, nominated by him; and

the Right Honourable J. D. Anthony and one other member of that House, being a member of the Australian Country Party, nominated by him, be members of the Delegation:

That the Prime Minister be the Leader of the Delegation, and the Leader of the Opposition be the Deputy Leader:

That a member of the Delegation cease to be such a member if -

he ceases to be a member of the Australian Parliament;

the House of the Parliament of which he is a member terminates his appointment; or

he resigns as a member of the Delegation by writing addressed to the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives, as the case requires:

That where, because of illness or other cause, a member of the Delegation is not available to attend a meeting, or part of a meeting, of the Convention, the Leader or senior available member of the Party in the House from which the member was drawn may nominate an alternate member (being a member of the House of which the first-mentioned member is a member) and the member so nominated shalll be a member of the Delegation for that meeting, or that part of that meeting:

That, in the event of a member of the Delegation ceasing to be such a member, the Leader of the Party in the House from which the member was drawn may nominate another member (being a member of the House of which the first-mentioned member is or was a member) to replace the first-mentioned member:

That the Leader of the Delegation from time to time make a report for presentation to each House of the Parliament on matters arising out of the Convention, and that the Deputy Leader of the Delegation may make an accompanying report.

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

– The Opposition does not object to this motion. Indeed, it supports it. However, in so doing, I would express the concern that those who are participating in the Convention have expressed, namely, that the Australian Government itself should not pre-empt actions or decisions which might be taken within the Convention and by the Convention with respect to possible changes that should be submitted at a later stage to the Australian people by way of referenda. Of course a series of referendum proposals has already been submitted by the Government since the fall of the previous Government on 2 December 1972. These are matters of which notice was given by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) on the occasion of the first meeting of the Convention.

However, at subsequent meetings of the committees of the Convention the feeling has been expressed by those who are participating that they would like to see the conclusions of the Constitutional Convention presented to the people.They consider that in that way there might be some prospect of their success. If the Government persists in intruding individual questions, particularly in view of the results that they have attracted, it is felt that, whatever the merit of the recommended changes to the Australian Constitution, their prospect of success if submitted to the Australian electorate is minimal. Therefore, on behalf of the Opposition, I express concern for the motion but would like the Prime Minister and the members of the Government to take on board the reservations which I have just expressed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 949

QUESTION

PECUNIARY INTEREST

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

– I move:

That this House is of opinion -

That, in any debate or proceeding of the House or its committees or transactions or communications which a Member may have with other Members or with Ministers or servants of the Crown, he should disclose any relevant pecuniary interest or benefit of whatever nature, whether direct or indirect, that he may have had, may have or may be expecting to have;

That every Member of the House of Representatives should furnish to the Clerk of the House of Representatives such particulars of his pecuniary interests, supported by statutory declaration, as shall be required, and shall notify to the Clerk any alterations which may occur therein, and the Clerk shall cause these par ticulars to be entered in a Register of Members’ Interests which shall be available for inspection by the public, and

That a Joint Committee be appointed to inquire into and report on what arrangements need to be made to give effect to the above principles.

The motion I have just moved and the following motion are designed to give effect to an undertaking contained in the platform of the Australian Labor Party adopted at Surfers Paradise last year. It is that all Ministers and members should table statutory declarations as to the directorships and shares they hold in companies, including shares held in trust for them. The present motion will give this House and the Senate an opportunity to endorse an important advance towards effective open government. The Parliament will have a say in the type of machinery that is necessary to enable members’ interests to be publicly registered. These matters are already dealt with in the Constitution, and sections 44 and 45 detail a number of circumstances which may disqualify members and senators from seeking or continuing to hold office. Further, our own Standing Orders - I refer particularly to Nos 196 and 326 - place a general prohibition on members taking part in proceedings of the House in which they may have a direct pecuniary interest.

The first part of this motion extends the range of parliamentary proceedings on which members should disclose an interest, whether direct or indirect, to all proceedings, including debates or proceedings in the House, committee debates and proceedings as well as to all transactions and communications which a member may have at any time with other members or with Ministers or servants of the Crown. The Government believes that these matters should now be put on a modern basis. It is essential in the interests of the Parliament that members should be able to point to an open and publicly available record of financial interests. Allegations have been made against members from time to time and denials then have to be made in circumstances where they had less chance of being believed. Members of Parliament will be in a much better position to defend themselves if they can point to the existence of a public register.

The second section of the motion refers to the proposed establishment of the register of members’ pecuniary interests. It is not easy to define the expression ‘pecuniary interests’ but in this context I deem it to include all assets, both real and personal, together with all income, including gifts and emoluments such as retainers, commissions and other advantages such as travel.

It may be suggested that these requirements intrude unfairly on a member’s right to privacy. However, there is here an important question of balance of the public interest and private convenience. That is why it is suggested, as a follow up to this motion, that a joint committee be appointed to settle the details of what ought to be disclosed and whose interests should be dealt with. The procedure recommended follows substantially that recently adopted by the Parliament at Westminster. Honourable members will be aware that the House of Commons appointed a select committee in 1969 to inquire into declaration of members’ interests. Its report at that time recommended two resolutions which were adopted. They were:

  1. That in any debate or proceeding of the House or its Committees or transactions or communications which a member may have with other members or with Ministers or servants of the Crown, he shall disclose any relevant pecuniary interest or benefit of whatever nature, whether direct or indirect, that he may have had, may have or may be expecting to have.
  2. That it is contrary to the usage and derogatory to the dignity of this House that a member should bring forward by speech or question, or advocate in this House or among his fellow members any Bill, motion, matter or cause for a fee, payment, retainer or reward, direct or indirect, which he has received, is receiving or expects to receive.

That committee recommended against the establishment of a register of members’ interests.

However it is significant that the recommendations of the 1969 committee appeared to be inadequate in that as recently as 22 May last the Parliament of Westminster adopted 2 further resolutions espousing the same principles as are now included in this motion before the House. That Parliament also appointed a select committee to consider the arrangements to be made pursuant to these resolutions. It will be noted that the Government is recommending similar action in the subsequent motion. I might add that the British Parliament’s select committee is still investigating the matter and has not yet reported.

Apart from the British precedent which we propose, in principle, to follow, provisions for disclosure of interests are made in the parliamentary practice of a number of other countries, including the United States of America, Canada and New Zealand. It is in our own interests to provide the means whereby Ministers and members can be fair and open with each other and also with the electorate on the subject of their pecuniary interests. I commend the motion to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned.

page 950

PECUNIARY INTEREST

Proposed Joint Committee

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KingsfordSmithSpecial Minister of State · ALP

– I move:

  1. That a Joint Committee be appointed to inquire into and report on the arrangements to be made relative to the declaration of the interests of the Members of the Parliament and the registration thereof, and, in particular -

    1. what classes of pecuniary interest or other benefit are to be disclosed;
    2. how the register shouldbe compiled and maintained and what arrangements should be made for public access thereto, and
    3. what classes of person (if any) other than Members of theParliament ought to be required to register; and to make recommendations upon these and any other matters which are relevant to the implementation of the said resolution.
  2. That the committee consist of three Members of the House of Representatives nominated by the Prime Minister, two Members of the House of Representatives nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, two Senators nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, one Senator nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and one Senator nominated by the Leader of the Australian Country Party in the Senate.
  3. That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
  4. That the members of the committee hold office as a joint committee until the House of Representatives expires by dissolution or effluxion of time.
  5. That the committee elect as Chairman of the committee one of the members nominated by the Prime Minister.
  6. That the Chairman of the committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the committee to be the Deputy Chairman of the committee, and that the member so appointed act as Chairman of the committee at any time when the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee.
  7. That five members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee.
  8. That the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records.
  9. That the committee have power to move from place to place, and to sit during any recess. <10) That the committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it.
  10. That in matters of procedure the Chairman or Deputy Chairman presiding at a meeting have a deliberative vote, and, in the event of an equality of voting, have a casting vote, and that, in other matters, the Chairman or Deputy Chairman have a deliberative vote only.
  11. That the committee report within the shortest reasonable period and that any member of the committee have power to add a protest or dissent to any report
  12. That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.
  13. That a message ‘be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.

The motion is self-explanatory. It proposes the appointment of a joint committee. It sets out the terms of reference of that committee. It indicates how the committee is to be appointed. The committee will be representative of both sides of the House and also of the Senate. It is expected that the committee will be able to report as quickly as possible although it is recognised that it might take some little time. It is hoped, and it would be the intention of the Government, that the committee will be in a position to report before the end of this year. I commend the motion to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned.

page 951

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL (No. 2) 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 legislation has been given very careful consideration by the Opposition. This Bill is about agreements and the certification of agreements, their abolition and cancellation. I would like to emphasise 4 strands which emerge from the Bill. In the first instance, the Bill weakens the Commission’s power to safeguard the public interest. This Government forgets that where there is an industrial dispute between 2 parties there is nearly always a third party without a direct voice in the proceedings. The Australian public at large is concerned about industrial disputes, about unrest which pushes up costs, which adds to inflation and which destroys the household planning of the average family. The first unhappy result of this Bill would be to weaken the public interest provisions. Under the present legislation and under legislation which this Government accepted as recently as 13 November 1973, the power of the Commission to protect the public interest was maintained in relation to awards and agreements. Now the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) seeks to weaken the Commission’s capacity to protect that public interest.

In the present Act certain important matters concerning the standard hours of work, altering minimum wages on grounds relating to the national economy, or altering annual leave or long service pay provisions, are exercisable by a Full Bench alone. That provision applies to awards and agreements. The Minister seeks to exempt agreements from that provision so that an agreement that contained new provisions that radically altered these important public interest matters could be certified by a single member of the Commission, unless he and the President believed it would result in a ‘major detriment’ to the public interest. This would mean that 2 parties to a dispute could come to an agreement that resulted in flow on effects for the whole community and only in the most exceptional circumstances would there be anything to prevent that agreement being certified by the Commission. Indeed, the definition of ‘major detriment’ given by the Minister clearly indicates that it is his intention that the provision be never used.

In addition to these matters being removed from the ambit of the Full Bench, the Minister is trying to change the concept of public interest. In the legislation as it now is, an agreement must not be certified if, in the opinion of the Commissioner, it is not in the public interest. The Minister seeks to establish the circumstances in which he must register an agreement unless it would result in a ‘major detriment’ to the public interest, and so the public interest provisions are weakened. This is consistent with the philosophy of the Government which has for a long while pursued views which have ignored the public interest. It has led to the industrial climate where unreasonable demands are made and industrial strife follows if they are not met.

The second grave objection that the Opposition has to this legislation is that it would weaken the Arbitration Commission. The provisions concerning the referral of agreements to rank and file members of an organisation would result in a number of private agreements being made which neither party would seek to refer to the Commission for certification. Thus the Commission would be by-passed. This is, of course, quite consistent with the Minister’s philosophy. He seeks to establish conciliators and arbitrators outside the ranks of the Arbitration Commission and here he seeks to establish the circumstances in which organisations that want an agreement as opposed to an award would be virtually compelled to go outside the system. It also weakens the Commission’s power under section 32 in relation to observance of agreements.

The Minister has placed a great deal of importance on these provisions in clause 3 of the Bill which amend section 28 of the Act, but we had the arguments last time - it is the Minister, and not the Opposition, who does not understand the situation. We agreed with the Minister last year that it would be reasonable for the Committee of Management to provide a statutory declaration indicating that the Committee of Management had approved the principal terms of an agreement. The Minister sought to have a number of additional provisions inserted which would make it mandatory to refer the principal terms of an agreement to the members of an organisation and to describe the nature of the consultation with financial members of the organisation affected by the agreement. If a member of the Commission was not so satisfied he would order a ballot.

In addition the draft clause 3 amending section 28 is loosely worded. It refers to consultation with the financial members of an organisation. Consultation is not defined and there could be much argument as to whether consultation had been adequate or not. The same clause 3 refers to the principal terms of an agreement and the need to see that those principal terms are acceptable to a majority of financial members. The words ‘principal terms’ are themselves vague. They could mean different things to different people. They would provide a further cause for dispute and argument.

Let me examine these provisions in more detail. There are 6,000 shops in the metal trades industry. I am advised that if these provisions become law and if two or three or four shops which might employ five or six men each wrote to the Commission and said that they had not been consulted, then the Commission would feel bound to organise a ballot in relation to a new agreement. That kind of consultation with a widespread union is difficult and often impossible. It would involve considerable delays and would not ease the bargaining process. An agreement of the kind which the Minister has in mind, which involves referral to that rank and file, could take place on a factory basis but not on an industry by industry basis.

The Minister ought to know more about this than he has shown, because his old union, the Australian Workers Union, with its far flung empire, with its shearing sheds in every corner of Australia, would not be able to get to every member about a new award; it would just not be practical; it is not possible. But there are other circumstances which are also relevant. In the remoter parts of Australia or in some of the mining industries where there is an enormous turnover of labour, there might well be the circumstances in which an agreement was referred to the members working in that mine on 1 February and on 1 August there might be an almost completely new group of employees to whom the agreement had not been referred. Therefore, in the Minister’s philosophy, they would not feel bound by it. There are other circumstances again. If a new venture is being established in a new location, in new circumstances, terms and conditions of employment have to be negotiated by the appropriate union and agreed before the company can start to employ any labour. You cannot employ people and say to them after they are all gathered together: ‘We will talk about an agreement and it will be referred to you’. They will want to know what the terms and conditions are beforehand. This is the job and responsibility of union leaders and unless they are prepared to take that responsibility they would not get off the ground in these circumstances.

So under all these conditions the Commission would be weakened because organisations would be obliged to bypass the Commission and to come to private agreements. I suggest that this is the Minister’s purpose - to weaken and destroy the Act. If that is not his purpose, then I can only suggest that the

Minister is ignorant of the consequences of his own legislation.

These provisions would weaken not only the Commission but also union leadership. We ought to encourage the circumstances in which the leadership of unions can come to appropriate agreements on behalf of their members and can have the authority to make those agreements stick. Under the proposal suggested by the Minister, union leaders would have no authority or incentive to make anything stick. When things went wrong it would be these provisions in the Bill which would be responsible. Power would be transferred to shop stewards and union leadership would weaken and be encouraged to be irresponsible. On the contrary the Opposition parties want to see strong and responsible union leadership.

The powers of the Commission are also weakened concerning cancellation of a certified agreement. The powers are not altered so far as they affect arbitrated awards, but they are weakened for agreements. Under the present circumstances a Full Bench, on the application of an organisation, a person interested, the Attorney-General or the Registrar, can suspend or cancel in any way it thinks fit or alter any of the terms of an award providing there has been a breach or non-observance of the Act, of the award or of an order of the Court. During the suspension or cancellation of the award a person affected by it is not entitled to the benefit of other awards. The Full Bench has complete discretion about the manner in which this power is used. Under the new section the provision is very considerably weakened so far as agreements are concerned. The cancellation or suspension can only follow ‘persistent contravention’ or failure to observe the award. There is no mention of failure to observe the Act or an order of the Court. So there is no power in that direction. There can be no application to the Full Bench by a person interested, the Attorney-General or the Registrar. Employees affected could benefit from other awards. This not only weakens the Commission as a whole, but also further weakens the concept of public interest which hitherto has been strongly embodied in the Act.

The Bill also discourages the observance of agreements, and this of course fits into the pattern of setting aside the Commission just as do other matters which the Minister has in mind but which are not the subject matter of this Bill. This is the philosophy and the approach of the Minister. In new provisions on page 3 of the Bill the Minister is in effect saying that the 2 parties are not to be allowed to come to any agreement concerning observance of the award which they might both want inserted in the agreement unless that clause relates to the particular terms of the agreement. As I think the Minister has pointed out, that could mean that 2 parties could come to an agreement and 50 matters might be covered in it, and they might say in relation to these 50 matters that there will be no prevention or discouragement of work for the term of the agreement. But then one day or a week after the agreement was signed the union could say: ‘Here is a matter we have not thought of; it is not covered in the agreement’. It could go on strike in relation to that with complete impunity.

The Minister says that even if a union wants a bans clause or a penal clause in the agreement to prevent this kind of thing occurring, to require dispute settlement procedures to be followed without inhibiting the performance of work, then the union cannot do it because if it does the Commission will not be able to certify the agreement. There would of course be no alternative to the 2 parties to the agreement if they want it to attract the force of law. I understand that this provision, this limitation, is also against Australian Council of Trade Unions policy.

The Minister is trying quite directly to tell a union that it must not enter into an agreement that has a general observance of the award clause in it.

The odd thing about this is that this could well deny - and I believe will deny - additional benefits to members of unions, because I would suggest that if a union were prepared to have such a clause in its agreement and if that union had a reputation for keeping and honouring such an agreement, then the employers concerned would take that into account in negotiating the particular terms of the agreement. There are a number of industries around Australia in relation to which this is so. But the Minister is taking an action which will deny additional benefits to employees as a result of employees being prepared to stick to agreements and enter into that kind of general observance of the award clause. That record would enable that union to gain a better situation for its members. But this circumstance is not allowed by the Minister. The proposed new sections 282F and 282G conflict with section 32 which gives the Commission power to include a clause relating to hindering observance of the award so long as it is exercisable by a Full Bench. Thus observance of awards - in the sense of agreements - is further discouraged. The provisions that seek to amend section 58 of the principal Act also discourage observance of agreements.

Last year the Minister had an amendment, which was not accepted, which was designed to bring an agreement to an abrupt end at the expiration of its official term. Now the Minister is saying that the agreement will continue in force until. 30 days after the day that the Industrial Registrar receives notice in writing from one of the parties that the agreement will cease. This is doing 2 things. If such action is taken, employees in that industry would have none of the protections of the Act, none of the protections of the award, and it does not make good sense to arouse that possibility. But furthermore, when this section is put alongside those sections of the Bill which are designed to get agreements referred to the rank and file membership, there is plainly a direct contradiction between them. The kind of referral to membership that the Minister wants in a number of industries might take a very long while and in these circumstances the old agreement needs to continue. It does not make sense for the Minister to establish circumstances in which members of a union could be left without the protection of an agreement or an award as a direct result of this amendment to section 58 and as a result of this amendment to section 28. But that would be the result if all the amendments were carried.

The last major point I want to make is that by these amendments the Minister is establishing different law and practice for agreements and awards. Hitherto where appropriate major provisions and principles of the Act have applied equally to both forms of award. If the legislation as presented to this House is accepted, the powers of the Commission to protect the public interest under section 31 will be gravely weakened so far as agreements are concerned. The powers of the Commission concerning the cancellation and suspension of agreements under section 62 would be much weaker than for that of awards and the powers of the Commission under section 32 and 33 which involve the procedure concerned with conduct and breach of an award, and the powers of the Commission in relation to that breach would be seriously weakened so far as agreements are concerned. In addition, under clause 5 amending section 58, there are provisions which are likely to lead to a difficult period at the end of one agreement before the acceptance of another. In all of these areas the law for agreements, if the Minister’s Bill is accepted, will be very different from the law for awards. The Opposition does not believe that this is in the best interests of sensible agreement, conciliation and arbitration.

One of the remarkable things about this Bill is that the Minister seems quite prepared to go his own way in defiance of all advice available to him, in defiance of the views expressed by responsible authorities and bodies in Australia and in defiance of views expressed by his own political supporters. I would like to quote a section from the last Industrial Peace Conference which adopted a certain resolution. I understand the resolution was adopted with one dissentient, that dissentient being the Minister. The resolution reads:

The Conference has debated questions arising out of the making and status of agreements. It is the view that there should be consultation with and participation by members of organisations, both employer and employee, in the making of agreements, but it is not possible to lay down any hard and fast procedures which would be appropriate in all cases.

The Conference took note of the changes made in the recent legislation affecting certification of agreements and their duration.

The Conference felt that experience should be gained of the working of these provisions before considering any changes.

Without reference to his own Industrial Peace Conference and without consultation with the Australian Council of Trade Unions or with employers, the Minister announced further substantial changes that would alter the whole character of the Act in relation to these matters. The Minister knows full well that in relation to these provisions the leadership of most unions in Australia takes a point of view contrary to that of the Minister. The Minister believes that he can appeal over the heads of union officials to the shop stewards and to the rank and file membership of unions. If he believes that setting up a conflict between the officially elected representatives of unions, by appealing over their heads to the rank and file membership, will establish industrial peace in this country his attitude to these problems must be naive indeed.

The conclusion of the Industrial Peace Conference which I read points out quite clearly that the National Employers’ Policy Committee and the Australian Council of Trade Unions did not believe that it is desirable or possible to lay down a particular procedure which covers all cases in relation to agreements. The Minister has sought to do precisely that. But more importantly, the Conference took note of the changes that were made last year to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act concerning certification of agreements and their duration, and expressed the view that experience should be gained in the working of those provisions before making any changes. It is precisely these provisions the Minister now seeks to change.

There is one great contradiction in these proposed changes and in the objectives that the Minister claims to want to achieve. He claims that he is in favour of an effective conciliation and arbitration system in which voluntary agreements form the significant part of the total system. But so much of what the Minister does is designed to weaken, or would result in weakening, the Commission and in pushing people outside the system and in establishing a separate system of negotiation quite outside the ambit of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. His proposals for the certification of agreements, his proposals for the weakening of the public interest provisions, proposals which are not before the House in this Bill for the establishment of separate mediators and arbitrators, would all weaken the Commission and tend to push organisations outside into private arrangements. It is difficult to believe that the Minister therefore really wants to maintain a strong arbitration system in which voluntary negotiation has a part. It is much easier to believe from the Minister’s own actions that he wants to establish some kind of bargaining process outside the Act without the protections of the Act. The Minister must either be unaware of the consequences of his own proposals - that is hard to believe especially having in mind his own view of his own experience in these matters - or he is not being entirely frank with this Parliament.

Indeed, we find some odd things in the Minister’s autumn speech. He pointed out that there are 700 awards and agreements operating in the federal sphere in Australia. He said 90 per cent of them are direct consequences of agreements of some kind. Then he goes on to describe procedures which will upset the circumstances in which that 90 per cent of those 700 awards and agreements operate. I agree with the Minister that agreements need to be made in an atmosphere of goodwill and without too much formality, but the processes of conciliation and arbitration are pretty informal in Australia and the very fact that 90 per cent of the awards and agreements are the direct consequence of agreements is an indication, and a strong one, that the 2 parties to a dispute are getting together in one form or another to resolve their differences within the system as it now is. That surely is an argument against the radical changes which the Minister seeks to introduce which could force both parties outside the system. The other thing that ought to be said about this is that of the remaining 10 per cent of awards, a fair number of them cover the major matters of public interest which ought to be determined by the Full Bench. There is a real public interest in these matters and it ought not to be diluted as this Bill would dilute it.

The Opposition opposes this Bill. I suppose that is no surprise to the Minister because he knows that the trade union movement and the employers oppose the Bill for good and valid reasons. On an earlier occasion I had seriously considered recommending to the Opposition parties that we ought to accept the provisions of this Bill because if they were accepted great industrial turmoil, dislocation and unhappiness would result and it would be possible to point the bone fairly at the Minister as being responsible. People would have understood what was happening and the consequences of the Minister’s policy. On reflection, however, that would not have been a responsible or possible course for the Opposition. If we had taken that view people and employers and employees organisations would have been forced out of the conciliation and arbitration sphere into the arena of private and unregistered agreements. I think that could well have done permanent harm to the processes of industrial negotiation, conciliation and arbitration in this country. Therefore in the interests of protecting the system and trying to improve it where possible, these measures need to be opposed. I hope that the Senate will continue opposition to prevent these quite disastrous measures becoming law in Australia.

However I urge the Minister to pay greater heed to the voice of the Industrial Peace

Conference which he himself convened with such a great fanfare eight, nine or ten months ago. I hope he will be able to demonstrate that he did not convene the Conference as an industrial relations gimmick. If he convened it with some real belief in wanting to get agreement between parties, he at least ought to give some credence to the conclusions of that Industrial Peace Conference. When he found, through his own intervention, that he could not get the parties to endorse what he wanted, he decided that the Industrial Peace Conference was to be thrown into limbo. Next week another conference is taking place under the chairmanship of Mr Justice Moore. I have seen Press reports that the Minister has said he will be present at that conference. I think Mr Justice Moore would be much better off without the Minister because then-

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I will not go if you think that.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I am glad. It would be the first time that the Minister has paid attention to somebody else for a very long while.

Mr Riordan:

– That is a big surprise.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– Maybe the Minister had already, through his own intrinsic wisdom, come to the same conclusion that he would be better out of the arena.

Mr Hayden:

– That is being cynical. It does not suit you.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– No it is not. It is attributing to the Minister some semblance of common sense, and maybe it is fair enough to do that on occasion. If what the Minister has said is equivalent to a statement that he himself will not be at the conference to be chaired by Mr Justice Moore, I think it augers well. Whatever the Minister may say we all know he holds very firm views and that he is an extraordinarily persistent gentleman, not only with his own Party, with the Prime Minister, with Cabinet and occasionally, as last night, with Caucus, but also with all matters which he holds close to his heart. I think it would be better if this conference were to take place in a free atmosphere where no politicians were present and where the parties concerned, under the chairmanship of a notable chairman, Mr Justice Moore, can try to establish a wage fixation system which might give some better chance of industrial peace than that which we now have.

Dr Forbes:

– Not while they have this Minister.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– The point is that if the Minister is not in the conference and it is left to the parties and the commissioner there may be a greater chance of success. It would be unfortunate if the conference broke down. In political terms it might be a good thing for us if we were able to say after the conference that it broke down because of intervention by the Minister but in national terms I would prefer not to have to say that and not to be able to say that because I want this Conference to succeed. It will have more chance of succeeding if there are no politicians pushing a particular point of view as hard and as vehemently as this Minister can push his point of view. It would be better left, I believe, to the parties concerned.

Dr Forbes:

– He will get in by the back door.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– That is what happened to the Industrial Peace Conference at which I think originally he was not going to be present, but he was present and was overruled by the total Conference. That may well be what will happen on this occasion as well. I urge the Minister to pay greater heed, as I said, to the Industrial Peace Conference which he himself convened and to the many responsible union leaders throughout Australia who recognise the merits and protection of the system of conciliation and arbitration, the protection that provides for the overwhelming bulk of Australian employees. The Minister will do no good at all in supporting proposals that weaken and ultimately destroy that system.

The approach we adopted last spring to the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill demonstrates quite clearly that where the Minister is prepared to make constructive proposals to advance industrial peace we will support them and we will also make constructive proposals of our own. On that occasion the Minister accepted some of our amendments as he accepted some general criticism in respect of the Bill debated in this House last night, and that is good. But this Bill is bad. It is not supported by any of the parties who are directly involved in these matters. While I would like to have been able to let the matter pass so that the Minister could really see what kind of system he had created and the problems that that would arouse, it would be irresponsible to do so. We cannot support the Bill. The best thing that the Minister could do would be to withdraw the Bill and to take some advice.

Mr RIORDAN:
Phillip

– I found the contribution by the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to be a very curious one indeed. He seems to have based his opposition or his excuse for his opposition on the quite obviously wrong premise that this Bill is in some way designed to weaken the operation of arbitration and conciliation in Australia. The plain fact of the matter is that that is simply not so. (Quorum formed) I want to assure the honourable member for Barker (Dr Forbes), who called for the quorum, that he is not curtailing the time that I intended to spend on this Bill because I would not dream of spending 20 minutes of the time of this Parliament to answer such a farrago of nonsense as has been put forward in opposition to the Bill.

It is absolutely ludicrous for the Opposition to suggest that this Bill will in any way weaken conciliation and arbitration. In fact, it is part of a comprehensive and integrated industrial relations policy. The Bill only complements policies which have been outlined by the Government. It seeks to fill a vacuum created by the real lack of industrial relations policies of past Liberal governments. It would be as well for honourable members to look at the chief objects of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Let me just recite to this House some of those objectives. There are 5 of them. The first one is to promote goodwill in industry. The second - and I emphasise that it is the second - objective is to encourage conciliation with a view to amicable agreement thereby preventing and settling industrial disputes.

The third one is to provide a means for settling disputes not resolved by amicable” agreement. Yet the honourable member for Wannon, the prospective Minister for Labor if the Australian people should ever be so misled as to elect to office the Party he supports, says that the second objective of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act is designed to destroy the system of conciliation. This Bill is designed wholly and solely to give expression to the second chief objective of the Act. That is a ludicrous proposition if ever I have heard one, and I am sure it will not appeal to this House. I am sure it will not appeal to any person outside this House, whether in the Senate or elsewhere. I am sure people will not be induced to vote against it on such a frivolous, flippant and ludicrous ground.

It is very significant that this Bill should place emphasis on conciliation. In other words, it is designed to create a situation in which parties to industrial disputes will be more likely to reach agreement. The whole concept of the Australian system of settlement of industrial disputes is concerned with putting the emphasis on conciliation. The objectives of the Act, to which I have already referred, put conciliation before arbitration. The constitutional provision under which the Act is set up establishes conciliation before arbitration. And interestingly enough it also puts prevention of disputes before settlement of disputes. The honourable member for Wannon, new as he is to this area, obviously has not read the very many reports of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission going back over many years in which various Presidents of that body have recommended that more steps be taken to encourage conciliation with a view to settlement of industrial disputes. This Government, in its short term of office, has already taken several steps designed to improve industrial relations by having more efficient machinery available to the parties to disputes.

The Opposition should not - I emphasise the words ‘should not’ - oppose the Government’s proposals. The Opposition has no responsibility for industrial relations in this community. It has consistently blocked moves and attempts by this Government to get better and more efficient machinery with which to improve industrial relations. Having blocked those moves and those attempts to amend the procedures of our conciliation and arbitration system its members have had the gall to stand up in this place and to criticise the Government when industrial relations have appeared not to be as good as they should be. I might also add that they misquote figures, deliberately or otherwise. The honourable member for Wannon claimed last week that one in 5 members of the Australian work force had been on strike in the first quarter of this year. What a ludicrous proposition. He was misreading the statistics; he did not understand the basis of them. He does not understand that in some circumstances the same person can be on strike twice in a quarter and be counted as 2 separate strikers. Last night he cited the percentage of disputes involving demarcation as being 0.5 per cent, instead of 5 per cent. So his record is not too good. Nonetheless, the Opposition opposes this Government’s proposals to streamline and to improve industrial relations and at the same time attacks the Government if industrial relations are not in good shape.

The Opposition basically has no policy of its own. The Opposition policy is a collection of slogans and cliches which have virtually no practical application. Its role has been negative. The Government seeks industrial peace in this community, but industrial peace based on justice and equity for all parties. The Opposition seeks industrial peace also, but it seeks the peace of the industrial graveyard, as we have seen in the past. That is the substantive difference between its policy and ours. When the Opposition was in government it based its entire policy on the existence of repressive penal provisions in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. When the provisions collapsed under their own weight, rejected by employer and employee alike, the former Government had no answer. It was wandering around prior to the December 1972 election in an intellectual desert, seeing an occasional mirage and hoping an oasis would appear on the industrial horizon. It found nothing, and it still has not come in out of the desert.

The new dimension in industrial disputes is the power of the shop committee. Those who fail to recognise that, fail to understand what is occurring in industrial relations today. Frequently disputes occur before trade union officials even know of the cause or know that they have occurred. This legislation is essential in coming to grips with this contemporary problem. It is not the total answer of course, but it is another important part of the total program. One aspect of it is the training of trade union officials, for which the present Minister for Labor and Immigration has carried the torch, as it were. He is the pathfinder in this area.

It is ludicrous to suggest that a legal requirement which involves the rank and file members of a union in the making of consent awards and industrial agreements is in some way bad for industrial relations. Only a person or a party with no basic understanding of Australian industrial relations would make such a wild and unsupportable assertion. It is not possible for this Parliament to legislate for compulsory good conduct and the establishment of good faith in industrial negotiations. It is not possible to change attitudes by law; but it is the responsibility of Parliament to provide the machinery for the settlement and if possible the prevention of industrial disputes. This legislation goes a good way towards that objective.

There is a very heavy onus on those who oppose this measure to provide a realistic alternative. The Liberal and Country parties are very free from ideas in this area. In fact, they are as free of ideas in this area as they are in so many other areas, such as those involving Australia’s economic problems. I remind honourable members opposite that a few slogans do not make a policy that is capable of achieving an objective. They can chant their slogans and mouth their cliches from the party machine, they can read the . speeches that are written for them by their rich and powerful friends, but they do not convince anybody who thinks for more than 30 seconds about what they say.

Disputes in this community have to’ be minimised. We have to create a situation where there can be full industrial peace. As a society we need to achieve that objective. No. trade union in Australia desires to see constant industrial turbulence. No trade unionist worth his salt wants to see workers on strike. Employees go on strike to obtain a particular objective after all other means have failed. In some cases disputes have occurred through misunderstanding and through poor communication. If the Opposition could only see, this Bill is an important ingredient in assisting in achieving better communication, in having the participation of the total workforce - those who will be required to work under the terms of agreements, involved in their making, committed to their making and committed to carrying out the conditions of the agreements.

For the benefit of the honourable member for Wannon, I say that I am surprised that the Opposition should take such a negative role. When he became the Opposition spokesman on industrial relations and had made one or two speeches on the subject I was one who stood- in this House and said that he brought a breath of fresh air-

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Have you any trade union experience?

Mr RIORDAN:

– A little. When the honourable member for Wannon commenced in his position as shadow Minister for Labor I thought he would bring a new perspective to the Opposition parties. But he has fallen by the wayside. He is now simply mouthing the slogans as so many others have done. I implore this Parliament here and people elsewhere to give this proposition a reasonable chance. It is an important step, an important part of a total program for which the Minister for Labor and Immigration is entitled to receive absolute credit and the praise of the community. Whereas he is trying to establish reasonable and efficient machinery the Opposition is frustrating every move he makes in this area.

Mr VINER:
Stirling

– It was rather fascinating to listen to the honourable member for Phillip (Mr Riordan), being one of those persons who has had such ‘a little’ experience in trade union affairs, for him-

Mr James:

– Oh!

Mr VINER:

– Well, I am using the honourable member’s own words. I heard him answer a question from the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) who is at the table. I took the honourable member’s remark at face value, modest as he might be. The honourable member condemned the use of slogans. There can surely never have been a speech in this House so lacking in substance and so full of slogans as the one we have just heard. The honourable member referred to the great social objectives of not merely industrial peace, but also full industrial peace. What does that mean? An industrial graveyard has been left to Australia, he said. What is an industrial graveyard? And so the honourable member went on with so many slogans that it would take up my full 20 minutes to repeat them all.

One thing he did say was that training of trade union officials will play a vital part in the future of good industrial relations in Australia. With that I agree wholeheartedly, but the training of trade union officials in a vacuum will be the worst kind of training that they could receive. I think that any training must be across the board, as it were, so that the officials begin to understand not only their own trade union movement but also the objectives of the business enterprises of Australia and the ideas and attitudes of management. One thing above all that must be appreciated for any effective industrial policy to be put into operation is that the days of the class war between management and employee have gone. The days did come for a while, but they have been disrupted, in recent times when relations between management and employees were regarded as a partnership. Without the work force the private capital that is employed in business cannot prosper and without the capital neither can the work force prosper and achieve the higher living standards we would all look for in Australia.

I should like to turn now to some of the things that the Minister for Labor and Immigration said in introducing this Bill on 25 July. I think, as in the case of the companion Bill that we dealt with in this House last night, this is the fourth try that the Minister has had to get this Bill passed. He first brought it in as part of a compendious Bill in the full flush of excitement after the Labor Party won the 1972 election. That Bill was opposed by the Opposition in this House and rejected by the Senate. Rather than the Minister being prepared to face the prospect of a double dissolution on that Bill by presenting it again in its entirety-

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr VINER:

– Before the suspension of the sitting for lunch I was about to deal with some of the remarks made by the Minister for Labor and Immigration when introducing the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill (No. 2) which we are debating this afternoon. At page 652 of Hansard he is reported as stating:

The principal provisions of the Bill are to ensure that when agreements are made between unions and employers they have the endorsement of the rank and file members of the unions concerned in the agreement.

No doubt as a statement in itself that is admirable. Anyone associated with the making of an agreement to settle an industrial dispute hopes that whatever is done by the management of a union will have the endorsement of the rank and file members. However, the Minister went on:

After all, an agreement which is made between a union official and an employer does not sell the labour of the union officials, but sells the labour of the members of the organisation which the union official represents. If one is fixing the price of somebody else’s labour - if that is what the contract is all about - the person whose labour is being bargained for and sold ought to be given a say in whether the price agreed upon is a proper price.

I condemn that statement of the Minister as a correct perspective of what industrial relations are all about. If the honourable gentleman had been speaking in the nineteenth century there may have been some merit in his analogy between a worker and an article which could be bought and sold. I think the time has long since passed when employees - men and women of the work force of Australia - could be regarded as chattels to be bought and sold, to be haggled over and to be cast aside if somebody does not want them. Nothing could be further from the truth than that as an accurate statement of what industrial relations in Australia are all about. Certainly, we on the Opposition side do not believe for one moment that an employee, a man or woman of the work force, is to be regarded as a chattel, to be bargained for and sold. So the remuneration which an employee is to receive for the work to be done is not to be regarded as the price of the labour. It is to be regarded as a fair remuneration for the work which is done.

Ever since the inception of the arbitration system in Australia it has been founded upon that basis. Allied with it was a consideration by the Commission that the conditions of employment should also be fair to the worker and fair as between worker and employer. For the Minister to come into this House and to use as the peg on which to hang this Bill the suggestion that an employee is to be treated as a chattel is a rather disturbing thought. If the Minister continues to base his industrial relations policies on that concept of the relationship between employer and employee we are in for a sorry time in Australia. There is little hope that any sanity can come from the Minister at a time when industrial relations are in a state of peril. No doubt the Government is looking at this Bill as an example of what has been called participatory democracy which it seeks to have introduced into the Australian union movement. In the name of participatory’ democracy the Government speaks of involving the rank and file in agreements which are made in order to settle industrial disputes. If that is the idea of participatory democracy I suggest that it distorts the very basis of union organisation. Under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act a voluntary organisation of employees elects its offi- cials to conduct the affairs of the union and to represent the interests of the employees who make up the organisation. It ought not be forgotten - regrettably it is often forgotten by leaders of the trade union movement in Australia and by members on the Government side of the House - that unions owe their existence to the right to be registered by virtue of the provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. It is for that reason that the Opposition does not want to see any alteration to the legislation which allows unions to by-pass or to subvert the arbitration system which has been established in Australia in the name of participatory democracy.

In saying that I am again reminded of the speech which was made by the honourable member for Phillip before the suspension of the sitting for lunch when he so vehemently upheld this piece of legislation as necessary to bring about full industrial peace in Australia. He strongly condemned the assertions from the Opposition side that if this Bill were passed it would take control out of the hands of the management of unions and put it with the rank and file. I am reminded of a television debate in which the honourable member for Phillip was involved on Tuesday, 29 July 1971. The debate took place on the television program ‘This Day Tonight’ and it was between the honourable member and Mr Jack Mundey, a person who is well known to the people of Australia as being the then communist secretary of the Builders Labourers Federation. In the course of the debate when talking about the role of the rank and file and their involvement in union affairs Mr Mundey stated:

We believe that there should be more involvement by the rank and file of the union movement.

I pause here and ask honourable members to compare that statement with the words which I have quoted from the speech of the Minister when he introduced this Bill. Mr Mundey went on:

The union movement is too full of bureaucracy, too full of people trying to work themselves into political positions - Joe’s having a go at Parliament, good luck to him, but I mean this is the genre within the union movement. I believe in the movement round so as the workers themselves can be involved in decision making . . .

The Minister at the table, the Minister for Labor and Immigration, says that this is what this Bill is aiming to do. It is aiming to involve the rank and file workers themselves - to use Mr Mundey’s words - in decision making. Mr Mundey goes on:

  1. . and that’s the great movement of the union movement at the moment.

That was said by Mr Mundey on 29 July 1971. Now comes the answer of the honourable member for Phillip, Mr Riordan:

Yes, well I think what my friend is really espousing is the Communist Party policy of job control of the trade union movement.

The Minister sitting at the table throws his silvery locks back, turns his beautiful eyes to the ceiling and laughs. What he is doing is laughing at the honourable member for Phillip. I quote the honourable member for Phillip again. He stated:

Yes, well I think what my. friend is really espousing is the Communist Party policy of job control of the trade union movement.

They wish to destroy the present structure of trade unionism the same as they wish to destroy the present structure of society . . .

This Bill seeks to give to rank and file members the opportunity to overturn decisions of committees of management in the way proposed and this is done in the name of participatory democracy in the union movement. It is done in the name of allowing, in the words of the Minister: the endorsement of the rank and file members of the unions concerned in the agreement.

It is done in the name of involving the rank and file of the union movement. It is done in the name of movement, or as Mr Mundey put it: the great movement of the union movement at the moment.

It is done in the name of job control of the trade union movement.

Mr Riordan:

– That is absurd.

Mr VINER:

– It is not absurd. This is what will come about if this Bill is passed. What else does the honourable member think Mr Halfpenny would do? What else does the honourable member think Mr Carmichael would do if he wanted to organise the rank and file at the shop level against an agreement that had been entered into by the committee of management and that Mr Carmichael himself did not think ought to be made? He will go to the rank and file and he will organise them against the committee of management. There is an interesting parallel between what Mr Mundey sees as happening within the union movement and what we have seen happening within this Parliament to the Labor Party and the Government over the last few days. In the name of democracy the Labor Party says that the will of Caucus must prevail; there must be participatory democracy by all members of the Labor Party in the decisions made by the Government. The Government, by analogy, is the committee of management of a union. The Caucus, by analogy, is the rank and file of the union movement.

We know the struggles in the last few days of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and his Cabinet in order to have the firmness of government upheld against the anarchy of a rank and file movement. Once the rank and file members are allowed to rule there will be instability in government, instability of management, and instability within society because the union movement in Australia commands the attention of a great many individual workers - not the majority of the work force in Australia but close to it. The unions of Australia at the present time wield tremendous power. Yesterday in this House we had a debate on the concentration of power which would come about if the amalgamation of unions that the Minister would like to see are allowed to be pursued through the legislation he introduced. The way in which certain union officials like Mr Mundey, Mr Halfpenny and Mr Carmichael are using the rank and file to achieve their own ends is bringing great instability into Australia’s society at the present time. It is the weakness that is eating away at the heart of the trade union movement. It is the weakness that is eating away at the arbitration system in Australia. One can compare the instability of the union movement over the last few years with the situation which preceded it for a quarter of a century, perhaps half a century. One can imagine what will happen to the fabric of society if that instability is allowed to grow and fester. In an earlier speech of the Minister for Labor and Immigration on 21 March 1974, when he introduced the same Bill into the House, he said:

The Bill is essential to meet the trend towards collective bargaining in Australia.

This Bill is not essential to meet that trend. If there is to be a continuing trend towards collective bargaining, the conciliation procedures within the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission must be strengthened, not weakened, as would happen with this Bill and they must be directed at the particular problem of collective bargaining. Those conciliation procedures must operate by and through responsible management within the unions. To allow the system of collective bargaining to be put into the hands of the rank and file would be to allow a dangerous trend to develop within the trade union movement of Australia with the inevitable result that the conciliation and arbitration system of negotiation, as we have known it in Australia, would be overturned completely. That, I believe, is the objective that union leaders like Carmichael, Halfpenny and Mundey are seeking to bring about.

The first step in bringing that about is to have legislative approval granted to the notion of job control as introduced by this Bill. It is the obligation of the Opposition to point out these things, to point out the fallacies of the very basis upon which the Minister has introduced this Bill and is seeking to justify it, to point out the archaic foundation of the Minister’s whole attitude towards industrial relations and then to oppose this Bill in this House and in the Senate.

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

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for the third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 962

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL 1974

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Wannon

– With the indulgence of the House, I wish to draw attention to an error in the daily Hansard of 31 July 1974. I can well understand the difficulty that Hansard may have experienced. On looking this morning at the daily Hansard of yesterday’s proceedings, I find that an error has been made in recording the amendments that I moved on behalf of the Opposition in the Committee consideration of the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill 1974. If I understand the Hansard report correctly, Hansard records me on page 894, with respect to my first amendment, as moving to omit certain sections of the amending Bill. Hansard then records in a slightly different form those same sections of the amending Bill as though those sections were in fact the positive amendment that I had moved seeking to insert those sections. That is not so. With respect to the first amendment, Hansard records that I moved to insert the following sub-sections’, and those are numbered (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6). Those sub-sections to be inserted were to apply to section 158 K of the principal Act. The numbering of the subsections remains the same. Instead, Hansard has recorded those sub-sections as being of section 158 L of the amending Act. That alters very substantially the sense of that amendment.

The second amendment that I moved related to section 158 M of the principal Act. Hansard records at page 895: ‘. . . . insert the following section’ and repeats ‘158 M’ of the principal Act, which of course says nothing. The amendment instead of being to section 158 M should have referred to section 158 N of the principal Act. I do not know whether this error can be corrected in the more formal copy of Hansard. That would appear to be the most appropriate way to meet the situation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes)The daily Hansard is a proof issue. The correct amendments could be placed in the weekly and bound volumes.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I will speak to Hansard about the matter. But I thought that it ought to be drawn to the attention of the House because the amendments, as they appear in Hansard, do not make sense.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The amendments to which the honourable member has referred in the Hansard record will be brought into line with what is contained in the ‘Votes and Proceedings’ of the House.

page 963

MARGINAL DAIRY FARMS AGREEMENTS BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 30 July (vide page 823), on motion by Dr Patterson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr WHAN:
Monaro · Eden

– The Marginal Dairy Farms Agreements Bill 1974 represents a continuing development in assisting the dairy industry to adjust to changed conditions. This Bill contains provision for farm reconstruction and assistance for farmers who decide to leave the industry. The need for this legislation becomes clear when we realise that the number of dairy farms in Australia has fallen from 48,415 in 1970 to 34,140 in 1974, a reduction of 14,275 in that 4-year period. In New South Wales there has been a systematic decline in the number of dairy farms since the peak year of 1933 when there were 23,550 registered dairy farms in that State. By 1972, the number had fallen to 7,072. Now there are only 5,623 dairy farms in New South Wales. The largest reductions occurred in the years 1969 and 1971. More than 1,000 dairy farmers left the industry in each of those years.

It is significant that the peak year, 1933, was also the peak depression year and the state of dairy technology at that time allowed a very free entry to the industry. The industry was labour intensive. Most cows were hand milked and, by share farming, people with little capital could become dairy farmers. As economic conditions improved, the incentive to stay on dairy farms declined. Today many of the sons of dairy farmers have the choice of alternative occupations - a substantial change from earlier years. I am one of those people and I can assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that if I had had no choice I would have felt condemned to live a life I could not enjoy. Many of the sons of dairy farmers have left the dairy industry. We find the reflection of this in the aging of the dairy farmer entrepreneur.

Many developments have now coincided to change the traditional easy entry into dairy farming. Firstly, the technology of the industry has progressed to the stage where hand milking has been eliminated, stripping after machine milking is no longer necessary, milking shed procedures have been streamlined and, if I may say so, the cows in the herd are more conformist than they used to be, possibly because they are more contented. There was a day when some cows were tolerated for ‘behaviour that would not be tolerated in present milking sheds, such behaviour as putting their feet in the milk bucket. Nowadays the herds are culled and the cows are expected to fit into the .machinelike operation of the dairy farm industry.

The result of these developments is a reduction in the labour component and an increase in the level of capital required for dairy farming in Australia. Herds are larger and farm productivity has shown a steady increase. The best summary of this development is set out in the report of economic survey conducted by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics into the Australian dairy farming industry. It states:

During the .past decade, the Australian dairyfarming industry has adjusted rapidly to changing economic circumstances: farms have expanded in area; productivity per farm and per cow has increased markedly; smaller herds have been withdrawn from dairying or grown larger; and the industry has become more concentrated in areas with a better environment for dairy production. In the face of declining numbers of dairy farms and dairy cattle. total Australian milk production continued to increase, and reached a peak in 1969-70.

The report further states:

The increase in average incomes was notable in view of the comparatively small increase in average prices of dairy products and the continuous rise in costs during the intervening period.

That refers to the period between the survey to which I am referring and the previous survey. The report goes on:

Indeed, the rise in average farm prices occurred solely in the wholemilk sector, and average manufacturing milk prices remained unchanged. There was only a slight increase (about 1 per cent) in the proportion of milk production delivered for the higher priced wholemilk trade. Moreover, it as clear that the results cannot be attributed to increases in other income, as the proportion of gross returns from non-dairy farm enterprises remained unchanged at about IS per cent of the total.

One important reason for the rise in incomes was the greater average size of farm, which resulted from the exodus of many small units from the industry and to a lesser extent, enlargement of the farm areas.

The greatest contribution to higher average incomes was the increase in farm productivity. This can be partially ascribed to a shift in the location of dairy farming, since a bigger proportion of the farms that have remained in dairying were in environments more favourable to that enterprise.

It is no longer possible now to regard dairy farming as an easy entry business. On average a farm needs to be backed by capital of $70,000, and that is sure to increase in future years. Given the trends in farm technology and increasing herd sizes, the farm reconstruction scheme is an essential aid to the adaptation of existing farms. That reconstruction scheme is further developed in the present Bill.

A second development that has also had a major impact on the dairying industry has been the change in the market outlets for milk products. This has been a change in both the final market outlet and the type of product sold. Two examples illustrate this point. In 1962-63 our butter sales to the United Kingdom were 72,000 tons. In 1972-73 they had fallen to 31,000 tons. From a position of dominance, the United Kingdom market now takes only 18 per cent of our total exports. Our production of dried and powdered milk increased in the same period from 69,000 tons to 166,000 tons. So there has been a fundamental change in our export markets. It is essential that the industry respond by moving away from butter production into the production of milk products.

The new scheme embodied in this Bill makes a very generous allowance for the costs involved in relation to the transfer from the butter operation to the full milk operation at the farm level. At a time of high interest rates, the new Bill makes allowance for interest free loans to help viable cream suppliers change over to the whole milk supply. Loans will be made available to finance purchase of refrigerated vats and, as necessary, to make related on-farm changes, for example, the modification of dairy premises, and the construction of roads more capable of handling milk tankers on the farm. Repayment periods will be flexible to meet individual circumstances. The application of the provisions under this Bill will require a close study of the individual position of dairy farmers. ‘I am sure that the officers of the Department of Agriculture will provide this attention and give consideration to these individual needs. It will also require a close examination in a personal way of the dairyfarmers activities. I am absolutely certain we can rely on the discretion of the officers in this regard.

Another development which is often overlooked in the local market by domestic milk consumers is the fact that there has been a transfer in operations from the butter market to the whole milk market, to the cheese market and to the processed milk market. Whereas before it was possible for the domestic milk consumer to operate on the assumption that there would be an adequate supply of cheap milk, this is rapidly becoming a piece of history. It is important when we consider future supplies for domestic milk consumption to realise that the cheese and processed milk markets offer a long term attractiveness which has become a feature of the brighter outlook for the dairy industry. So it is essential that in setting domestic milk prices at this time the long term supply position be considered. I am absolutely convinced that if the Canberra market is to be supplied at a reasonable price with a reasonable quantity over the next 10 years or more, the price must immediately rise by about 4c in order that the producer can have an adequate compensation for the effort put into the production of milk. As I have already mentioned, farm productivity has increased. In the areas that supply the domestic market productivity has increased by at least 50 per cent per farm from 1969 to the current day - a period during which there has been no increase in the return to the domestic producer.

While productivity has taken up the slack over the last 5 years it has now become impossible for us to look forward to increases in productivity such as we have seen over recent years. After all, the total dairy farm population in New South Wales is now down to 5,600 dairy farmers. There are not many left to go. So productivity now has to be represented in terms of increased capital investment. There is a very limited return on the extra dollar that goes into dairy farms from now on. So in order to ensure increased supplies, or at least supplies adequate to meet the needs in cities such as Canberra, it is essential that the price be now established at a level which enables continued production by these enterprises.

In regard to this question of the decline in dairy farming it is interesting to return to the Australian dairy farming industry survey and read the concluding paragraph of the summary in the report of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. It states:

Notwithstanding the considerable rise in average farm incomes between surveys, there was only a small decline in the proportion of low income farms. Fairly large proportions of the total number of farms in all regions were in the low income categories. These farms tended to cluster in certain areas, particularly in Queensland, where average incomes were less than found in the 1964 survey. In the other States, most of the low income farms were in the manufacturing sector and predominated on the north and south coast of New South Wales and in Western Australia.

I cannot speak for the other areas but I can speak for the south coast of New South Wales where I suspect that the low income farms which remain are largely farms that will not be viable. So in my mind at least we have reached a stage there where it will be necessary to bring into operation another aspect of the legislation now under discussion. That aspect is to provide relocation assistance on the lines of the assistance provided under the rural reconstruction plan to help farmers who decide to leave the industry. This particular problem will be extremely difficult because it is not just a question of providing some economic incentive; it is also a question of social adjustment which must be carried out with the sort of social consideration and concern that characterise the entire Act.

I believe that one of the most encouraging aspects of this particular Bill is that it is a response to a continuing development in the dairying industry. We do have experience in the Department of Agriculture to assure us that such actions will be taken with due concern for the social considerations involved.

Mr GILES:
Angas

– I must say that I was disappointed at the lack of depth in the speech of the honourable member for EdenMonaro (Mr Whan). From a person of his background one would have hoped for some proper study of the problems of the dairying industry and some worthwhile suggestions as to their solution. However, such was not forthcoming. Perhaps the honourable member did not have time do his homework properly. I think this legislation needs to be viewed on the basis of the great need for structural reform in the dairying industry. This Bill does not meet that criteria. The Bill needs also to be viewed against the lofty aspirations the Government had until recently of looking at the dairying industry from a national viewpoint. Apparently the Government has given up so doing. In fact a telegram from the industry to the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) prior to the last election received the response from Senator Wriedt that his Party now stood for a viable dairying industry in each State. This was a disappointment to those people in the industry who were prepared to think for themselves and who were trying to achieve greater efficiency within the industry. Unless the proposals in this Bill are considerably patched up in a later Bill to which reference has been made one can imagine the disappointment of Professor Gruen, for instance, and of officers within the Department of Agriculture itself. If I have time I will expand in depth on this aspect.

The Bill aims to broaden legislation introduced some years ago by a Liberal-Country Party government. People within the industry are pleased with the proposed broadening. One could question whether action should have been taken as is proposed. I shall do so later. However the point I make is that the industry itself is rightly extremely pleased with the broadening of the provisions in this Bill relating to marginal dairy farms.

Dr Everingham:

– Hear, hear!

Mr GILES:

– 4 might respond to the ‘hear hear’ I heard by saying that I have listened to some of the greatest economic nonsense I have ever had the displeasure of hearing in this House. I will elaborate on this matter presently. The honourable member for EdenMonaro produced some statistics, which I will not repeat, indicating a decrease of almost onethird in the number of dairy farms in Australia during the last few years, particularly since 1969. I have shown a table concerning payments under the marginal dairy farms reconstruction scheme to the Minister for Health (Dr Everingham) and to save time I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard.

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

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

Mr GILES:

– I thank the House. The major point I draw from the above table is that of the total outlay of slightly less than $17m in payments for the marginal dairy farms reconstruction scheme, $12,270,000 has gone to Queensland where, apart from some areas of New South Wales, the changeover from dairying has been most significant. That is the success story. Good funds have been paid out by the taxpayer to achieve the purpose. The Opposition finds nothing wrong with this. It is an example of the excellence of the scheme introduced in the past. I hope that the proposed broadening of it will hasten some other necessary changes - to amalgamate dairy farm areas to make them more economic and to get rid of those uneconomic dairy farmers who are a drag on the industry and on consumers.

So far so good. I turn now to that clause in the Bill dealing with free grants which, I gather, are to date back to July 1973. Cream producers in particular will be able to get free grants to enable them to transfer their type of production to whole milk production. They will also receive grants to provide refrigerated vats and to enable tankers to reach those vats on the farms. It is at this point that one must query whether the incorporation of such a provision in the Bill is not blind stupidity. I can imagine the Government being motivated by compassion in believing that this should be done but why on earth should the Government support sections of the industry which are not viable? I do not pretend to know all of Australia’s dairying areas but by location many cream suppliers are not viable and cannot be viable. Some are in locations where they could be viable and where dairy farms could become economic units.

In some parts of South Australia this provision will be greeted with amusement. Every worthwhile dairy farmer has long since got refrigerated vats. It is only in outlying areas where this provision does not obtain. I believe that in Bordertown the milk factory is no longer functioning. Milk from that area is being sent to the Mount Compass factory which is in my home area. It is only in areas like Bordertown that the proposed free grants will have any impact. If the Government is keen to make free grants for the provision of vats why does it not make available free bulls for artificial insemination? Would that not have a better effect? Why, in the case of the wine industry, should not the Government make available free of charge nematode resistant stock to enable grape growers to replenish their vineyards? Why has the Government proposed this action to assist farms which probably should have been out of business long ago? The proposal seems to lack cohesion. It does not seem properly directed and I question whether it is a proper use of funds. It may not be to my advantage to condemn the Government for this proposal because perhaps 1 per cent or 2 per cent of the dairy farmers in South Australia who will benefit are in my electorate, but it would be wrong if I did not point to this lack of proper economic consideration.

From a study of this Bill one can only assume that what is not in it is far more important than what is in it because surely before making moves to assist cream suppliers to become whole milk suppliers the Government should ensure that the factories to which such milk is to be directed are capable of receiving it. This is not clear in many dairying areas of Australia today, so I am informed. Also in many areas, including the State of South Australia which is primarily, compared with other States, a cheese producer, we want whole milk directed not so much into cheese factories but into butter factories. The reason for this is that powdered buttermilk is the sort of processed commodity for which there seems to be a recurring world demand. There is not an awful lot of sense in an equalised dairying scheme running throughout Australia to be selling cheese, which is primarily an export product of the dairy industry, to Japan and to Canada at returns of 25c to 27c per lb when the home market has to pay 70c per lb in order to equalise the return.

The sort of theory and re-thinking that we had hoped the Government would adopt on a national scale include the thoughts that I am now putting before the House. There is not much sense in doing these things until our factories are rationalised. To have a dairy factory every 3 miles in the south-east of Australia is apparent nonsense. Nowadays all of them have cheese masters, which run for 24 hours a day, but they sit idle for at least 4 months of the year. Many of them are idle for a longer period. Surely the first move which a government which had thought through the need for a re-structuring of the dairying industry would make would be to tackle the problem at factory level so that at least assistance is given to some factories to go out of production and so that at least some assistance is given to the remainder of them to be viable. Then dairy production can begin to be re-phased into proper channels. Encouragement by this Government to move the national dairy herd towards payment on the basis of solids, not fat (SNF) would have been integral in this proper redirectioning

I think that one can say that the Government is culpable for also not giving encouragement to State governments in order to do this, because in this way at least the calculation of payment would be put back on to the food value of milk. The cream producers, for instance, would not be paid to put the food value of his milk down the necks of pigs or calves or whatever else is going. The sooner we have some broader thinking in this regard, the better. I suppose this must be the fifth time, if not the tenth time, that I have spoken along these lines in this House. In thinking of the need to restructure factories, let everybody who has been overseas recently think back on the big markets, the big emporiums, with their dairy display counters from which one can make a selection. This also will give some idea of the areas in which the dairying industry is deficient in diversifying its production. No factory can diversify its production, nor retailers properly handle it, as long as we have dairy factories sprinkled higgledypiggledy across the whole distance of Australian dairying areas. We have to have economy of scale. We have to have enough intake to make production of diverse lines worthwhile.

I do not think I am far wrong when I suggest that the dairying industry of tomorrow will have to worry not only about new products, such as yoghurt and chocolate and coffee flavoured homogenised milk which are making a very big difference in many areas today, but also about the newer low fat melts, which are virtually unobtainable in Australia today, and cheese spreads. The popular cheese spreads on the continent incorporate shrimps and gherkins and all sorts of things which seem strange to me. Furthermore, with the industrial upset in the industry, homogenised milk is obviously a thing of the future. People will not buy milk every day, even if it is delivered house to house every day which by the look of things certainly will not be the case. People in the future will buy homogenised milk as part of their staple diet.

Mr Street:

– What about ultra-heat treatment?

Mr GILES:

– Quite right. Ultra-heat treatment is a means of refuting the State by State approach to the dairying industry, which Senator Wriedt has referred to, and is a way of moving towards a proper national approach to the whole economy of the dairying industry. These days milk and milk products can be moved far more efficiently and cheaply and effectively from one population centre to another. This is the sort of approach we had hoped would come from the Government. The Government had spoken in this way in the past but the last election campaign appeared to be its undoing. It resorted to political expediency in its approach to the problem.

All I can say is that if another dairying Bill is introduced in the Budget session a lot of work will have to be done in it. A lot of re-phasing and re-structuring has yet to be done. Intelligent members of the dairying industry know this and expect it to happen, and they will not just stand off and say: ‘Hear, hear!’ every time they are given a free vat or a free tube of penicillin or something similar. This is economic nonsense. It is not helping the dairying industry to restructure itself. I suppose if I pressed the Minister for Northern Development (Dr Patterson), who is sitting at the table, he would say: ‘Yes, but we have taken away the dairy subsidy; we have taken away, in phases, the bounty on cheese; we have taken away the bounty on butter; we have taken away, or are about to take away, the bounty on processed milk powders; and we have taken away the superphosphate bounty’. He would then say: ‘Therefore, we have to give some of this back’. But the Government should not be giving it back unless it is part of a restructuring pattern. The Opposition’s attitude is that the Government has not begun to grapple with the problem in this Bill.

One could elaborate much more on various aspects of the Bill but I think, because I know the House is short of time at present, I would prefer to leave my remarks there. It is my sincere hope and, as I say, the hope of many people that the Government will adopt a loftier attitude in future in relation to such Bills and in relation to the economic criteria behind them because, frankly, this is as much a travesty of all economic approach to an industry that I could possibly imagine. I stress again the point on which I began my remarks earlier by saying that the marginal dairying scheme has to go ahead. The Government, I think, has properly broadened the scheme which was introduced by a previous government and which has already paid off handsomely.

If perhaps there is one more point to make before I resume my seat, it is this: Do not let us run away with the idea that the marginal dairy scheme did much to shift dairy farmers in Queensland and in New South Wales from the dairying industry into beef production, because this would be blinding ourselves. It may have encouraged that shift but what shifted dairy men into beef production, of course, were the market forces and the returns for beef at that time. It would not surprise me if by the end of this year we did not see, in economic areas at any rate, quite a lot of people returning to milking cows for the first time in 5 or 6 years. I sound that as a note of warning, but I will support the Bill.

Mr McVEIGH:
Darling Downs

– The Opposition in general supports this legislation, but in the course of the debate we wish to offer certain constructive criticisms. The main elements of the scheme are fully supported. Briefly, they are interest free loans to help prospective viable cream suppliers to change over to whole milk supplies; secondly, the broadening of the marginal dairy farms reconstruction scheme into a more comprehensive dairy adjustment scheme; and, thirdly, assistance to dairy farmers who decide to leave the industry. These propositions, of course, have had general support. But we do want to criticise the legislation because it is typical of the ad hoc approach of the Labor Government to rural industry. Leaders of farm organisations who have honestly and sincerely tried to understand Labor’s motivation and who had tried to influence its practical results have become baffled by the inconsistencies in its behaviour. Campaigns of distortion and misrepresentation about farmers’ incomes, which the Government has resorted to in order to vilify, are common. Of course we all recall the well known statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) at Warragul: ‘You have never had it so good’.

Mr Hewson:

– That was an insult to my electors.

Mr McVEIGH:

– The honourable member for McMillan says that it was an insult to his electors. It was an insult to the primary producers of Australia. The honourable member for Cowper (Mr Ian Robinson) related some figures to the House the other night. He stated that 10,000 dairy farmers had left the industry recently. One in four of the people who were engaged in the industry have either left the farms or have merged.

It is interesting to note that, notwithstanding increases in productivity, the cost of manufacturing butter, cheese and associated products has not been able to be absorbed by the increases in productivity. It is also pertinent to recall that incomes of dairy producers have increased by S2,000 per farm during the last 2 years. But the cost of inputs has increased by $3,000 per farm which leaves the producers with a general loss of $1,000 per farm. The Opposition takes the view that this proposition is only a stop-gap proposal to help the industry and is serving to cloud the issue in some very important aspects.

We say that policies should have been adopted in this legislation for a long-term look at the industry, bearing in mind that the industry is not like an electric switch that can be turned off and on at someone’s convenience. In this legislation the Labor Party has resorted to well known sleight-of-hand tricks to deliberately cloud the issue. The Government says it is a $28m reconstruction scheme. In fact, we all know that the LiberalCountry Party Government provided $25m of which $15m has been spent. In effect the Labor Government is supplying only $18m over and above the $25m originally allocated. I think it is worth pointing out to the Australian people that they are not getting an extra $28m. They are merely receiving $18m on top of the $25m already given by the previous Government.

The Government has stripped from the industry the previous Government’s proposals for $135m spread over 5 years. Other savage blows were dealt to the dairy industry in the last Budget. The major features of the last Budget which affected the dairy industry were the withdrawal of the special depreciation allowance applicable to primary producers, the termination of the special additional investment allowance, adjustments in the deductibility of capital expenditure on land use for primary production and the modification of the school milk scheme. These allowances will increase the inflow of money to the Treasury by $40.5m a year but they will have a disastrous effect for the industry especially in the denial to school children of adequate school milk.

Those of us who have practical experience in the industry are disturbed at the Government’s proposals to refer to the Industries Assistance Commission the future plans and propositions for the dairy industry. We want to know how an inquiry can be made into an industry now and a decision made in 2 years’ time when the position of the industry is rapidly changing due to forces which are not under the control of the industry. With inflation running at 16.4 per cent per annum it would be difficult for anyone, even with practical experience, to assess what should be the long-term aims of the industry. We hope that the Minister will use his best endeavours to ensure that when the Industries Assistance Commission considers the dairy industry it takes due cognizance of the fact that it is difficult to assess sp far ahead.

Let me deal with some short-falls in the proposition. Firstly, there is no allowance under the proposal for a son to buy out his father and thus retain the family dairy farm. Sons of farmers are obviously the best dairy farmers of all. They have had instilled into them at the knee of practical experience the way that things are best done. They also have the typical love of the land. Provision should have been made in the scheme so that sons could take over the family farm and retain it. Of course, we know that the socialists opposite have a deliberate policy of destroying the concept of the family farm and socialising that means of production. The Country Party maintains that the family farm is surely the heart and pulse of the nation.

No provision is made in the legislation for the repayment of drought loans. I thought that the Minister for Northern Development and Minister for the Northern Territory (Dr Patterson) who represents the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) in this House, being a Queenslander, would have been aware that many dairy farmers are still struggling desperately to repay drought loans that were incurred during the last drought. The final point I wish to make was touched on by the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) when he dealt with the restructuring of industry particularly in the manufacturing sector. There is a great deal of effort in the butter and cheese producing sections of the manufacturing industry to spread their wings. Recently a factory in my area has put out a butter spread called ‘melt’. It has a butter base and can be successfully marketed only with Government help and the injection of Government finance to enable a change over to the production of this very important product.

We hoped that the legislation would have included in its provisions an allowance for industry to be restructured. I have been requested to curtail my remarks in this debate. Of course we of the Country Party always honour the obligations we undertake. In conclusion, I say that the Federal Government should follow the initiatives of the Queensland Government which has used S3. 8m for the subsidisation of pasture improvement in that State. The Australian dairy farmer has the second-lowest cost of production of countries with significant dairy production. We are second only to New Zealand. The Australian dairy farmer is a quite competent farmer and has contributed in a most meaningful way to the welfare of Australia. We hope that the Labor Government will adopt the policies of the previous Liberal-Country Party Government and encourage dairy farmers to maintain their great status in the Australian community.

Mr LLOYD (Murray) (3.23>- There are 2 elements in the Bill. One is the continuation of the Marginal Dairy Farms Agreement and the other is assistance for a conversion program for dairy farmers to change from cream supply or non-refrigerated milk vat supply to refrigerated vat supply. I wish to refer only to the second part - the assistance to convert to refrigerated bulk milk. I believe it is an important recommendation that has been made. It is one that the Liberal-Country Party made in the 1972 election. In changing from cream supply to refrigerated bulk milk or from non-refrigerated bulk milk to bulk milk there is an important consideration that if a person in the manufacturing sector of the dairy industry is to remain viable in the future he has to supply quality bulk milk so that all the ingredients of the milk are sold in the best possible way.

There is no doubt that the protein section of milk is becoming increasingly important not only from the point of view of markets but also in actual financial return to the farmer. I refer particularly to skim milk powder and to casein. The protein section of the milk can be obtained only if the farmer is selling whole milk. The question of viability for assistance brings problems with it. I understand from the second reading speech of the Minister for Northern Development and Minister for the Northern Territory (Dr Patterson) that further legislation is being introduced to assist factories. I wish to put some questions to the Minister on this point. Here we are looking only at viability for the individual farmer but if a program is to be planned properly it must be not only for the future viability of the individual farmer but also foi the future viability of the manufacturing dairy industry in that area. For example, a good deal of money could be spent on converting to bulk milk vats on farms which would probably cost $5,000 or $6,000 each, but then it could be found that because of the type of dairying in the area bulk milk pick-up was uneconomical because there was an insufficient concentration of farmers who had converted their vats thereby making the cost of pick-up too high. It could be that the factory itself would be unable to sustain what is required to handle bulk milk. It could be that the throughput of the factory is not sufficiently high to get the economy of scale that is required for efficient dairy production at the factory level. It could be that the factory itself does not have the necessary capital.

In many dairy areas, if a factory is to take advantage of the bulk milk that will come to it, then it will have to spend $2m or $3m on modern equipment to facilitate powder production as well as butter production. It will also probably have to spend money on its butter plant in order to lift the quality of that butter by increasing the standard of hygiene. Will the Government provide assistance of that sort to allow a complete program of adjustment assistance to take place, not only in respect of the individual farmer but also right through to the factory level in order to do the job properly?

Another problem which I would like to draw to the attention of the Minister also concerns viability. The provisions of this Bill do not cover farmers with small refrigerated bulk vats. They cover only those farmers who are switching directly from cream or from non-refrigerated milk vats. In my area where all the vats are refrigerated the viability problem is facing many farmers but the area itself is the most viable manufacturing dairy sector in Australia. I refer to the Goulburn Valley. It has everything that is required at the factory level in the sense of roads, bulk milk tankers and modern factories with high throughput. In the Goulburn Valley are some of the biggest factories in the world, and they can switch their production from casein to skim milk powder to obtain the best result on the world market. But at the individual farmer level there are farmers who have small bulk milk vats of, say, 200 gallons but to remain in the industry they will have to increase the capacity of their vats to 400 gallons or 500 gallons. But they do not have the money to do this and they are debarred under this program from receiving financial assistance. In many ways it would be more sensible for the ‘future of the manufacturing sector of the dairy industry in Australia to allow them to obtain loan funds so that they can switch to larger bulk milk vats of a refrigerated nature, than it would to allow farmers in other areas to make the change because this area is viable and has all that is required to continue its viability.

Another associated problem relates to the basis of payment for manufacturing milk in Australia. At the present time under State legislation milk is paid for on a butterfat basis with an additional payment for the protein that is added. But there is no encouragement to dairy farmers to have breeds or within breeds of cattle the types of cows which will provide the most protein relative to butterfat. After all, under this legislation we are encouraging them to make use of the protein in milk. Unfortunately the report of the Australian Agricultural Council on the basis of payment for milk to switch from butterfat to total solids appears to have got nowhere in the last couple of years. I do not criticise the Federal Government for this because there are problems at the State Government level and there are problems created by pressure groups in the States. But I ask the Minister whether this matter is being pushed at the Agricultural Council level with a view to making a change that will assist the future of the manufacturing sector of the dairy industry in the way in which it should be assisted.

I also want to refer to the future of the Agricultural Council itself in relation to dairying. Now that the Labor Government has unilaterally decided that there will be no production quota on margarine after the end of the 1976 financial year, where does this leave the Agricultural Council in view of the fact that over the years matters concerning the dairy industry in Australia as a national industry have been decided by consensus at meetings of the Council? Does it mean that there is no value in having future meetings of the Council? Some States have already suggested they can no longer put any trust in or put any value on what may happen at meetings of the Council in the future. Already there are tremendous pressures on the dairy industry in Australia to fragment it from a national industry and to create a State only industry in each State. In other words, to hell with the industry in the other States. This will be detrimental to the welfare of the people engaged in the industry and to the industry itself. In view of a possible breakdown in the operations of the Agricultural Council in dairying matters, this is something to be deplored.

I believe that margarine quotas should be phased out but when they are phased out there should be a consensus of agreement in the Agricultural Council together with safe guards for the production of margarine under hygienic standards with certain labelling and packaging requirements setting out the type of saturated and unsaturated fats in the product, and providing for the use of Australian oils, which is certainly not the case at present. The way to achieve this is through the industry by consensus on an Australia-wide basis. An abrupt decision should not be made without any guarantees not only for the farmers but also for the consumers of margarine in this country. The Government’s decision will not assist Australian owned margarine companies. It will assist only that giant multinational corporation, Unilever.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin:

Order! The Bill before the House does not deal with margarine quotas. The Bill is the Marginal Dairy Farms Agreements Bill. I think the honourable member is getting slightly off the mark.

Mr LLOYD:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

– I accept the. point but I say that marginal dairy farmers will possibly become more marginal as a result of this Government’s action. The decision that has been taken by the Government means that the only company which will gain will not be an Australian company; it will be that well known multinational corporation, Unilever.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I think the House should be grateful for the practical wisdom of the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) and the insight of the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) who see the desirability of maintaining the family farm as part of the whole structure of the Australian rural economy and, indeed, of Australian society. I was prompted to speak in this debate by recognition of the need for change in the dairy industry as in every industry. One honourable member said to me a moment ago, almost jokingly: ‘Are you going to talk about the dairy farms which are being phased out in your area?’ Well, historically he had something there. When people in Australia ceased to import butter from England one of the notable dairy farms, perhaps the most notable, was at Mona Vale in my electorate -Foley’s farm. Mrs Foley’s butter in those days commanded a deserved premium on the Australian market. The Foley family subsequently took up dairy farming on a bigger scale on the North Coast. It is interesting to see how these changes occur and how they are carried through.

The dairy industry should be adjusting perhaps more quickly than it has done in the past. Milk proteins and milk solids become comparatively much more important than the butterfat. I say ‘comparatively’ advisedly. This process of adjustment has been inhibited to some extent by the unwise maintenance of such things as the margarine legislation. The North Coast of New South Wales - a dairying area - is much more suitable for the production of a milk oriented towards milk solids rather than a milk oriented towards butterfat. The contrary is true of the dairying industry in Victoria. This is very largely a function of the temperature which applies in those places and the effect of the temperature on the cows. Nobody is suggesting that any milk is entirely milk solids or any milk is entirely butterfat. It is a case of orientation towards one or the other. I do express pleasure that at last we are going to get rid of some of these rather absurd restrictions on margarine. If margarine is made from Australian oils the Australian farmer has a proper interest in it. As I have said, perhaps we have been a little unwise in maintaining for so long the illogical restrictions and quotas on margarine. I can remember when these quotas were introduced -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin)Order! I think the honourable member is getting very wide of the Bill. I have been fairly tolerant up to now.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– In that case, I will accede to your views, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I will say simply that I am glad that the members of the Australian Country Party who have spoken have such a firm, practical knowledge of this subject and have given us the lead, and I am glad also that the quotas are being phased out.

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

– in reply - Speaking briefly on this matter, one point I should like to make is with respect to the remarks of the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles). He spoke at some length about the conversion to milking producing units as distinct from butterfat producing units. This of course involves the installation of a lot of refrigerated equipment. He rightly said that in many areas for many years such units have been installed. The honourable member suggested that under the terms and conditions of this Bill vats would be provided free. Of course, loans and not grants will be made available for the purchase of this equipment. The loans will be free of interest, but they will be loans and not grants.

The honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) touched on a very important point with respect to the objectives of the adjustment programs; that is, in any conversion program it is necessary to make certain not only that the producer of milk is efficienthowever one defines efficiency - but also that his whole process is efficient or viable. There is no point in having one element viable and the other elements not viable. Obviously the whole process and all the elements break down if the actual pickup system is inefficient, and the number of–

Mr Hewson:

– Petrol is too dear.

Dr PATTERSON:

– It is obvious that the honourable member does not know anything about the Bill.

Mr Hewson:

– Too right I do.

Dr PATTERSON:

-I am trying to answer the questions of the honourable member for Murray. If the honourable member does not want me to answer–

Mr Hewson:

– You would be totally wrong.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin)Order! Interjections will cease.

Dr PATTERSON:

– It is quite obvious that the Country Party does not want me to answer its questions. So I suggest that the Bill now be read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on motion by Dr Patterson) read a third time.

page 972

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE REPORT

Tennant Creek Hospital

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969-73, I present the report of the Public Works Committee relating to the following proposed work:

Tennant Creek Hospital, Northern Territory.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 973

QUESTION

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– I move:

That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of the resolution agreed to earlier this day by the House of Representatives relating to the participation of the Australian Parliament in the Constitutional Convention.

This is a normal procedure following the action taken by the House this morning.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 973

NATIONAL HEALTH BILL (No. 2) 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 31 July (vide page 906), on motion by Mr Hayden:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr CHIPP:
Hotham

– This Bill is the National Health Bill (No. 2) 1974. That means it is the second Bill brought in by the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) this session to amend the National Health Act. I plead with the Minister - I am sure he would agree with me - to consolidate that original Act. It would make it much easier to follow. I know that its consolidation is not his responsibility, but I am sure that he would agree with me that it is a nightmare to try to read the original Act plus all the amendments.

This Bill proposes to do several things. It relates to the private health insurance funds. In the Minister’s terms, because of the uncertainty of the power the Minister has over applications from the funds to increase benefits or contributions when presented to him in a package, he has seen fit to introduce in a very hurried fashion this amending Bill. The private health funds are organisations registered under the National Health Act. They register because they receive subventions from Commonwealth revenue to pay benefits to their contributors - people who insure themselves against the cost of going into hospital or consulting a doctor. There are different organisations in the various States. The present mock crisis has been orecipitated by the actions of 2 New South Wales health funds, the Medical Benefits Fund and the Hospitals Contributions Fund, plus several other smaller societies.

At the outset I should explain - I hope that the Minister and the Australian Labor Party at last will look at these funds in their proper light - that they are not multi-national, profit hungry, rapacious monsters as the Minister has often described them. They are cooperatives. They are groups of people who join together to pay insurance so that if the sad day comes that they are sick or injured their hospital and medical expenses can be allayed. There are no shareholders as such, no wealthy shareholders and no board of directors receiving enormous emoluments. In fact, most of the people who serve on the boards of the funds do so in an honorary capacity. Over the years they have rendered an outstanding service to Australia in a very unselfish, unpaid capacity. Therefore, I can understand why they are upset when they are called names in public by the Minister.

When we are talking about private health funds we are talking about non-profit groups of individuals who join together in a cooperative, credit union sort of sense to insure themselves against the cost of sickness or injury. These funds as I said a moment ago, have to register under the National Health Act to receive the subvention from Commonwealth funds. That Act provides that if any of those funds wish to increase the contributions of contributors or increase the benefits they pay to the contributors they must receive the approval of the Minister. This is a concept with which I do not disagree. My Party introduced it when we were in government. Of course, if the Government is to be handing out taxpayers’ money to health funds it must have some say in or control over the administration of those funds. According to us the Act presently gives the Minister power to reject or accept those increases which are applied for from time to time. Admittedly, if a fund disobeys the Minister’s direction the only power he seems to have is that of deregistration. That could be called using a steam hammer to hit a tack. To be fair, I can sympathise with the Minister. Any Minister, of whatever political persuasion he might be, would be very loathe to deregister a health fund because of the odium that would attract from people who contribute to the fund. They could not get their benefits. As I understand it we never had any difficulties in administering the health funds. The Minister for Social Security in his second reading speech mentioned uncertainty of power. I would thank the Minister if, in his reply, he would inform me as to who advised him about this uncertainty of power. Was it the Attorney-General or his Department? It would be useful to have recorded in the debate the depth of that advice.

This Bill amends the Act to give the Minister additional power to vary applications for increase. Instead of saying yes or no, to accept or to reject, this Bill gives the Minister power to vary. In other words, if a fund wants to increase contributions by 40 per cent after consultation with actuarial advice the Minister may say. ‘Well, 20 per cent is fair.’ This Bill gives the Minister that added power. In the hands of a Minister who wants to destroy the private health funds - I am completely persuaded that this Minister and this Government want to do that - this is rather a strong power. As a sugar coating to this Bill there is a provision that if the Minister allows an increase which is less than the fund applied for the fund can appeal against the Minister’s decision. The Bill provides the grounds of appeal for the funds and it states:

Where … the Minister has refused . . . refusal is likely to result in the moneys in the fund becoming less than the amounts reasonably required for the purposes of the fund, including the maintenance of adequate reserves . . .

Once the Minister makes a judgment and if the fund is unsatisfied, according to this Bill it can then appeal to a judge of a Federal court or of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory to hear the appeal. The next feature of the Bill is that once that judge determines the appeal the Minister may be directed by him to approve the change in whole or in part. So we have the system where an independent umpire is appointed - a Federal judge or a Supreme Court judge. The Minister is bound by that umpire’s decision. The Bill also gives power to a person to take out an injunction against a fund if it is operating against the Act or continuing to operate against the Act. A contempt provision is implied. If a fund refuses to obey the decision of the Minister or, in particular, of the Arbitrator, that fund can be held in contempt of court. That is the Bill, which 1 think I have explained fairly.

The Opposition does not oppose the Bill but I give notice to the Minister that because of the shortness of time we have had to consider it - 1 am sure that he will concede that - an amendment may be brought forward in the Senate. I am sure that the Minister will accept it. It is a machinery amendment because my legal advice is that because of the way in which the Bill has been drafted the injunction procedures and the contempt procedures are clumsy and they could be improved. But it may well be that we will not have time to do that. When I say that we do not oppose the Bill that is not to be construed that we support the Minister in his present dispute and in his attitude generally towards private hospital funds, private nursing homes, private hospitals and doctors. In fact, we regard this Bill as unnecessary. We regard it as political opportunism on a grand scale. We regard it as a grandstanding exercise by the .Minister who is using the present situation to embarrass, humiliate and demean the private enterprise health insurance funds - his bete noire. I have a great deal of sympathy for the funds in their present dilemma but as Opposition spokesman I must be on record as saying that I am disappointed at their timing in applying these increases and at the public relations stance which they have taken. Without question they have been provoked and frustrated but 1 think that sweet reason could have prevailed and not a confrontation as has taken place. After having said that in criticism of the funds I say that I can understand their massive problem of meeting increasing costs with income.

I condemn the Minister for his handling of this dispute. Again when the Minister is involved in negotiations with any of the people I have mentioned name calling and public abuse are featured. In fact, sometimes I wonder whether his favourite pastime is not name calling. We heard from him of the greedy doctors and then of the rapacious health funds. Private hospitals and nursing homes have not escaped the Minister’s personal abuse. The Minister is in a very difficult and delicate area in his present portfolio. I have commended him for many of the things he has done but when one deals with human beings in a highly charged situation like this one does not rush into print and call people names, causing a confrontation situation as the Minister has done, so often. The sad fact is that today, 1 August, in New South Wales literally thousands of people do not know whether they are covered effectively for health insurance benefits. Does not the Minister know that today babies will be born in hospitals, people will have accidents and that there are people who have been booked for months before into hospitals for surgery?

Dr Klugman:

– That is not true. There is an 8 weeks cover.

Mr CHIPP:

– I thank the honourable member for Prospect for his interjection. The simple ‘fact is that the Minister has publicly gone on record and said that these funds are acting illegally. The Minister has publicly appealed to people not to pay their contributions. If that goes on for 8 weeks, as the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) has said, these people are not covered.

Dr Klugman:

– I am talking about the honourable member’s baby being born today.

Mr CHIPP:

– ‘It is certain that a baby will be born today. What is not certain is that this dilemma will be resolved in 8 weeks. I repeat that those people are in a state of distress. A person who is sick is already distressed enough without having this additional worry. Let me trace the present history of this dispute. I am not absolutely sure of the dates. I will be corrected by the Minister as he has them on his file. As I understand it, at about 4 June a decision was made by the Government of New South Wales to increase hospital fees by 50 per cent as from 1 August. I understand that this was 3 days before another fundamental decision was made in the Caucus room about petrol subsidies. ‘It now seems to be in doubt whether the real decision was not made last night. One can understand the State Government - because of the massive inflation which is caused by this Government’s maladministration increasing nurses’ wages and other things- deciding that 50 per cent increase in hospital fees was necessary. That announcement was made on 4 June and it was to operate from 1 August. The funds were not given 3 months notice which is usual and understandable because the funds have to go to their actuaries and it is a most complicated exercise to work out to what extent contributions have to be increased or expenses will be increased. But that was the fact and the funds could not wait beyond I August. After doing some initial work on this matter I am informed by the funds that on or about 1 1 July they met or had communications with the Minister and said that, because of the massive increases in costs brought about by the New South Wales Government’s decision, and other inflationary factors which had an impact upon the. expenses of the funds, they had to have an increase in contributions.

I ask the Minister in his reply to accept or deny this statement I make about him: Did he or his representatives on 11 July say to the funds that they would not be allowed to increase contributions? The answer to that question would be fascinating. If the Minister let the funds know that then it puts him in an intolerable position. If he did say that, I suggest it makes a mockery of his Registration Committee because according to the Act when an application is made for an increase in the contributions paid to health funds the Registration Committee advises the Minister whether the increases are reasonable. How could this matter have been taken to the Registration Committee if a formal submission had not at that stage been made?

Did the Minister, without examining the figures and without having any representations made to him simply say: ‘You are not getting a bean as from 1 August, notwithstanding the fact that you have to pay a 50 per cent increase’. That makes the Registration Committee a farce. The Registration Committee is the Minister’s child and it does what it is told. In the light of the fact that the funds were faced with a 57 per cent increase in costs - this information has been given to me, I have not checked it - they agreed to increase contributions by 40 per cent. One does not have to be a genius at arithmetic to know that if costs are increasing by 57 per cent and income is increasing by only 40 per cent, it will mean a fairly rapid run down in reserves.

Mr Mathews:

– It depends how much you were building them up before.

Mr CHIPP:

– I cannot follow that kind of logic. No matter how much the funds have in reserve, if their costs are increased by 57 per cent and they increase their contributions by only 40 per cent, by any mathematical calculation there must be a run down in reserves. One simple answer, which the Minister seems to think is the right one, is that the funds should run down their reserves. It has been said by the Minister that the funds have a reserve of $50m. I am not opposed to forcing or influencing the health funds to run down reserves if they are regarded as being excessive. I am prepared to accept the Nimmo Committee’s ratio of 13 weeks contributions plus the alteration for the difference in the ratio of contributions to benefits that has been made since then. I would accept 1 to 18. I believe that, but does the Minister believe that these funds have these reserves in bank accounts, piggy banks or hidden under a mattress and that they can just go and say: ‘We will pull this out’? Of course they do not. The Funds have invested their reserves in Government securities and one pities them when one sees what has happened to those investments because of the actions of this Government.

Does the Minister suggest that the Commonwealth bonds that they bought 5 years ago should be cashed in now? Good heavens, that would result in massive losses for the funds. As I say, I hold no particular brief for these 2 health funds. The health funds have published figures which, if reasonable, need examination. My point is that these figures were not examined by the Minister when the funds approached him on 11 July.

On 24 July, a week from yesterday, the funds made a submission to the Minister setting out in great detail how and why their costs had increased and also why they regarded an increase in contributions of 40 per cent as reasonable. That was only a week ago. The funds, received a telegram. I am not sure of the date but I think it was last week. I concede that the application was not couched in the words of an application it was couched in the form of a declaration that the funds were going ahead with their proposed increases on 1 August. One could say they were holding a gun at the Minister’s head but again one can have some sympathy for the funds because they were told on 1 1 July that there was no way the Minister would approve an increase. The Minister sent a telegram to the funds saying that they were not to increase contributions. If the Minister does not mind, I ask him in his reply to give the details of the telegram that he sent to the funds. I do not want to see the telegram but I would like to know what was contained in it. Did the Minister say that at the end of September his decision would be reviewed? That is a point we would like to know.

I ask the Minister also to table a copy of the Registration Committee’s report to him on the application of 24 July. I believe that would be a fascinating document for those honourable members who are interested in this field. I pause to ask the Minister whether he will indicate whether he will table that report.

Mr Hayden:

– Yes, I would be happy to do so.

Mr CHIPP:

– I thank the Minister. After that abuse by the Minister of the funds and counter-abuse by the funds of the Minister-

Mr Hayden:

– Open Government.

Mr CHIPP:

– Did the Minister say open warfare?

Mr Hayden:

– No, open government.

Mr CHIPP:

– I do not know about open government, but it was open warfare while people - the contributors - suffered and worried. The Minister with his usual mildness stated that the increases proposed by the funds were illegal. ‘Illegal’ is a term that suggests to my non-legal mind that someone is a criminal or has committed some illegal offence. Is that the way to start negotiations with the health funds, by telling them they acted illegally? Is it a way to begin negotiations, by asking contributors not to pay their subscriptions? When that was done the funds countered with a telegram to the Minister which they have made public. It stated:

Your telegram of yesterday received this morning stop Your unwarranted attack in the media last night and this morning on the integrity and propriety of the governing bodies of our two funds precludes any useful discussion with you under the circumstances stop We are not prepared to confer with you until you withdraw your completely unjustified statements that the funds are acting improperly and in conflict with contributor interests.

I understand that the Minister has not replied to that telegram. The result was that there was no confrontation between the Minister and the funds. They were not playing ‘speaks’. Again the contributors to the funds were the ones to suffer. I then appealed for dialogue. I asked the funds to wait for a month before they implemented their increased contributions. In my judgment they could have afforded to wait a month. They could have afforded to make some peace with the Minister, or vice versa, and could have tried to negotiate this matter in a sensible way but they refused. I remind the Minister that it is not his favourite bete noire, the so-called rapacious health funds, that want this increase. Does the Minister know - I am sure he does - that other health funds are involved. He has received telegrams from the Waterside Workers Federation - not a union unfriendly to the Minister, nor he to it - which has some sort of friendly society or hospital society which also is caught up in this bind. The Manchester Unity Medical and Hospital Benefits Fund and very many small friendly societies are involved. AH of this problem could have been overcome without the necessity for this grandstanding, because we believe that the power to meet the problem is in the Act already. The solution of this problem of mounting costs will not be found in some pathetic, hastily conceived, little Bill. The real answer to this problem is to keep costs down and to try to curb inflation. That is the only way to keep down hospital costs and the costs of running friendly societies or health funds. This is the problem that this Government seems loath to tackle.

I turn now to a suggestion that I have not canvassed. This problem between the health funds and the Minister for Social Security will continue. The Registration Committee is, I believe, a farce and has been made to appear to be a farce by this Minister. Would the Minister consider discussing with the funds the idea of an independent tribunal which could receive an application and then advise the Minister on it? I have not canvassed this suggestion with the funds. It is an idea of my own that I have had. At least it would take the sting out of the situation and would prevent the state of affairs that has been reached now. I know that under this legislation there is opportunity for an appeal to a judge. But that is different from an application first going to an independent tribunal.

I turn to another matter on which I seek an assurance from the Minister when he replies. It does not concern the provisions of this Bill but relates to section 78 (6) of the principal Act. That provision says that once an application for an increase in contributions is received by him, the Minister shall give a judgment on it as soon as practicable. I think those are the words used. I do not know whether my learned, close and intelligent friend from Kooyong (Mr Peacock) can inform me whether the phrase ‘as soon as practicable’ has any meaning in law; or whether a ruthless Minister could interpret ‘as soon as practicable’ to be 3 months or 6 months. If that were accepted, what redress would people have? I am not suggesting that the Minister has not acted with proper expedition and propriety in the past, but I would like an assurance from him that he will continue to act as soon as practicable in the reasonable sense.

I know that my friend, the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson), has a particular worry about this Bill. I will not canvass that. I respect him for his interest in social welfare. He will be putting his concern when he speaks following me.

I sum up by saying that the Opposition does not oppose this Bill, but my remarks are not to be construed as meaning that we approve in any way of the Minister’s handling of this dispute. I repeat the words of my leader, Mr

Snedden, yesterday: I have no doubt that this Minister and this Government have the overt intention of destroying the private health funds, of destroying private practice in medicine and of destroying private hospitals and private nursing homes so that it can bring in its own discredited, miserable health scheme. We will oppose that all the way. But we will not oppose this Bill.

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

– The National Health Bill (No. 2) now before us was introduced into the House late last night. Very few of us have had an opportunity to study carefully the import of the Bill. I see this legislation as yet another piece of the jigsaw designed to nationalise medicine and to deprive the people of Australia of the opportunity of paying for themselves for private care whether from a doctor or a hospital. This Bill deals with the two sides of the coin. The health benefit organisations were set up a number of years ago as mutual benefit organisations. People grouped together in order to pool their resources and to average the crippling financial risks and burdens that are imposed upon a family in the event of illness or accident striking and resulting in the need for high medical expenses or hospital care.

Much of the debate this afternoon has dealt with the need to have some means whereby the contribution rate of the benefit organisations can be kept under review. The second reading speech delivered last night referred to this need. At a time when many areas of the economy are subject to investigation by the Prices Justification Tribunal and similar inquiries when charges in those areas are raised, it is not unnatural that other areas be looked at in a similar light, although in passing I might point out that it is strange that we have not heard of any legislative action which will result in an investigation of the circumstances in which Post Office rises are justified in order to keep the postal and telecommunications sections as viable organisations. We are given a figure and told that we must accept it, whether we like it or not. There is no independent tribunal, no independent investigation and no report subjected to public scrutiny.

Here we are looking at the benefit organisations. We are asked to pass legislation which will enable the Minister to approve or disapprove or to amend applications made by these organisations to increase the level of contributions made by subscribers. Those contributions are the amounts that the funds charge their members in respect of the cover and protection that those members seek from the organisations. Insofar as this legislation will give to those organisations the opportunity to appeal - the ground of appeal in that regard is set out in the legislation - one can follow the logic of the proposal. The legislation provides that a benefit organisation seeking to increase its members’ contributions can make a submission to the Minister for Social Security. If he rejects its application or sets an amount which that organisation regards as inadequate, the organisation can appeal.

It can appeal to a judge to be appointed by the Attorney-General. The ground of appeal is limited in the case of a refusal to the claim that: … the refusal is likely to result in the moneys in the fund becoming less than the amounts reasonably required for the purposes of the fund, including the maintenance of adequate reserves. . . .

If one assumes that such an investigation is objectively done, there is the danger, to which the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp) drew attention, that through procrastination and delays a great financial burden could be imposed upon these mutual benefit organisations. But again, if one accepts that an independent tribunal will set a figure which, in the light of the circumstances, will enable the funds to carry on on the basis set out so that their reserves will not be run clown to the point where they become less than is reasonably necessary, one can understand the reasons for this legislation.

The legislation goes further. This Bill seeks to add to section 73b of the principal Act by placing a power in the hands of the Minister to enable him to direct that variations be made in the rates of hospital fund benefits payable by organisations to all or any of the contributors. Under the present provisions an organisation is not subject by legislation to ministerial power in respect of the benefits that an organisation offers. The Minister has some wide general powers which he can exercise on the recommendation of the Registration Committee and which he can then impose upon an organisation. If any organisation disobeys, he can deregister it. Under this power he could direct a benefit organisation not to increase the benefit. Let us look at the implications of this. It has been occurring in the community already that young families, knowing that the wife is expecting a baby, book into a hospital and insure up to the total limit sufficient to cover the hospital bill. I know it occurred in respect of at least one couple in my electorate only last week. At the time they insured the benefit they would have received would have covered the whole bill. Because of increasing hospital charges that bill will now be of the order of $140 above the amount which the benefit organisation will pay. The benefit organisation has been unable to increase the benefits because it has been unable to negotiate sensible increases with the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden).

If we turn back to the now famous Green Paper, we find in it the Government’s aversion to private insurance in respect of hospital and medical care. In fact, that report, though subsequently amended, stated that there was no place in the Labor scheme for private insurance of medical services. It said that there was a limited scope for private insurance in respect of hospital care for accommodation at a standard above the minimum provided for by the Hayden scheme. The point I want to draw to the attention of the House, and I invite the Minister to comment upon it, is that the power that he is taking by this Bill would give him the authority to prevent any organisation from increasing its benefits. In other words, it would leave the community uninsured; it would leave those who wish to insure for private hospital care, intermediate ward care or private ward care unable to pool their resources and draw from the insurance pool when the occasion arises for them to require hospital treatment. It is on this ground that I am opposed to the legislation. 1 think it is trying to do more than the Minister in his second reading speech purported to tell us. The effect of the legislation will be to enable the present Government to destroy the opportunity now available to Australian citizens to insure for a standard of medical and hospital care above that of the minimum standard provided by the Hayden scheme or any other scheme.

I would like to see an amendment to clause 3 so that there is a proviso. The proviso I would suggest would read along these lines:

Provided however that the Minister shall not cause such alterations to be made as would reduce the rates of hospital fund benefits subject to the benefits payable not exceeding the actual cost of the services covered.

If we believe in private insurance above the benefits provided under any governmentbased scheme, there should not be provision in legislation which enables a Minister to prevent a private organisation from offering a policy that enables a person to insure for a benefit above the minimum standard. This legislation places that power in the Minister’s hands. It is arrant nonsense to suggest that an organisation has a right to appeal against the Minister’s rejection, because in these circumstances the grounds of appeal are totally inapplicable. It is nonsense to suggest, when an organisation asks for permission to increase the benefits it is offering to its contributors and there is a refusal from the Minister, that the ground of appeal can be related to the fact that the provision of those benefits will cause a run-down of the reserves and resources of the organisation. Of course it will. Of course increased benefits will cost the organisation more and may place it in the position of desiring to seek an increase in the rate of contribution.

As I have said, I have no strong objection to the proposal that if there is to be an increase in the contribution that increase should be subjected to a scrutiny to see that actuarially it was doing what the hospital benefit organisation said it was doing, namely, providing it with sufficient resources to enable it to pay the increased benefits. But I am alarmed when I see in this Bill the inclusion of an additional power, an implied power, a condition precedent on the continued registration of an organisation, namely, a power to refuse an organisation’s application to increase the benefits. The people in the community want to be able to go to the great charity-run private hospitals. If those hospitals cost the contributor more, the people want to be able to insure against the accounts that they will receive in respect of hospitalisation there. But, I suggest, this Bill is designed to take away that right, because there is no assurance that the policy that was outlined in the Green Paper will not now be adopted and that private insurance in the hospital and medical sphere will be prohibited altogether. We have only to look at reports by various committees sponsored by this Government and listen to the speeches of members of the Labor Party to understand that members of the Labor Party have an aversion to private insurance.

I have a strong belief that people should be given the opportunity of free choice. If they want to insure to go to a private hospital or to attend a private doctor, they should be permitted to do so and there should be no legislation which enables a Minister to prevent Australian citizens from having that opportunity merely because he wants to force them into his nationalised health scheme. Over recent days we have heard the argument upon that - the decline in standards of care, the long waiting time and the great costs to the taxpayer of a scheme that is governmentsponsored in its totality and has no element of control over the quality of care that is provided; that does not give any opportunity of free choice to people who wish to have hospital accommodation or medical care of a standard better than that offered by the Government scheme

It is for this reason that I am concerned about this legislation. It was hastily prepared in an emotional set of circumstances, a set of circumstances that need not have arisen. The Minister has known for weeks that hospital costs have risen, nurses’ wages have increased, the cost of food has risen and the wages of hospital domestics have gone up dramatically in recent weeks. It is not unnatural that those, administering hospitals should be placed in the position where they have to increase the charges. The failure of this Government has been that it has refused to enable people to continue to insure themselves at a level which enables them, out of their insurance fund, to pay the total cost, of hospital and medical care.

This Government has failed in 2 respects. It has failed to make a contribution out of taxpayer resources to benefit organisations to enable them to increase the benefits so that the benefits match the charges. But worse still, it has forbidden the organisations to increase the benefits out of the resources that they collect from their contributors - contributors who, in the main, wish to contribute in order that they can protect themselves against the high cost of medical and hospital care and at the same time preserve for themselves the right to choose whether they will go into a standard ward, an intermediate ward or a private ward, the right to choose whether they will have the hospital doctor or their own doctor, and the right to choose whether they will have a general practitioner attend them or a specialist. It is for this reason that I am concerned at this particular legislation and believe that consideration of it should be deferred until its full import can be properly analysed. I should like also to see substantial changes made to the appeal clause to enable the total questions at issue to be examined by the appeal tribunal and questions not to be limited merely to that which is referred to in the Bill - the question of whether or not reserves are being run down. I therefore express my opposition to this Bill.

Mr LLOYD:
Murray

– It is difficult to assess the furore over fund contributions and the Government action which led to it. It is difficult to assess it objectively because of the charges and countercharges that have taken place from both sides. It is unfortunate that confrontation rather than dialogue has been the action. It is particularly unfortunate because both sides are supposedly representing the will of the people. The Government supposedly is trying to help people with their health funds to provide cover against illness. On the other hand the mutual funds - basically co-operatives made up of subscribers - supposedly assist their subscribers to obtain this protection. The whole confrontation, rather than it being a matter of dialogue and cooperation, is to be deplored. It certainly is not helping the confidence of the people of New South Wales in respect of what they are actually covered for at present.

If there is to be a prize for deviousness in this exercise it must go to the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) because he is pursuing a policy of denigrating the private health funds. I shall give two examples to show that I am not generalising. The major reason he gives for the amendments proposed by this Bill is that at present he considers there is uncertainty as to his power to vary an application for an increase in benefits or contribution rates. I quote a letter from the Department of Social Security dated 18 June and signed by Mr W. G. Armstrong, Assistant Director-General and delegate of the Minister for Social Security. This was in reply to an application by medical benefit funds in Queensland for an increased benefit. He wrote:

You are advised that approval of the proposal to increase your organisation’s Queensland hospital fund contribution rates, as notified in your letter of 26 February 1974 to the Department’s Brisbane Office, has been refused. However, in pursuance of section 73b (c) of the National Health Act 1953-1973, the Minister has directed that you shall cause alterations to be made to your organisation’s Queensland hospital fund rules to provide for the weekly contribution rate for -all members to the Private Table to be 63c (single) and $1.25 (family).

The final paragraph of the letter relates to other contribution rates. In July the Minister said that he did not have the power to vary an application from a fund with respect to contribution rates but a letter dated 18 June signed by his delegate in response to an application from another fund in another State states that the Minister had the power and he directs the fund to adopt a different rate. In a letter later that month from the Medical Benefit Fund of New South Wales acting for the Queensland medical benefit fund the organisation agreed to the direction from the Minister. Why does the Minister have the power one month and not the power the next month to do what is required and what is being asked for now - to direct a variation? When one considers the provisions of the Bill one sees that with the exception of the provisions for an appeal to a judge or an arbitrator there appears to be little or no alteration. One wonders at the significance of some of the provisions included in the Bill. I should like the Minister to elaborate, if he can, on this aspect.

The second area of deviousness which I draw to the attention of the House and which I should like the Minister to reply to concerns the sequence of events leading up to the confrontation. On 4 June the New South Wales State Cabinet made a decision that on 1 August - today - ‘hospital bed charges in New South Wales would be increased by an average of SO per cent. On 18 June the New South Wales health funds received a preliminary circular from the Department of Social Security on this matter. On 8 July, in a circular dated 5 July, they received official confirmation that a meeting would take place on 11 July at which a senior officer would tell the New South Wales funds what policy the funds should follow in their submissions for variations of contribution and benefit rates. 1 understand the same Mr Armstrong was the senior officer at that meeting. I have been informed that Mr Armstrong told the assembled funds that they would have to bear all of those costs of the increased bed charges that the New South Wales Government was introducing on 1 August. He said that no increase would be allowed to the funds. If that is not correct I want the Minister to say so because it means, in effect, that it was a futile exercise, of which the funds were well aware after that meeting, to apply to the registration committee for an increase as they had been told in advance that any such application automatically would be refused. What a farce! This was a procedure so-called to sort out the problems of increasing costs and increasing benefits. The funds told the officer that they could not afford to bear the increased pay-outs in benefits.

On 12 July the New South Wales funds received another circular announcing increased nursing home benefits. They were told that they would have to pay and that no increase in contributions would be allowed in any submission they made on this score. The funds were faced with a 50 per cent increase in hospital bed charges and a significant increase in benefit payments for nursing home beds and were told before they made any application for variations that their application would be turned down. Furthermore I ask whether it is a fact that in April the same Mr Armstrong told the funds that in future applications for increases in medical benefit contributions the assessment would be made on the basis of a 20 per cent rate for inflation in administration costs for the 2 months to the end of June - that is, the end of the 1973-74 financial year - but thereafter for this year a 10 per cent increase only would be allowed for inflation in their administration charges. Today inflation is accelerating at a rate of about 20 per cent annually. I want the Minister to confirm or deny this sequence of events because if it is true it makes a farce of the whole procedure. How true it makes the charge directed at the Minister that he is out to kill everything that is private, charitable, or religious or community based in our whole health system whether they are hospitals, doctors, nursing homes or health funds.

The funds received a telegram informing them that their application had been rejected and advising them that once their annual returns were lodged, which I understand has to be by the end of September, their application possibly would be reconsidered. Will this be so or will a fresh application be required?

Mr Hayden:

– Will the honourable member repeat that question?

Mr LLOYD:

– The New South Wales funds received a telegram rejecting their application and stating that after their annual returns were lodged by the end of September the Department would reconsider their submission for increased contribution rates. Is this so or is it not so? Will it be reconsidered automatically or will a fresh application be required? Where does this put the Manchester Unity fund which is the third largest mutual fund in New South Wales and which has now applied for an even greater increase in contribution rates than the two that have already been rejected? Will they be automatically rejected? Remember, the 2 funds which have applied and whose applications have been rejected were seeking an increase of 40 per cent in contributions, whereas their pay-out in benefits is more than 50 per cent, so they are acknowledging and accepting a significant rundown in their reserves in this inflationary situation over the next 12 months. I do not think it is of any use for the Minister or any honourable member on his side of the House to wave the return of the registered medical and hospital funds before us for the year 1972-73 showing the state of the reserves in June 1973. That return is now more than 2 months out of date. We have an inflationary situation. Surely if the funds are acting responsibly their level of reserves must be gauged by present and future commitments, not on an historic situation.

I want to put several more questions to the Minister. The moment this Bill receives assent will the Hospitals Contribution Fund and the Medical Benefits Fund be provided with an arbitrator to resolve the issue? Will the Minister not proceed with any possible court proceedings until such time as that arbitrator has reached a decision and delivered that decision? 1 believe that these 2 questions are of great importance for the Minister because he will be judged from here on by his attitude and his actions. If he acts in a co-operative manner, bearing in mind the responsibility to the majority of people in New South Wales, in an attempt to resolve the situation and does not continue with the confrontation, then the Minister will be judged as dealing responsibly. But if, the moment he receives this additional power from this legislation, he proceeds to act in an arbitrary manner, to penalise or attempt to penalise these organisations and, through them, the majority of the people in New South Wales, then he must be judged on this other basis of being out to kill anything of a private nature in our health system.

Mr STALEY:
Chisholm

– I will not speak for more than half a minute.

Mr Hayden:

– Is that a real half minute or a politician’s half minute?

Mr STALEY:

– Yes, it is a real half minute. I want to stress the fact that very important questions have been asked by the Opposition spokesman on social security matters of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) and I very much hope that the Minister will answer those questions.

Mr HAYDEN:
Minister for Social Security · Oxley · ALP

– in reply - As much as possible I have taken note of the points raised. I have some pressure upon me because the Opposition spokesman on transport matters - I am not sure whether he is the honourable member for Gippsland or Gypsland - the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon) wishes to speak on a particular subject for half an hour.

Mr Nixon:

– You please your silly self.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I suppose it depends on the way in which the electors are treated whether it is ‘gyp’ or ‘gipp’. In the few minutes available to me, if I am to extend the courtesy to the honourable ‘member for Gippsland who wants to speak for a full 30-minute period on a subject, I will try to answer some of the questions raised. First of all, the advising of the uncertainty in relation to the power of the Act where a packet deal, if I can use that term, is concerned, that is, in relation to an increase in contributions and benefits is provided vis-a-vis the Government’s power to decide to allow one and not the other, came out of discussions with the Attorney-General’s Department at an early stage of consideration of what action could be taken to protect contributors interests. I do not think it is fair to say that the previous Government did not have problems in this regard. If the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp) is not prepared to accept my word on this, I suggest that he ought to speak with Senator Greenwood who was not without his difficulties a few years ago with health insurance funds.

Mr Chipp:

– It was resolved.

Mr HAYDEN:

– Admittedly the problem was eventually resolved, but the position was becoming increasingly difficult and it was unnecessary. I suggest also that the pressure being applied to the Government of those days by the then Opposition had much to do with the resolution of the problem then. The honourable member for Hotham referred to the need for an independent tribunal. In fact, this is what we are proposing without overformalising it. If there is a strong feeling that an independent arbitrator ought to be replaced by an independent tribunal, I am quite happy to consider that proposition. I have no adverse feelings to it.

The term ‘as soon as practicable’ in the Act means as quickly as it can be done, having in mind all the issues under consideration which are necessary to be fulfilled, as well as the machinery and so on being fulfilled without unnecessary delay. That means in simple English that we do not waste time, and the evidence is that we have never wasted time. At least that is so since I have been Minister for Social Security. I do not think any of my predecessors have wasted time either because that can effect people. The honourable member has asked me to table the Registration Committee’s reports. I am happy to do that. I seek leave to table the reports.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

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

Mr HAYDEN:

– I am happy to give the honourable member copies of those reports. I am happy to give him copies of the telegram also. For what it is worth, I seek leave to table the telegram so that there is no misunderstanding in relation to it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr HAYDEN:

– It is not true to say that I had dogmatically asserted on 1 1 June - it was not 11 July in fact - that no increases would be allowed in contribution rates to cover increased costs, vis-a-vis benefits, to members of funds. In fact, I will read a couple of extracts from my Press statement which are relevant. The Press statement reads:

Preliminary studies indicate that it will be possible for most hospital funds operating in New South Wales to cover the new fees by drawing on their reserves. I believe immediate increases in contribution rates by most, if not all, funds can be avoided.

I also said in that Press statement:

Although most funds would not be able to justify an increase in their contribution rates, there could be a few cases in which some rise might be warranted.

I hand a copy of that Press statement to the honourable member for Hotham for his information.

The honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) said that we are responsible for increasing Post Office charges without justification or inquiry. I do not think that is quite fair or accurate. There has been a royal commission into the Post Office headed by Sir James Vernon. There is no possibility that the Government - any government, regardless of its political complexion - will stand in the way of increased benefits to the community.

I now move quickly to some of the points mentioned by the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd). Each case which is submitted is carefully assessed. It is assessed by the Registration Committee and the advice of the Committee is sent on to me for final determination. It is true that I approved increases in the contribution rates in the Queensland branch of the Medical Benefits Fund. I return again to my Press statement, where I said:

The Medical Benefits Fund applied for increases to take the rates up to $1.50 a week for family cover and 75c a week for single people.

I disallowed that application and instead approved lower rates of $1.25 and 63c respectively.

The next matter of substance raised by the honourable member for Murray referred to discussions between officers of my Department and representatives of the health insurance funds some weeks ago. The honourable member said that during those discussions officers of my Department took a fairly dogmatic attitude that no increases in contribution rates would be allowed. First of all, the discussions were not concerned with hospital benefits for hospital care but in fact related to nursing home benefits. Secondly, in the course of the discussions my officers explained the situation of reserves to contribution rates in terms of the Press statement of 11 June from which I have quoted. They indicated that if any individual fund representative cared to speak with them later in the evening they would be available to discuss individual cases, but no representative sought that discussion.

Queries were raised as to whether the Medical Benefits Fund and the Hospitals Contribution Fund could have an arbitrator appointed immediately the Bill receives assent. I suggest that the procedure would be for us to contact the Medical Benefits Fund and the Hospitals Contribution Fund to indicate to them the outcome of this amendment in the House and the situation that results from this, that is, we would confirm our earlier decision. They could indicate to us whether they wanted an arbitrator, and, if so, this could be done in a matter of 24 hours or less. After the Bill receives royal assent steps can be taken to appoint an arbitrator quite quickly.

I turn now to the situation of the Manchester Unity fund. I speak as a contributor to that fund, but not in the State of New South Wales, so I am interested in it and concerned about it. It does have some financial problems. As I said earlier each case will be carefullly considered on the situation related to the particular fund. If a fund is allowed an increase in contribution rates it will be justified on the financial situation of that fund. I hope I have answered the questions of honourable members. I am afraid - in fairness to the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon) - I do not have any more time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

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 thank the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) for tabling the various papers. I make the comment that my worst suspicions have been confirmed with regard to the Registration Committee. The application was put into the Department by the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia on 24 July. Only 3 days later the Committee saw fit to assess the massive amount of information in the application and make a recommendation to the Minister that tha benefits be approved but the contribution rates be refused. The mind boggles at how such a massive exercise can be undertaken in what must have been a little over a day.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 984

ROADS GRANTS BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 18 July (vide page 386), on motion by Mr Charles Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes:

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

Mr NIXON:
Gippsland

– At his Press conference on 16 July the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) said: ‘There are certain Government activities in Australia, roads and telephones being among them, which we regard as having a lower priority than some other forms of Government activity’. This became obvious when the telephone charges were so heavily increased last week. It is now the turn of Australia’s road system, and the authorities responsible for expanding and maintaining the roads are now to feel the effects of the low priority given to them by the Government, and openly acknowledged by the Prime Minister.

The legislation before the House will result in a serious cut back in the funds made available to State and local government authorities for road construction and maintenance, and the Government is endeavouring to conceal this fact with a smoke screen of deception by introducing its National Highways program. Let me make it clear that the Opposition welcomes the development of a national highways system. In fact, it is in a very real sense the Opposition’s program, since the LiberalCountry Party Government instituted the national highways system studies, on the basis of which the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads presented me, as the then Minister, with a report in February 1972 which formed the basis for the present scheme.

These 3 Bills are like the curate’s egg - good in parts and very bad in others. However the support for the Government’s scheme would be more readily forthcoming if ambiguities inherent in the scheme were resolved, in particular the differences between the list of roads that the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) says it is his intention to declare as national highways, and the highways which the national highways study team declared to be ‘significantly deficient’ and as mentioned in the Minister’s speech. I am particularly concerned that the Minister says nothing of the Princes, East and Western highways in Victoria, although the study team linked these with the highways detailed by the Minister.

The program makes much of the problems of the Hume Highway, and rightly so, being a direct trunk route between Sydney and Melbourne. But does the Minister know that the figures for March 1974 show that traffic counters at Traralgon on the Princes Highway have a daily count of 9,000 vehicles whereas the Hume Highway at Seymour has a count of only 8,500 vehicles. There is a clear case for higher road standards for this alternate route to Sydney which services the Latrobe Valley and the Gippsland area.

Now we come to the other bad parts of the egg, and this relates to this Government’s attitude to freeways. For construction of urban arterial roads the Australian Government gave $423m over the last 3 years, with the annual amounts increasing by about 20 per cent. It is obvious that even this amount was not nearly enough, because we have a tremendous backlog of uncompleted road improvement works in urban areas. But now the Government intends providing only $355m for these works in the next 3 years. This is a reduction of 16 per cent on the last 3 years but when the allocation for 1974-75, the first year of the new three-year program, is compared with the last year of the last program, there is an actual reduction of nearly 30 per cent. This remains the same for the next 3 years.

The Minister, in his second reading speech on these Bills, compounded the mistake made by the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads in its report on roads in Australia. Both in the Minister’s speech, and in the report, a superb case was put for the need for urban arterial roads including freeways. In his speech the Minister said:

The Road Needs Survey conducted by the Bureau of Roads and State road authorities showed that at June, 1972, this category of road performed the major proportion of the traffic task in urban areas by carrying the greatest volume of traffic and highest proportion of heavy vehicles.

The Minister went on to say:

Whilst urban arterial and sub-arterial roads constitute only 20 per cent of urban road mileage they carry up to 75 per cent of the total vehicle miles of travel in the cities.

They also comprise only 2 per cent of all roads in Australia and carry about 50 per cent of all road travel.

Approximately 780 miles, or 17 per cent, of the arterial and sub-arterial roads in built up urban areas are carrying traffic volumes in excess of 20,000 vehicles per day.

That is what the Minister said. But what he proposes appears to be a direct contradiction of what he believes. Quite clearly the Minister needs to come clean on his attitude. I pointed out in my speech on the second reading of the States Grants (Urban Public Transport) Bill that the Government’s attitude reflected such contradictions. These contradictions must be ironed out before the Government’s highways program can command credibility and general acceptance.

The Government has rejected the proposals of the Bureau of Roads report in two significant areas: It has cut back on the recommended total of expenditure on roads of all types by $2 19m, while maintaining the total for national highways at the figure proposed by the Bureau, namely, $400m, for the 3-year period. This has resulted in a misallocation of funds as between the different categories of roads when compared with the findings of the Bureau. The Minister made the extraordinary announcement that ‘the State roads included in this scheme might in future be constructed, at least in part, by the Australian Government itself. I understand that when he was challenged about this matter at the Australian Transport Advisory Council meeting in Darwin, the Minister said this will not occur for 3 years. The States are not satisfied with that reassurance and want further reassurance on this point. The above objections to the National Roads Bill in its present form are serious.

What is totally indefensible about the introduction of the Bill, however, is that it is being used as a vehicle of deception, a key element in a confidence trick; the pea in the thimble if you like - now you see it, now you don’t. The result of passing the 3 Bills - the National Roads Bill, the Roads Grants Bill and the Transport (Planning and Research Bill) - in the form proposed by the Government, would mean that the States and local government authorities will have less real funds for road construction and maintenance. There will be serious interference with the priorities set by State governments based on need and usage, by taking $400m for highways which State needs might well have called for allocation elsewhere either as a whole or in part.

The Bureau recommended that a total of $l,345m be appropriated for expenditure on roads, and that $400m - under 30 per cent - be spent on national highways. The Government’s proposal is that $1,1 26m be spent and that the figure for national highways remain at $400m or 36 per cent of the total. This has resulted in a cutting back of the total sum provided in the triennium 1974-77 to $700m for all other roads compared with $870m provided in various forms of road assistance in the previous 3 years. This reduction of $170m has resulted in a big reduction in the sums appropriated for rural arterial and rural local roads. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a document which shows that the allocation for rural local roads - the roads for which the shire councils are responsible - has been slashed from $248m or 31 per cent of the total to SI 56m or 14 per cent of the total.

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

Mr NIXON:

– I repeat that the table shows that the allocation for rural local roads has been slashed from $248m or 31 per cent of the total to $l56m or 14 per cent of the total. At the same time the allocation for rural arterial roads- in fairness, some miles of which have now been reclassified as national highways - has been cut from $132m or 16 per cent of the total to $105m or 10 per cent of the total. This is far less in real money terms than earlier grants, without even taking account of inflation. It is no wonder that the States are bitter and it is no wonder that the local government authorities feel that ‘they have come to the end of the line’. That quote is from the President of the New South Wales

Shires Association, Councillor Smith, who in a statement on 24 July said: ‘The attitude of the Federal Government towards country roads is the greatest financial setback that I have experienced in all my years in local government’.

I hope it is clear to the Government that if it wants a comprehensive national roads scheme it will have to fund it entirely separately from the grants for other categories of roads. To rob the States and local government of their rightful share, and then to fiddle the books to cover up is just not good enough. If the Government is not willing to cut back on the national roads allocation of funds, it should increase the allocation for roads of all types right across the board. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) has consistently stated in his speeches: . . . local government has been called upon to provide more and more services to more and more people. This is not something it has sought for itself; it is something demanded by the people and the resources of local government are manifestly inadequate to meet those demands.

What we seek to do is liberate local government from its forced dependence on State administrations that cannot give it the resources it needs.

I wish each level of government to be in a position to perform better its assigned functions for the better welfare of all our citizens wherever they live.

They are great words. They are not worth the paper they are written on. In the face of this Bill how can the Prime Minister justify such a stance because what the Bill effectively does is to reduce the level of Commonwealth commitment on roads to local government bodies and force them to seek further grants from the States - the very point the Prime Minister was making - which are unable to meet such demands. He hopes that the Australian Grants Commission will act like Santa Claus in the Budget in order to relieve them from that situation.

In the second reading speech the Minister said that comparisons of the nature I have made are misinformed and that the only really satisfactory comparison is the overall percentage of rural versus urban. The Minister stated that the Government’s proposals under these Bills would have allocated 61 per cent of total funds to rural roads and 39 per cent to urban roads. This is a gigantic bluff. It is a particularly blatant case of fiddling the books.

The table the Minister used shows that the. 61 per cent of so-called rural roads totalling $667m is made up of - $105m for rural arterial roads or 10 per cent of the total; $156m for rural local roads or 14 per cent of the total; $370m for national highways or 34 per cent of the total. Classifying the expenditure on national highways as expenditure on rural roads is a piece of gross deception. The $400m for national highways is being allocated to 8,800 miles out of the Australia-wide road total in excess of 500,000- half a million miles. It will be cold comfort to the 727 local government authorities outside the capital cities to know that such munificence is being bestowed on national highways when their own allocations are being cut by 17 per cent. Only a fraction of these 727 authorities will gain any direct advantage at all from the national highways scheme.

To answer this criticism the Minister uses another form of confidence trick. He says in his second reading speech:

Previously local government authorities relied on Commonwealth Aid Roads grants. Whilst local government is still eligible for assistance under the legislation these authorities will now have to turn more to State governments for assistance.

That is quite contrary to what the Prime Minister said in that earlier quotation.

The Minister went on to say:

I emphasise what I said earlier, namely, that with the Australian Government meeting the full cost of national roads, State governments will be able to meet this increased demand for financial assistance from their local authorities.

This is a smoke-screen of evasion. The Commonwealth’s assumption of financial responsibility for national roads will, of course, save the State, governments some money, but nothing like the amount the Minister pretends. Because $400m is planned to be spent by the Commonwealth on national roads over the next 3 years, it does not mean that the States are $400m better off and can give pro rata more assistance to local government.

The amount by which the States will benefit from the national road funds is the amount which the States would have spent in the ordinary course of events on roads now classified as national highways and which they will now be relieved of the responsibility of spending on roads in this category. This will be nothing like $400m; Let me give the example of New South Wales. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a document setting out a comparison of the grants by the Government for the 3 years between 1974-75 to 1976-77 with grants in 1973-74 under the Commonwealth Aid Roads Act 1969 and recommendations by the Bureau of Roads.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-(Mr Armitago) - Is leave granted? There being no objectior leave is granted. (The document read as follows) -

Mr NIXON:

– This table shows that the allocation for urban arterial roads, rural arterial roads, urban local roads, minor traffic engineering and road safety improvements, adds up to a total of $73.5m compared with $97.85m under the 1969 Act. The proposed legislation increases the national roads allocation at a greater rate than the increase in total funds. This, of course, implies that grants for other categories of roads have been reduced, just as they have been in New South Wales, and in real money terms the same position applies in most other States.

The total grant to Western Australia under the Roads Grants Bill is reduced from $38.5m to $372m over the 3-year period, Mr R. J. O’Connor, Minister for Transport in the Western Australian Government, has stated that if these Bills are passed in their present form it will be necessary to increase the motor-user taxation by a substantial amount - in the order of 65 per cent. Victoria says road taxes will need to go up by about 60 per cent. Tasmania says they will have to go up by 25 per cent. South Australia has said they will have to go up by about 50 per cent. Mr O’Connor has also raised his State’s objections to other provisions in these Bills, particularly those calling for approvals by various Federal Ministers, under the Roads Grants Act, of programs and projects proposed by the States, including even the purchase of road making plant, and I agree with the Western Australian Minister on these objections.

The Federal Government will require the States to increase their taxation on motorists over the next 3 years - that is undeniable. This increase in taxation will in the first instance be to make up the quotas required by the Commonwealth. Further substantial increases will be required if the States are not to cut their road construction programs effectively because the value of funds granted by the Commonwealth is rapidly decreasing. It is very significant that the States are required to increase such basic fees as motor vehicle fees which apply to commercial vehicles as well as private vehicles and as such enter into the cost structure for the movement of all goods. How can this be reconciled with an anti-inflation policy?

The Australian Government’s roads policy may be summarised then as reducing the expenditures on roads very substantially and thus the equality of roads available in Australia and, at the same time, increasing costs to road users.

The provisions of clauses 4 and 11 of the Roads Grants Bill require the States to submit to the Commonwealth Minister programs of work of a specified kind for approval. If required such programs will include all projects to be carried out in respect of a specific category, that is, irrespective of whether the Australian Government provides funds for the project or not. Not only is the Federal Minister for Transport involved, of course, but also other Federal Ministers. The potential for delay, procrastination and argument before any road project can be put under way should be obvious to all-

Further, if the Federal Minister notifies the State that he is satisfied the State or a municipal, shire or other local authority has expended any money on the carrying out of projects of a specified kind that were not aproved by the Minister the State shall repay the Minister the amount received or a lesser amount. There are 3 elements involved in these provisions. The first is that the Commonwealth, without de- tailed and expert knowhow on the subject of road building requirements will pass judgment on all projects. The second is that the taxes and charges raised by elected governments are to be spent in a way determined by Commonwealth Ministers or Commonwealth public servants. The third is that the State is to be responsible in all detail for anything which any road constructing body may do and if any road constructing body spends any money at all on a project not approved by the Federal Minister the State, in effect, will be fined.

These provisions create an impossible position. Not only do they cut right across the democratic process of taxation with representation and responsibility, but also the administrative work to send detailed programs to Canberra, to have them checked and approved and possibly argued about and then actual performance checked against the program, is an unwieldly and long and inefficient process. The provisions mean that if some municipality or body constructing roads does not satisfy the Federal Minister in any way the State will have to pay back to the Commonwealth the grants made for roads. Alternatively if another Federal body were to encourage a local government body to construct a road not in the program the State would be penalised. The implications of all this should be obvious.

I understand that the matter of Australian Government representation on management of State authorities was discussed at some length during negotiations for the urban public transport agreement. The States had supposed that it was established to the satisfaction of all reasonable people that it was not reasonable that the Commonwealth should participate in the management of State instrumentalities or State bodies, the policies of which were the direct responsibility of the elected State government. However, the matter has raised itself again and under the terms of the legislation presented by the Minister the States shall, if required to do so, establish a body or bodies, representative of departments and other bodies in the State concerned with roads or road transport to carry out planning and furnish advice for the State government in connection with the provision or maintenance of roads.

In this provision the Federal Government is requiring that the State shall organise its own administration according to the dictates of the Federal Government. The matter goes further, however, for the State is required, if requested to do so, to arrange for representatives of the Federal Government to take part in deliberations of a body specified by the Federal Minister. This body is to be one specified by the Federal Minister as one established by the State to carry out planning and furnish advice in connection with the provision and the maintenance of roads. This provision is very far reaching in the history of Australia in that it changes the constitutional responsibility of the different governments and reduces the ability of an elector to vote for a specific policy put forward at a State election, for such a policy can be negated by the deliberations of the Federal Minister for Transport or, as the Bills provide, even by a Commonwealth public servant.

The proposed legislation goes further in that the provision in clause 4 of the National Roads Bill leaves room for the Commonwealth virtually to take over responsibility for any road which facilitates trade and commerce between the States and/ or with other countries. This could mean virtually any road. But the matter does not end here. The provisions of clause 14 of the National Roads Bill require that the State shall not impose a toll or fee without the consent of the Minister. I am not at this stage clear as to the effects of this provision on the road maintenance charges scheme under which the States collect substantial revenues for road maintenance.

It is clear to see that the States are being forced into an impossible position with regard to roads, road construction, taxation of road users and the administration of their own works. There is a blatant attempt to ignore the constitutional responsibilities of the different governments and to place even minor administrative decisions on all road matters in the hands of the public servants of Canberra - good though they may be. The concept which is seen here, as in so many other areas, is that the States are forced to tax regardless of their own policies, or the policies under which they may have been elected. With the exception of the proposals for national roads these Bills underline the present Australian Government’s growing hostility to motorists and road users. They also throw further discredit on the Government’s much vaunted claims that it came to power on a reasoned, researched and consistent policy offered to the people of Australia. In recent weeks we have seen many and dramatic changes to that policy. I refer not only to the Government’s default on the easing of the means test and the postponement of its pre-school undertakings.

On 11 June this year the Australian Automobile Association charged the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) with having broken a pledge, made while in opposition, not to reduce the proportion of fuel tax then allocated to roads. The AAA President, Mr Thompson, said that in April 1972 Mr Whitlam, then the Leader of the Opposition, made this statement to a delegation from the Association. Mr Thompson said that Mr Whitlam also told the delegation that in his opinion more money should be expended on city and main highways. In that financial year, $452m was collected in fuel tax and $255m, or 56 per cent, was returned to the States in road grants. But under the proposals contained in these Bills the Government, in the next 3 years, will spend only 53 per cent of the estimated $2,132m it will collect in fuel taxes - at the present rate of excise - on roads. So this 3-year roads program is nothing more than a $64m welsh on the motorists of Australia. In this curate’s egg I think there are just not enough good parts. I have received from several Premiers and Ministers in charge of roads in the States telegrams complaining about these Bills. I should like to have them recorded in Hansard. They read:

NSW Cabinet shocked at provisions of clauses 4 and 11 of Commonwealth Road Grants Bill. Bill should be redrafted to preserve State government and local authority autonomy in expenditure of their own funds. In meantime, in order to keep road program progressing and protect employment of road building personnel Commonwealth should allocate funds under conditions applicable to previous Commonwealth/ State agreement. See action along these lines by Federal Opposition as indication of Liberal/Country Party opposition to total centralisation of powers. Cutler

Deputy Premier and Minister for Highways.

Victorian Government gravely concerned at implications in road grants National Road and Transport Planning and Research Bill. Request action be taken to have the Bill withdrawn and redrafted. Redrafting is required urgently for the Bills violate State constitutional authority force substantial increases in State motor taxation reduce effective expenditures on roads ensure chaotic delays in road programs threaten to penalise States for possible actions by local authorities and place power to veto elected State government decisions in hands of Commonwealth public servants. Urgently request action to stop this blatant abuse of financial power. The obvious inflationary effects of these proposals and the costly construction of a new and all powerful central bureaucracy remote from and inexperienced in the realities of road needs.

R. Meagher

Minister of Transport Victoria.

Wish to express concern at provisions of new Commonwealth Roads Grant Bill particularly clauses 4 and 11. Suggest this Bill should be withdrawn and redrafted. States main roads offices and local authorities must have more flexibility in spending of their funds. Meanwhile money should be allocated to States by Australian government to keep work force employed under conditions pertaining to old Commonwealth Aid Act.

Ron Camm

Minister, Queensland

This State is gravely concerned at implications in the new Commonwealth Road Funds Bill which are unacceptable to WA. We suggest withdrawal and redrafting to allow States more flexibility in use of road funds. We are equally apprehensive regarding inadequacies of funds available’ which through inflation seriously reduce the effectiveness of our road program. While waiting for redrafting we feel Commonwealth bridging finance should be provided.

Sir Charles Court

Premier.

I also have telegrams from the President of the Municipal Association of Victoria, Mr Stan Hawken, expressing concern and seeking delay. I have another telegram from the President of the Municipal Association of Tasmania, Mr Mooney. I have received telegrams from the presidents of almost every municipal association in Australia. Telegrams are flooding into my office from local government associations expressing severe concern at this Bill. For that reason I propose to move an amendment to the motion for the second reading. I believe that the Bill was not discussed in proper depth with State Ministers before it was introduced into this House. Co-operation, which one would expect from the Minister, has not been extended to the States, especially in the light of what the Prime Minister said. I have quoted those words in my speech. To that end, on behalf of all State Governments and local government bodies throughout Australia, I move:

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage)Is the amendment seconded?

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

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

Debate (on motion by Mr Uren) adjourned.

page 991

QUESTION

GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH

Address-in-Reply

Debate resumed from 18 July (vide page 438), on motion by Mr Young:

That the following Address in Reply to the Speech of His Excellency the Governor-General be agreed to; May it please Your Excellency:

We, the House of Representatives of Australia, in Parliament assembled desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign, and to express our thanks for the Speech which His Excellency the Right Honourable Sir Paul Hasluck,. G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O., K.St.J., as Governor-General, was pleased to address to Parliament.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage)Order! I call the honourable member for Bradfield and remind the House that this is his maiden speech. Accordingly, there should be no interjections. He should be heard in silence.

Mr CONNOLLY:
Bradfield

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on this occasion to make my maiden speech as the new member for Bradfield, the electorate which gave the present Government at the last election its lowest vote in Australia. In recent years I have had the pleasure of representing Australia overseas and I have been given the honour by the people of Bradfield to represent their interests in this Parliament. I should like to congratulate, through you, the Speaker upon his re-election to the highest office that this House can confer upon a member. I should also take this opportunity to thank the officers and staff who have done so much to help me settle into the environment of Parliament.

As members of this House will be aware, I have succeeded Mr Harry Turner who, in 22 years of service as a member of the House of Representatives, established for himself a niche in Australian parliamentary history. Those who know him would, I am sure, agree with me that he brought to this Parliament a sense of values and a sense of history which are essential if the leaders of the nation are to bring to their deliberations the depth of understanding and wisdom so essential in difficult times such as these. In the service of my electorate and my country, I share with him a deep respect for the institution of Parliament and for the democratic traditions which this country has been fortunate enough to inherit. Australia, and indeed the world, is going through a period of great social and economic change. There is a tendency in politics, I regret, as well as in other areas of human endeavour, for people to fear the future while looking back with a sense of nostalgia to the past. Despite this human weakness, the criteria for progress and for change must be satisfied.

In the past 50 years social and economic change of rapid and vast proportions has been a common experience of mankind. Human society has moved inexorably forward in its desire for knowledge and for its application in the service of mankind. We have been forced to absorb change often with a speed that has shocked the individual’s capacity to appreciate the need for it. Regrettably in times of economic crisis there has been a tendency for socialist governments to allow their idealogical commitments to inhibit rational and objective analysis of changing circumstances. To continue along this path is to court major economic disruption and, at the worst, disaster. I draw the attention of this House in particular to the Government’s failure to appreciate in depth the economic environment in which we must live and work. It has become evident to the majority of Australians in the last few weeks that those who control our economic destiny are still trying to apply criteria evolved some thirty or forty years ago to overcome the economic and social problems of today. The solutions cannot be found on the basis of past precedent. We are faced with the problem of inflation to an extent unknown before. Despite this, the Government’s ideological commitment remains to change Australia from a pluralistic free enterprise system to one espousing a substantial degree of monolithic public ownership and the management of the nation’s resources.

The theories of Keynes helped lift the world out of the great depression by solving the major problems of unemployment and have assisted developed economies to maintain a high degree of activity freed from the periodic economic crises which beset them during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Unfortunately so little attention is being given today to history and even less to economic history that people have forgotten that theories which were applied to overcome specific situations in the past cannot be used under conditions with different characteristics. Our economic managers, both the present Government and their advisers, have for too long persisted in the belief that unmodified and outdated policies will ultimately succeed even though the problems we are trying to overcome are not those for which Keynes pro- pounded his theories. Keynes himself appreciated this historic weakness of mankind, this tendency to look back and not forward, when he said that indeed economic problems could be solved in the long term by using classical economic doctrines but that in the long term we will all be dead. It would not be an extreme statement to say that the present government’s management of the economy, since it came into office in December 1972, has failed. Much has been said by Ministers about how they inherited a situation of excess liquidity in the economy. What they have never attempted to answer is that 12 months later the level of liquidity had expanded even further. Although it was obvious in 1973 that the economy was gravely overheated no meaningful policies were introduced and it was not until September 1973 that the Government decided to use monetary and interest policy, currency appreciation and tariff reductions, to control an already alarming inflationary trend. These policies enabled the Government to end the 1973-74 financial year with a deficit of approximately $400m less than budgeted for. This is hardly surprising as taxation receipts were $500m above the Budget estimate.

In this context it should be noted that in 1973 average earnings increased by 15 per cent but average income tax increased by 34 per cent. Despite this, the Government has refused to update the old tax schedules which contain a built-in inflationary factor and thus did nothing to reduce the rapidly inflationary wages spiral. The Government’s policy of currency revaluation upwards combined with the requirement to place 33i per cent of all loans raised overseas with the Reserve Bank at no interest, effectively tied up the flow of overseas capital to Australian companies but did little to prevent overseas based companies from obtaining adequate funds, regardless of whether they were to be used for speculation or for sensible economic purposes. In July 1973 the Government decided to reduce tariffs on all imported commodities by 25 per cent on existing rates of duties based on the admirable theory that reduced tariffs would improve the domestic allocation of resources, help mop up excess consumer demand, and curb the upward pressure of demand on prices. This did not occur. There have been no appreciable price reductions and overseas competition has seriously jeopardised a number of Australian industries. This policy also undoubtedly contributed, along with a fall in base metal prices overseas, and falls in our other major export items, towards Australia’s current deficit in the current account which, if not halted very soon, could lead to a currency devaluation in the foreseeable future and an application of quantitative import restrictions.

Last week the members of this House were witness to the Treasurer (Mr Crean) making a statement on inflation and announcing government policy initiatives which were ostensibly directed towards restraining demand in the economy. Within a matter of hours we were also witness to the Deputy Prime Minister (Dr J. F. Cairns) informing us that in fact the Government’s initiatives were not anti-inflationary. The people of this country have been subject to a plethora of quasieconomic theories from various Government Ministers who hope that they can be Australia’s Moses to lead us out of the economic desert which has been of their own making.

I wish on this occasion to make a few more general observations on the economy in an attempt to encourage thinking people to see our inflationary situation from a different perspective. All are agreed that the seeds of inflation lie in the fact that at any time there is excess demand in relation to the availability of supplies. I submit that it is the primary responsibility of Government to ensure the implementation of policies which overcome basic shortages throughout the economy. This cannot be achieved by simply preventing demand from being satisfied by the application of fiscal measures, but rather by ensuring that both employees and employers are encouraged through specific government policies to increase production and productivity in the economy. For this reason I call into question policies which are based on the imperfect assumption that steep increases in interest rates will reduce aggregate demands. In fact there is evidence to suggest that high interest rates act as a stimulant for further increases in costs, especially for consumption goods and obviously increase costs of production and act as a stimulant for further increases in wage demands. There can be no doubt that the use by the Government of liquidity and interest policies in the last 20 months has done nothing to encourage aggregate production to overcome growing aggregate demands. These will continue to act as a disincentive to productive investment and lay the seeds for further inflationary spirals in the future. The Government is persisting with policies which reduce private investment in favour of government investment, most of which does nothing to meet aggregate demands and merely contributes to and does not reduce the existing rate of inflation.

The introduction of disincentives, such as the removal of investment allowances by the Government in the 1973-74 Budget, did nothing to increase production in those sectors where demand has outstripped supply but has merely intensified the imbalance between supply and demand, and added to the already depressing mood of uncertainty felt throughout the Australian economy. One of the primary causes of the domestic inflation in Australia has not only been the Government’s misjudgment but its failure to encourage further investment in the productive sector at a time when the Government’s budgetary and welfare policies are injecting excess liquidity into the economy. The Government’s spending decisions in early 1973, for example, increased the domestic deficit from the budgeted $60m to $215m. In the last 6 months of 1973, when the economy was under demand pressure, the Government’s budget deficit was almost $2,000m. There is no way that an economy can continue to absorb such stimulus, particularly when there is no encouragement for increased supplies and productivity.

It must be remembered that the classical economic theories of men like Mill, Ricardo and Bentham failed to solve the problems of the great depression. Similarly today the use of Keynesian economic concepts will not, in existing circumstances, solve our problem which bear no relationship to those experienced in the 1930s. We do not have chronic unemployment in developed economies, the demoralising dole queues of the 1930s and a disastrous slowing down of aggregate demand which were symptoms of the great depression. Today we see almost the exact opposite. A constant state of more or less full employment has built up consumer expectations and consequently a fairly constant excess demand situation. Consequently economic theories and the attitudes of economists buried in the past cannot be expected to solve our problems.

In the political environment of Australia severe unemployment is simply not an acceptable political response to inflation. The

Liberal party has made it clear that we should look elsewhere for the answers to our problems. The solution to our crisis must lie in the Government instituting policies which encourage increased production while applying selective controls to dampen down excess demand. Taxation incentives should be used to encourage increased production where it is required. Workers and employers alike must be given incentives to increase productivity and be encouraged to develop their enterprise. Reduced interest rates combined with cuts in personal income tax and company tax, inducements for people to do overtime, or have second jobs, together with concessions for productive investment in plant and machinery will undoubtedly increase production and productivity and thus reduce the tendency for increased wage demands which under present circumstances must always include a substantial component to cover increased taxation as well as anticipated inflation. The people of Australia have, every right regardless of whether they are workers, employers or pensioners to have the real benefit of income which is based upon real purchasing power.

The chronic instability which is found in developed countries is to a large degree due to the persistent growth in community expectations for government services which in turn add to an increased aggregate demand throughout the community. This has resulted in the spreading over a relatively stable productive base of an enormously expanding spectrum of community wants and needs. Consequently the significance of government expenditure in maintaining economic equilibrium is considerable. Government outlays have continued to increase over the years both absolutely and proportionately in relation to national income. For example, total government consumption expenditure between 1968-69 and 1972-73 increased by 66 per cent while national disposable income increased by only over 50 per cent. Over the same period and despite an induced economic downturn in 1971-72 private consumption expenditure increased annually by over 9 per cent and reached 11.7 per cent in 1972- 73. What more evidence does the Government require before it realises that the rapid expansion in government spending under its programs has in fact stimulated a situation in which in a mere 20 months a relative insufficiency in demand was replaced by a formidable insufficiency in supply in 1973-74.

There has been for too long a tendency to talk of supply and demand in terms of aggregates. Government fiscal policies in particular should be applied more selectively to the economy and directed at those areas where expansion is required more rapidly than in other areas. Ordinary market forces will help to stabilise the economy provided the Government uses its fiscal and monetary policies to give a guide to those areas in which it wishes to see an expansion or contraction of economic activity. The social and political costs of prolonged unemployment, as I mentioned earlier, cannot be contemplated by any Australian Government. Furthermore in the present circumstances high unemployment benefits make substantial unemployment as a viable tool of economic policy pointless. It does little to reduce aggregate consumer demand in an inflationary situation. There has been a tendency to assume that cost-push inflation can be attributed solely to wage levels and thus there must be attractions for governments to experiment with prices and wage freezes and incomes policies, all of which have been tried overseas and none of which has been proved to be a success in the long run. The Liberal Party made this absolutely clear at the time of the last referenda and this is still our position. The answer to our inflationary situation is not necessarily to bring demand down by draconian controls of credit interest rates, etc, but to encourage greater production in those sectors where supply shortages are most felt, together with a more responsible use of monetary and fiscal policies.

Those who prefer to deal in facts rather than fallacies will appreciate that calls for the transfer of income from one sector of the population to overcome inequalities of opportunity for others and attempts to achieve this by reducing incentives through excessively high taxation will not succeed. Such policies do nothing but destroy the economic base upon which Australia was built and has prospered for so long. We do not need a cradle-to-the-grave society in which the Government will dictate all aspects of our daily lives, and expect those of us who still want to work to pay dearly for the ultimate welfare state in which the individual will lose all freedom of choice and the capacity to plan his destiny. Equally we must ensure that those Australians who, through no fault of their own, suffer from serious social and economic disadvantages should be helped to play a full part and live a full life in our society.

The Government would be well advised to direct its crusading energies towards ensuring that industry is encouraged to meet the excess demand situation by increasing production rather than by applying monetary policies which tend to dampen productive incentive both of employees and employers at a time when in the national interest the entire work force should be encouraged to increase productivity and work for the national good. I would just like to refer members of the Government to a very appropriate comment of Abraham Lincoln who made a series of observations on this point. He said:

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred. You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money alone. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man’s initiative and independence. You cannot help a man permanently by doing for him that which he can and should do for himself.

Let us move forward as a nation, accept change and progress. Let us not be bound by the static orthodoxies of the past, particularly let us not have the Australian people suffer from this Government’s incapacity to throw aside its inhibiting socialist principles and economic shibboleths. Let us find new ways of doing things - of managing our economy - which will give full expression to the great imagination, the great potential and the great energies of the Australian people.

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister (5.35 · Werriwa · ALP

– My colleagues and I would like to congratulate the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) on his maiden speech. I made my maiden speech on the same night as did his predecessor, 21 i years ago. His predecessor had already been a member of Parliament - the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales - for 15 years. In his years in this Parliament, he proved himself to be a redoubtable parliamentarian. He never had a kind word to say of me, but he said it very well. I respected him. I wish him health and happiness with his family in his premature retirement. I can wish the honourable gentleman no higher tribute than that he too should be as good a parliamentarian as was his predecessor.

I enter this debate in an effort to restore some sense of reality and responsibility to the Opposition in the Parliament. I have to remind the Opposition that there was an election a mere 10 weeks ago. The election was caused by a gross abuse of the theory of constitutional government, a violent breach of constitutional practice. It was forced by the Opposition at a time of its choice. The Opposition fought the most lavishly financed campaign in Australian history. Every propaganda technique that money could buy or malice invent was used against the Government. What was the result? The Government was returned. It was returned in this House - the people’s House, the House which alone has the right to determine who shall govern - and it was returned with a good working majority. It received nearly 200,000 votes above those cast for all the Opposition parties and their allies and their offshoots combined. The Australian Democratic Labor Party, the Party which maintained the Opposition in power for a generation, was utterly destroyed. As the Governor-General says succinctly in his Speech to which the House is now debating its Address-in-Reply:

On 19 May 1974 the people of Australia confirmed their decision of 2 December 1972.

Here then is a Government twice elected, elected on a program twice endorsed. We are going to carry that program through. Yet it has been abundantly clear ever since the election, and made particularly clear during this new session, that the Opposition refuses to accept the people’s verdict. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) has never recovered from his disappointment. Of course he did not lose the election; he just failed to win enough seats. He is the greatest, the worst loser in Australian history. The attitude of the Opposition has been entirely negative. Its members have opposed and obstructed without regard to the verdict of the people, without regard to any principle, without regard to any consist*ency. People may well ask in this new Parliament, as they did in the last: ‘What in heaven’s name are they for? What do they propose?’ All the elaborate program which was cooked up on the eve of the election has never been mentioned in the weeks of the new Parliament. Let me illustrate-

Mr Lynch:

– That is a lie.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition would know that that is an unparliamentary remark. I ask him to withdraw it.

Mr Lynch:

– I withdraw the remark. I think the term-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I do not want any debate on the matter.

Mr WHITLAM:

– ‘Next week, the House is going to spend some time in a joint sitting with the Senate to pass an electoral Bill. The Bill provides that the maximum deviation from the average number of electors for any electorate in any State will be no more than 10 per cent above or below that average. This is not a new proposition. It was recommended unanimously to the Parliament nearly 16 years ago. It was recommended by a committee set up by Sir Robert Menzies. The committee consisted of members of the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the Country Party. All of them, including the 2 members of the Country Party, unanimously said that the deviation should not be more than 10 per cent.

We find that on 3 occasions in both Houses this proposition has been rejected not only by the Country Party but also by the Liberal Party. On 3 occasions, in both Houses, last year and this year, in the course of 26 hours debate, in the course of 89 speeches, members of the Liberal Party as well as the Country Party have gone back on what they unanimously supported over 15 years ago. Now, having been defeated at the election, having faced the moment of truth where a joint sitting will put the Bill through - it was not rejected by the Senate except for the technicality that the Senate vote was evenly divided, and therefore if people are voting evenly in the Senate a proposition is not carried; now it will go through - what do we find? We find the Leader of the Country Party in this Parliament (Mr Anthony) now connives with the Country Party Premier of the realm of Queensland to run to the courts to set aside the decision of the present Governor-General and of the previous Governor-General.

I come to another instance. There are a Minerals (Submerged Lands) Bill and a Minerals (Submerged Lands) (Royalty) Bill which have been rejected already in this Parliament.

Mr Viner:

– So they ought to be.

Mr WHITLAM:

– Well, the Bills were drafted over 4 years ago. The then Minister for National Development, Mr Swartz - Sir

Reginald Swartz as he now is - told the House on 16 April 1970:

The present Bill-

That is, the Territorial Sea and Continental Shelf Bill 1970- . . . will be followed later in this session by an offshore mining Bill by which the Commonwealth will exercise sovereign control, in respect of mining for all minerals other than petroleum on the sea bed and in the sub-soil of the whole area to which the authority of the Commonwealth extends.

This is the Bill which the Gorton Government, through Mr Swartz, was promising over 4 years ago. But now, when it is brought up by an energetic, consistent Government the people who were Ministers at that time oppose it. The Senate was evenly divided on it so it did not pass in this Parliament. We will see what happens in 3 months time when it goes to the Senate again.

I give a third instance, the trade practices legislation. It was promised in the Speech of the Governor-General opening the Parliament, not last month, not early last year but in March 1960. It was begotten by Sir Garfield Barwick. It was delivered as a somewhat sickly infant by the present Leader of the Opposition on 19 - not 18 - May 1965. Ever since, amendments have been proposed to fortify the child, to strengthen it, to bring it to manhood, effective adulthood. Now, when at last this Government brings in the necessary amendments they are opposed by the Opposition, including the substitute father, the present Leader of the Opposition.

I come to another Bill, the Superior Court of Australia Bill. This is a Bill which was forecast 7 years ago, on 18 May 1967 - a memorable anniversary. This was done in a ministerial statement delivered by Mr Justice Bowen, as he now is, then Attorney-General of Australia. He stated:

Since 1961, a very considerable amount of work was done, first by Sir Garfield Barwick as AttorneyGeneral, and subsequently by the present Minister for Immigration when he was Attorney-General, on proposals for the establishment of a new court . . .

The then Minister for Immigration was Mr Snedden. On 17 July 1967, addressing the fourteenth legal convention of the Law Council of Australia in Adelaide, Mr Bowen said:

Although Sir Garfield Barwick set forth the nature of the Court and its jurisdiction which he favoured it fell to the lot of my immediate predecessor as Attorney-General, Mr B. Snedden, Q.C, to formulate concrete proposals. I inherited a very considerable amount of work which he had done and carried it to the stage which you see in the parliamentary statement.

On 21 November 1968 Mr Justice Bowen, as Attorney-General at that time, introduced a Bill. He said:

The project is not new.

That is very true. It was nearly 8 years old at that time. He went on:

Since 1961, a very considerable amount of work has been done first by Sir Garfield Barwick and then by the present Minister for Immigration (Mr Snedden) …. I pay tribute here to the foundation work done by my predecessors on this project.

But when we bring it in at last it is rejected, and among those who support the rejection is the man who previously was happy to bask in the credit for making the concrete proposals. He is without consistency, without integrity, without shame. Members of the Opposition cannot do it themselves because of disputes among themselves. The minerals legislation is shelved, the Superior Court legislation is shelved, the trade practices legislation cannot be amended, the Commonwealth Electoral Bill cannot be implemented, and when we carry out things for which they have been responsible - I mention 1958, I960, 1961, 1970 and so on - they oppose them. They are utterly negative, utterly bloody minded.

If this were just a matter of one man’s self-delusion it would not be of much account, but it is a sickness which has infected the whole Opposition. It has seriously affected its approach to its responsibilities to the Parliament and to the people. The whole process has become a distortion of the parliamentary process, a distortion of democracy, a falsification of democracy, to use Sir Robert Menzies’ phrase. The Leader of the Opposition has howled ‘crisis’. The only real crisis threatening Australia is a crisis in the parliamentary system. The question is whether the parliamentary system is to be allowed to operate, whether the Government elected to operate it for 3 years is to be allowed to implement the program the people elected us to implement. How long do members opposite believe the system can endure these stresses, this sabotage? How many times do we have to win elections before the Opposition will accept the people’s verdict? How long can Parliament survive a concerted effort to make Parliament unworkable?

Sure, we share the problem of inflation with every developed country, every democratic country, and a number of countries which are neither developed nor democratic. We have shared economic problems with comparable countries often before. But hitherto Australia has never been threatened with sabotage of its parliamentary system. Hitherto Australian governments have been able to plan for the term for which they were elected. They could develop their programs in the confident belief that they would be judged by the people on their whole performance during the whole of their elected term or at least as long as they retained a working majority in this House, the people’s House. This is at the very heart of the system. In this newly elected House the Government has never lost any of the 23 divisions or looked like losing one. As often as not our majority is greater than our numbers would normally permit. Once we won a division by 1 1 votes and twice we have won them by 10 votes.

Two days ago a matter of public importance on immigration was submitted for discussion by the Opposition, and there were not enough Opposition members in the House to keep the debate going. The thing which they said was urgent and in which one would have thought previous Ministers for Immigration, including the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) would have some interest, lapsed because there were not enough of them in the House to support their proposals.

There is nothing at all new in the situation by which the Party commanding a majority here lacks a majority in the Senate, but not even in war or depression had it ever before been contemplated that a hostile combination in the Senate could set aside, the decision of the people as reflected in the House of Representatives. The economic difficulties which we share with the rest of the world will be surmounted. Their effects will pass, but damage done to the very foundations of our parliamentary system is not so easily recoverable. These Opposition senators led from behind by the Leader of the Opposition denying all the things which he advocated in government are the white ants of our democracy. This policy of negation and obstruction can only lead to the economic difficulties about which the Leader of the Opposition professes to be so concerned.

Already the legislative program of the Government has been disrupted, the work of the Parliament has been hamstrung, the work of government has been hampered. There was the needless and wanton interruption of the election itself. The complicated electoral system which members of the Opposition fostered kept Australia without a national Parliament for 3 months. The election and the need for this special session have delayed the Budget until September. In this session we have had to occupy ourselves in going over legislation which has been twice and thrice before the Parliament and passed by this House. We shall have to spend next week in a joint sitting to enact 6 Bills which were the grounds of the double dissolution and which were again put before the people at the election. We have the cheap stunt of the rejection of our proposals on postal charges. It can only have the effect of postponing the increases and possibly adding to them. The Leader of the Opposition has the temerity to justify this stunt by saying that the proposals should be made part of a package - a package against inflation. He is always quick to pick up a trendy phrase. He wants a package; he wants a circuit breaker; he wants a freeze. The remarkable thing about the package of the Leader of the Opposition is that it always contains the discarded and discredited proposals which have failed in every other country in which they have been tried. We are not going to present that sort of package.

Inflation will not be beaten by grandstanding, by 7c heroics, as the editor of the ‘Australian Financial Review’ describes the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition. We will combat inflation, and we will beat it by a combination of measures - continuing measures, considered measures, consistent measures, measures which are consistent in themselves and above all consistent with the objectives and principles and programs of the Australian Labor Party and of this Australian Labor Government. The essential thing is for Australians to realise that this inflationary situation, serious as it is in every comparable country and dangerous as it is, is not unmanageable. Australia, with an economy so strong in so many respects, faces great difficulties but not disaster. Uncontrolled inflation is the enemy of parliamentary democracy, but more democracies have been destroyed by the irresponsibility of parliaments than have ever been destroyed by inflation. That enemy is every bit as insidious as inflation. At a time when democracy is everywhere under challenge - in North America, western Europe, Japan - I call upon the Australian Opposition to realise at last the recklessness and irresponsibility of the role it has chosen for itself as a government in exile in the Senate for the past 18 months, a role re soundingly rejected by the Australian people a mere 10 weeks ago.

Mr ANTHONY:
Leader of the Australian Country Party · Richmond

– We have just listened to a rather remarkable speech by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam). It is remarkable because it has all the hallmarks of a speech by a Prime Minister who is visualising that we are about to have an election. Maybe the reality of last night’s events in the Caucus room has hit him today. With a change of a few votes circumstances might have been created for an election. But I do not really think that was the essence of the Prime Minister’s performance tonight when he came into the chamber and gave his rallying speech. What he is really trying to do is rally the morale of his ranks who are so completely defeated and disillusioned in him as their leader. What he is trying to do is ginger up a little bit of encouragement among the ranks. All I can say, judging by the very glum looks on their faces this afternoon, is that he will have to live with his problem a little longer.

He spoke trying to portray an enormous election victory in May. He spoke about receiving 200,000 more votes. Goodness me, 200,000 more votes for the Labor Party! Does he not realise that there were 800,000 more people voting because of the increased population and because of the reduction of the voting age from 21 to 18 years? What he did not tell us is that the Government did not get a majority of the votes. He did not tell us that the Labor vote actually decreased proportionately compared with 1972 figures. He did not tell us that his majority in the House of Representatives was reduced nor did he say that the Labor Party did not get control of the Senate. He did not reveal the fact that he lost every one of the 4 referendum questions he put to the people. He has nothing really to feel satisfied or proud about as the result of the election.

He tried to make all manner of implications about the joint sitting of the Parliament next week. Apparently he feels that there should not be any joint sitting on the Commonwealth Electoral Bill, the Health Bills or the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill. I assure the Prime Minister and the Australian people that as far as the Opposition Parties are concerned we will fight these issues right along the line. We see the Electoral Bill as being totally unfair and unjust and as nothing more than a political measure to entrench the Labor Party permanently in office. As for the Prime Minister, his hypocrisy is illustrated by a speech he made in this House in 1955 during a debate on electoral matters. He said:

That principle is to ensure that every electorate-

He was referring to the 20 per cent tolerance - shall have approximately the same number of electors, so that the votes of all electors shall be equal in value. At least, the numbers should be approximately equal, within the perfectly reasonable latitude of 20 per cent above or below the quota as allowed under the Commonwealth Electoral Act.

I wonder why he changed his mind. Is it because of desperation - that he is frightened he cannot hold support in country areas of Australia? Does he want to use the device of the Electoral Act to try to rig boundaries to ensure that he can maximise votes in the city areas resulting in a loss of voice for country people? Of course we can see through what he is doing; it is so hollow and false. I only hope the Australian people realise this before it is too late. They should not have to put up with this inefficient, incompetent Government of which we see so much at the moment.

We know that the Health Bills are designed to bring about the nationalisation of medicine in Australia - to bring about a more expensive and less efficient system of looking after the health and welfare of the Australian people. The Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill is nothing but a great authoritarian instrument designed to create an authority to bring about the nationalisation of sections of the mining industry if the Government so wishes. In the eyes of the mining industry and of the Opposition the authority will be nothing more than a great bureaucratic monster.

At the moment we have in Australia a serious situation. We have accelerating inflation and increasing social disorder. This situation is made much more serious because we have a Prime Minister who does not command the loyalty of his own Party. Furthermore we have a Prime Minister who is not prepared to give absolute loyalty to his Cabinet and Party. He publicly comes out and disowns decisions of his Cabinet and his Party to get some public kudos for himself. Is it little wonder that such restlessness is growing in the ranks of the Government today? This is not a time to have a divisive Government. We should have cohesion so that the fight against inflation can be taken to every quarter of this country. Inflation must be arrested. Someone has to come to grips with today’s present serious situation.

After the 1972 election I spoke to the Canberra Branch of the Royal Institute of Public Administration. At that meeting I pointed out that I did not think it was possible for a Labor government to give consistent, stable government indefinitely because of its system of management. I said that a Cabinet of 27 would be the first downfall. I said there would be no decisiveness in a Cabinet of 27 men, it was impossible for 27 men around a table to have a fair say; they could not deal with a great volume of business. All such a Cabinet could do was produce confusion and indecisiveness. Antagonisms and divisions would arise within its ranks. This is what we see happening today. But it is not really a Cabinet of 27 men that we have under a Labor administration. We have virtually a Cabinet of 96 men where everybody thinks he has the right to express a point of view. I have my sympathy for the Prime Minister but he has to accept responsibility for that system. If he is not able to cope with it, this Government does not deserve to be in office.

Currently we see different Ministers coming out with a succession of different remedies for inflation. Is this any way to give confidence to the Australian community which wants to know what is the Government policy? This Government has no capacity to handle the inflationary situation or the growing industrial trouble. At a time of crisis what we want is a Prime Minister who is forthright and who has the loyalty of his Party to enable him to give the sort of leadership that is required.

Mr Viner:

– He must have integrity as well.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr ANTHONY:

– In his performance in the Parliament this morning the Prime Minister indicated to his own ranks what he thought of last night’s event when he narrowly won a decision by two or three votes. He laid his head on the table and said: ‘You have to accept this or you will be looking for a new Prime Minister’. This morning to this Parliament he said: ‘I have never lost a fight yet’. How do those members of his Party who worked genuinely for the elimination of the petrol subsidy feel? Do the members of his side of the House not have the right to express a point of view? Are they to suffer his contempt when he publicly displays his great arrogance, his self-importance and his belief in his great standing by virtually laying down another challenge in this House by claiming that he has won every fight? There cannot be government by this means.

Perhaps the Prime Minister believes there are some things that should be done in the fight against inflation, but we have a Prime Minister who cannot act because he has the caucus albatross around his neck. It is the nation which suffers as a result. For the first time in many years - perhaps for the first time ever - responsible people and responsible newspapers are talking seriously about the prospects of a breakdown in the social structure of Australia. A few days ago Professor Downing, the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and a very eminent economist, warned of the possibility of a collapse of our democracy if inflation continued unchecked. An editorial in the ‘Canberra Times’ of 31 July claimed that community patterns of life and feeling in the national capital are breaking down. The editorial said this was an example of what was happening across the nation. It is worth quoting an extract from this editorial. It states:

Oil and gas used for heating and cooking are in short supply for reasons that involve corporate profit structures, government policy, industrial action and geographical location. There is a dispute about whether meat should be sold in certain shops at certain times. The fact that the Belconnen fire- station is unmanned might have resulted in 3 deaths on Sunday afternoon. The city will be without buses, taxis, government cars, and other forms of commercial transport from midnight tonight. There is a gross shortage of housing, for sale or to let. The collection of garbage is uncertain. Doctors are leaving the city and a serious confrontation is building up between the medical profession and the public health authorities. Building workers go on strike today. Beneath all this, in Canberra and the rest of Australia, there are price profiteering, industrial upheaval, people losing their jobs, shortages of materials, vicious inflation, and alarming indecision in Federal Government.

That was the editorial of the ‘Canberra Times’ summing up the situation. What more gloomy outlook could the nation have than to be faced with a situation like this. The Melbourne ‘Age’ in an editorial this week, described the inbuilt incapacity of the Labor Government to respond to the growing crisis facing Australia. The Melbourne ‘Herald’ this week said that we are sliding too fast towards anarchy. This week a New South Wales Conciliation Commissioner, Mr Manuel, took the most unusual course of expressing very strong criticism of the Federal Government’s policies and their inflationary effects. Mr Manuel said that his comments might be considered improper but he felt that it would be negligent of him to sit idly by and witness what was happening to the community. He felt that he must express his strong feelings and his concern about the situation which was growing increasingly worse.

It is easy for those of us in the Opposition to draw attention, I know, to the deception of the Labor Government at the last election, but I believe that the Australian community should now recognise who was telling the truth during the last election campaign, who tried to point out the true realities of the inflationary situation. It was Lord Keynes who said that there is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. He said that this process engaged all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction and did it in a manner which not one man in a million was able to diagnose. In Australia today the currency - the people’s money - is being debauched, and it is being debauched at a faster and faster rate. Economics students in universities are taught that an inflation rate of 20 per cent takes a nation to the edge of social breakdown. Our inflation rate, on the June figures, was more than 16 per cent. The Treasurer (Mr Crean) told the Parliament when introducing his mini-Budget that we cannot expect any relief in the rate of inflation. In fact, it will continue to increase during the next 2 quarters. Economists of public standing are predicting inflation rates of 25 per cent and one, Professor Harcourt of the Adelaide University, has warned that inflation could reach 40 per cent by the end of next year if the present rate, of inflation is not reduced.

Australia is facing a crisis. Never before have members of the national Parliament talked so seriously about inflation rates of 20 per cent and 25 per cent, about the effects of a pool of 200,000 unemployed, about the prospects of social disorder. Never before have economists and professors, such as Professor Downing and Professor Harcourt, moved outside their specialties and talked seriously about the state of national disruption. Australia is a lucky country but I am afraid its luck is running out. Its leaders in government have run out of unity, courage, integrity and, pretty obviously, Caucus support. During most of the postwar period Australia had an inflation rate of no more than 6 per cent. However, it has got out of hand now and currently it is something like 14 per cent. Goodness knows what it will be by the end of the year. Let there be no doubt that there is no division amongst the members of this House in concern about inflation.

The Opposition is concerned and has brought forward positive policies to try to do something about inflation. We did this during the election campaign when we said that the Government should exercise some restraint, that there ought to be a convention of the Federal Government, State governments, employers and trade unions, to try to work out a national policy of restraint. We believe that the restrictions placed on capital inflow by means of the 25 per cent deposit rate ought to be withdrawn. I have stated before, as have the Liberal and Country parties, that the Australian dollar should be freed from the United States dollar. We have brought forward positive policies in relation to immigration, education, all areas of government, exercising a degree of restraint in the national interest. We are not just a harping, carping Opposition that does not have positive ideas. The measures we proposed during the course of the election campaign are today being recognised by the Australian people as being correct. Indeed, some of them are even now being recognised by the Government as being correct. We believe that there should be a reduction in the rate of taxation, which is imposing an increasing burden upon the ordinary working man and woman. As salaries go up and as taxes increase proportionately, is it little wonder that they demand more and more wages to try to offset that disability.

We see in the rural sector of the community that the meat industry is running into a crisis; export sales are down 50 per cent on those of last year. We see prices greatly reduced at the wool auction sales. Last year we heard a great deal about the rural sector of the community never having had it so good. The Government used this as an excuse to impose further costs on the industry or to remove various forms of incentives which had been given to the industry. Now primary producers are saying that they have never had it so bad. There has never been so much uncertainty. There have never been such increases in costs, in conjunction with the squeeze of declining prices. Yet do we see from this Government any encouragement to reverse its decisions of last year? The answer is no. All we have from the Minister for Northern Development, the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) is deathly silence. Not a word of encouragement is heard from the Government. Yet last night when it was given the first chance to Implement the suggestion contained in the Green Paper that incentives ought to be given to offset tariff costs for primary industries, it decided to abolish a petrol subsidy which was of enormous benefit to people living in remote areas of Australia. I have never known of anything so harsh and unfair. This Government deserves to be condemned for its actions.

On behalf of the Opposition I move the following amendment to the AddressinReply:

That the following words be added to the motion for the adoption of the Address-in-Reply: ‘But the House of Representatives is of the opinion that -

The Government is unable to handle the economic problems that confront Australia because its policies of

deliberately creating an intolerable rate of inflation;

creating unemployment; and

applying a credit squeeze with high interest rates have led to distressing social and economic dislocation; and

The Government is to be condemned for its continued confrontation with the State governments and the undermining of their rights and responsibilities.’

I have made a number of points in my speech. The points raised in the amendment do not cover all of the points raised by me. But if this Government is to control inflation it has to try to bring unity within its own ranks and unity in the nation. We would like to see a much greater spirit of co-operation between Commonwealth and the States and between the trade union movement and the employers. That co-operation will be needed if the Government is to succeed in bringing about that unity.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Snedden:

– I second the amendment.

Sitting suspended from 6.14 to 8 p.m.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I call the honourable member for Tangney and remind honourable members that this will be a maiden speech. I ask them to extend the usual courtesies to the honourable member.

Mr DAWKINS (Tangney) 8.0)- In rising to support the motion moved by the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) and the honourable member for Henty (Mrs

Child), I take the opportunity of extending to you, Mr Speaker, my congratulations on your re-election to the Speakership of this House. The electorate which I represent is a new one and for that reason I am unable to make mention of any former member for Tangney. Might I say in passing that it is to be hoped that many years will pass before anyone can make reference to former members for Tangney. However, I pay tribute to Dorothy Tangney in whose honour the seat was named. The former Senator Tangney was the first woman member of the Senate; and jointly the first woman member of this Parliament. During her 25 years in the Senate she made a very distinguished contribution both inside and outside of the Parliament.

I am sure many people will recall the stand taken by Dorothy Tangney in the aftermath of the Petrov affair when she strenuously defended the reputation of Madame Oilier. Senator Tangney realised that Madame Oilier, along with other innocent people, had fallen victim to a McCarthy-ite witch-hunt by the Government of the day which represented one of the most despicable acts of political chicanery that this country has ever witnessed. Her involvement in this affair was a clear demonstration of Dorothy Tangney’s courage and belief in fair play. Just prior to her retirement Senator Tangney was able to reflect on her parliamentary career and say that she retired with the satisfaction of knowing that many of the things for which she had fought over the years had become accomplished facts. Surely no member of Parliament could ask for more.

The Speech of the Governor-General also talks of things which this Government will accomplish during its current term. Those objectives are, in part, a continuation of the program which this Government began in the last Parliament. It will be remembered of course that the life of that Parliament was recklessly cut short, so for that reason the Government sees as its first task the implementation of the unfinished part of that original program. Despite the great strides that have been made in so many fields so far, further advances will now have to proceed under the constraints imposed by an economy not of this Government’s making and certainly not of its liking. The workings of this economy are irrelevant to the objectives of this Government and indeed the aspirations of the Australian people.

The shortcomings of the Australian economy have been displayed in sharp relief as a result of the determination of this Government to spread the riches more equitably and to push this nation towards the ideals so clearly enunciated in the platform on which this Government has now twice been elected. These demands were not excessive and not intemperate. They were the reasonable demands that one would expect an affluent economy to be able to meet with ease. Yet this economy has failed as capitalist economies have failed around the world. It is not surprising that Australia’s capitalist system has faltered because capitalism by its nature is ill-fitted to respond to the demands of a just and equitable society. This is because the modern capitalist system is not only hopelessly ramshackled, in that it no longer conforms with its own theories, but also on those occasions when it does work it contains no mechanism for ensuring social and economic justice.

The capitalist theory is founded on an unquestioning faith in the market whereby fair prices are determined by market forces, where resources are equally allocated in response to market forces, where levels of production are determined by market forces and so on. The problem is that while capitalism relies on market forces for its efficacy it is well-known that in reality capitalism suffers from very great deficiencies in this regard. Long ago it was recognised that no market existed that would ensure that the poor, the weak and the sick would be provided with minimum support. This deficiency has since been overcome through government intervention.

Another major deficiency of capitalism was found in its inability, in the aggregate, to sustain balance in the economy. Because decisions on such matters as investment and levels of production were being taken separately in individual board rooms, and because the information on which those decisions were taken was imprecise, there developed great imbalance and fluctuations in such things as employment, production and prices. This major deficiency of capitalism was at least partially overcome by the acceptance of Keynesian principles which hold that governments should step in to influence aggregate demand and aggregate investment in an attempt to keep the economy in some sort of balance. This represented capitalism’s greatest reprieve and allowed economies which were essentially capitalist based to continue to thrive - at least in their own terms. Over the years government involvement in these economies has continued to increase in a fairly haphazard way and in such a way as to prop up the system in those areas where it is weakest.

Governments have increased social welfare payments, they have become more heavily committed to education, and they have provided services in those areas where free enterprise showed no interest or have taken over those services where free enterprise was unable to make a profit. Governments have provided subsidies, concessions, bounties and so on to assist industries, firms and farms which were incapable of surviving in the capitalist system. This has resulted in the creation of a pseudo-capitalist system where hardly any of the precepts and preconditions of capitalism exist as in the contemporary Australian economy. The concept of the market economy is a myth, so numerous are the aberrations which have grown up over the years. All these aberrations served to distort seriously the operation of the free market. For instance, the existence of special taxation concessions for primary industry served to make investment in agriculture more attractive than would be the case if only the market forces were operating. Similarly, the investment allowances that operated under previous governments produced the same result in terms of the allocation of resources. This is not to say by any means that these sorts of measures are necessarily bad or inappropriate. What it does confirm is that the sort of capitalism that operates in Australia relies on factors other than market forces.

It is quite clear that the capitalist system as it operates in Australia is incapable of maintaining balance in terms of economic activity and is also incapable of providing social and economic justice without some involvement by the Government. I want to argue that a far greater degree of government involvement is necessary in order that the worst excesses of capitalism might be avoided. Before doing so I want to point to two instances of the failure of the capitalist system in Australia which bear closely on the interests of the electors of Tangney.

I turn first to the question of home ownership which has often been des cribed at a fundamental part of the Australian dream. There has in recent times been a very great increase not only in the number of people who are seeking their own homes but also in the quality of those homes. This increase in demand is partly due no doubt to a feeling of rising affluence in the community and also to the fact that the relevant age group is an inordinately large proportion of the community. However, I suggest that there are other factors which bear significantly on this matter. The first no doubt is the failure of previous governments to provide sufficient funds for State-owned, inexpensive rental housing. This has meant that most of the rental housing available is privately owned by people intent on making a profit. The high rents that inevitably resulted only served to make the purchase of a house on a mortgage basis relatively more attractive.

This process was spurred on by speculative builders and advertising agencies which brainwashed the community into believing that owning one’s own home was not only cheaper but indeed was the only Australian thing to do. By playing on the acquisitiveness and statusconsciousness of the Australian people, these operators were able to be extremely successful. To finance this heightened and indeed artificially created demand for housing the financial institutions unleashed a flood of funds which were loaned at variable interest rates. These lenders operated largely outside the umbrella of government control and purported to possess the respectability of banks without having the wherewithal to back it up. When times are flush, when there is full employment and easy credit, this system operates deceptively well. However, when times are harsh - and it is endemic to capitalism that economic activity is punctuated by at least minor booms and slumps - then the story is quite different. The once proud home buyer realises he has been hooked. He realises that behind the rosy propaganda is the lie. He finds he is committed probably for the greater portion of his working life to something he does not really need to own and probably cannot afford. The promise that capitalism in this country makes in regard to private ownership is indeed an illusion.

The other example which illustrates one of capitalism’s inherent shortcomings is the spectre of unemployment. The people oi Tangney know far too much about unemployment. As a result of the 1971 Budget which was brought down by the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden), it will be remembered that a vast pool of unemployment was created as a deliberate part of antiinflationary policy. That policy was unfortunately no more successful than it was in the Kwinana area of Western Australia where meetings of 700 unemployed men were held, where there were food handouts and other sorts of relief dispensed, where 40 building workers applied to .fill every vacancy in their industry. These people know the indignity of unemployment. They know the heartache it brings. They know of its ability to wreck families and drain friendships. These people know that as long as this capitalist economy remains in Australia, unemployment is to be expected. In a capitalist economy it is those people, typified by the ordinary working people and the struggling young, aspiring home owners, who are hit hardest in times of stress. That is their reward for behaving in exactly the way in which free enterprise capitalism calls upon them to behave.

In order to overcome these worst excesses of the capitalist system it is important for the Government to play an even greater role in the economy, but not only for that reason. It is also necessary for the Government to take charge of the economy in order to overcome inflation because the inflation that we are experiencing today is very largely caused by the activities of the private sector, and there is no doubt that the defeating of inflation is a necessary preoccupation of this Government as it is this that will determine the rate at which it can implement its program to create a better Australia.

I have said that the current inflationary experience is, in part, a manifestation of the fact that the economy has been unable to respond to the demands which the Government’s program has made on it. Yet, as I have also said, these demands were not intemperate or excessive but simply the reasonable demands made in response to the directions of the people on 2 occasions in the past 2 years. The people did not simply vote to change the faces on the front bench; they voted for a basic change in Australian life and for a new and better Australia. Faced with this dilemma the Government must ask itself whether it is going to have its program contracted and downgraded by an economic system which is irrelevant to and incapable of meeting the demands of the Australian people. Or is it going to set about changing the economic system so that it becomes responsive to the reasonable demands of the people which that economic system is fundamentally supposed to serve? The choice to me is clear.

We must at once work to alter the productive relationships and the processes of distribution. This must be achieved by the Government taking a larger role in the economy and by discarding the outdated principles of the market. At the moment this Government - indeed any government would be - is in the unenviable position of having to take responsibility for the success or failure of the economy without having the ability to influence that success or failure to any real extent. The Government can influence aggregate demand and certain monetary factors but this is only to tinker with a system which is full of indescribable inconsistencies and complications. The Government has very little influence over private investment as this remains dependent on the vagaries of business expectations and confidence. It is quite untenable that a government should have resort only to such anti-social and inequitable acts as credit squeezes and unemployment in order to have some influence over inflation.

There are therefore 2 compelling reasons why the Government must work for a fundamental change in the Australian economy. The first is that only in this way will the economy become sensitive and responsive to the demands made on it by the Australian people. Secondly, it is only in this way that the Government can effectively influence the performance of the economy without recourse to actions such as credit squeezes and employment fluctuations, the efficacy of which actions are dubious in the extreme. The Government does need that control if the people are going to hold it responsible - as they must - for the performance of the economy as a whole.

There is no doubt that the Australian people support the program of this Government and they do not believe that an outmoded economic system should be allowed to stand in the way of that program. They know that the capitalist solution to inflation is quite unacceptable and would support moves by the Government to effect those changes which are necessary for it to be in complete control of the economy. The people enthusiastically support the sort of Australia that this Government wants to build. They have endorsed those actions which the

Government has accomplished in the last 18 months. With the cries of approval still ringing in our ears, the Government can proceed with renewed vigour to bring in a new Australia, a better Australia for all Australians.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hodges) adjourned.

page 1005

JOINT SITTING

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have received the following message from the Senate:

The Senate transmits to the House of Representatives for its information the rules adopted by the Senate for the conduct of the business of a joint sitting with the House of Representatives pursuant to section 37 of the Constitution.

page 1005

JOINT SITTING

Proposed Rules for Conduct of Business

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– ‘by leave - I move:

That the following rules be adopted for the conduct of the business of a joint sitting with the Senate:

page 1005

JOINT SITTING

General rule for conduct of business

Appointment of Chairman

  1. The appointment of the Chairman shall be conducted in the following manner -

    1. A member, addressing himself to the Clerk acting as Chairman, shall propose some member, then present, to the joint sitting for its Chairman, which proposal shall be seconded. A member when proposed and seconded shall inform the joint sitting whether he accepts nomination.
    2. If there is no further proposal the Clerk shall, without question put, declare the member so proposed and seconded to have been appointed as Chairman, and such member shall take the Chair of the joint sitting as Chairman.
    3. If more than one member is proposed as Chairman, the joint sitting shall proceed to a ballot, but, before proceeding, the bells shall be rung for three minutes.
    4. When only two members are proposed and seconded as Chairman, each member present at the joint sitting shall give to the Clerk a ballotpaper, containing the name of the candidate for whom he votes, and the votes shall be counted by the Clerks at the Table; and the candidate who has the greater number of votes shall be the Chairman, and take the Chair.
    5. When more than two members are so proposed and seconded, the votes shall be taken in like manner, and the member who has the greatest number of votes shall be the Chairman, provided he has also a majority of the votes cast; but if no candidate has such a majority, the name of the candidate having the smallest number of votes shall be excluded and a fresh ballot shall take place; and this shall be done as often as necessary until one candidate is declared to be appointed as Chairman by such majority, when such member shall take the Chair.
    6. If, at a ballot at which no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast, two or more candidates receive an equal number of votes and no candidate receives a lesser number of votes, the Clerk shall cause another ballot to be taken If, in the further ballot, no candidate recedes a majority of the votes cast but two or more candidates receive an equal number of votes and no candidate receives a lesser number of votes, the Clerk shall determine by lot which of the candidates so receiving an equal number of votes shall be excluded.

Relief of Chairman

  1. A Presiding Officer or a Chairman of Committees of either House of the Parliament shall take the Chair as Acting Chairman of the joint sitting whenever requested so to do by the Chairman, without any formal communication.

Clerks of the joint sitting

  1. The Clerk of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall act as Joint Clerks of the joint sitting and either of them may exercise a function expressed to be exercisable by the Clerk.

Hours of sitting

  1. Unless otherwise ordered, the hours of sitting each day shall be: 10.30 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. 2.1S p.m. to 6.00 p.m. 8.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m.

Sitting and adjournment

  1. A motion for the adjournment of the joint sitting may be- moved by a Minister and shall be put forthwith without debate.
  2. A motion for the purpose of fixing the next meeting of the joint sitting may be moved by a Minister at any time.

Time limit on speeches

  1. No member may speak for more than 20 minutes on any question before the joint sitting.

Closure

(SO-

fa) Until the expiration of 4 hours consideration of, or 12 speakers have spoken on, the question “That the proposed law be affirmed” (whichever is the later event), no motion may be moved by any member “That the question be now put”. Such motion may not be moved by any member who has already spoken on the question and the member so moving shall not interrupt any other member who is addressing the Chair. Such motion shall be put forthwith and decided without debate.

The provisions of this paragraph shall apply in the case of a cognate debate.

  1. On any other question a motion may be moved at any time by any member rising in his place, but not so as to interrupt any other member who is addressing the Chair, “That the question be now put”, and such motion shall be put forthwith and decided without debate.
  2. Senate standing order 407b shall not apply to the joint sitting.

Entitlement to vote

  1. On each question arising in the joint sitting each Senator and each Member of the House of Representatives, including the person chosen to preside, shall have one vote.

Question on proposed law

  1. –

    1. The question to be put from the Chair upon any proposed law before the joint sitting shall be - “That the proposed law be affirmed” and a division shall be taken on that question.
    2. The question that any proposed law be affirmed shall be resolved in the affirmative if, and only if, an absolute majority of the total number of the members of the Senate and House of Representatives vote in the affirmative.

Voting on other questions

  1. Questions, other than the question that a proposed law be affirmed or the question on a motion for the suspension of a rule, shall be decided by a simiple majority of the members present and voting, and, if the votes are equal, the question shall be resolved in the negative.

Divisions

  1. –

    1. Whenever the Chairman states, on putting, a question, that the “Ayes” or “Noes” (as the case may be) have it, his opinion may be challenged by members calling for a division.
    2. Before a division is taken, the Clerk shall ring the division bells and turn a three minute sand glass and the doors shall not be closed until after the lapse of three minutes, as indicated by such sand glass.
    3. The doors shall be closed and locked as soon after the lapse of three minutes as the Chairman shall think proper to direct; and then no member may enter or leave the Chamber until after the division.
    4. When the doors have been locked, and all the members are in their places, the Chairman shall state the question to the joint sitting, shall direct the “Ayes” to proceed to the right of the Chair, and the “Noes” to the left, and, members having accordingly taken seats, shall appoint three tellers for each side.
    5. On the tellers being appointed, every member within the seats allotted to members shall vote and no member may move from his place until the result of the division is announced.
    6. Every member within the seats allotted to members shall then be counted, and his name taken down by the tellers, who shall sign their list, and present the same to the Chairman, who wilt declare the result to the joint sitting.

Objection to ruling of Chairman

  1. If any objection is taken to any ruling of the Chairman, such objection must be taken at once, and a motion of dissent, to be submitted in writing, moved, which, if seconded, shall be proposed to the joint sitting, and debate thereon shall proceed forthwith.

Minutes of proceedings

  1. Proceedings of the joint sitting shall be recorded by the Joint Clerks, and such records shall constitute the minutes of proceedings of the joint sitting and shall be signed by the Joint Clerks.

Suspension of rule

  1. Any rule, other than rules 8 and 9, may be suspended, on motion, duly moved and seconded: Provided that such motion is carried by an absolute majority of the total number of the members of the Senate and House of Representatives.

Presentation of proposed law for assent

  1. Where at the joint sitting, a proposed law as last proposed by the House of Representatives has been affirmed in accordance with section 57 of the Constitution, the Clerk of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall, for the purpose of presentation of the proposed law by the Chairman to the Governor-General for the Royal Assent, certify on a fair print of the proposed law as so affirmed that it is a fair print of the proposed law, as last proposed by the House of Representatives and as affirmed by an absolute majority of the total number of the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives at the joint sitting.

Televising of proceedings

  1. On any televising of the proceedings of the joint sitting, each speaker speaking on the question “That the proposed law be affirmed” shall speak from a place to be provided near the Table. There shall be a balanced presentation of the affirmative and negative arguments put before the joint sitting.

I do not wish to take up the time of the House other than to say that these rules have ‘been agreed to by representatives of the Opposition and of the Government and have been adopted in another place. They are important rules for the conduct of the historical joint meeting of the 2 Houses scheduled to begin next Tuesday. I should like to express my appreciation to the Clerk of the House, Mr Parkes, and also to the Clerk of the Senate, Mr Odgers, for the work that they put down in presenting these rules to us. I thank the honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) and Senator Withers for their co-operation in the discussions that took place to formulate plans for these rules to make them acceptable and, we thought, effective in the conduct of a joint sitting. We believe that the rules are in a simplified form and will be suitable for the conduct of the joint sitting as well as for the general benefit of the members of Parliament.

For those reasons I have formally moved this motion. I thank those who have made it possible to present these rules in such an effective way for adoption by this House.

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

– I would like to support the motion which has been moved by the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) and at the same time support the measures that he has recommended and also his remarks in respect of the assistance provided by the Clerk of the House and by the Clerk of the Senate in the preparation of the rules for a joint sitting. I might say that the measure of sweet reasonableness from the Leader of the House comes somewhat as a surprise. I am delighted to know that he has in this instance seen fit to agree to those amendments which we of the Opposition felt were necessary to the original draft of the rules. I trust that this same measure of reason and assistance will continue.

I believe I should say that obviously any set of draft rules prepared for a unique occasion such as a joint sitting of the 2 Houses of Parliament must necessarily depend ultimately on certain other rules and procedures. Because it is a joint sitting, it has been felt that the Standing Orders of the Senate should be the basis from which there should be any supplementary rules or Standing Orders provided if they should be necessary. But the rules themselves are reasonably complete.

The one aspect of the rules that I think is perhaps quite unusual as far as this House is concerned is the suggestion that there should be in the final rules provision for a telecast of the proceedings and in that event each speaker within the chamber might speak from a place to be provided near the table. There are obviously going to be very real problems in relating the design of the House of Representatives chamber to the requirements of the arc lights and other assistance that seem to be necessary for adequate colour photographs to be taken. I believe that there is a distinct advantage, for the purposes of a joint sitting, in looking at other ways that the proceedings of this Parliament might be presented. From time to time we have all seen circumstances in other parliaments and have views on how they might be suited to the requirements of this place. I think it will be an interesting experiment to see whether the moving of every member who speaks, from his place down to something akin to a rostrum in order to make his speech, fits into the requirements of the Parliament.

The rules themselves obviously will not comply with the requirements of every individual member. But in coming to an agreement upon them the Government and Opposition have endeavoured to meet what we saw as the most suitable requirements of most of the members of this place. The one real problem is that in the desire of most politicians to be television stars the hour provided for each member to speak is somewhat longer than will enable every one of the members so to do. Perhaps in the resolution of the speaking time between the Whips of the 2 chambers and the 2 sides it will be possible by some reduction in the time provided for each member to speak to accommodate more than just those who would be accommodated if the maximum time were used by those who do speak. It is impossible in a chamber to decide just how many may want to speak, but it is hoped that in circumstances such as a joint sitting, having its unusual characteristics, as many members as possible will be afforded some opportunity to make a contribution. The members of the Opposition support the motion moved by the Leader of the House.

Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Daly) agreed to:

That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it on the rules adopted by the House of Representatives for the conduct of the business of a joint sitting with the Senate.

page 1007

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Evidence Bill 1974.

Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Bill 1974.

Parliamentary Papers Bill 1974.

Income Tax Assessment Bill 1974.

Income Tax (Dividends and Interest Withholding

Tax) Bill 1974. Customs Bill 1974. Excise Bill 1974.

Northern Territory (Administration) Bill 1974.

page 1007

BROADCASTING OF JOINT SITTING

Mr SPEAKER:

– Earlier this evening His Excellency the Governor-General gave the royal assent to the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Act 1974. The major purpose of the Act is to extend the operation of the parliamentary broadcasts to include a joint sitting. The legislation extended certain powers to the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Broadcasting Committee and to the Committee as a whole in regard to televising the sitting. The

Committee has considered the use of these powers very carefully. Since the Committee became aware of the legislation it has met on several occasions to consider the manner in which use should be made of the powers conferred by the Act. Today the Committee agreed to a number of determinations to be made under the Act. I shall not describe all of the Committee’s decisions in detail, as many of them relate to technical matters and the procedures to be followed by producers, directors, cameramen, editors, etc. The main decisions are as follows:

I have made the following order pursuant to section 13 A (2 A) of the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Act 1946-74. The Australian Broadcasting Commission shall make a complete colour video tape and sound recording of the joint sitting which commences on 6 August. This audio-visual record shall remain the property of the Committee and shall be converted to film for preservation and for showing as authorised by the Committee. The Committee has made determinations which can be summarised as follows:

Radio

All proceedings of the joint sitting shall be broadcast by those Australian Broadcasting Commission stations which presently broadcast parliament. A permanent sound record shall be kept.

Television

All stations of the Australian Broadcasting Commission shall carry live telecasts of the proceedings of the joint sitting on Tuesday 6 August and Wednesday 7 August at the following times: 10.30 a.m. to 1 p.m. 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. 8 p.m. to 8.40 p.m.

Insofar as Western Australia is concerned, the proceedings of the sittings from 8 p.m. to 8.40 p.m. will not be telecast live. They will be recorded and replayed at 8 p.m. local time.

The Committee has reserved the right to change arrangements for television to reflect changes in sitting times or in the light of the nature of proceedings. The Committee may direct the Australian Broadcasting Commission, at not less than 2 hours notice, to transmit live telecasts at times other than those already laid down. The Committee has also determined that the Australian Broadcasting Commission shall prepare a 1 hour composite program to be shown nationally at about 10 p.m. on Sunday 11 August.

page 1008

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Mr McKenzie:
Diamond Valley · ALP

– I present the first report of the Publications Committee.

Report - by leave - adopted.

page 1008

ROADS GRANTS BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 991).

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

– The 3 Bills before the House, namely, the Roads Grants Bill, the National Roads Bill and the Transport (Planning and Research) Bill, transform the planning of Australian transport. The National Roads Bill will provide a 30 per cent increase in funds over those provided in the last 3 years. For the first time an Australian Government is giving national leadership to the basic problems of road transport. In doing this it recognises that transport decisions must be taken in a broader social and economic context than simple mobility. The theme of our transport planning must be to put people first - to take account of the impact of transport and other urban programs on the daily life of the people who live in our cities.

I have in mind a White Paper presented to the British Government 2 years ago which stated this theme. It is titled ‘Development and Compensation - Putting People First*. This paper is very relevant to the activities of Australian governments in planning our cities without dislocating the lives of individual citizens. I should like to state a few principles of this paper before turning to transport planning and its part in urban development. In this very progressive paper the point is made that all involved in development must aim to achieve a better balance between providing for the community as a whole and reducing harmful effects on individuals. The paper continues:

In recent years this balance in too many cases h:is been tipped aganist the interests of the individual. A better deal is now required for those who suffer from desirable community developments.

The truth of this statement applies just as strongly to the planning of urban change in

Australian cities. Far too many times in Australia we have gone ahead with community developments that have caused disruption and disturbance to the lives of tens of thousands of people. We do not want to stop community development whose net effect is to make life more comfortable, convenient and pleasant. But we do insist that disturbance in the day to day lives of people should be kept to a minimum and that compensation be given for any remaining distress. It is against this broad general principle of concern for people that I want to consider transport policy. In total these Bills will give grants to the States of $ 1,126m over the next 3 years. They provide money for national highways, urban and rural roads and research into roads and urban public transport.

In my remarks on these 3 Bills I shall concentrate on freeways which come within the span of urban arterial roads. For many years I have been depicted as an anti-freeway man. Because I have expressed doubts about freeways at times when the popular belief was that freeways would cure all our traffic ills I was also depicted as an anti-car man. I want to stress that I have never condemned freeways and cars as such. What I have condemned is the short sighted attitude that freeways will solve all our transport problems. It is a common belief that because car travel is increasing we need greater road space to absorb the extra cars. It is my belief that this sort of approach is founded on a fallacy. Car travel increases so we build more and bigger roads. This leads to more travel, more cars and calls for still more road space. This means that we are trapped on a treadmill off which we cannot jump. Encouraging an ever-increasing use of the car can only end in social and economic chaos.

I believe that the basic fault has been to give too much attention to the supply side; that is to the vehicles, roads and tracks which provide our transport. We should be looking more at the demand side of the transport model; in other words, at the needs of people and of communities. The transport plans and programs developed in our cities during the 1950s and the 1960s are now being questioned in a very serious way. The root cause of this questioning is the neglect of social and environmental needs and failure to provide for the participation of the community in vital decisions. This sort of questioning has come from people who want to look at transport in a broader way than the professionals look at it. We have to ask 2 basic questions. Firstly, what are the essentials of a transport system which gives the users what they really want? Secondly, what sort of transport system will accord with the sort of community in which people want to live?

What we want is a transport system which people can use and which will not disrupt their day to day life. There are many examples of this sort of intolerable disruption and displacement. We have only to look at the experience of inner city dwellers in Carlton and Collingwood in Melbourne and in Glebe in Sydney in recent years to see the evil social effects of this process. Even in more privileged areas freeways have a harmful effect on dwindling resources of open space in our cities. An example here is the loss of open space that freeway proposals would cause to residents of Greenwich and Lane Cove in Sydney. Of course we know that the New South Wales Government wants to expand freeways indiscriminately, particularly the north western freeway. We know that it wants to extend the north-western freeway through Lane Cove and Beecroft, through the electorate of the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr Ruddock). He must find it a confused situation. On one hand he finds that he is advocating and agitating for one line but on the other hand the bureaucrats and the New South Wales Government are tied to a dogma of some 24 years and they want to stand by that dogma. This is a question which every honourable member in this House has to ask.

By far the most damaging effects are felt by social and ethnic groups displaced from the inner city. What happens to the old people who have lived - some of them for all their lives - in the area? They often have to move many miles to the outer areas of the city away from their friends, their local shopkeepers, their doctors and chemists and their familiar surroundings. For an elderly person the mere fact of having to change a doctor or a familiar storekeeper such as a butcher can be a very deep personal loss. Many people who are dislocated from that way of life find that the whole fabric of their life has been destroyed when they move to the outer suburbs of a metropolis. The value of compensation paid for old homes in the inner city often does not allow them to buy comparable space in the suburbs.

What of those who rent a home? They cannot get a replacement and, if they can, at what price? This is the sort of massive displacement with intolerable social costs which I believe no government can support, particularly this Government. For the first time in this Parliament a national government has given leadership in relation to these priorities. Earlier I quoted from a paper delivered by the British Conservative Government. It sets down principles which are in line with what we are doing. So our proposals are not too radical. But the conservative elements on the other side of the House are so conservative that it takes them a long time to catch up with the progressive attitudes which are taken by the British Conservative Party.

Governments have a duty to protect the delicate fabric of our society. It is people who make up society and it is people, especially old people, who suffer so much from displacement. Achieving the sort of balance which protects people and which allows desirable, urban change to be made is a problem which has afflicted all the major cities of the world in recent years. As a Government we do not pretend to have all the answers. We do acknowledge that the problem exists and that we must try to achieve a solution. For this reason I welcome the money which is given for research in the Bills which are before the House and in the urban transport Bills which were discussed earlier this week. I stress that this money should not be directed to transport research pure and simple. We cannot detach transport from the whole range of urban policies, so research into transport must be integrated with the whole field of urban research. Within our urban communities in this day and age we have to accept the principle of the inter-connection or inter-relationship of one aspect with another. We need an alternative to road transport. That alternative is provided for in the Bills which were introduced earlier into this Parliament by the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) and which dealt with means of upgrading public transport in the cities of Australia.

Turning to the inner city freeways, it is important that State plans be viewed in a broad social perspective. The principles on which designs for many freeways have been based are completely opposed to the principles applied by the Australian Government. We do not want to continue the build-up of central business districts in our major cities. This is the end result of radial freeways. The Government wants to use its urban transport programs to encourage the growth of new sub- centres of employment, culture and commerce within existing metropolitan areas.

Mr Nixon:

– Do not fixed rail transports do that?

Mr UREN:

– ‘The honourable member for Gippsland who was Minister for Transport in the last Liberal-Country Party Government cannot really understand why we should upgrade rapid public transport and direct it away from the central business district. This has been done in Sydney. The central business district of Sydney has been over-built. The Rocks, North Sydney, Woolloomooloo and Kings Cross have been redeveloped. The whole metropolis of Sydney which stretches some 20 miles north, 20 miles south, 35 miles west and 35 miles south-west is geared to a peak load system. Irrespective of how efficient the transport system is, if it is geared to a peak load system, all the transport goes out empty early in the morning and comes back packed with workers. At night there is the reverse situation. A radial system, whether it is road or rail, cannot solve that problem. This Government has planned so that in our cities we will develop sub-centres along the transport corridor.

In Sydney for the first time we have developed areas such as Parramatta, Penrith, Liverpool and Campbelltown, unlike the previous Government which put all its eggs into the one basket. The previous Government wanted to develop the area of Woolloomooloo with 15,000 Commonwealth public servants and it wanted to develop Spring Street in Melbourne with another 20,000 Commonwealth public servants. We said that was not for us. We decided that the first development in Sydney should be Parramatta and the next area should be Ringwood near Melbourne. Therefore, this Government rejects any concept that would destroy large parts of the existing inner city areas where there is good housing. It will resist any concept that destroys parts of existing cities where thriving communities and groups have their own homes.

For these reasons we oppose the radial freeway system. The building of radial freeways encourages a far flung dispersal of a city’s population, as I have already explained. People believe that they can live a long way from the central business district and still get to work quickly. This sort of belief is usually based on an illusion. Too many people are lured to the outer suburbs by radial freeways. The roads become congested and the clotting of traffic brings a demand for more roads. If these roads are built, the same cycle starts all over again. In the process, more and more inner city houses are demolished and more and more lower income people and older people are forced out of the inner suburbs, breaking the delicate fabric of their lives. A system based only on radial freeways is not the answer. It is more sensible to use a grid pattern of planning the road systems of our cities. This allows freeways to be balanced by ring roads and other types of arterial roads in a mix which preserves the inner suburbs yet provides for proper mobility based on the car. I hope that the Bills before the House will encourage grid roads and discourage mindless attitudes which drive radial freeways through inner city areas.

It is the policy of my Department to work in co-operation with skilled State and local government officials. If honourable member: read the Bill they will find that there are certain responsibilities for the Minister for Urban and Regional Development and the Department of Urban and Regional Development. We are involved in the national highways, we are involved in urban arterial roads which deal with freeway system and we are involved in other urban roads. For the first time under the Commonwealth Aid Road Agreement, other urban roads have been introduced, and an amount of $30m will be spent over the next 3 years. Through a partnership approach we may avoid succumbing to the outmoded dogma of some 24 years ago that is used by State authorities, particularly by the Main Roads Department of New South Wales, and causes them to build inner city freeways. Provisions are contained in the Roads Grants Bill for the national government to protect the national interest and to prevent moneys being spent on certain roads. But I repeat that with a co-operative approach - an intelligent approach - between officials and Ministers at the Federal, State and local government levels, we can not only avoid confrontation but we can plan better transport systems. In the area of urban and regional development, for which I am responsible, when ever I am dealing with State Ministers, State officials or local government officials I seek their co-operation to try to work in a way that is beneficial to all. The Bills before the House are a major step towards giving Australians the transport systems that will allow them to move about quickly, efficiently and reasonably cheaply. They are an attempt to fit transport planning into an overall urban and regional policy. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr DRUMMOND:
Forrest

– I endorse the remarks made by the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon) earlier this evening. I support the amendment he moved. The amendment read:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: ‘The Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to more easily suit the requirements and administrative needs of the States and local government authorities’.

This amendment was moved to the Roads Grants Bill 1974 which is the subject of a cognate debate this evening. I wish to refer particularly to that Bill. The basic proposition the honourable member for Gippsland opposed in the Bill, which makes his amendment essential, was very well canvassed and explained by him. The basic principle in the Roads Grants Bill - that the Commonwealth will have the power of decision making at all levels - will quickly reduce State and local governments to the position of post offices.

It is not only the principle that causes me concern but also the vicious attack that is being made on local governments and their economy. I believe there was a time when the general public, particularly members of local government and all those concerned with local government, believed the propaganda put out by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), who was then the Leader of the Opposition, prior to the December 1972 election. Who could blame local government people for believing that a great new world would open up before them if they elected a Labor government? Do honourable members remember the speeches made and the Press releases issued by the honourable gentleman then? I will give honourable members just a sample of what was contained in the Prime Minister’s policy speech in November 1972. He said:

We will give local government full access to the -Loan Council and Grants Commission - not only because the burdens borne by taxpayers as ratepayers must be reduced, but because the inequalities between regions must be attacked by the national government acting with and through local government. Rates are Australia’s fastest growing form of taxation. Only the national government has the resources to retard the growth of this burden on Australian home-owners.

In the ‘Daily Telegraph* of 17 November 1972, in referring to local government, the Prime Minister was reported to have said:

Conclude a new. financial agreement to raise local government to a status of an equal partner with the Commonwealth and the States and to give local government adequate access to national funds.

Who could blame local government people and all those associated with local government for imagining that if they elected Mr Whitlam to be Prime Minister of Australia new days would dawn in local government understanding? That is what the whole deception, I believe, is about.

How many disappointments has the electorate at large suffered in the last 17 months? I will not try to enumerate them all, but the electorate has suffered. I wish to emphasise the disappointment and disillusion, particularly of local government. Lots of people perhaps saw through, even then, the extravagant promises of the then Leader of the Opposition and rejected or were very wary of the comforting path he suggested. But many local government leaders believed in the Prime Minister and I venture to say that none believed then that in 2 years time they would be in a worse situation than they were in then. The situation they are in today, financially, is far worse than that of 2 years ago. When the report on roads was tabled in November 1973 it became clear that local government over the next 5 years was not going to receive as much assistance from the Federal Government as it had received in the past, particularly in my own State of Western Australia. Since then, all types of protests and representations have been made to the Government, to the Prime Minister, to the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) and members of the Government. Now we have these Bills before us and we find that those representations have been to no avail. In fact, Western Australia will be marginally worse off than the report suggested or recommended. That report did recommend that Western Australia should receive $156m during the next 3 years. The present proposal is that the State shall receive $150m, a drop of some 4 per cent.

Let me compare the position of Western Australia, and in particular local government, this year with the situation that prevailed last year. The total of the proposed grants for this year is $49.6m, compared with total grants last year of $48.03m. This is an overall increase, including the provisions of the national roads legislation, of 2 per cent which, of course, with the current rate of inflation means that the State will either have to do about 10 per cent less in road works than it did last year or to impose savage increases in rates, motor vehicle licences, etc., to find the extra money.

I come next to the very grassroots of our governmental system - local government. The moneys available through the Road Grants Bill for urban arterial, urban local, rural arterial and development, rural local and minor improvements total $38.5m, compared with $41. 23m in 1973-74, last financial year. In this allocation, the biggest drop between 1973-74 and 1974-75 is in respect of rural roads. The allocation drops from $ 15.59m to $9.2m. It may be argued by the Australian Government that the Government of Western Australia is in a position to assist local governments more because of the Australian Government’s largesse through the national roads legislation. But this is surely a fallacy. As I have pointed out, the overall grants to Western Australia for this financial year are practically the same as for last financial year, and no provision has been made for inflation - that evil force perpetuated by the Australian Government. The Australian Government is the greatest reaper - the harvester - of inflation. The State governments certainly are not.

A vast new load will fall on the shoulders of an already over-burdened section of the community. The problems of local government were well explained by the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) on Tuesday night last. They include rising debts, staggering increases in interest rates, up now to 9.85 per cent per annum. At the same time, local government is being called upon to perform ever increasing duties. Now local government will have to face the task of raising a massive amount of additional revenue. I again remind the Government of the hopes and aspirations of local government generated by the Prime Minister and others before the 1972 election. I cannot emphasise this aspect enough because I believe that at the moment the Government is not honouring its responsibility.

In 1972, the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Whitlam, in an address on a subject of national importance delivered at the New South Wales Local Government Association conference, referred to a remark which had been made by the then Prime Minister, Mr McMahon, in a speech delivered at the same conference a couple of days earlier. I am not taking these words out of context. Mr Whitlam was answering part of what Mr McMahon had said. Mr Whitlam said:

The Prime Minister chose to interpret my attitude as advocating centralism and concentration of power. In fact my proposals are precisely the reverse. I believe there is a real and pressing case for decentralisation of authority and that local governments will best perform many governmental functions in such critical areas as welfare, culture and the environment. The challenge which we face now is to make arrangements to balance public functions at each of our 3 levels of government with the financial resources required to discharge them effectively.

I ask you, Sir: Where in this Bill is the relief for local government? Where is the increase in status? Where is the. great new deal that local government was to receive? Local government in Western Australia is looking straight down the barrel of having either to curtail road works in local areas or to increase massively rates, taxes and licensing fees.

I oppose this Bill not only on the principle that it will lead to centralism, as pointed out by the mover of the amendment. This is directly contrary to what Mr Whitlam said at the conference to which I have just referred. This legislation will lead to a decimation of decision-making by people in local government. I oppose it also on the grounds that Western Australia in particular is not getting a fair share of the cake and that local government will be further eroded and damaged by this Bill. I urge the Government in its consideration of our amendment to reconsider also the financial position of local government. I urge the Government further to let local government know what can be expected from the Grants Commission in the coming year. Even if this is to be nothing, local government is entitled to know so that it can get on with its budgeting and with its job as best it can.

As soon as the report of the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads was released to the public in November 1973 there was, as we all remember, a tremendous outcry from local government. As I said earlier, representations were made to all sections of the Government. These representations were made factually. They were made in a clear and concise manner which indicated to the Government exactly what position local government would be in if the Government implemented the recommen dations contained in the report of the Bureau of Roads. The months have gone by since then. This legislation, I believe, should have been introduced at the first sitting of the Parliament this year to allow the different authorities and the States the time to organise their programs. I deeply regret that local government today is not protesting so much about the allocation of funds. This is not to say that local government accepts the allocations. But local government has protested for so long and so often without any response that now it has reached the positions of desperately wanting to know what money or allocations it will receive from the Federal Government.

I wish to quote from a letter sent by the Secretary of the Local Governments Association of Western Australia to the Prime Minister. It was written on 19 June 1973. The Secretary explains that he had written 3 weeks earlier to the Prime. Minister. An answer had been received from the Prime Minister’s Private Secretary on 6 July. The Secretary of the Local Governments Association of Western Australia goes on to say: … the Press reports, statements by the honourable Premier of the State, indicate that the grants to Western Australia will not only not be increased but that the grants are to be reduced by one-sixth. However, there does not appear to have been any definite public statement by you on this issue. If the grants are to be further reduced, it would certainly have a serious effect on employment in this State and I trust that now the Government has had the time to settle down after the elections the matter can be reconsidered. However, as all councils are now preparing their budgets for this year commencing on July 1st they would like to know with some certainty what grants are likely to come to this State so that they can estimate the grants to be given to them by the State.

If you could advise me with reasonable certainty whether the advice be the good news that the grants are not to be reduced or the bad news that they will be cut, this would enable me to advise all councils immediately so that their rating for next year may be based on authentic information as to the likely level of grants.

He concludes the letter:

I am sorry to seem inopportune in seeking your advice, but I assure you that this is a matter of the gravest concern to all our councils.

I ask you, Mr Speaker, why should this gentleman - an esteemed gentleman, a leader of local government in Western Australia - have to be sorry for approaching the Prime Minister? Why should he feel that he cannot approach the Prime Minister on an issue such as this which is of vital concern to his organisation?.

Could it be that these people are being intimidated by the power of the pursestrings held by Canberra already? How is it that their programming can be so put out? How is it that they do not know whether to curtail their works, and by how much they have to raise their rates when their financial year has already started? In fact, it started on 1 July. I have had letters from numerous shire councils in my area and I know that every shire council in my area is suffering from the same problem. A typical letter is the one I have received from the Collie Shire Council, which was brief but pertinent. It stated:

Dear Mr Drummond,

Will you please make inquiries and let me know as soon as possible what moneys are likely to be made available by the Federal Government to the Shire of Collie either through the Grants Commission or Commonwealth Aid Roads or similar funds. As soon as my council has some idea of what moneys it is likely to get then it will know what to do so far as its work force is concerned. The position is very serious.

Yours sincerely, P. McNab Shire Clerk

The Council wants to know what to do with its work force. I am very much afraid that what it has in mind is laying men off because of the Federal Government’s attitude. I . sincerely trust that the Government re-drafts the Bill along the lines suggested to it by us. I trust that at the same time, while we cannot make an amendment to the fact, that the Government reconsiders the financial position of local government authorities throughout Australia and particularly in Western Australia. One must remember that Western Australia is a vast State - nearly one-third of the continent of Australia.. It is still a developing State. Not only does it appear in this legislation that its allocation will be reduced, but it also appears that Western Australia has lost the benefit of the supplementary grants which was a fair and reasonable benefit and amounted last year to some $6. 8m. It was fair and reasonable because of the vastness of the State and the development still going on within the State.

One must appreciate also that the base amount that was raised in Western Australia last year was $ 11.279m. The quota for Western Australia under this Bill is $23. 8m. This is a staggering increase for the State to bear, and there is no way that the Commonwealth Government can claim that the States should easily make up the leeway, as I explained earlier. The Commonwealth Government is the great reaper of taxation in Australia, not the State governments. The Western Australian Government is increasing practically all of its charges in an endeavour to carry on its normal duties now. Finding another $12m for roads is a burden which I do not believe Western Australia should have to suffer. I believe the State will find it extremely difficult to find that amount. I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Gippsland and endorse the remarks he made during the course of his speech. I urge the Government to give realistic support to our thoughts and also to local government.

Mr WALLIS:
Grey

– In speaking to these 3 Bills, I will at this stage confine my remarks to the National Roads Bill. But before dealing with the Bill, let me say that the honourable member for Forrest (Mr Drummond) and the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon) a former Minister for Shipping and Transport, charged the Government with reducing the amount made available for roads. It is rather strange that just before the suspension of the sitting for dinner we heard the Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony) chastising the Government and urging restraints. I do not know whether the 2 approaches can be called consistent.

This is the first time in Australia’s history that there has been a national roads policy. I think we have fallen behind many other countries comparable in size in developing such a policy. I refer to Canada and the United States. Both of those countries have a much larger population than we have - ‘more so the United States than Canada. At the same time, because of our comparative size, which is about geographically the same as that of those 2 countries, and our smaller population, the question of road transport becomes a much bigger factor in our daily lives. With our limited resources and because of our smaller population it is very important in what we do with our road transport that we make the most use of what we have. Because of the long distances between our centres of population and also because of our small population, the component of transport cost in the cost of our goods is also very important.

In looking at a national roads policy we also have to look at the question of complete co-ordination of our land transport, that is, both our roads and our railways. I think that the Government’s national road policy will dovetail with that concept. We are already paying at the present time for the mistakes made in our transport planning of the last century. We have had to change our railway gauges because we had 3 different gauges. We all know what it has cost Australia and will cost in the future to right those wrongs of the past. We want to make sure that in implementing the national roads policy we do not make mistakes that have to be corrected. It is a fact that the previous LiberalCountry Party Government had no policy such as the national highways policy we are debating tonight.

The honourable member for Gippsland said that just before the previous Government was defeated in December 1972 it had instituted a survey into our road system. Of course, out of that survey came the national roads policy. The Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) has given some practical application to the report of the Bureau of Roads. The Liberal Party policy - I know this from the questions I have asked on many occasions concerning the roads in my own electorate - was that the amount allocated to the States for rural arterial roads could be spent according to the priorities determined by the States. In the western part of South Australia there are 3 highways - the Flinders Highway, the Eyre Highway and the Stuart Highway. Under the Liberal policy the South Australian Government could have put all of its eggs in one basket and concentrated the allocation it received on one road, but it had to keep faith with people in various areas and the money was spent piecemeal on the various roads. It is interesting to read the report of the Bureau of Roads. It states:

Within their financial limits, State Governments tend to allocate road finance to all areas of their States so that each area shares in the benefits from road improvements. Consequently it is difficult for State Governments to assemble the large resources to construct long segments of main arterial roads joining major centres. Our investigations have indicated the importance of the provision of major road links and we reported to the then Minister for Shipping and Transport in February 1972 that these roads were inadequate and that current policies were not likely to increase the rate of improvement of these roads, which is desirable in the national interest. Consequently, we recommended that the Australian Government give immediate consideration to the provision of financial assistance for those main arterial roads which join major centres and which should form the nucleus of a National Highway System.

That is basically the policy the Minister has accepted and is giving effect to in his national roads policy. He differed from the. report in one area. The Commonwealth Bureau of

Roads recommended an allocation of 80 per cent by the Commonwealth and 20 per cent by the States. The Minister decided to change this and to provide that the Commonwealth should provide 100 per cent of the cost of developing and maintaining a national road system. The construction of such a system also has to be considered from a defence point of view. During the bad war years of J 942 and 1943 when the troops had to be moved north, the congestion which occurred in the various centres through which the troops were taken was pretty shocking. I think that in looking at a national roads policy we also have to take into account the defence potential of roads.

I represent the largest electorate in South Australia. I represent all the western portion of that State and I have a particular interest in roads because, as I have mentioned earlier, both the Eyre Highway and the Stuart Highway are within my electorate. There are still 3 main unsealed highways but two of these get a mention in the national roads plan. Although the plan has not yet ‘been put into operation the State Government has been allocating resources to both these roads, despite the lack of assistance from the previous Commonwealth Government, although I will concede that just prior to the 1972 election the State Government received an allocation of $2.5m from the Commonwealth Government to assist in construction of these roads. Work has progressed to the extent that over the last 18 months about 75 miles of the Eyre Highway and 66 miles of the Stuart Highway have been sealed. Possibly a further 120 miles will be opened soon.

The north-west area of South Australia through which the Stuart Highway passes has been severely affected by rainfall during the last 18 months. The area has had 4 times its normal rainfall. There have been many occasions in the last 18 months when the road has been impassable and towns isolated. The opal mining towns of Coober Pedy and Andamooka have been particularly affected. Whilst Andamooka is not on the Stuart Highway it relies on transport from the Stuart Highway for its essential goods. The airstrip also has been out of commission at various times and this, too, has created problems for the people in the area. During periods of heavy rainfall tourist buses, semi-trailers and private cars were stranded. This has emphasised the need for bituminising this highway and the Eyre Highway.

During the term of the previous Government I asked the then Minister for Shipping and Transport a number of questions about allocations of money to South Australia to enable completion of the sealing of these roads. His reply was a stock answer - that South Australia had been allocated so much money to spend within that State and it should set its own priorities but should seal these roads out of that allocation. The amount South Australia received was nowhere near enough to complete this particular task. Many approaches were made to the Federal Government for assistance for this work. The leaders of both the Liberal Party and the Labor Party in South Australia made two approaches to the Federal Government. On both occasions they, were supported by the Premier of Western Australia - in one instance a Liberal Premier and on the other occasion by Labor Premier Tonkin. Their approaches were not successful until just prior to the 1972 election when an allocation of S2.5m was made to South Australia to enable the completion of the sealing of the Eyre Highway. It was suggested in the approach to the Federal Government that South Australia “should not be required to do this job on its own because a count of vehicles on the Eyre Highway revealed that 84 per cent of those using it did not reside in South Australia. This indicated that this was truly a national road which was used by people from Victoria and New South Wales travelling west and people from Western Australia travelling east. Very few South Australians use that particular section of the road.

The Stuart Highway runs from Port Augusta to Alice Springs and is included in the national roads program. It is hoped that with the allocation of money the work on this road can be completed speedily. It will not only provide a sealed link to the Northern Territory but also to Woomera. (Quorum formed). At present the Stuart Highway does not follow the most suitable route to Alice Springs. In his second reading speech the Minister said that the road would be re-routed to considerably shorten its distance. If the road could be directed through the Woomera rocket range a considerable saving could be achieved. At present a security road serves Woomera but it cannot be used by the public. If the road could be routed through the rocket Tange area a considerable saving in mileage could be effected.

I fully support the proposals relating to the national roads program. Under the National

Roads Bill $700m is to be allocated to the States. The Transport (Planning and Research) Bill allocates a further $26m to assist the States in their planning and research into their particular roads. I hope that through the allocation of this money we will see a great deal of co-operation between the Commonwealth and the States to ensure that in the future Australia has a first-class road transport system.

Mr RUDDOCK:
Parramatta

– I rise firstly to support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon). The amendment proposes that the Roads Grants Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to more easily suit the requirements and administrative needs of the States and local government authorities. I propose to address the major portion of my remarks to the requirements of co-operation between this Government, the State governments and the third tier of government about which we hear so much - local government. I was certainly pleased to hear the remarks of the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) who indicated that co-operation in his sphere of activity was important to him. I accept his statement that he endeavours to co-operate with State governments. It is a pity that in this important area of roads and expenditure on roads we have not seen the same degree of co-operation. Certainly in the last of the 3 Bills we are debating, the Transport (Planning and Research) Bill, the spirit that the Minister proposes has not been kept. The Opposition will move more specific amendments to the National Roads Bill 1974 and the Roads Grants Bill 1974. I seek leave to incorporate the amendments in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Charles Jones:

– I will grant leave but I indicate at this stage that I have examined the 1 8 proposed amendments which completely destroy the Government’s proposed legislation and therefore will be unacceptable.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The question is whether leave is granted.

Mr Charles Jones:

– Leave is granted.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

page 1016

ROADS GRANTS BILL 1974

Mr RUDDOCK:

– I thank the House. We now appreciate that the Government and the Opposition are at issue on the very principles that ought to be applied in relation to roads and the making available of moneys for the building of roads. There is no doubt - certainly the remarks of the honourable member for Grey (Mr Wallis) have not altered my view - that there is a need for co-operation with the State governments to establish priorities for the building and construction of national roads. I do not think this has ever been denied. The reference by the honourable member for Grey to questions he asked in this House during the term of the Liberal and Country Party governments has not altered that proposition very much at all.

I would like to refer in part to a Press statement issued by the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) on 23 July following conferences with State Transport Ministers in relation to these Bills as they affect roads. I wish to do this because the Minister acknowledged in his statement on that occasion where the expertise lies in relation to road construction. I do not accept all his comments. I wish to draw the attention of the House specifically to the second sentence in the Minister’s statement. He said:

We must bring rational planning into Australia’s entire transport pattern, and the New South Wales Government’s willingness to join with us in this highway study is a most encouraging sign. The officers of State’s Department of Main Roads have acquired skills and experience in road planning and construction that will be invaluable in this important project.

The Minister acknowledges, therefore, that the experience in relation to the building of roads and the skills necessary for road planning and construction lie with the State governments. One wonders therefore why there is this urgent need to transfer the power from those people who have, responsibility and skills at the moment to this Government.

The Transport (Planning and Research) Bill acknowledges that moneys necessary for research ought to be made available to State governments. World experience indicates that there is a need for research. I note that in Great Britain the Transport and Road Research Laboratory employs some 1,000 people, about 50 per cent of whom are scientists and engineers. It has an annual expenditure of £Stg5m. It must be acknowledged that there is a need for research. So one cannot quibble with the need to make available funds for this very important purpose. We certainly support the allocation of money for this purpose.

I turn now to the Roads Grants Bill. Each clause in the Bill makes specific provisions. For the purpose of example I wish to refer to clause 6 (2), but it is only one of a number of sub-clauses. Clause 6 (2) reads:

A State shall, out of moneys paid to it under section 5 in respect of a year, expend during that year on the construction of rural arterial roads, in accordance with the approved program of projects for that year or a part of that year, an amount equal to the amount that is applicable to the State in respect of that year in accordance with Schedule 2. . . .

Clearly each sub-clause of clause 6 provides that expenditure must be made in accordance with an approved program of projects.

Clause 6 provides that in each case, in each of the areas for which money is to be allocated, the expenditure must be subject to Commonwealth Government approval. Yet this Bureau of Roads report which has been quoted to us on a number of occasions specifically provides in chapter 8, paragraph 1, that grants for rural local roads be not subject to project or program approval. The Bureau of Roads, the Bureau that has been held out to us as the group of experts who have made these recommendations that expenditure ought to be taken from the hands of responsible State governments-

Mr Innes:

– You have got to be joking.

Mr RUDDOCK:

– I said responsible State governments and, in response to the honourable member for Melbourne in particular, a most responsible State Government in Victoria. In this respect I would acknowledge that if the moneys were made available to the State Governments they would be spent responsibly, and if they were not spent responsibly the members of the State governments would meet their just rewards at the ballot box. That is something which honourable members opposite do not acknowledge at all. But the Bureau of Roads, the experts than honourable members opposite rely on, specifically mentions that in the case of those roads grants should not be made available on a tied basis as the Bill proposes.

The news release issued on 18 July by the Minister for Transport, in referring specifically to these allocations, made this remarkable statement: ‘The significance of these allocations lies in the reasons for them’, said Mr Jones. ‘“Revolutionary” is not too strong a term for what we are now doing’.

That is what the Minister sees as his objective. He sees it as being revolutionary to take responsibility from the States and to assume that responsibility here in Canberra. He argues that even in relation to rural roads, roads in remote outback areas, the expenditure ought to be approved by a Commonwealth department. That is the proposition that is being put before us. I cite a most progressive document produced during the last election campaign and entitled ‘The Way Ahead with a Liberal-Country Party Government’. I refer honourable members opposite to this progressive document because it may help them to understand what the Australian people will seek from them in this important area. It reads: …. to ensure optimum transport systems for Australia will require close co-operation between Federal and State governments and local authorities, with the State governments retaining the maximum posible responsibility for operations and decisionmaking. The Federal Government has an important role to play internally, and a principal responsibility for international transport;

Clearly our progressive policy is that the States should be given responsibility in these important areas for the expenditure of funds. When we consider the speeches that have been delivered by honourable members opposite and the propositions that have been put to us in relation to the Roads Grants Bill, we are surprised at them when viewed against the content of the Prime Minister’s policy speech.

If one looks at the specific sections which relate to roads, one would almost believe that the Labor Party also wanted co-operation with the States in these matters. The Prime Minister’s policy speech for the election that took place not so long ago reads:

The present Commonwealth Aid Roads Act expires at the end of June. The Bureau of Roads made a report to assist the Government in considering financial assistance to the States for the ensuing period. The Minister for Transport tabled the report last December. Discussions have since been held with the States and also, for the first time, but in accordance with the Bureau’s recommendation, with local government authorities. These discussions will be resumed after the elections.

No doubt they were resumed, but we have not seen as a result of those discussions the co-operation that was implied in the Prime Minister’s speech.

I would like to draw the attention of honourable members to an article I read fairly recently because I think it sums up what I see as the real plot - the very revolutionary plot - of which the Minister speaks. The article appeared in ‘Rydge’s Digest’ of October 1973 and it is headed ‘Games Politicians Play with Transport’. It may be illuminating. It reads:

Urban planning is a 3-layer cake, with no icing on top and very little jam between the layers. A cake, such as that, should and does end up as a sticky trifle.

At the bottom are the technical consultants, whose job is to provide expert advice to various planning bodies. Unfortunately, much of the advice they offer is out of date, and based on what happened in the United States 15 years ago.

The next layer is made up of the proliferation of planning bodies, local, State and Federal, whose overlapping responsibilities cause dissension and in-fighting. They make decisions based on the out of date technical advise received from consultants. At the top sit the politicians.

I had in mind specifically the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren). The article continues:

They do not care what the consultants or the planning bodies say or recommend. They decide and make plans according to the politics of the situation.

The result is that urban planning is a mish-mash of misplanning, with millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money wasted, while the overcrowded cities continue to choke because of lack of action.

If I may add my own words, they continue to choke also because of ‘lack of cooperation’. I think that article sums up adequately the sort of role we are getting ourselves into as a Federal Government when we undertake to get into this mish-mash and to offer solutions. Those were the sort of solutions that we heard tonightfrom the Minister for Urban and Regional Development. One could not disagree with his generalities but one could certainly disagree with the propositions that he has put on a number of other occasions.

Specifically I should like to draw the attention of honourable members to a letter that was reported in the ‘Northern District Times’, a paper which serves my electorate. It sums up the position into which we are getting ourselves and why the Minister for Urban and Regional Development was so anxious to speak in this debate. The newspaper report shows that Mr Uren was speaking about allocations for road construction and said that they were covered by the Commonwealth Aid Roads Act of 1969. The report states:

The Act leaves the determination of programs, priorities and route selection to State governments and their statutory authorities. Mr Uren said the agreement would be in force until 1974, but was currently under review by the Federal Government. The review would consider whether new legislation to operate from July, 1974, should include provision for more direct control by the Australian Government over expenditure on particular roads and projects. Mr Uren said that he would certainly be pressing for this control and would have the support of his Cabinet colleagues.

Undoubtedly he did. The report continues:

He would insist on very careful scrutiny of any proposal which could result in the destruction of communities, and areas of natural beauty, when considering road construction under any new agreement.

In other words what the Minister wants is to be able to review the expenditure priorities set by the States. He makes great play on this. He speaks in this debate about the failure of State authorities to abandon their out of date proposals for radial transport freeways and so on. It is quite obvious that he has not looked at the document produced by the Sydney Area Transportation Study. That document clearly adopts proposals for a grid of roads throughout Sydney and abandons the concept of which the Minister is so critical. The Minister implies that only by having Commonwealth control in this area can these sorts of desirable propositions be implemented. He is not the only font of wisdom. Quite clearly the States about which the Minister for Transport spoke, with their expertise which the Minister complimented, have the ability to come to these conclusions and the personnel to implement them. Why should we not rely on the States? Why should we assume that responsibility ourselves when there are more important matters - I am not denigrating the importance of transport to people as individuals - with which a national Parliament ought to be dealing?

I am not convinced that bringing these matters to Canberra solves the problem. I should like to draw the attention of honourable members to an area in my own electorate which I think highlights the problems with which we have to deal when the Commonwealth enters these areas. Victoria Road - a very important major road in Sydney that carries a great deal of traffic between Parramatta and Sydney and serves the totality of the western suburbs - has on it and along it an amount of ribbon development. I refer honourable members opposite who appear to be so bored with these remarks to the suburb of Ermington which has a shopping centre set off the road but has a number of traffic lights associated with it.

Mr Bennett:

– Whereabouts is that?

Mr RUDDOCK:

– If Labor Party members have to ask where Ermington is I shall certainly make that known in that part of the electorate. It is the only area which does return a substantial Labor vote. There have been plans to widen the road at the Ermington shopping centre and to enable traffic to turn off the main road with ease into the shopping centre. The Postmaster-General’s Department - that most progressive department for which we are responsible - has for some 12 months delayed and procrastinated in moving its own facilities that had to be moved before any roadworks could be done. The money has been allocated but a Commonwealth Government department, an instrumentality for which we are responsible, appears to have delayed the work necessary and certainly the work has not been commenced to date. I refer honourable members to a report that was recently produced in this Parliament in relation to data systems. I would have thought that honourable members opposite may have read this report and realised that even here in Canberra, with all the expertise that we have, different systems can develop. There can even be systems that cannot be satisfactorily integrated with all our wisdom. What happened in that particular area? It is pertinent to note that the Government now has to bring forward a report to rationalise data systems and to enable them to work effectively. One would have thought that with all the expertise in Canberra we would have been able to adopt a suitable system. It indicates that even within departments there is a lack of liaison and this lack of liaison is very evident. If we have problems, as we no doubt do, in relation to transport, they are not necessarily solved by bringing all the power back to Canberra and hoping that we will be able to do a job better than we did, say, in relation to data systems.

From a reading of the Sydney Area Transportation Study there is reason to conclude that it may be desirable that we examine some of our own powers in relation to transport matters. I refer honourable members specifically to page 31 of the Transportation Study where the positive suggestion was made as to what the Commonwealth Government could do in relation to its own power. It was suggested that tax deductions for public transport fares should be considered and would be a considerable help. The section reads:

Tax deductions for public transport fares combine the benefits of increasing public transport usage while maintaining adequate operating revenues. It is difficult to accurately measure benefits to the community, both direct and indirect, but it is believed that these will be substantial.

This is an area in which we ourselves can act, yet I never hear honourable members opposite make suggestions that may assist to encourage public use of public transport.

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

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) proposed:

That the question be now put.

The House divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

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

AYES: 62

NOES: 53

Majority . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put -

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

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

AYES: 62

NOES: 53

Majority . . . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

In Committee

Clauses 1 and 2 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 3.

Mr NIXON:
Gippsland

– I move:

Omit sub-clauses (4) and (5).

Sub-clauses (4) and (5) relate specifically to the following clause 4. (1) in which the Bill requires that State and local authorities shall submit for approval all programs at the request of the Minister. This could include all projects of any kind that are to be carried out by the States and by municipal, shire and other local authorities in a specified period. The real trouble with this requirement is that it puts the Federal Government in the position of demanding of any State or any local government that any project at all be submitted irrespective of whether finance from the Australian Government is involved or simply funds raised by local governments or by the States. It is a tremendous and unnecessary intrusion into local authority and the State government activities and there is no justification or need for it. No need has been established by the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) in his second reading speech. No explanation has been given by the Minister in that speech why such intrusion is necessary. Indeed, the State Ministers have sent telegrams to me and written to me complaining bitterly about this aspect of the Bill. When the local government authorities around Australia all wake up individually to this point they likewise will object, I am sure. I seek to delete the sub-clauses because there has been absolutely no attempt by this Government to explain why it wants these projects included in this way.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Newcastle · ALP

– The Government is not prepared to accept this amendment. The whole–

Mr Wentworth:

– Oh shame!

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– Will you shut up, you oaf.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– Order! 1 suggest the Minister contain himself.

Mr Nixon:

– I find that remark offensive to .ny colleague. I seek a withdrawal.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable gentleman cannot seek a withdrawal on someone else’s behalf.

Mr Wentworth:

– In that case, I shall seek a withdrawal.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– I withdraw it, Mr Chairman. The moon is almost full and the honourable member never stops interjecting. The Government is not prepared to accept the amendment moved by the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon). I have studied all of the 18 amendments which it is proposed will be moved. I accept the incorporation of them in Hansard by the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr Ruddock) in case they are not all moved. I have looked at them. I have studied them closely. All they do is set out to destroy the Government’s transport policy. We are trying to introduce into this country an overall policy on transport which takes into consideration all modes, whether it be road, rail, sea or air transport so that the Australian Government will be in a position to determine what works will be done and what money will be allocated to various projects, whether it be for upgrading urban transport or for the construction of new roads. Once we take away - as these amendments do - the right of the Government to approve programs we are back to the old situation into which the Opposition, when it was in Government, allowed transport in this country to deteriorate.

One only has to look at the road system throughout Australia today to realise what a shemozzle it is in. The present Opposition was the major architect of that mess because it allowed the States to spend money willynilly. I ask honourable members to have a look at the highway system throughout Australia today. It is an absolute and utter disgrace to any country. Numbers of people are being unnecessarily killed on our roads today because no government has had the courage really to tackle the problem of the roads. We have set out with a determined program whereby we will have a decent highway system. I suggest honourable members have a look at any of the highways, whether it be the Bruce Highway, the Lansdowne Highway or the Princes Highway. Even the honourable member for Gippsland in his speech in the second reading debate made reference to the Princes Highway and the density of traffic on it. Was any attempt made to improve it? Of course there was not. That is what we are setting out to do. We want to make sure that first of all we have a national road system that at least will save people from being killed by the condition of the road. A couple of hundred people are killed unnecessarily every year on the Hume Highway. This is what we are trying to overcome.

The Opposition does not realise yet that it was defeated in the elections held in May this year and in December 1972. On both occasions the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) - in the latter case he was Leader of the Opposition - in his policy speech clearly set out what we proposed to do as far as roads and public transport were concerned. We have a mandate to do what we are doing. I say to the Opposition now. ‘If you, in another place, amend this Bill there will not be any money available because we are not prepared under any circumstances to accept an amendment to this Bill which destroys the policy of this Government’. So I warn the Opposition that we will not accept amendments. If it wants to withhold SI, 126m from the States and local government over the next 3 years it can go ahead and use its numbers in another place. But the Opposition must accept full responsibility for its actions. It must accept full responsibility for the numbers of people who will be thrown out of employment as a result of its actions. It lost the elections in December 1972 and in May 1974 so I suggest that it not use its position in another place. But if it does, it will accept full responsibility.

Having made that position quite clear, if the Opposition wants to go on with the amendments I am quite prepared to sit here tonight, tomorrow and Saturday if necessary to get them out of the way. As I have indicated, if this amendment is carried it will destroy completely the policy, principles and everything incorporated in this Bill which we, as a Government, have a mandate to carry out.

Mr RUDDOCK:
Parramatta

– We have heard from the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) a number of comments in reply to the proposed amendments which have been moved by the Opposition. The Minister related those statements to the Government’s policy in relation to transport. Particularly, he related them to the total policy which the Government has for transport matters. In fact, the Minister did not answer the very problem to which we are directing our attention in this amendment. What we object to and why we propose this amendment is because the Government is not only ordering priorities for the money which it makes available but also because it is seeking, as a condition precedent to making those funds available, to order the way in which the total sums available for transport and road matters are to be spent in the States, not only by State governments but also by local government bodies.

These are new principles. As the Minister said in his statement which I read earlier tonight they are somewhat - in my words, not in his - revolutionary. In his words they are revolutionary. I do not believe the Australian people yet know what is proposed. Certainly, in the policy speech to which the Minister referred and which was given by the Prime Minister in the campaign through which we have all just come no reference was made to these revolutionary changes. No indication was given that the Commonwealth would take over responsibility to tell the States how every penny is to be spent on roads by local governments and State governments. This is a new principle. This is a revolutionary thought which is proposed in this legislation. It is something new and the people of Australia ought to know. It is for this reason that we say that these amendments ought to be approved and ought to be passed in this House and in another place.

I believe that if necessary we will go to the barricades because I do not think the Australian people want to see Canberra making these decisions. A little earlier I cited the example of the Post Office. That is an organisation for which the Government is now responsible. No doubt very responsible people run the Post Office but it cannot move itself to help the Department of Main Roads fix a bottleneck on Victoria Road. I do not mind if the Minister for Transport wants to do something to help me in Parramatta. Running through my electorate is a national highway. In effect it passes right down the main street of Parramatta. Church Street, Parramatta, carries the bulk of traffic passing between Brisbane and Melbourne.

Mr Charles Jones:

– For 23 years the Liberal-Country Party Government did nothing about it. We want to. Honourable members opposite are trying to frustrate the proposal.

Mr RUDDOCK:

– We are not trying to frustrate anything at all.

Mr Charles Jones:

– For 23 years you did nothing about it.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

– Order! I ask the Minister for Transport to rise to speak when the honourable member sits down. I ask him to remain silent now.

Mr RUDDOCK:

– Quite certainly this program which the Government is putting does not propose to solve problems overnight. They are there and they have been solved. The Govenment has to attempt to solve them. There is no doubt about that. For this reason we supported in principle the National Roads Act. The Government should consider whether a by-pass road ought to be erected under its corridor scheme in the same way, remarkably, that a by-pass road is proposed for Newcastle which I noticed was specifically mentioned and specifically singled out. What we will have by this sort of technique is government in accordance with those who are is power and in accordance with the cities to which they belong. I am not suggesting that there are any improper motives in this but I ask honourable members to look back at the way in which the Government made its decision in relation to the planning of an international airport and about which the Minister changed his mind.

Mr Charles Jones:

– Never.

Mr RUDDOCK:

– I am sorry. Cabinet changed its mind. The Minister’s recommendation has not yet been put to it. That important planning decision was made because it was thought that it was out of the way and that it would not affect people in Labor-held electorates or in marginal electorates. That is the sort of planning which we get, the sort of pork-barrel politics that we get in relation to road planning when we have a government which makes decisions as to where small roads will be, what sort of local government priorities will be set, where rural road grants will be given and so on. I do not want that sort of power myself. I would rather see it set in terms of the priorities that the people closest to the community are able to assess and not the priorities set by those who happen to be representative of larger areas, as we all are, and who are not able to relate as readily as can State members of Parliament or members of local councils in assessing the needs of a community.

That is not denying the concept of national roads and national planning in relation to roads that must meet national needs. But it is saying that in relation to those areas in which the priorities are purely of a local basis, those priorities must be set by the people who are best able to assess them. That is not what is being proposed in this Bill. The Opposition has specifically proposed an amendment that will remove the power of the Federal Government to tell the States how they will spend the money that they raise. That is the proposition contained in the amendment. It is revolutionary, as the Minister has suggested. It is the sort of revolution that we on this side of the House do not want and it is the sort of revolution that the people of Australia, if they knew about it, would not want. Honourable members opposite seem to espouse the proposition that they have a mandate. I do not think they have, when one examines the way in which the election results turned out. If they had really been given a mandate the Government would be in control of the Senate. That is a fair proposition. Quite properly the Government did not get an overall mandate. In those circumstances the Government got whatever sort of mandate it has on the basis of a proposition contained in the policy speech.

The revolutionary concept of which the Minister has spoken was not contained in the policy speech of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam). It was clearly deleted if it was planned, and if it was planned afterwards it was done on the basis on which this Government is now working and that is an ad hoc decision to alter its priorities and its programs to suit the whims of honourable members opposite. That is the reason we reject it. We do not believe that people in Canberra - even people as well qualified as members on this side of the House are - should make these sorts of decisions. For that reason we have proposed this amendment. We will support it and support it fully.

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

– I will not take up the time of the House in answering the rubbish that just came from the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr Ruddock) but I will take the opportunity to make a few comments that I was unable to make at the second reading stage. I believe that history will regard this Bill as one of the great achievements of the Australian Labor Government. I do not believe that the Australian people, or the media, have fully comprehended the significance of this Bill or the impact it will have on Australia, its people, its economy and its life style. At long last a government has the foresight, the courage and the initiative to commence on the long, difficult and expensive job of providing this nation with a national highway system.

Mr Nixon:

– I rise to a point of order, Mr Chairman. The honourable member for Robertson ought to know that we are discussing clauses 4 and 5 of the Roads Grants Bill. We are not discussing the National Roads Bill which is the next Bill to come before the House. Amendments will be moved to that Bill and the honourable member is quite welcome to make his speech when we reach that stage. I suggest that you direct your remarks to the Roads Grants Bill.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

– Order! The honourable member for Gippsland can take a point of order and I will rule on it. I think the honourable member for Paramatta and the honourable member for Gippsland departed somewhat from the clauses before the Committee and I am sure that the Minister did. I do not think I should now be restrictive but I will ask the honourable gentleman to confine his remarks to this Bill.

Mr COHEN:

– There is no doubt that we have linked the various cities of Australia. We have roads that commence at Cairns and end at Perth. But to describe those roads as highways is a misuse of the English language. Today more than ever before an enormous number of people are questioning the role of the motor car. Its growth as a mode of transport is one of the phenomenons of the post-World War II period. In Australia, motor vehicle ownership has risen since June 1945 from 928,400 to 5,812,400 at December last. The number of vehicles per 1,000 population at the same date in 1945 was 124.7 vehicles. In December last that figure rose to 438.1 vehicles. That is a staggering increase of 251 per cent. At 30 June 1971 the manufacturing wholesale and retail sectors associated with the operation of motor vehicles employed 290,445 persons or 5.45 per cent of the work force. At the same time the money spent on roads and motor vehicles constituted 13.3 per cent of the gross domestic product. The motor vehicle is so much a part of our way of life and so many people are dependent on its continued use that anything that changes the role of the motor vehicle in our society has a profound effect on hundreds of thousands of people.

It is healthy that this debate about the motor vehicle is continuing in our society. The resources it uses, the energy it absorbs, the rapidly escalating costs both in public and private expenditure, the inefficiency of the motor vehicle as a mode of urban transport, for that is what it has become, and most importantly, the terrible toll it takes in life and limb - more than 3,500 people killed and nearly 100,000 injured per annum - are all part of this debate. Ideally one would hope that the automobile could be replaced by another form of transport but at this stage of twentieth century man’s development such a hope is unlikely to be fulfilled. We have to face the fact that however much we may work towards replacing the motor vehicle it is with us for many years to come. It is refreshing, nevertheless, to see that all political parties are now recognising that the headlong rush of the post-war period to transform-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I think the honourable gentleman will have to come back to this Bill. We are discussing a specific clause in the Bill. We are not taking the Bill as a whole and I think the honourable member should come back to the clause.

Mr COHEN:

- Mr Chairman, I would have hoped that you would have allowed me the same latitude as you allowed the honourable member for Parramatta and the honourable member for Gippsland. I will take up some of the points that were raised by the honourable member for Parramatta. Specifically I want to refer to the question of the Newcastle bypass which he attacked as some form of pork barrelling. I find that one of the most objectionable statements that came from a most objectionable speech.

Mr Kelly:

– Oh, dear!

Mr COHEN:

– It seems to me that the honourable member for Wakefield is in a lighthearted mood this evening. I usually expect better behaviour from him in this chamber. I continue with the point I was making. The honourable member for Parramatta insinuated - not insinuated but stated clearly - that the Newcastle bypass is a form of pork barrelling. I point out to him that without any doubt the Newcastle-Sydney expressway is the busiest urban highway in Australia. Figures will prove that what I am saying is correct. That expressway connects 2 major cities of New South Wales. It is part of the main highway to Brisbane.

Mr Ruddock:

– It is leading to; it is not a bypass.

Mr COHEN:

– What the honourable member was referring to is in fact the Newcastle expressway which also feeds, as a transport route, into the major area known as the Central Coast. To refer to this project as a form of pork barrelling is a gross misunderstanding of what the Government is trying to achieve. 1 want to refer to the national highway system because under the previous Commonwealth Aid Roads Agreement, during the years 1971, 1972 and 1973, 47 per cent of the money was spent on rural roads. The Commonwealth Bureau of Roads recommended that this financial year we spend 59 per cent and the Government in fact proposes tc spend 61 per cent on this purpose. The Government has changed its priorities because it has decided that Australia at long last must have a national highway. The way some of the State governments’ spokesmen have screamed, one would think that building a national highway was a disadvantage to the rural sector of our community - not because country people would not benefit but because city people would benefit too.

Mr Nixon:

– I do wish to be tolerant, Mr Chairman, but the National Roads Bill has nothing to do whatsoever -

Mr COHEN:

– The honourable member for Parramatta referred to the Newcastle bypass and that is why -

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I ask the honourable member for Robertson to resume his seat. The honourable member for Gippsland has taken a point of order. I think he is as aware as I am that the honourable member for Parramatta ranged fairly widely in his remarks. The honourable member for Robertson has been replying to those remarks. I think the honourable member should remain fairly close to this Bill and I ask him to relate his remarks to this particular clause. I call the honourable member for Robertson.

Mr King:

– Which clause are we on?

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

– If the honourable gentleman who asks that question were to take note of the proceedings he might know. It is not my responsibility to tell him. I call the honourable member for Robertson.

Mr Nixon:

– I rise to take a point of order. My point is that there is no way in which the honourable member would learn from the speech of the honourable member for Robertson which clause we are on.

The CHAIRMAN:

– A member who is on his feet addressing the Committee has not the responsibility to tell other honourable members what clause is being debated. It is the responsibility of honourable members to be in the chamber and to understand what is going on.

Progress reported.

page 1026

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr Daly) agreed to:

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until tomorrow at 10 a.m.

page 1026

ADJOURNMENT

Secretarial Assistance for Members of Parliament - Cancer Research - Superphosphate

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

– I move:

I wish to take this opportunity to reply to certain statements made last night by the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron). In a pathetic expose of his puny minded approach to an outstandingly successful experiment initiated by me and directed towards the assistance of members of this Parliament, the honourable member for Griffith has continued his malicious attacks on me and on my Department. The honourable member had no need to do this when the Party which he supports was in government because it did not provide such services. Let me outline once again the facts of the, situation for the benefit of all honourable members.

The relief typing pool was established by me in order to provide extra assistance to members of the Parliament, both Senate and House of Representatives, in their electoral work. The pool is established within the Department of Services and Property. All appointments to the pool are made by the Permanent Head of my Department on the recommendation of the Chief Property Officer in each of the States. I have not been consulted in relation to any of the appointments. In making appointments no regard is paid to colour, creed or political Party. The allocation of stenographers from the pool is made by the Parliamentary Officer of the Department of Services and Property again without any reference to me, and allocations are made in order of receipt of request.

The pool is not able to cater for all of the demands made upon it and therefore some members have been, and will continue to be, required to wait until a stenographer is available. From time to time members of both Parties have approached me to seek preferment and I have directed them to the Parliamentary Officer of my Department but have not sought to intervene in his decision. It is true that in many cases stenographers have been allocated, strictly in order of receipt of request, to members of the Australian Labor Party. The reason for this is clear. As is demonstrated so frequently in the House, members of the Australian Labor Party have shown in this, as in so many other matters, a great deal more intelligence and foresight and have planned their work in such a way as to be able to forecast their requirements more accurately.

Now I will deal with the specific complaints. It is true that Senator Marriott of Tasmania rang me before the elections and was told that stenographers from the pool would be allocated in order of priority of receipt of request and in consequence Senator Marriott did not qualify for the allocation of a stenographer at that time. I understand there are two or three in that State. Senator Marriott did have the services of a member of the pool available to him on a shared basis from 30 April 1974 to 17 May 1974. Senator Lillico had the services of a stenographer from 6 April 1974 to 26 April 1974. I have had no complaints about the allocation of stenographers from the pool in Tasmania. I have merely heard it remarked that my Department must be regarded as scrupulously fair, since one of the stenographers in the pool in Tasmania was observed during the recent election handing out how to vote cards for a Liberal candidate.

Insofar as South Australia is concerned, requests were received from one member of this House and one senator. Those requests were subsequently withdrawn because the senator concerned proposed to retire and the electorate secretary of the honourable member concerned decided to remain at her post in view of the coming election. I turn now to the ‘blatant misuse of political power’ in South Australia. Senator Jessop is alleged to have said: ‘I had to roar like a bull to get help’. The roar of the Jessop bull did not make any impact on the Richter scale, I can assure honourable members. Indeed it was seen in my Department at Canberra as the cooing of a dove. Senator Jessop spoke to an officer of my Department in Adelaide who informed him that all stenographers were engaged. In an effort to be helpful he invited Senator Jessop to speak to the Parliamentary Officer of my Department in Canberra. The honourable senator did this, without histrionics and not in a belligerent way, but he did indicate that he wanted the services of a particular stenographer and his agitation stemmed from the fact that this particular stenographer was not available at the time. I might say in this context that I have instructed my Department that when honourable members and senators make use of the pool they will be required to take the pool member who is available, since all are extremely competent; otherwise members’ names will be removed from the list. It is clear that, no matter how one tries to assist honourable members, there are those who, like the honourable member for Griffith, by nature are ungrateful and by breeding spiteful and unappreciative.

Now I will deal with the case of the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay). What a commentary it is on the arrogance and the inverted snobbery of a member of parliament when his colleague can quote him as saying: ‘I spoke to some peanut and I had to put on quite a performance. It was begrudgingly given’. If the honourable member put on a performance, nobody noticed it. My Department has indicated, perhaps wrongly, that a request was received from the honourable member for Boothby in a temperate and courteously phrased way and he was given the assistance that he requested. In the case of Senator Jessop the assistance was given from 6 May 1974 to 17 May 1974 and in the case of the honourable J. E. McLeay from 6 May 1974 to 24 May, that is, during the whole period of the election. I might add that my Department has indicated that the honourable J. E. McLeay has had assistance from the pool equal to if not more than that available to any member of either Party since its inception.

The records indicate that in most cases where assistance was requested it was given and officers of my Department left no stone unturned to help honourable senators and members. Requests for assistance from members of the Government have been refused more often than those of the Opposition, because the former have sought to use the service more. Honourable members of the House will feel, as I do, a profound sense of disgust that a service which has been of such benefit to all sides of the House is execrated by the honourable member, who has demonstrated by his attacks nothing beyond the fact that he is unworthy to receive any such assistance. In his arrogant, intemperate way he has cast aspersions on those operating the pool in all States. Let him not complain if those on whom he has cast aspersions decline to work for him in the future. For my part, I would find it extremely difficult in view of his venemous attacks to issue instructions to those who might feel that he does not deserve the privileges which have been made available by this Government. And as for the ‘bull’s roar’ of Senator Jessop and the arrogance of the honourable member for Boothby, let me say simply that I am sufficiently acquainted with the officers responsible for this efficient service to know that they are unlikely to be intimidated and that they will give assistance, fully and freely where it is required and not on the basis of threats.

I should perhaps comment on the honourable member’s remarks in relation to the allocation of space in the Brisbane office to Senator Milliner. I said that I had not been consulted about the allocation of rooms in Brisbane. I repeat that. I repeat also that the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) has written to me but I am not in the habit of regarding representations to me as ‘consultation’.

I will table or I will incorporate in Hansard for the benefit of the honourable member, if he so desires, a table setting out the names of those members of Parliament who have had assistance from this pool since it was established. I point out that, since the relief pools were established in July 1973, 100 senators and members have used the services of the pools. The Australian Labor Party has used it on 45 occasions, the Liberal Party on 39, the

Country Party on 12, the Democratic Labor Party on 3 and independents on one occasion. So 55 per cent of the service has gone to members of the Opposition. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the name of every member who used the service.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Is leave granted?

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Only if the Minister can give assistance provided during election time.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for Griffith will resume his seat. I have just about had enough of his defying the Chair. The question is whether leave is granted. There is no debate.

Mr Kelly:

– We have not seen the document.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! There is no debate on the question. The question is: Is leave granted?

Mr Kelly:

– We have not seen it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I am aware of that. I am concerned only with what the Chair does.

Mr DALY:

– I am not concerned whether honourable members opposite grant leave for it to be incorporated in Hansard but it is a factual survey by my Department. I do not think many honourable members opposite share the views of the honourable member who made this attack. I know that there are fair minded honourable members on the Opposition side who know that this is a commendable service that would have been improved if the report of the Remuneration Tribunal had not been rejected. Tonight I place on record that fact. Any member at election time or any other time is entitled to receive this assistance if it is available.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Is leave granted for the incorporation of the document in Hansard? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows) -

Labor Party-

Armitage, J. L

Ashley-Brown, A

Bennett, A. F

Berinson, J. M

Brown, Senator W. W. C

Bryant, Honourable G. M

Cameron, Honourable C. R

Cass, Honourable M. H

Coates, J

Cohen, B

Cross, M. D

Devitt, Senator D. M

Doyle, F. E

Enderby, Honourable K. E

Gietzelt, Senator A. T

Gun, Dr R. T

Hayden, Honourable W. G

Hurford, C. J

Jacobi, R

Johnson, Honourable L. R

Keeffe, Senator J. B

Keogh, L. J

Kerin, J. C

Klugman, Dr R. E

Lamb, A. H

Luchetti, A. S

McClelland, Senator the Honourable D.

McKenzie, D. C.

Mathews, C. R. T

Morris, P. F

Mulder, A. W

Mulvihill, Senator J. A

O’Byrne, Senator J.

Oldmeadow, M. W

Poke, Senator A. G

Primmer, Senator C. G

Reynolds, L. J

Riordan, J. M

Sherry, R. H

Stewart, Honourable F. E

Thorburn, R. W

Whan, R. B

Wilkinson, Senator L. D

Willis, Senator L. D

Willis, R

Young, M. J

Liberal Party -

Bonner, Senator N. T

Bourchier, J. W

Bury, Honourable L. H. E

Cairns, Honourable K. M

Cameron, D. M

Chipp, Honourable D. L

Connolly, D. M

Cooke, N. M

Drury, E. N

Durack, Senator P. D

Edwards, H. R

Ellicott, R. J

Erwin, Honourable G. D

Forbes, Dr, the Honourable A. J.

Fraser, Honourable J. M

Giles, G. O’H.

Graham, B. W

Greenwood, Senator, the Honourable I. J.

Hamer, D. J

Howard, J. W

Hyde, J. M

Jarman, A. W

Jessop, Senator D. S

Killen, Honourable D. J

Laucke, Senator C. L

Lillico, Senator A. E. D

Lynch, Honourable P. R

McMahon, Right Honourable W.

McLeay, Honourable J. E.

Ruddock, P. M

Sim, Senator J. P

Staley, A. A

Street, Honourable A. A

Viner, R. I

Wentworth, Honourable W. C

Whittorn, R. H

Wilson, I. B. C

Withers, Senator R. G

Wright, Senator, the Honourable R. C.

Country Party -

Drake-Brockman, Senator, the Honourable

  1. C.

Hallett, J. M. Hewson, H. A. Lucock, P. E. McVeigh, D. T. Maisey, D. W. Millar, P. C. Nixon, Honourable P. J. O’Keefe, F. L. Reid, Senator D. D. Sinclair, Honourable I. McC. Webster, Senator J. J.

Democratic Labor Party -

Byrne, Senator C. B

Gair, Senator, Honourable V. C

Kane, Senator J. T

Independent -

Negus, Senator S. A

Mr DALY:
ALP

– I thank the House. I do not think the honourable members for Griffith does himself any good when as Minister, I am trying to do the right thing by members in providing staff and other facilities, attacks of an unwarranted nature are made in this way. I regret that the honourable member has seen fit to do it. If other honourable members share his view, they should let me know, because there is no need for them to take advantange of the service.

Mr McLEAY:
Boothby

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

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr McLEAY:

– Yes. The Minister for Services and Property used expressions such as ‘arrogant’. I forget the other words he used to describe me. I wish to say that my view is not one of reflection on the service, which is what the Minister implied. My only part in this whole debate is that I know that-

Dr Klugman:

– That is not a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! It is a personal explanation.

Mr McLEAY:

– The honourable member for Prospect does not believe in-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The hoonurable member for Boothby has risen on a personal explanation. I ask him to address the Chair and ignore interjections.

Mr McLEAY:

– The Minister said that I was arrogant and he used other adjectives which I do not blame him for using, but they are untrue. My part in this whole exercise is very simple. All I know is that two or three weeks or perhaps four weeks before the election I could not obtain any extra secretarial services. I hope the Minister is listening. It was not possible to get any extra secretarial help. It was only by complaining very bitterly to someone here in Canberra that I was able to get that service. To that extent I would be critical of the Department of Services and Property, but it is not fair to say that I am reflecting on the service. For that reason I wish to record my objection to what the Minister said.

Mr DALY (Grayndler - Minister for Services and Property) - Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr DALY:

– Yes. The honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay) has just said that he did not criticise the service. I point out that last night the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) said in this Parliament, as reported in Hansard, that the honourable member for Boothby said he saw some peanut in the Department and then got assistance. That is a shocking thing to say, if he said it. My Department reports that he did not say that but the honourable member for Griffith said that he did. The Department said that he applied in a reasonably courteous way. The fact of the matter is that he is on record, through the honourable member for Griffith, as describing the person doing the job as a peanut, which is very disrespectful. The honourable member for Boothby, like anybody else, will get no preference. If staff is available at election time and other times he will get their services, but he should not expect preference. If he acts as he does I do not know why he is given anybody.

Mr McLEAY (Boothby)- Mr Speaker, I wish to make a further personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr McLEAY:

– Yes, I do.

Mr SPEAKER:

– It is on again.

Mr McLEAY:

– The Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) has really threatened me. He said that if I ever complain again-

Mr Martin:

– Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The honourable member is not keeping to the question.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! He is making a personal explanation.

Mr McLEAY:

– The Minister has threatened me and said that if I ever do again whatever I am accused of doing-

Mr SPEAKER:

– That is not a personal explanation. The honourable member can only state where he has been misrepresented.

Mr McLEAY:

– I am about to get to that.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I would like the honour-, able member to get to it because 3 honourable members are waiting to speak on the adjournment.

Mr McLEAY:

– The Minister threatened me at the end of his speech, and I think we should draw attention to this. He has threatened me and other members on this side of the House that if we dare in any way to complain about our treatment we will not get this service, that service or some other service. He has tried to put me in a position of criticising one of my own colleagues. He said to one of the honourable members who interjected

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for Boothby must realise that he can not make a personal explanation about what his colleague said. The honourable member says that he has been misrepresented by the Minister. I ask him to keep to that point and explain where he has been misrepresented by the Minister and not by what the honourable member for Griffith has said.

Mr McLEAY:

– The misrepresentation is simply this: Two or three weeks before the election I sought to have extra help from the pool of typists. I was told that all the typists had been taken up by the Labor Party. I do not complain about that. If I were in the Labor Party I would probably want to get them all, too. But I think that it is reasonable that we in the Liberal Party should get some also.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable gentleman is debating the question. A personal explanation is simply a means of explaining where the honourable member has been misrepresented in something that the Minister said the honourable member had said but which the honourable member claims he did not say or did not imply. He may make a personal explanation on that ground but he cannot debate the allocation of typists to the Labor Party or to the Liberal Party. That has nothing to do with it. The only thing the honourable member should be concerned about is where he was misrepresented. I ask him to keep to that point.

Mr McLEAY:

– The Minister implied that I had attacked officers of his Department. I have forgotten his words. I have them written down on the back of the blue business sheet.

Mr Staley:

– He said that you were an inverted snob.

Mr McLEAY:

– Is that what he said?

Mr Staley:

– I think so.

Mr McLEAY:

– The Minister used words that 1 do not even understand. I did not go to the same high school as he went to. I object to his words. I do not believe that I am an inverted snob or whatever he said I was.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I am not aware that that phrase was used.

Mr McLEAY:

– I think it was.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The only thing I am concerned about is what the Minister said tonight. If he said what the honourable member says he said, I did not hear him say it. I am concerned about where the honourable member has been misrepresented. Three honourable members are waiting to speak on the adjournment. The honourable member is taking up their time. They have been waiting all day to speak on the adjournment. The honourable member is taking time and debating the issue. I ask him to make out the claim finally that he has been misrepresented.

Mr McLEAY:

– I shall not waste any more of the time of the House except to say that the Minister’s Department - whether the Minister issued the instruction or not I do not know-

Mr Daly:

– I did not. I do not deal with the allocation of typists. I am a Minister; I am not an office boy like you.

Mr McLEAY:

– The Minister says that he is not an office boy like me. I found it impossible to obtain extra help just before the election. I had to complain to some person in Canberra quite bitterly about the fact that I could not obtain this extra help. I object to the reflections of the Minister, who described me as an inverted snob or whatever. I make the point that if we are approaching an election we are all interested in getting extra help to fight it, whether we are in the Labor Party or in the Liberal Party.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I think the honourable member for Boothby has had a fair go. I am asking him to resume his seat. He has made his point.

Mr DALY (Grayndler - Minister for Services and Property) - Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr DALY:

– Yes. For the benefit of the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay) I repeat what I said in my speech. The honourable member for Boothby, from 6 May to 24 May, during the whole of the election period, had assistance from the typist pool. I might add that my Department has indicated that the honourable member had assistance from the pool equal to, if not more than, that available to any other member of either party since its inception. For the full period of the election campaign he had the services of a typist from the pool. Yet tonight he says that he did not and could not get a typist. There is a word for that, but I cannot use it in the Parliament.

Mr McLEAY (Boothby)- Mr Speaker, I apologise, but I have to make a further personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– -How long is this going to go on?

Mr McLEAY:

– One second.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The House has been brought to ridicule by these personal explanations day in and day out. There are 3 honourable members waiting to speak on the adjournment. They have had their names on the list since prayers this morning. For how long is it to go on? Make it brief.

Mr McLEAY:

– The House has been brought into ridicule because the Minister has not spoken the truth. The Minister said that I had used the services of the pool for the whole of the election campaign. That is not true.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr McLEAY:

– 1 had use of the services for 1 week before-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! That is not a personal explanation. The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Mr McLEAY:

– Well, the Minister should not say that.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr O’KEEFE:
Paterson

– I want to raise a matter which is not controversial and which I feel will have the support of all honourable members in this House. It concerns the assistance that is given to cancer research in this country. This dreadful disease is claiming the lives of thousands of Australians every year yet the funds made available by not only this Government and previous governments but also by State governments for research into this disease are inadequate. Figures have been supplied to me by the Statistical Service of the Parliamentary Library concerning deaths caused by cancer in Australia from 1968 to 1972. They are alarming figures. Although advances have been made into certain sections of cancer research the figures indicate that the disease is not being arrested and that deaths from cancer are still on the increase. In 1968 this dreaded disease cost the lives of 17,292 Australians; in 1969 it was responsible for the deaths of 17,549; in 1970 of 18,315; in 1971 of 18,527 and in 1972, the latest year for which figures are available, 18,976 lives were lost. It was responsible for 16 per cent of all deaths in Australia. Although 25 per cent of the population contracts the disease at some time more than one-third of the patients are cured. Of the remaining two-thirds a large proportion can live a comfortable life for many years. In America and in Australia cancer has been shown to be the disease much more feared than any other disease.

Each Australian State has an official cancer organisation. Most of these organisations were set up by special Acts of Parliament many years ago. For example the Anti-Cancer Council of Victoria was established in 1936. Despite this fact, with the exception of New South Wales, funds have always been derived from voluntary service. What wonderful work these voluntary service institutions have done to assist in the eradication of this disease. During the 1950s interest in activity developed in public health education programs, in certain areas of cancer registration and in cancer research. Current expenditure in Victoria is now $250,000 a year, in New South Wales $125,000 and in Queensland $104,000. Each State has a public and professional education program, a research program and several States have a patient welfare program.

The State cancer organisations subscribe to a national federation - the Australian Cancer Society - which has limited funds for the purpose of co-ordinating the State activities and endowing certain national research programs. National cancer control has been seriously inhibited by lack of funds for basic research, for the application of research knowledge to the practical management of cancer, for public education and for patient welfare. The accent is on additional funds for cancer research. We spend millions of dollars in Australia on other projects which I feel are not nearly as important as this, yet when we examine the figures for cancer research they are a mere pittance when compared with expenditure on other projects.

Cancer organisations have had to concentrate on research and development activities of a limited nature and on forming nationally important policies - for example on the question of cigarette smoking - and they have not been able to adequately fund a number of areas which are of critical importance in the control of cancer. These include the training of young workers, environmental cancer, skin cancer in Australia, viruses and cancer, appli-cation of present knowledge to cancer man agement, professional education, social problems of cancer and health screening. We must make more adequate funds available for cancer research: It should be millions of dollars and not thousands of dollars. Figures indicate that in 1972-73 the Commonwealth Government made a grant of $100,000 for cancer research. I do not castigate this Government because governments before it also did not make adequate funds available. However I appeal to the present Government to make adequate funds available for cancer research in Australia in the hope that this dreaded disease may eventually be controlled. It is only by pouring funds in and getting good solid research going that advances will be made towards its eradication. Over the years members of this chamber have lost valuable friends from this dreaded disease about which we are all concerned. I appeal to the Government to make funds of a substantial nature available to help in this field.

Mr MILLAR:
Wide Bay

– I bring to the attention of the House once again the matter of the threatened removal of the superphosphate bounty at the end of the year. I do so because I am reluctant to accept that honourable members on the Government benches are determined to reduce vast areas of productive land in Australia to waste. To excite their imagination on this matter I introduce, as an independent comment, a short quote from the editorial column of the ‘Maryborough Chronicle’ wherein the editor simply states:

We can tell a story about a Burrum Shire beef producer who put 40 yearlings on to 4,000 acres of wallum country and inside 12 months has lost 18 from poverty. That happened 5 years ago. Today that same country is part of a developed area in the Burrum Shire where cattle to the value of SI. 25m flourish at stocking rates approaching a yearling to the acre.

The editor is very independent, as I can assure honourable members, and he also states:

Now any Federal Government that cannot see that such development - chiefly attributable to super - is not well and truly in the national interest must be a government in blinkers.

I do not seriously suggest that honourable members opposite want to lay the country waste but I have a definite feeling that they are acquiring an armour of indifference to some of the problems which, simply by their repetition, find a lack of response and therefore of responsibility. The wallum country referred to is an extensive band of country on the eastern seaboard. From the stocking figures previously mentioned honourable members will realise that it was fairly worthless country. It is described in general terms as bandicoot country. It offered a challenge. There always have been challenges in this country of ours, and there have always been people to respond to a challenge. The people came out to develop this land and to pick up the quite substantial challenge of bringing it into production. This has been done. Because the land was comparatively worthless in the first place it did not appeal to the regular day-by-day primary producer, but it did have appeal to large-scale developers. It was not coincidental that some fairly substantial taxation benefits were to be derived from their participation in this scheme. In due time this attracted the attention of the Government. It was so displeased that these developers appeared to be escaping the taxation net that it brought out a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. To save a calculated $S6m in taxation revenue the Government is now embarking on a course of action which could result in the loss of $100m a year in this country’s primary production. In the process of cracking the walnut with a sledgehammer the Government is sending many ordinary, longstanding primary producers to the wall.

In terms of the national estate and the national interest, this superphosphate bounty which is to be withdrawn, compounding the mischief occasioned by a recent market price increase, will reflect in the price of meat over the counter. This is what must be realised. I hope it will be of interest and concern to the Government to realise and to understand that the effect of the escalation in prices in the last 3 months has brought the standing price - this is prior to the recent market increase in the price of superphosphate - from a fertiliser component of 5.2c per lb carcass weight to 8.61c per lb. When the bounty is removed in December that same meat will have 10.81c per lb. The escalation in the cost of superphosphate has thus doubled its cost in meat. How much of this can be tolerated simply to save some taxation revenue which distresses the philosophy of the Government? In addition the Forestry Department engaged in substantial plantings of timber in the area. It applies an estimated 5 cwt of superphosphate to the acre. This project also must be seriously impeded. Some 35 per cent of the annual maintenance charge on these

Wallum properties is involved in fertiliser, and this calculation is based on Brisbane bulk prices, free of freight. The freight charge amounts to another $10 a ton.

Can the country afford this? The Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) suggested that he would consider the retention of 30 tons of superphosphate bounty to any primary producer. Honourable members will appreciate that 30 tons will service 200 acres, maintain 66 breeders. Quite clearly everyone must realise that this is not a viable proposition. There is not a living in it for an owneroperator who has that turn-off of cattle. The by-product of all of this is that the people who have contributed so much to develop these properties and to establish this very worthwhile Australian asset are now becoming unemployed. Out of gainful employment because, as this Wallum development project winds up, their services are no longer required. These people are Australians trained in Australia, particularly attuned to Australian conditions. They are men who have a big job to do in the future. The tragedy of it is that now they are leaving this country to go to other parts of the world where their services are sought and appreciated. Ironically the bounty coming from their efforts will mitigate against market prospects and opportunities for the Australian primary producer.

Mr Collard:

– How much land did you say that 30 tons would service?

Mr MILLAR:

– Thirty tons, at the rate of 3 cwt to the acre, will service 200 acres. I seriously suggest to honourable members that the time has come to put their philosophy aside and realise that, as I have said once before in this House, man must eat. While it is possible for some of us to get along with empty heads, there are very few of us who can get along for an extensive period with empty bellies.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

– I rise tonight to rebut a few of the extravagant claims made by some members of the Opposition about the emoluments provided by this Government for members of the Parliament. Quite blatant attacks have been made upon the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) in relation to some of the conditions which he has obtained for honourable members since he has been Leader of the House and the Minister responsible for improving the lot of honourable members in this place. It is a sad fact that it was the policy of the Liberal-Country Party Government, when it was in government in this country, particularly under Prime Minister Menzies, to keep the salaries, emoluments and conditions of members of Parliament at an appallingly low level. This was done because members of those parties - some of them anyhow - believed they were born to rule, the landed gentry with private incomes, able to come to this place and not need the emoluments that were given to them. They expected to become Ministers within a couple of years of arriving here. Why should they encourage anyone, they believed, from the middle classes to come here via the Labor Party, make this his profession, embark upon a career and receive a salary and emoluments befitting a member of the national Parliament. It has always been their conscious policy to keep down the emoluments, standards of accommodation and working conditions so that professional people and others in the Labor Party would not be attracted to the Parliament. They had the view that by so doing they would keep the standard of the landed gentry high in this place and that the only people who would be attracted to the Labor Party would be those who thought that a politician’s salary was great and who were receiving a lower salary before they came here. Of course, that plan falls down because people come to this place for reasons other than their own pecuniary benefit. They come here because of their interest in politics and in improving the lot of the Australian people.

But let us talk specifically about what this Government has done to improve the lot of members of Parliament since it has taken office. I came to the Parliament in 1969, 5 years ago. In those days Parliament House was particularly impoverished. My first 3 years were spent in a small room with another honourable member. We almost had to go outside the room to turn around. Some rooms had 3 and 4 honourable members occupying them, yet the Liberal-Country Party Government had no plans to improve substantially the accommodation in the building. This has been improved since we have been in government. We could not use the Commonwealth car pool readily. We were allowed to use a car to come to Parliament House, but we could not use a car to go to Canberra city. We could not leave the building. We could not ask for a car unless we wanted to go to the chemist or to a doctor or for some such dire reason. Honourable members had to stand outside and wait for a bus, while Minister’s secretaries moved all around Canberra in black Commonwealth cars. At one time we did not have a photo-copying machine. We had to put forward quite a lot of arguments before we got photo-copying machines from the Liberals, and the ones that we got were the worst variety obtainable. They would make only one copy at a time. Those machines have now been replaced. We now have machines that make multiple copies. These machines are provided for the use of honourable members in their electorate offices. Honourable members now have electric typewriters which they never had before. Previously we had the old clattertraps that used to vary by one-eighth of an inch in a line of type. We had those machines for many years. None of the office equipment was up to modern standards. The Minister for Services and Property has supplied all honourable members with dictaphones. Since this Government took office we have been granted a stamp allowance of $240 a year. We have had a substantial increase in secretarial assistance. Generally the lot of honourable, members has been improved.

The other night the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) attacked the Minister for Services and property. He particularly has been very well looked after since he has been here. During the last Parliament he had justifiable concern in relation to his future as a member because of the nature of his electorate. The former parliamentary retiring allowance scheme did not provide a retirement benefit for a man under 45 years of age. This meant that because of the nature of his electorate the honourable member would probably never be entitled to a pension. Since this Government came into office that scheme has been amended to provide that a parliamentary pension be paid to a member of Parliament who has served for 3 parliaments, the age qualification was disregarded. He was the one honourable member on the other side of the House who benefited specifically from that provision, yet he has the temerity to launch an attack on the Government.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 1035

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Canberra Agreement of 1947: Revision (Question No. 9)

Mr Snedden:

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

  1. Following the meeting of representatives of member governments in ‘Wellington from 5 to 8 March 1974, what proposals have been made for the revision of the Canberra Agreement of 1947 or its application.
  2. Did the Government of Fiji indicate reservations concerning some of these proposals.
  3. If so, what were these reservations, and to what aspects of the Canberra Agreement or decisions of the Wellington meeting did they refer.
  4. Did any other governments represented at the Wellington meeting express reservations along these lines; if so, which governments.
  5. What is the Government’s attitude on these reservations as expressed at the Wellington meeting.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

– The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the right honourable member’s question: <1) Pending a comprehensive revision of the Canberra Agreement of 1947 a Memorandum of Understanding was drawn up for signature by Australia, Fiji, France, Nauru, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, the United States and Western Samoa, the broad aim of which is to modify the Canberra Agreement of 1947 to reflect the changes in the Pacific in the 1970’s. The text of the Memorandum of Understanding will be published after signature. ‘(2), (3), (4) and (5) Reservations expressed by the Government of Fiji were subsequently withdrawn.

Australian Public Servants: Salary Relativities (Question No. 126) Mr Kerin asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Can he say what salary levels, at base and senior clerical grades, are currently paid by State governmental and semi-governmental authorities, e.g., State Railway Departments, City Councils, Electricity Authorities, County Councils, Water Boards, etc. <2) Given the $16 per week interim increase recently announced, are pay rates less or more for the Australian Public Service than rates currently being paid by a range of all comparative employers in part (1).
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) The factors which the Public Service Board relied on in reaching its decision were outlined in the press statement which was issued by the Board on 21 June 1974. I am informed that the Board took into account the rates of pay which were known to be applying to comparable staff employed by a range of public sector organisations of the type mentioned above. I am further informed that the new rates offered by the Board were behind the rates payable to comparable staff employed by some of the authorities listed above and were ahead of others.

Department of Health: Female Appointments (Question No. 118)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. How many women have been appointed to senior positions in his Department since 2 December 1972.
  2. Who are they.
  3. To what position has each been appointed, and what is the function of the position.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: i(l), (2) and (3) 1 refer the right honourable member to the reply provided by the Prime Minister to Question No. 97 on page 625 Hansard dated 24 July, 1974.

Amateur Sporting Organisations: Overseas World Championships (Question No. 40)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

  1. Does the Government provide grants to all amateur sporting organisations in Australia to assist them send Australian teams to world championships overseas.
  2. If so, what assistance has been provided, to what organisations, for what purpose and to what extent in each of the last 3 years.
  3. If not, how does the Government determine which bodies will receive grants for this purpose.
Mr Stewart:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation · LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. The Australian Government provides grants for fares assistance to sporting organisations sending teams to world championships overseas provided:

    1. they are sought by properly constituted national sporting associations;
    2. they are for amateur teams;
    3. the overseas competition is recognised and approved by the appropriate international body as being world championship.

The numbers participating in the sport in Australia are taken into account when determining the extent of the assistance.

  1. Assistance was provided as follows: to subsidise fares of approved Australian amateur sportsmen, women and officials to attend bona fide national and international events; under certain circumstances, to assist eminent overseas sportsmen, sportswomen and coaches visit Australia; to assist with administrative costs of conducting international events in Australia.

A detailed list will be provided in the Department’s annual report.

  1. Refer question 1.

Cocos (Keeling) Islands: Aircraft Stop-overs (Question No. 12)

Mr Snedden:

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

  1. Do United States aircraft engaged on supply missions, surveillance or similar operations in the Indian Ocean region use Cocos (Keeling) Islands as a staging point.
  2. Do the aircraft of any other nation use Cocos (Keeling) Islands.
  3. If so, what nations, and for what purposes do they use Cocos (Keeling) Islands in each case.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. In addition to United States aircraft during the last year aircraft from other nations used the Cocos (Keeling) Islands as a refuelling or overnight stop as follows:

Australian Development Assistance Agency: Staff (Question No. 135)

Mr Kerin:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. What is the current (a) Third and (b) Second Division establishment of the office of the proposed

Australian Development Assistance Agency, and how many of these positions are currently staffed on a permanent basis.

  1. How many (a) Third and (b) Second Division officers employed in the office:

    1. were transferred’ from the former Department of External Territories; and
    2. have been seconded from the Department of Foreign Affairs.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. –

(a)

  1. 163

    1. 154 transferred to the Office of the Australian Development Assistance Agency (b)

  2. 4

    1. 2 transferred to the Office of the Australian Development Assistance Agency

Army Officers: Commissions (Question No. 151)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. How many Army officers were on short service commissions as at January (a) 1973 and (b) 1974.
  2. How many officers applied for (a) extended or (b) permanent commissions during 1973.
  3. With respect to parts 2(a) and 2(b), how many applications were (a) accepted, ((b) rejected and (c) are under consideration.
  4. How many short service commissions are scheduled for decision during 1974.
Mr Barnard:
Minister for Defence · BASS, TASMANIA · ALP

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

(D-

  1. 681

  2. 634

    1. –
  3. The data sought in respect of officers who applied for extension of short service commission is not centrally recorded and is therefore not readily available. The information is recorded on individual records of service. In view of the magnitude of the task involved in extracting and collating this information by manual means, I feel it would be inappropriate for me to authorise the allocation of staff to undertake it.

  4. 124

    1. As no readily available record is held of the number of applications for extension of short service commissions, it follows that the information relating to the number of applications rejected could only be obtained by manual clerical effort which I do not feel 1 could support. However, the number of short service commissions extended was 150.
  1. The officers about whom a decision will be taken in 1974 have appointments due to terminate in 1975. Not all of these officers have signified whether or not they intend to apply for extended or permanent commissions and, therefore, the figure sought by the honourable member cannot be pre-determined.

Housing: Demand (Question No. 157)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice:

  1. Will he make available the detailed estimates prepared by his Department as lo the demand for housing over the next 5 years.
  2. If not, will be affirm that his public estimate that one million new houses are required to meet demand over the next 5 years is based on detailed research by his Department.
Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

Calculations by my Department on the level of home construction activity over the next 5 years now form part of an exercise in indicative planning which is the responsibility of an Indicative Planning Committee. It is expected that the Committee will examine the Department’s projections, which are basically demographic in origin, against the background of the likely future availability of building resources and that in the development of general dwelling construction projections, the initial Departmental calculations will be evaluated for feasibility and desirability both in social terms and in terms of a balance in the supply and demand for the resources of the building industry.

Foot and Mouth Disease (Question No. 186)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. It is understood that the outbreak of foot and and mouth disease in Brittany started on a pig farm.
  2. Can he also say whether or not the outbreak occurred because of swill feeding of remains of animal carcases.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. It is understood that the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in France, which started on 6 February 1974, did commence in a piggery.
  2. It is not known whether this outbreak resulted from pigs being fed swill containing meat scraps or other materials derived from an infected animal in an area where foot and mouth disease occurs. However, this is a commonly reported finding overseas when this disease breaks out in a piggery.

Department of Customs and Excise: Purchase of Patrol Launches (Question No. 199)

Mr Drury:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

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

  1. Has the Department of Customs and Excise placed an order with a Sydney firm for the purchase of aluminium boats approximately 50 feel in length.
  2. If so, what is the total cost of purchase.
  3. Were tenders called prior to placing the order; if not, why not.
Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. Yes. 2 x 45 feet aluminium patrol launches - Series 9210 from De Havilland Marine, Bankstown, Sydney, New South Wales.
  1. Tenders were not called for these launches. At the time the orders were placed, a contract existed between the Department of Manufacturing Industry and Dc Havilland Marine for the supply of six 45’ aluminium patrol launches to be given under the Government’s Aid Programme to the Philippine Government. The specifications for these launches were similar to those required by the Department of Customs and Excise. Public tenders were called before this contract was let.

It was not considered necessary to call public tenders again so soon after the Philippine tender and there were obvious advantages in both time and costs in the Department of Customs and Excise participating in the contract held by De Havilland Marine.

The question of whether or not tenders should be called was examined, by the Government’s Stores Supply and Tender Board and the decision was given that it was not necessary.

Certificates of Inexpediency were issued by the Delegate of the Treasurer exempting the Department of Customs and Excise from calling public tenders.

Africa: Assistance to Drought Areas (Question No. 221)

Mr Snedden:

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

  1. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to a statement by the United Nations’ Secretary-General that a form of Marshall Plan is necessary to provide assistance to drought areas in Northern and Western Africa.
  2. If so, does the Government support this proposal.
  3. If the proposal is supported, what action is being considered concerning the arrangements proposed by the Secretary-General.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. Yes. The Statement referred to formed part of a speech delivered by the Secretary-General at a meeting of the Permanent Inter-State Committee on Drought Control in the Sahel, held at Ouagadougou in Upper Volta on 21 February. The Statement was an appeal for additional emergency assistance to the six Central African countries in the Sahelian region most seriously affected by the drought - Chad, Mali, Mauritania, Upper Volta, Senegal and Niger. The appeal followed appeals in May and November 1973 by the Secretary-General and the Director-General of FAO for emergency assistance to the region.
  2. and (3) On 31 March the Minister for Foreign Affairs announced a cash contribution of SUS 100,000 to the Sahelian Zone Trust Fund established by the FAO Office for the Sahelian Relief Operations (OSRO). An earlier donation of SUS25.000 was given to OSRO in May last year. A shipment of 7,000 tonnes of wheat will be sent later this year to fit in with food grain shipments from other donors for distribution according to OSRO assessment of the needs of particular countries in the Sahelian Zone. Substantial aid has also been provided to drought areas in Ethiopia, where the total value of our contributions in the form of wheat, protein-enriched milk biscuits and vehicles exceeds $830,000. Consideration is also being given to further gifts of grain to Ethiopia, and the Government will continue to watch closely the situation in all drought-affected countries in Africa.

Computer Education (Question No. 241)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. Has he had prepared under contract a report on the requirements for computer education in Australia.
  2. If so, when was the project commissioned.
  3. Who is undertaking the project.
  4. What are its terms of reference.
  5. Has a report been prepared and submitted to him; if so, when.
  6. Does he intend to table this report; if so, when.
  7. What fees have been paid for the project.
Mr Beazley:
ALP

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

  1. to (7) There are two main areas of Australian Government activity in what might broadly be termed computer education.

Firstly, on the recommendation of the Australian Advisory Committee on Research and Development in Education funds have been provided to survey the existing uses of computers in education in Australia and to suggest options for possible future lines of development. The project was commissioned in November 1972 and is being conducted by a team of researchers headed by Professor A. Wearing of the University of Melbourne. Formal terms of reference are not specified but are represented by the aims of the study as approved by the Committee, namely:

  1. to map the educational usage of computing in Australia;
  2. to compare this usage with overseas developments;
  3. to develop options for future development in the Australian context; and
  4. to provide for the dissemination of the information resulting from the study.

A final report on the study has not yet been submitted but it is intended to table the report when it becomes available. Current expectation is that it will be tabled during the 1974-75 Budget Sittings. $12,500 in fees have been paid for the project to the end of July 1974.

Secondly, at the request of the Commission on Advanced Education a report is being prepared under contract with terms of reference covering the future needs for professional training at the tertiary level in computer and related studies. This project was commissioned in August 1972 and is being undertaken by Mr B. Smith, <a computer consultant of Canberra, and Mr B. de Ferranti, a management consultant of Sydney.

A final report has not yet been submitted but it is expected to be submitted to the Commission on Advanced Education by December 1974. Unless research workers plan to publish the results of their investigations, it is the practice of the Commission to distribute copies of the reports it receives to appropriate libraries. A summary of the results of investigations is included in the Commission’s Report which is presented to the Parliament. $40,500 in fees have been paid for the project to the end of July 1974.

School Children: Recreation Programs (Question No. 268)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

  1. Can he say what (a) after school and (b) school holiday recreation programs are being undertaken for children with (i) Australian Government, (ii) State Government and (iii) local government financial support.
  2. If so, what is the extent of the financial support in each case in terms of (a) buildings, (b) equipment and (c) staff expenditure.
Mr Stewart:
ALP

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

As part of their total activities many organisations involved in providing for the leisure time activities of our young people conduct after school and school holiday recreation programs. These include State National Fitness Councils, youth and community services organisations, sporting groups, local authorities, welfare agencies, schools and churches. Activities provided range from youth groups to camping and from sports coaching to coffee shops.

Many of these organisations receive Government financial assistance in one form or another. However no comprehensive record is maintained of the expenditure on after school and school holidays recreation programs.

Because of the lack of .any effort in this area by the previous Government there is of course a great deal to be done in providing after school and holiday programs. My Department is taking many initiatives designed to make facilities available and to develop programs for after school and holidays activities.

All three levels of Government are committed, to a greater or lesser extent, to the provision of recreational buildings, equipment and staff. For example, in 1973-74 the Australian Government allocated Sim for national fitness, $250,000 for national secretariats of youth organisations to enable them to expand their programs, and $3,995,327 for construction of recreational facilities.

While 1 am not able to provide detailed information from State and local authorities 1 can assure the right honourable member that moves being contemplated by my Department will see the development of new programs at the local level.

Roads: Sealing of Alpine Way (Question No. 270)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

  1. Has he pursued with the Government the question of the sealing of the Alpine Way as he undertook at the 15th Annual Conference of the Tourist Ministers’ Council.
  2. If so, what was the result.
  3. If not, when docs he intend to do so.
Mr Stewart:
ALP

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

  1. , (2) and (3) Prior to the 15th Annual Conference of the Tourist Ministers’ Council, the Minister for Transport, Mr Charles Jones, informed me in response to representations which I made, that the need for expenditure on developmental and tourist roads including roads into the Kosciusko National Park will be included in considerations in the review of the operations of the Commonwealth Aid Roads Act.

In introducing the Roads Grants Bill on 18 July 1974 the Minister announced that it is proposed to have a developmental category of roads comprising selected rural roads and that developmental roads will include, for example, roads of importance to the tourist industries.

I understand that when the legislation is passed it will be up to the State Governments concerned to submit construction programs to the Minister for Transport for consideration.

Department of Health: Training in Financial and Auditing Procedures (Question No. 418)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice: .(1) How many officers in his Department have been given some form of formal training in financial or auditing procedures used in Commonwealth departments in the last 12 months.

  1. What is the division and classification of these officers.
  2. How many of these officers were in operational as distinct from financial or accounting, positions in the Service.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) I refer the right honourable member to the reply provided by the Prime Minister in answer to Question No. 329 on pages 626/627 of Hansard dated 24 July 1974.

Department of Health: Officers concerned with occupational health and safety (Question No. 422)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. How many officers of his Department are concerned with aspects of occupational health and safety.
  2. What is the function of each of the positions which they hold.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) The Department of Health has sixtynine positions the functions of which relate solely to occupational health and safety. In these positions are employed: 17 Medical Officers providing overall direction, medical supervision and medical care in the nature of routine and special examinations and emergency first aid; 50 Sisters (Industrial) providing nursing services including routine testing, maintenance of records, rendering of first aid and minor emergency care; 1 Chemist and ‘1 Physicist providing specialist advice on and investigation into occupational hygiene problems ‘of the workplace, i.e. identification, measurement and control of hazards in the workplace.

Feasibility Study of Sports University (Question No. 450)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

  1. Who is undertaking the feasibility study to examine the construction of a sports university in Australia.

    1. What are the terms of reference of the study, and when is it expected that the study will be completed.
    2. Will a report be prepared for the Government, and will it be made public. i(4) Does the Government intend to send a task force to Europe to study overseas sport institutions.
    3. If so, who will comprise this group.
Mr Stewart:
ALP

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

  1. Composition of the group to undertake the feasibility study into a Sports Institute is presently being finalised. It is envisaged that the group would include a sports scientist, a respected coach, an educationalist, an architect or engineer, a sports medicine practitioner and a Departmental representative.

  2. The terms of reference of the study have not been stated specifically. However, I would expect the group to report on such things as:

    1. The need for an Institute in Australia;
    2. The functions, location and cost of any Institute;
    3. The courses which might be offered;
    4. Development priorities.
  3. A report will be prepared and it will be made public.
  4. Yes. Some of the group will need to study overseas Institutes.
  5. The composition of the study group going overseas has yet to be decided.

Commonwealth Brickworks (Question No. 433)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

  1. Has the Government made a decision on a permanent site for the Commonwealth Brickworks presently located at Yarralumla.
  2. Does he intend to expand the output of the brickwork with a view to it supplying the Albury/ Wodonga market.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

  1. The National Capital Development Commission has indicated planning agreement to a site which the Department of the Capital Territory will make available for Commonwealth Brickworks (Canberra) Limited in the Crace industrial area. A lease of the site will be offered to the Company.
  2. It is the present policy of the Company to modernise and expand its production sufficiently to retain its traditional share of the local market for clay bricks.

Government Recreation Officers (Question No. 457)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

  1. How many recreation officers does the Commonwealth employ.
  2. When does the Minister intend beginning a scheme to ask companies to use Government recreation officers in their factories.
Mr Stewart:
ALP

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

  1. At thisstage of recreation development in Australia there is a great diversity of terms used to describe persons employed to plan, direct or operate recreation programs, e.g., youth worker, social worker, sports coach, drama instructor, physical education instructor, etc. All these may perhaps be described in generic terms as recreation officers or recreation workers.

It is not possible to give a precise answer to the right honourable member’s question.

  1. I believe there is a need to have recreation officers working within industry. When such a scheme is implemented I would envisage that some companies would employ their own recreation officers and others would work on programs devised by properly qualified recreation workers employed by governments.

It will be appreciated that we face a shortage of qualified people in this field. However, my Department has taken initiatives to remedy this. The first training courses for recreation workers in Colleges of Advanced Education have commenced this year.

Sport: Australia Games (Question No. 452)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

Does the Australian Government intend to introduce an Australia Games.

Mr Stewart:
ALP

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

Recommendation number 40 of professor Bloomfield’s Report on ‘The Role, Scope and Development of Recreation in Australia’ stated that ‘the Australian Government encourage the Australia Games, along the lines of the Canada Games. This event could be held in those years between the Commonwealth and Olympic Games and could replace the various Australian Championships which are held in many sports’.

The Australian Government has no immediate plans to introduce an Australia Games. The proposal will be referred to the Australian Sports Council for their consideration.

Tourists visiting Australia (Question No. 453)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

  1. How many overseas tourists visit Australia each year.
  2. From which 5 countries do most tourists come.
  3. What was the estimated gross expenditure by overseas tourists in Australia in the most recent year for which statistics are available.
Mr Stewart:
ALP

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

  1. 472,124 in the year ended December 1973.
  2. New Zealand, U.S.A.. U.K., Papua New Guinea, Japan.
  3. $150 million in the year ended December 1973.

Details are provided in the Annual Reports of the Australian Tourist Commission.

Holiday Cottages (Question No. 454)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

  1. Does the Government intend to develop holiday cottages throughout Australia.
  2. If so, what will be the purpose of these cottages.
  3. Where will they be located, and what will be the cost of the scheme.
Mr Stewart:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) The Government has no plans to develop holiday cottages throughout Australia. However, I am concerned that the high cost of accommodation is preventing families on low incomes from taking a holiday. This matter is being studied by my Department.

National Aboriginal Sports Foundation (Question No. 475) Mr Snedden asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

What decision has the Minister taken on the request by the National Aboriginal Sports Foundation in Perth for grants totalling $63,915.

Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

As a result of the National Aboriginal Sports Foundation meeting in Perth on 17 December 1973, recommendations totalling some $85,000 were placed before me early in January for my consideration and approval. It was not possible to consider these recommendations within the 1973/74 funds allocation of the National Aboriginal Sports Foundation, but I asked the Foundation to identify the priority items within the recommendations up to the level of the remaining funds ($20,000), and approved the amended recommendations on 10 April 1974.

Aborigines: Purchase of Land (Question No. 493)

Mr Hunt:

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

  1. Is the Department of Aboriginal Affairs purchasing land for public purposes and for the use and benefit of Aborigines through the Department of Services and Property and using the provision of the Lands Acquisition Act in the normal way.
  2. Is this method being employed especially when properties are being purchased for Aboriginal companies.
  3. Is the device of establishing a company, with the Minister or public servants as shareholders; for the purposes of holding land, a method of getting around the provisions of the Lands Acquisition Act.
  4. Does it effectively achieve this result.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

  1. and’ (2) The Department of Aboriginal Affairs has not purchased land for ‘public purposes and for the use and benefit of Aborigines’. Land required for the establishment of Aboriginal economic enterprise or community projects outside Aboriginal reserves is purchased by the Aboriginal group concerned, with funds made available by the Australian Government.
  2. and (4) No. Grants provided for the purchase of land are provided to legal entities suitably incorporated as representative of the Aboriginal communities concerned.

Department of Aboriginal Affairs: Personnel (Question No. 499)

Mr Hunt:

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

  1. How many officers of the 2 former Canberrabased Divisions of the Department of the Interior which were concerned with Northern Territory affairs are now serving in the Department of Aboriginal Affairs.
  2. How many were invited to join the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and did not do so.
  3. In establishing a new Department of Aboriginal Affairs, did the Secretary of that Department seek to bring into his Department all available public servants with experience in the field of Aboriginal affairs; if not, why not.
  4. Was this valuable source of experience lost because the officers concerned had loyally implemented the pledges of the previous Government.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

  1. Ten.
  2. No invitations were issued. Departmental rearrangements arising from the implementation of the Administration Arrangement Order of 20 December 1972 were in the hands of the Public Service Board. Under these arrangements, the Welfare and Social Services Branch (comprising nine officers) of the Government and Social Affairs Division of the former Department of the Interior was the only branch of that department to become part of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs.
  3. The Department has sought since its inception to obtain the services of persons with appropriate experience and qualifications.
  4. No.

Aboriginal Enterprises: Shareholders (Question No. 494)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister representing the

Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. In how many companies funded by public funds (a) does the Minister and (b) do public servants in the Department of Aboriginal Affairs hold shares in their official capacities.
  2. What are the names and objectives of these companies.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

(1)-

  1. 3
  2. 6

(2)-

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: Safeguards Agreement (Question No. 536)

Mr Connolly:

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

As Australia was obliged, under the provisions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to complete a safeguards agreement by 11 July 1974 with the Government of the United States of America, will the Minister incorporate in Hansard the text ofthe safeguards agreement which was signed with the United States on 10 July 1974.

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

As required under the provisions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Australian Government concluded a safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency on 10 July 1974, for the application of NPT safeguards on safeguardable nuclear material within Australia. Under the terms of Article 23 of the Agreement, the application of Agency safeguards in Australia under other safeguards agreements with the Agency shall be suspended while this Agreement is in force”.

Pursuant to that Article of the Agreement, a protocol was signed at the same time suspending safeguards applied in Australia under an earlier agreement between the IAEA, the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States.

The texts of the Agreement with IAEA and of the protocol were tabled on 31 July 1974 and will also be reproduced in the Australian Treaty Series in due course.

Anti-smoking Campaign (Question No. 575)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Is he examining a radio and television antismoking advertising campaign.
  2. If so, what form will it take, and what expenditure will be involved.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: (1) and (2) No. However it is proposed to allocate a substantial amount for a print media advertising program having particular emphasis on education in tar and nicotine yields of cigarettes. Radio and television advertising does not form part of this National Warning Against Smoking Campaign in the 1974/75 financial year.

United Nations Security Council:

Paracel Islands Conflict (Question No. 663)

Mr Garland:
CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

Has the Government made efforts to enable the United Nations Security Council, of which Australia is presently an elected member, to meet and discuss physical conflict and loss of life on and near the Paracel Islands involving China and South Vietnam? If not, why not?

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

The Australian Government has made no effort to raise the dispute over the Paracel Islands in the United

Nations Security Council. As my colleague Senator Murphy, said in the Senate on 19 March (Hansard 19 March 1974, page 413), the Australian Government takes no stand on the merits of the competing claims to the Paracel Islands. This was also the position of the previous Australian Government (Hansard 26 October 1971, page 2555). In January 1974, the South Vietnamese Government, in a letter to the President of the Security Council, requested that the Council consider the dispute between China and South Vietnamese Government, in a letter to the discussions involving all members of the Council, including Australia, were held, the South Vietnamese Government withdrew its request.

Department of Foreign Affairs: Staff (Question No. 694)

Mr Peacock:

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

  1. What is the current total staff of the Department of Foreign Affairs.
  2. How many of these are Foreign Affairs Officers.
  3. How many of the Departmental total are serving overseas at present.
  4. How many of these are Foreign Affairs Officers.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. The total staff of the Department of Foreign Affairs as at 30 June 1974 was 4439 including 2589 locally-engaged employees overseas.
  2. The total number of Foreign Affairs Officers in the Department was 451.
  3. The number overseas was 3343 of which 754 were Australian-based staff.
  4. Of there 264 were Foreign Affairs Officers (including all Executive Council Appointees). The figures for Foreign Affairs Officers include 10 Executive Council appointees who are not career officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Political Asylum (Question No. 693)

Mr Peacock:

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

  1. What consideration has the Australian Government given to the question of political asylum.
  2. In what international discussions or negotiations relating to the question of asylum has Australia participated since 2 December 1972.
  3. When was each meeting held and where.
  4. What has been the outcome in each case.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

– The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question : (1), (2), (3) and (4) The Australian Government has been given considerable thought to the question of political asylum. Last year the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees requested the comments of the Australian Government on its draft convention on territorial asylum. The Australian Government informed him, when forwarding its comments, that it recognised the institution of territorial asylum and in principle supported the High Commissioner’s proposal for an international convention on territorial asylum. The draft convention on territorial asylum will be one of the matters for consideration at the United Nations General Assembly’s forthcoming session beginning in September this year.

Following last year’s events in Chile, the Australian Government has also given close attention to diplomatic asylum and in recent weeks has been engaged in discussions with a number of governments about a prospective initiative at the United Nations General Assembly’s forthcoming session. This initiative will have the aim of drawing attention to the need to codify and elaborate precise legal rules governing diplomatic asylum. I also refer the questioner to the answers provided by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to Senator Gielzelt’s question on Chilean refugees on 23 July 1974.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs wilt be making a statement on Australia’s proposals regarding diplomatic asylum when the Government has completed its present consultations with other governments.

Establishment of a Pharmaceutical Commission (Question No. 821)

Mr Hodges:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

In the establishment of a Pharmaceutical Commission to research, produce and wholesale drugs, is it intended that these operations be carried out by (a) the expansion of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, (b) the setting up of a new company or (c) the purchase of an existing pharmaceutical company or companies.

Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

The Government has announced its policy. When further decisions are made, they will be announced.

Australian Industry Development Corporation (Question No. 142)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Overseas

Trade, upon notice:

  1. On how many occasions was there an official board meeting of the AIDC in (a) 1972 and (b) 1973 and (c) the first half of 1974.
  2. What were the dates of each meeting.
  3. What was the average attendance at these meetings by directors during (a) 1972 and (b) 1973 and (c) the first half of 1974.
Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

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

These questions relate to matters of detail in the domestic affairs of the Corporation, upon which the AIDC is neither required nor expected to report. The AIDC Act contains normal provisions for conducting meetings of the Board including provisions dealing with the attendance of Directors which it certainly has not been necessary to invoke.

However, while the Corporation is not required to provide this kind of information, it is my understanding that the Board meets at least once a month and it would be most unusual to have anything but a full attendance at its regular meetings.

Australian Industry Development Corporation (Question No. 144)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice:

What was the return by the Australian Industry Development Corporation in each year since its establishment on (a) average capital and (b) year end capital.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

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

Information on the financial performance of the Australian Industry Development Corporation is published in the Corporation’s Annual Reports which have been tabled in the House and are available in the Parliamentary Library.

The reports contain full financial statements and extensive and detailed analyses of the Corporation’s activities in assisting and providing financial resources for Australian companies. This information is presented in a degree of detail which is unusual amongst development financing and investment banking institutions.

Commonwealth Serum Laboratories (Question No. 823)

Mr Hodges:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. What sum is proposed to be expended on the re-constitution of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories.
  2. When is it anticipated that the Government will move to bring about the re-constitution of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) The Government has announced its policy. When further decisions are made, they will be announced.

Drugs: Research (Question No. 822)

Mr Hodges:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. What sum is proposed to be expended on the setting up of an organisation to research, produce and wholesale drugs.
  2. When is it proposed to set up this organisation.
  3. Will the wholesaling of drugs mean the distribution of drugs produced to the retail pharmaceutical industry and to other wholesalers.
  4. Is it intended that general wholesaling of pharmaceuticals be carried out to include drugs produced by other private companies.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (l), (2), (3) and (4) The Government has announced its policy. When further decisions are made, they will be announced.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 1 August 1974, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1974/19740801_reps_29_hor89/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant