House of Representatives
3 October 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 2147

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 many citizens more, particularly single people and working wives.

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

National Health Scheme

To the Honourable, the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth-

That the proposed ‘free’ national health scheme is not free at all and will cost four out of live 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. byMr McLeay.

Petition received.

Baltic States

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:

Whereas the Governments of the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Canada and many European countries have not recognized the unlawful annexation of the Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania by the Soviet Union, it has been announced from Moscow that the Australian Government is now recognizing them as part of the Soviet Union. We wish to point out that according to United Nation charter these States are entitled to independence and their peoples to self-determination and beg that such recognition be disallowed.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. byMrNicholls.

Petition received.

Baltic States

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:

Whilst all colonial powers except the Soviet Union have granted independence and self-determination to all their colonies and dominions, and whilst Australia is in the process of granting independence to Papua and New Guinea, and whilst all previous Australian Governments have refused to recognise the Soviet Union’s right to the Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, occupied following a secret agreement between Hitler and Stalin, the present Australian Government has now extended such recognition contrary to international law and moral principles. The undersigned petitioners humbly beg Parliament to condemn such an action and to reverse the Government’s decision.

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

Petition received.

Australian Capital Territory: Self Government

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned residents of the Australian Capital Territory respectfully showeth-

  1. 1 ) That Australian citizens are already governed to an excessive extent, and to introduce machinery to provide selfgovernment for the Australian Capital Territory would exacerbate this situation.
  2. That the cost of providing self-government for the Australian Capital Territory will have to be borne by residents of the Australian Capital Territory, and that selfgovernment should not be instituted without consulting by means of a referendum those who will have to bear the cost.
  3. That any provision of self-government would be meaningless unless it received popular support from the residents of the Australian Capital Territory, and the measure of the extent of this popular support could be best obtained by means of a referendum.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House urge the Government not to proceed with the introduction of self-government for the Australian Capital Territory until the residents of the Australian Capital Territory are consulted, by means of a referendum, on the issue.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. byMrEnderby.

Petition 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.

Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology

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 Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology which has catered for tertiary needs of Melbourne for nearly 100 years is still without any location where students can gather in a social context.

That a properly constituted meeting of students supported the policy of the elected Students’ Representative Council that Union Facilities should be the First priority of the Institute.

That the SRC formulated a Definitive Plan that is an acceptable constructive and reasonable amendment to the present planning schedule at the Institute.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House ask the Australian Commission on Advanced Education to consider in their 1976-78 Triennium Report an allocation of funds to ensure the provision of Union Facilities at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology.

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

Petition received.

Universal 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 Universal Health Scheme is essential to the well being of all Australians, in so far as it will-

  1. Provide that all Australians irrespective of their means will have access to a high standard of health care.
  2. Every Australian will be automatically covered for doctors’ and hospital bills thus ensuring that citizens will no longer be burdened with additional psychological strains because of inability to meet the high cost of medical treatment
  3. It is committed, in principle, towards the ideal that an individual ‘s contribution to the cost of health services should be based on his or her capacity to pay- that people who derive the most financial benefit from our society should give the most for its support.
  4. It guarantees freedom of choice so that every Australian will be able to attend the doctor or hospital of his or her own choice.
  5. In the long term it will take the politics out of medical care and will thereby allow dedicated members of the medical profession to return to the occupation of their choice- the care of the ill and the prevention of disease.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will hasten to introduce this much needed scheme so that health care services in Australia can begin to function equitably, efficiently, and economically.

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

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 2148

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2148

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr LYNCH:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Acting Prime Minister. Does he recall telling the Parliament on 1 8 July that unemployment was insignificant and carefully under control? Does he recall stating 2 months later that inflation could be attacked without resorting to unemployment? I ask the honourable gentleman: How can he justify those statements when he was in receipt of official advice that unemployment would rise to 180,000, or over 3 per cent of the work force, as a result of Government policies? Will the honourable gentleman now be honest with the people and the Parliament and admit that unemployment is a weapon of this Government’s economic policy?

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-In a question of this sort I do not think it is altogether appropriate to impute dishonesty to me or to anyone in this place. I do not suggest that it is a breach of the Standing Orders but it is getting close to it. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is basing his questions on newspaper reports, as was his Leader yesterday, and those newspaper reports do not happen to be accurate.

Mr Lynch:

– That is what we are seeking to ascertain.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-I am telling the honourable gentleman that they do not happen to be accurate. The position is that unemployment can be a result of objective conditions. It can be a result of the way the economy operates, for a start, irrespective of what is Government policy. Much of the unemployment that has occurred so far is a result of objective conditions. It is the primary responsibility of the Government, one that we readily accept, to prevent objective conditions bringing about unemployment.

Mr Lynch:

– Does that mean the system is wrong?

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– You have already asked one question but if you would like to ask another I am sure the Speaker will give you the opportunity.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. I do not allow cross-examinations across the Table.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-It is the policy of the Government to use measures, including the Budget, to prevent unemployment and to ensure that it is kept to a minimum. That remains the policy of the Government. It has not changed and, in my opinion, we can succeed in keeping unemployment to a minimum. At no time yesterday in my Press conference did I suggest that any figure of unemployment that had been referred to the Government or any that had been used by me had been said to be the level of unemployment that would result from Government policy. At no stage was that said. When an economy such as our own reaches a peak in an inflationary boom- the 1973 peak was very high- the objective conditions are likely to produce unemployment. It is the responsibility of any government to keep that unemployment to a minimum. That is the position the Government takes.

page 2149

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN SECURITY ORGANISATIONS

Mr KERIN:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question to the Acting Prime Minister and refer to an article in the current issue of the ‘National Times’ wherein it is alleged that Australian security organisations took over some of the operations of the Central Intelligence Agency in Cambodia with the aim of de-stabilising the Government there in much the same way as the Government of Chile was recently de-stabilised. As the Australian Government now has an inquiry under way into our intelligence services- the inquiry is being held in camera- what assurances can be given to the public to establish that our intelligence services will in future act in Australia’s interests and with the awareness of the Government, as quite clearly the previous Government knew nothing of their alleged activities in Cambodia?

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– It is the practice of this Government, as it has been of all previous governments, not to give information about specific aspects of security. We maintain that position as did our predecessors. A comprehensive inquiry is being conducted by a very competent commissioner, Mr Justice Hope, into the security operations of Australian security organisations. It is expected that that inquiry will cover all aspects, including any possible operations of Australian security organisations outside Australia. I am not going to pre-empt that inquiry nor make any statement until the Government has a report from Mr Justice Hope.

page 2149

QUESTION

PARLIAMENTARIANS: WORKERS COMPENSATION

Mr JARMAN:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

– Is the Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in matters relating to the Public Service aware of the statement by the son of the late Sir Arthur Rylah, formerly Deputy Premier of Victoria, that, had his father been employed in private enterprise or been a public servant rather than a parliamentarian, Sir Arthur’s widow would have been entitled to workers compensation for his death? Is it a fact that if a parliamentarian and a public servant, the salaries of both of whom are paid by the Australian Government, are killed of incapacitated in the same car in which they are travelling in the course of their duties, the public servant would qualify for workers compensation but the parliamentarian or his widow would not? Will the Minister bring this matter before the Government for consideration so that parliamentarians are treated on a basis comparable to public servants and those employed by private enterprise?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Special Minister of State · KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-It is true that members of Parliament have no statutory right to workers compensation and accordingly if we examined the example the honourable member mentioned we would find that the member of Parliament would not be entitled to receive any compensation nor would anything be paid to his widow. However I believe the practice has been to make an ex gratia payment. That has no more weight than the fact that it is ex gratia. The real point of the honourable member’s question relates to why members of Parliament should be deprived of having any statutory right. I understand that this matter has been the subject of discussion in previous Cabinets. I know that my colleague, the Minister for Social Security, also was interested in raising this matter. I am not trying to pre-empt any attitude the Opposition might take to a Bill which will be introduced today entitled the National Compensation Bill 1974, in which specific provision is made for members of Parliament to be included in the compensation provisions of that Bill. So I would trust that the Opposition certainly would not oppose that part of the Bill.

The other factor is that the provisions of that Bill are not likely to be implemented for some period. There has to be some time for people to have a look at the legislation. It follows that perhaps something should be done quickly to ensure that there are some statutory rights for members of Parliament. The present position, I think, is that an ex-gratia payment on the death of a member would be limited to $14,500. As a matter of interest to the honourable member, in the New South Wales Parliament, for example, members have taken out cover with their own insurance company to provide for a compensation payment of a minimum of $40,000. They have made a proper use of the insurance facilities of that State. It seems that we are in the position here of either trying to find some insurance cover for ourselves or having to alter the existing Act to provide compensation for ourselves. I undertake to the honourable member that we will look at this matter as one of urgency to ensure that members of Parliament are no longer deprived the rights which are applicable to other members of the community.

page 2150

QUESTION

AVTUR JET FUEL

Mrs CHILD:
HENTY, VICTORIA

-Will the Minister for Minerals and Energy inform the House whether any increase in supplies of Avtur jet fuel is being taken by foreign international airlines at Australian international airports? If so, what are the reasons?

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

– The honourable member for Henty is correct in the import of her question. In fact, remarkable excess quantities of Avtur are being taken by international airlines. The case in point that I have is that of Pan Am. One recent Pan Am flight picked up 1 1,000 gallons of Avtur for a flight from Sydney to Auckland, which would normally have taken 5,000 gallons. We from time to time in my Department authorise the quantities of Avtur that are to be picked up by these airlines. We receive monthly returns. It would appear on the present trend that some 250,000 gallons of Avtur are being taken up each month in excess of proper requirements. It is a matter which we have raised with those concerned and it is a matter which we will pursue. The motivation for this action by the international airlines is a simple one. They pay less than half in Australia for Avtur than they would pay for Avtur for, say, trans-Atlantic flights. They have every incentive literally to stuff themselves with Avtur in Australia and to abuse our trust and confidence in them. There is a long standing arrangement amongst the various international airlines as to the quantity which ought to be provided and the terms on which it is provided.

page 2150

QUESTION

ASSISTANCE TO RURAL INDUSTRY

Mr HUNT:
GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister ‘s recorded statement from New York yesterday, as broadcast on the Australian Broadcasting Commission program ‘AM’, that Australia has the potential to supply the world with greater quantities of food, and his recognition that enormous capital will be required for that purpose, will the Government review its rural policies? Will the Government review its elimination and partial elimination of a number of taxation and capital investment incentives that were removed from rural industries in the 1973 Budget, following the Coombs report? Does he agree that investment incentives to the Australian rural industry are a means of encouraging the private capital investment necessary to meet the Prime Minister’s global aspirations, enabling Australian farmers to increase agricultural production to help minimise an impending world famine?

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-I am aware of the Prime Minister’s recorded statements and I am very glad that he made those statements in the world scene in the United States. I think they are extremely important. They indicate that the Prime Minister of this country is conscious of the tremendous role that this country can play in the production of foodstuffs.

Dr Forbes:

– Then why do you not give incentives to do so?

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– The honourable member already has had too much incentive, even at this hour of the day. He is terribly keen. I do not suppose anyone interjects more regularly than he does. The Government is conscious of this enormous opportunity for the production of food in this country. The honourable member who asked the question will know that we have had an inquiry into primary industry and that a Green Paper has been published. I think that Green Paper provides an excellent basis for the development of policies. I assure the honourable member that the Government is concerned to develop policies, guided by that Green Paper. At the earliest possible opportunity those policies will be implemented.

page 2151

QUESTION

SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY IN BRISBANE

Mr CROSS:
BRISBANE. QLD

-Is the Minister for Manufacturing Industry aware of the concern expressed as to the future of the shipbuilding industry in Brisbane and the role of Evans Deakin Industries Ltd in the industry? Can the Minister give an indication of the work available to Evans Deakin Industries Ltd and the efforts which the company has been making to sustain a viable shipbuilding industry in Brisbane?

Mr ENDERBY:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · ALP

-I thank the honourable member for the question. Concern has been expressed for many years about the shipbuilding industry generally. Evans Deakin Industries Ltd has indicated to the Department that it certainly is determined to continue in shipbuilding and that shipbuilding will continue to provide continuity of work for the company. At present Evans Deakin is actively seeking future work and is being selective in that regard. The company recently has handed over the tanker ‘Robert Miller’ to the Australian Government, which in turn has handed it over to R. W. Miller and Co. Pty Ltd. Evans Deakin is to complete the vessel for the Miller company, with the exception of the painting work. Evans Deakin is closely involved with the contractor during the painting. This work is expected to be completed by Christmas. The company is building the Santa Fe semisubmersible oil drilling rig, which will be completed by about February 1975. The company also is building 3 large barges which, I understand, also will be completed by January 1975. In addition, the company is pursuing the usual commercial avenues and ventures.

It may be of some interest to honourable members if I mention in this context that the shipbuilding industry is extremely well subsidised by the Australian Government. For example, during the last 5 years Evans Deakin received approximately $ 14.4m in subsidies from the Australian Government and during the last 10 years it received the sum of approximately $20.6m. In the industry generally, the level of activity is very satisfactory. For example, 71 vessels are on order or under construction, compared with about 39 in December 1972. There are 35 vessels out for tender, compared with seven in December 1972. My understanding is that in the last financial year about $30m in all was paid to the industry in subsidies.

page 2151

QUESTION

HIGHWAYS

Mr LUSHER:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I draw the attention of the Minister for Transport to the almost daily occurrence of serious and fatal accidents on the Hume Highway, the Barton Highway and other highways in southern New South Wales. Is the Minister aware that these accidents have been caused by the appalling condition of the roads resulting from incessant rains this year and serious flooding of the Murrumbidgee and other rivers? Has the Minister been advised of the availability of a hot-mix process which enables the laying of a 5-inch surface over a 22-foot road at a rate of 2,000 tons a day, covering 100 miles over a period of 6 months? Now that the Minister has assumed responsibility for national highways is he prepared to investigate this process or any other process to enable an immediate start to be made on the resurfacing of the Hume Highway in the affected areas? Will he support the payment of grants to New South Wales for the restoration of other affected highways in southern New South Wales?

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

-I appreciate the concern of the honourable member for Hume at the state of the Hume Highway. Like him I want to see the road repaired as quickly as possible. On the matter of the paving process developed by, I think, Blue Metal and Gravel Ltd, and called Bitupave, already the honourable member for Eden-Monaro and the President of the Senate, Senator O ‘Byrne, have spoken to me about it. I have indicated to them that if the company concerned is prepared to -

Mr Katter:

– What is this, a commercial? The honourable member for Eden-Monaro and -

Mr CHARLES JONES:

-Do you want to answer the question? You used to make a hell of a mess of answers yourself.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Interjections will cease.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

-As I said, I have already indicated to Senator O ‘Byrne and the honourable member for Eden-Monaro that I am prepared to look into the matter and I can give the same assurance to the honourable member for Hume. I am prepared to receive a submission from the company and talk to representatives if need be, about how the process can be used to improve the surface of that monstrosity of a road called the Hume Highway, between Goulburn and Albury. As to the restoration of the surface of the Hume Highway and adjoining roads, I understand that because they were affected by flood damage the Prime Minister has indicated that he is prepared to confer with the State Government with a view to restoring the roads as a flood restoration project. I do not know what has been done at a State level. The Australian Government has indicated that it is prepared to accept responsibility for major roads throughout Australia under the National Highways Act. We had a meeting last Monday week with State roads commissioners and officers of the Department of Transport to work out a program to handle national highways, road grants, and research. We left them with our ideas. They are to come back to us with an agenda of their choosing on a date of their choosing so that we can have further discussions as to when we will declare the roads national highways, how work will be carried out and how programs are to be interchanged. In the meantime we have indicated to them that they should continue with the works which they have in hand, with the exception, of course, of expressways such as the north west distributor in Sydney, which we are not prepared to go ahead with. On the matter of programs, we would like to have programs from them by 1 January next year. That gives them a matter of some 3 months to prepare their programs. We can then start working together on them. That gives the whole program of highways in this transition period. But I am still prepared to arrange and to take part in discussions on the reconstruction of the Hume Highway. But at this stage it has not been declared a national highway. However, we are still prepared to talk about it.

page 2152

QUESTION

NITROGEN FERTILISERS

Mr FULTON:
LEICHHARDT, QUEENSLAND

-Is the Minister for Northern Development aware of the substantial increases in the world price of nitrogen fertilisers and the growing difficulty of many developing countries to maintain levels of sugar and cereal crop productivity? What steps are being taken to ensure that sufficient supplies of nitrogen fertilisers are available to the sugar industry, the main user of nitrogen fertilisers in Australia?

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

– I appreciate the concern expressed by the honourable member for Leichhardt about the supply of nitrogen and for that matter other fertilisers to the sugar industry and other industries. I also share this concern because the trend today in the world is for there to be not only shortages of some types of fertilisers but very substantial increases in the price of essential fertilisers largely due to the increases in fuel prices. It would seem to me from an examination of the nitrogenous fertiliser situation in Australia that there is plenty of capacity to produce nitrogen here because the main basis of nitrogenous fertiliser is ammonia which is manufactured from reforming natural gas naphtha, or refinery gases..

Two investigations are being carried out at present by the Industries Assistance Commission. One relates to the bounty on the manufacture of nitrogen. The other, which is perhaps the more important, relates to an investigation into the subsidy on nitrogenous fertilisers- that is the subsidy which enables nitrogenous fertilisers to be made available to primary producers at the lowest possible prices. I believe that my views in respect of fertilisers are well known in this Parliament.

Mr Anthony:

– What are they? What about super?

Dr PATTERSON:

– I might say that they are also well known to the Cabinet. I do not think that the Leader of the Country Party ought to be too cocky; he needs to remember that it was his Government that took off the bounty.

Mr Anthony:

– We put it back.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will resume his seat. The Chair will not tolerate incessant interjections coming from the Leader of the Country Party each day. When any Minister is answering a question the Leader of the Country Party is firing interjections across the Table. The Chair will not tolerate it. I ask the right honourable gentleman to contain himself.

Mr Robinson:

– We want only the truth. That is aU.

Dr PATTERSON:

– I will give you the truth. It was the right honourable gentleman’s Government that took off the bounty on the manufacture of nitrogen. That Government did this in 1 970. It was the right honourable gentleman’s Government that also took off the subsidy on superphosphate in the 1950s. Yes, it restored the subsidy but it also took it off. That is a fact.

The question asked by the honourable member for Leichhardt is a serious one because there is no question that fertiliser is the life blood of Australian agriculture. Nitrogen, phosphate and potassium are the main elements but there are also minor elements. The application of phosphates in southern Australia has revolutionised agriculture there. This has been achieved by superphosphate, and subterranean clover which in turn manufactures nitrogen through nodulation. In recent years the legume, Townsville lucerne, together with phosphate is revolutionising pastures in northern Australia. Although the sugar industry is the main industry using nitrogen, honourable members may not be aware that in recent years something like 70 per cent of nitrogen utilisation is in industries other than that industry. It is being used in the wheat industry, on pastures and on other industrial crops. Therefore nitrogen is essential for Australian agriculture in the future.

Mr Robinson:

– And super is not?

Dr PATTERSON:

– I said that phosphate, nitrogen and potassium are essential to the life blood of Australian agriculture. Any action by State or Federal governments of whatever political colour they might be or by individuals that will allow the continuous running down of soil fertility can only be regarded as irresponsible.

Opposition members- Hear, hear!

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I ask the Minister to address the Chair and to be as brief as possible in his answer.

Dr PATTERSON:

-As regards nitrogenous fertiliser supplies, the Government is taking every action to ensure that nitrogen is available to all of Australia in sufficient supplies and, of course, at reasonable prices. On behalf of the Government, I can assure the Opposition that this action will continue.

page 2153

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Mr McMAHON:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. He will know that during the course of the last few days the Reserve Bank of Australia has issued a supplement to the monthly statistical bulletin in which it points out that, no matter what definition is used- the more restricted one relating to not only cash in hand but also current deposits with the banks, or the more generous one of the addition of deposits with the savings banks- the change in the money supply over the last -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The right honourable member for Lowe is giving information. I ask him to put his question.

Mr McMAHON:

– Yes, Sir. But the House has to know -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I realise that sometimes it is necessary to give information, but an honourable member should not take too long in doing so.

Mr McMAHON:

– This is strictly my opinion; it is not set out in the statistical bulletin. I thank you, Sir, for giving me the opportunity to correct the position. In my view there has been a reduction in the base money supply on a seasonably adjusted basis of between 12 per cent and 13 per cent.

Mr Martin:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order is that the right honourable gentleman is deliberately abusing and disregarding your ruling in still giving information and not asking a question.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! No point of order is involved. I ask the right honourable gentleman to put his question as briefly as possible.

Mr McMAHON:

– I wonder whether I could get the attention of the Acting Prime Minister, Sir.

Mr SPEAKER:

-He is listening.

Mr McMAHON:

– The Acting Prime Minister will know that, in the terms of normal monetary policies, a reduction of this kind is a prescription for disaster. Will he therefore give consideration to, first of all, ensuring that maturing loansCommonwealth bonds- are paid ofT, that we do not enter the bond market for the time being and that, in the international monetary field, we take off the 2 years and one day restriction on overseas loans and the residue of the variable deposits requirement? Knowing that these policies -

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr McMAHON:

– I have just asked a question.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The right honourable gentleman is debating the question. I have asked him to put his question. I have received complaints from both sides of the House about the small number of questions being asked each day. If the right honourable member persists with his present attitude, even fewer questions will be asked each day. I ask the right honourable gentleman to put his question.

Mr McMAHON:

– I will, Sir. I have put one already. I will put the second one now. Will the Acting Prime Minister, in view of the fact that current policies on the exchange rate are inconsistent -

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. Question time is no time to engage in argument.

Opposition members- Oh!

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The right honourable gentleman is -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Let me finish taking my point of order, if you do not mind.

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr Malcolm Fraser:

- Mr Speaker -

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Sit down. You cannot take a point of order while I am on my feet on a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister for Labor and Immigration will resume his seat and the honourable member for Wannon will resume his seat. It seems to me that every time the right honourable member for Lowe asks a question he spends about 5 minutes prefacing it. I ask him to put his question immediately; otherwise he will have to resume his seat.

Mr McMAHON:

– I am putting it, Sir.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Put it straight away; otherwise the right honourable member will have to resume his seat.

Mr McMAHON:

– I therefore ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he will now, in view of the fact that these policies are totally inconsistent with the statement -

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

- Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. The right honourable gentleman is starting to argue.

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr McMAHON:

-Will he now take up with Cabinet the proposal I now put that the present policies before the House be withdrawn and that policies consistent with the Liberal Party are policies which he strongly confirmed on ‘Federal File ‘ on Sunday night?

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-I think the right honourable member may be the most distinguished Treasurer in the House but he is certainly not the most distinguished asker of questions. That is his present role and it is in that role that I have to deal with his question. I think first of all that the figures he has quoted at the beginning of his speech, or question, were not accurate. I think he is not quoting an annual figure when he talks about a reduction in the money supply. The annual figure for the last financial year is an increase of 14 per cent in the money supply. This compares with an average of about 6 per cent before 1 972 and an increase of 20 per cent in 1 972, a year in which he had considerable responsibility for what was happening. I think that the increase in the money supply in 1 972 contributed very substantially to the inflation in Australia in 1973. The right honourable gentleman will know that the increase in the money supply in a year like 1972 would have a lag effect and would have a considerable influence in the year that followed. I have said before that the right honourable gentleman’s money policy in 1972 created a very serious problem for this Government in 1973.

Mr McMahon:

– Not with a disaster like today.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The right honourable gentleman has asked his question.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Since we have assessed the economy as one in which there is need for an increase in the money supply, I point out that since June of this year we have released $600m to the trading banks- $600m. When the right honourable gentleman has time to listen rather than to talk I am sure we will have a better chance of reaching agreement.

Mr McMahon:

– You must be honest.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The right honourable gentleman must contain himself. He has asked his question, now he is getting the answer.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-When he has time to study the figures which reflect the $600m I have just mentioned he will see that there is no decrease in the money supply but an appropriate increase. We have also reduced the variable deposits at the Reserve Bank to 5 per cent, a nominal figure, and the Government has not entered the bond market. I am sure the right honourable gentleman has noticed that. I think it is a question of very difficult judgment, very intricate judgment, to know just what increase in the money supply is needed. But the Government and the Reserve Bank and the Treasury have this matter constantly under review- each of the matters he has mentioned as well as additional matters- and I am sure that we will be able to gain a lot from the advice given to us from those sources; but I am not sure that we have been helped much by the policy of the Liberal Party.

page 2154

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Mr SNEDDEN:
BRUCE, VICTORIA

– I address my question to the Acting Prime Minister. How much more suffering will people have to go through, how much more unemployment will be created before the Government agrees to cease the credit squeeze? Why will the Government not increase the money supply? Why will it not bring down interest rates? Why will it not ease the liquidity crisis which is causing the private sector to lose confidence and causing it to reduce the supply of goods and reduce employment? Can the Government not realise that its mistakes are doing enormous social and economic harm? How can this Government declare it is the party that supports full employment, or supports low interest rates, or supports the development of this country? In the name of sanity, take the credit squeeze off now.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-I have found that the Leader of the Opposition in the last few days has been very happy, but his depression at the moment is only too obvious. I wondered what had happened to him when I saw him come into the House. Now I know- he has been reading the wrong documents. I mentioned in my answer to the right honourable member for Lowe that since June $600m has been released to the trading banks. Perhaps the right honourable member did not know that. I do not suppose any political party in this country has been so firmly dedicated to full employment as has the Australian Labor Party.

Mr Snedden:

– And unemployment has gone up another 25,000 or 30,000.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Full employment became a reality in Australia in terms of the White Paper on full employment in 1945. That White Paper became the basic document for the Chifley Government over a period of 4 years, in which the transfer of over 1 million people out of war industry and out of the armed Services was secured with very little unemployment. I have not hesitated to point out that the unemployment that is occurring in Australia today is a result of an objective downturn from a degree of inflation which is first of all world-wide and which is more intensive than it has been for many years. In those circumstances, because of purely objective conditions, a certain amount of unemployment occurs. The Goverment is committed completely, as distinct from an alternative in this nation, to the prevention of that unemployment. Everyone knows that a goverment drawn from the other side of the House would use unemployment to bring inflation to an end, would use unemployment to destroy inflationary expectations, would use unemployment to destroy the ability of the trade union movement to bargain effectively for increased wages. The policy of this Goverment has been to ensure that the real standards of the workers are maintained. The statistics show that average weekly earnings have risen more throughout the period this Government has been in office than has the cost of living, and at a greater rate under this Government than under any proceeding Government. (Opposition members interjecting) -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The House will come to order. There will be no more answers and no more questions until the House comes to order.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Although unemployment is a tragedy for every individual who finds himself unemployed, at the present time I think a considered opinion is that over 90 per cent of the people of Australia are better off right now than they have been previously in the history of Australia.

page 2155

QUESTION

BUILDING SOCIETIES

Mr MORRIS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Housing and Construction. Does the Australian Government propose action to increase funds available to terminating building societies? Will he ensure that any increased funds are made available to those areas in which there is greatest need?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Terminating building societies receive their support predominantly through the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. Under that Agreement some 30 per cent of the total allocations to the States is advanced through the home builders account which puts money out to a definable category of people, whose income is limited to 95 per cent of average weekly earnings, at an interest rate of 5% per cent. The Government has decided to break the nexus which limits the allocation to 30 per cent of the total allocation so that more money can be put out to terminating building societies under that Agreement, with the approval of the Federal Minister.

In addition to that, the proposed Australian housing corporation will make it possible for financial support or loans to be given direct to terminating building societies, and this will be done to the extent that the corporation is funded. I believe that if we had the corporation at this moment we would be able to render a very effective service to the housing industry which is in a state of downturn, the seriousness of which I do not underrate.

Mr Lynch:

– You can say that again.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I should not need to do so. It is regrettable that we have not had this facility- the housing corporation- to date because it will be possible under that corporation to monitor the housing industry on a regional basis and to put money out to areas where there is any lag in the building industry. In other words, it is the intention of the Government to maximise the building force and this will enable it to do so. The Leader of the Opposition gives his head a bit of a nudge. I think it is in desperate need of something like that. He may not be aware that the employment ratio in the building industry is still of a satisfactory nature. I do not know whether he realises that. He is obviously trying to convey the impression that there is a great crisis in the building industry. Our consultations with the trade union movement dispel that notion altogether. In fact the trade union representatives have made it very clear to me in conference as late as last Friday that they have not had cause for concern up until now. They say that unless we show some versatility and get more money into the industry there can be a crisis. Maybe the right honourable gentleman is not aware of that fact. But it is undoubtedly the fact that we have been effectively pursuing policies of full employment in the building industry.

Mr Snedden:

– Would you provide the figures?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order. The right honourable gentleman may not ask questions while a Minister is answering. The Minister will address the Chair.

Mr Snedden:

– I take a point of order. The Minister was speaking directly to me and I asked him whether he would provide the figures with which he was justifying his statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Minister will address the Chair and interjections will cease.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Of course we can make the figures available. They will show a reasonably satisfactory state. It is a patchy situation. (Honourable members interjecting) -

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I do not mind responding to this provocation to give some education to the honourable gentlemen opposite. Maybe they do not know that there is such bouyancy in the building industry in some parts of Australia that the governments are unable to attract tenderers. That is undoubtedly the case. I am able to put that unequivocally in my capacity as Minister for Construction as well as in my capacity as Minister for Housing. I can provide documentary evidence. So in reply to the honourable member for Shortland, I want him to know that the Government appreciates the role of the terminating building societies. If we had had the facility just referred to- the Australian housing corporationwe would have been able to get money out to the terminating building societies quickly when the housing commissions were unable to spend the funds we made available to them last year. They could not spend $25m of 4 per cent money. That indicates how buoyant has been the housing industry. We have recently concluded a year in which we have built the largest number of houses ever constructed in Australia’s history. At present we have under construction a higher number of houses than we have ever had before. It is our intention to take whatever actions are necessary to sustain that very satisfactory record.

page 2156

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Dr J F CAIRNS:
Acting Prime Minister · LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

- Mr Speaker, for the information of honourable members I present a report by the Industries Assistance Commission entitled ‘Glass and Glassware’, dated 23 May 1974, and copies of correspondence between the Chairman of the Commission and the Standing Interdepartmental Committee on Assistance to Industries. The report was forwarded to the Prime Minister on 20 June 1974.

page 2156

DAIRYING RESEARCH COMMITTEE

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

– Pursuant to section 16 of the Dairying Research Act 1972 I present for the information of honourable members the annual reports of the Dairying Research Committee for the years ended 30 June 1 973 and 30 June 1 974.

page 2156

AIRCRAFT CABIN INTERIOR MATERIALS

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Transport · Newcastle · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present the Department of Civil Aviation and Airlines Working Group report entitled ‘Aircraft Cabin Interior Materials- Flammability, Smoke and Toxicity’. Due to the limited number of copies available at this time I have arranged for reference copies of this report to be placed in the Parliamentary Library. Copies of a CSIRO report which forms an appendix to the one now being tabled are available on request.

page 2156

AUSTRALIAN TOURIST COMMISSION

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation · Lang · ALP

– Pursuant to section 29 of the Australian Tourist Commission Act 1967 I present for the information of honourable members the seventh annual report and financial statements of the Australian Tourist Commission for the year ending 30 June 1 974.

page 2156

COMBAT SPORTS

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation · Lang · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present a report on the interdepartmental committee inquiry into boxing and other combat sports.

page 2157

NATIONAL CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

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

– Pursuant to section 2 of the National Capital Development Commission Act 1957 1 present for the information of honourable members the 7th annual report of the National Capital Development Commission for 1973-74.

Mr Peacock:

– I seek leave to make a statement.

Mr Daly:

– What on?.

Mr Peacock:

– On the National Capital Development Commission report.

Mr Daly:
Mr SPEAKER:

– I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition who wants to make a personal explanation.

Mr Snedden:

– Do I understand that leave was refused my colleague?

Mr Daly:

– Of course it was.

Mr Snedden:

– Why was that?

Mr Daly:

– Because he never made any arrangements about it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Leave was refused. There can be no argument.

page 2157

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr Lynch:
Flinders

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr LYNCH:

– I claim to have been misrepresented during question time by the Acting Prime Minister (Dr J. F. Cairns). The House will recall that I asked the Acting Prime Minister:

Does he recall telling the Parliament on 18 July that unemployment was insignificant and carefully under control? Does he recall stating 2 months later that inflation could be attacked without resorting to unemployment?

In the context of those first 2 questions I then asked the honourable gentleman:

How can he justify those statements when he was in receipt of official advice that unemployment would rise to 180,000, or over 3 per cent of the workforce, as a result of government policies?

In his response to that question the Acting Prime Minister was critical of the alleged Press reports that, in fact, he had referred to a specific figure of 180,000. The whole tenor of the comments of the Acting Prime Minister, either by direct statement or by very strong inference, was that the Press report was incorrect and that, therefore, the basis of the question which I put in this House was incorrect and that, to that extent, I had misrepresented his position. In order to clarify the point I raised, and therefore demonstrate the accuracy of the question which I posed before this House, I will quote to the House from the transcript of the official Press Gallery reporting of the Press conference given yesterday by the Deputy Prime Minister. The following question was asked of the Deputy Prime Minister

Dr Cairns, on September 9 last year when interest rates were increased or at any other stage during -

Mr Martin:

– I take a point of order. My point of order is that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is entitled under the Standing Orders to state only in what manner he has been misrepresented. He is not entitled under the Standing Orders to canvass the issue.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Yes. The honourable gentleman will keep to the point where he has been misrepresented.

Mr LYNCH:

– I am not in fact speaking to the point at present, as the honourable gentleman would be well aware. I seek, however, to substantiate and to sustain the point of my misrepresentation by Dr Cairns, the Deputy Prime Minister, by a direct quotation from the transcriptthe Press Gallery copy- of his Press conference given yesterday. I hope that that is clear to the honourable gentleman. If he can bear with me for a moment, I will be quite brief in relation to the point that I am taking. I repeat the question that was posed to the Deputy Prime Minister:

Dr Cairns, on September 9 last year when interest rates were increased or at any other stage during the imposition of the credit squeeze which has been going on for quite some time now, did the Government’s official advisers make any estimate of the amount of unemployment likely to be induced by that credit squeeze? Have they at any stage lifted up the amount of the estimate or haven’t they given one at all?

In response to that question, the transcript reveals that the Deputy Prime Minister answered:

I think that I would have to answer that by saying that the Goverment ‘s advisers have said that any attempt to stabilise the economy by credit or by fiscal measures could result in unemployment. And I think they have always said it’s difficult to estimate how much. I think the view of how much has increased as the weeks went by and I would think that I wouldn’t be wrong if I said that about 180,000 was the highest figure that we ever heard specifically.

It seems to me that quite clearly the figure of 1 80,000 to which I referred in my question to the Deputy Prime Minister was an accurate reflection of what was in fact said at that Press conference and was substantiated by the transcript which has been provided by the Press Gallery.

Mr McMAHON:
Lowe

-I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr McMAHON:

– Yes, I do, Sir. In answer to the question that I directed to the Acting Prime Minister (Dr J. F. Cairns), he said that there had not been a fall in the money supply in the last few months. I would quote, Sir -

Mr Charles Jones:

– I rise to a point of order. When an honourable member claims to have been misrepresented he must explain where he has been personally misrepresented. The right honourable member for Lowe is referring at this stage to a disagreement between the Acting Prime Minister and him. The opinions of each differ as to what is the state of the economy and what the facts are. Therefore, it is not a case of the right honourable member being misrepresented. The question concerns his disagreement with the Acting Prime Minister as to the state of the economy and what the facts are.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have not heard the honourable gentleman yet.

Mr Charles Jones:

– I have heard enough to know that.

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr Charles Jones:

– It is the same as the last one.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will cease interjecting. The right honourable gentleman will be aware that he has to explain where he has been personally misrepresented. I do not want any debate to ensue now on who is right or who is wrong. The right honourable gentleman will explain where he has been misrepresented.

Mr McMAHON:

– The misrepresentation centres on the fact that I stated that there had been a reduction in the money supply. The fact is that if one cares to look at the figures one will see that on a seasonally adjusted basis- and this is authoritative- on either the broad or restricted definition, the reduction in the money supply was 13.2 per cent or 12 per cent. Those are the exact figures on a seasonally adjusted basis.

page 2158

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr Daly) agreed to:

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, IS October, at half past 10 o’clock a.m. or such time thereafter as Mr Speaker may take the chair, unless Mr Speaker shall, by telegram addressed to each member of the House, fix an earlier day of meeting.

page 2158

GRIEVANCE DEBATE

Mr Georgi Ermolenko ;Radio and Television Repair Services ;Fuel Shortages- Surf Life Saving Movement- Nursing Homes CyprusBrandy Industry -The ParliamentHousing: Western Australia

Question proposed:

That grievances be noted.

Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

-The House will be aware of the notice of motion that I gave in the House at the one-day sitting some weeks ago. It was in effect, a motion of censure of the Government and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee). The Government did not provide the necessary time to allow debate to ensue, which would have been the usual practice and which it is entitled to do under the Standing Orders. The matter relates to the activity of and the attitude taken by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in relation to a young Russian violinist, Georgi Ermolenko, who was in this country. Members of the House will have heard or read about this matter in broad terms in the Press. This is the first opportunity I have had to raise the matter. I take this occasion- it is necessarily a brief one of only 10 minutes- to relate all the events which took place in some 4 days. I say to the Government that, if anyone suggests that what I am now putting is inadequate, I am prepared to put forward to the House at little notice all the details at my disposal if the time is provided later.

My part in this matter can be stated fairly simply. I was informed at about 12.30 on Sunday, 14 August, that a young Russian violinist had said that he wanted to stay in Australia and did not want to return with the other Russians on an aircraft which was to leave at approximately 2.30 that very afternoon. I satisfied myself in the conversation which took place, that there was some basis for believing that this was true. I rang the Commonwealth Police and Customs officials, who act for the Department of Labor and Immigration when someone is leaving the country. I was informed that when the young man went to the airport- indeed, at this point he had already left for the airport- he would be in the company of certain persons with whom he had been associated in the previous week at the University of Western Australia. I was informed that those persons would see whether he wanted to stay. I subsequently learned that he had indicated that he wanted to stay; that the Commonwealth Police at the Perth Airport had made available a room for him; that he had left the airport; and that thereupon the other Russians who had been accompanying him had decided not to join him. Even in the limited time available to me this morning I shall repeat my notice of motion to the House. It reads:

That the Minister for Foreign Affairs be censured and the Prime Minister call for him to resign because of his indifference or negation of human rights in Australia as exemplified by his actions in the matter relating to Georgi Ermolenko, the Russian violinist who, being an adult, while in Australia subject to the full protection of Australian law made known to the Rev. Lance Johnson, Priest of the Church of England and sub-warden of St George’s College, Crawley, of the University of Western Australia, and the Rev. Borthwick, Priest of the Church of England and Tutor in Philosophy of the University of Western Australia, and Harold John Badger, Director of the Melba Conservatorium of Music, Melbourne, his desire to stay in Australia.

Whereupon the Minister

knowing on Sunday 1 1 August 1974, while he, the Minister, was in Perth, that Ermolenko wished not to return to Russia, failed to take steps to see he was fully protected.

knowing Ermolenko ‘s whereabouts, or having the opportunity to find out, failed to establish immediately on Sunday afternoon, evening, or Monday morning, the true and freely given wishes of Ermolenko.

allowed a situation to develop whereby the Rev. Johnston, Rev. Borthwick and Mr Badger (who were and are objective and truthful persons) were prevented from talking to Ermolenko, except much later at the airport for two minutes in company with all the Russians.

consistently accepted the views of the matter as presented by the Russian Embassy officials.

failed at any stage to acknowledge the facts relating to the first vital 30 hours of the case, now set out in affidavits of those involved.

Other reasons were given but I do not have time to read them out at present. The next information which I received, at about 2.30 on that Sunday afternoon, was that the Russian violinist Ermolenko had decided to stay in Australia; that he was in the company of the Rev. Lance Johnston; and that they were meeting the immigration authorities early the next morning. I assumed that he would make an application to stay in the country and that the Government would give consideration to that application. It was agreed by those to whom I spoke on the telephone that, if possible, the matter should be kept as quiet as possible since it would not, in that event, create such hardship for Ermolenko or for his relatives back in Russia if he decided to stay in Australia. However, it happened that the matter was announced on the Australian Broadcasting Commission News that evening and appeared in the newspapers the next morning.

At about 3 o’clock on the Monday afternoon I heard that Georgi Ermolenko had gone from the immigration office at 11 a.m. to the Parmelia Hotel, to which all the Russians had returned. I learned that he had been upstairs in the rooms for four hours and that the Rev. Lance Johnston and Mr Badger had been prevented by police, immigration officials and other departmental officials from actually seeing Ermolenko or indeed any of the other Russians.

Mr Wentworth:

– That cannot be true.

Mr GARLAND:

-That was true, and it has been fully documented since. I rang a representative of the Department of Labor and Immigration and the representative of the Department of Foreign Affairs in Perth, Mr Henne, to ask that they assure me that they personally had talked privately with Ermolenko and had received an assurance that he had changed his mind and wished to return to Russia. Let us not forget that when Ermolenko emerged from the immigration office in St George’s Terrace, Perth, he gave an interview to the Press. It is at present on video tape. He said, inter alia, in English that he wished to stay in Australia.

Separation was achieved in the hotel by the departmental officials as well as by the Russians. I was unable, between 3 o’clock and 5.30 on that Monday afternoon, in spite of three or four calls to the Department of Foreign Affairs in Perth, to get any assurance that representatives of the Department had spoken to Ermolenko privately and divined his real intention. Indeed, Mr Henne did not ring me, in spite of all the attempts I made and in spite of an assurance I received from an officer of the Department that Mr Henne would ring me. I was told that the aircraft was due to take off with Ermolenko and the other Russians at 6.20 that evening. At 5.30 I realised that I was being fobbed off. I went to the Perth Airport to find out the real facts of the matterwhether coercion was being used and whether the Government was co-operating. At that point- after more than 24 hours- I decided that the matter had to be made public. I think that is an important point. Senator Willesee, in his speech to the Senate on 18 September, tried to say that my statement to the ‘Pelican’ newspaper of the University of Western Australia that I had taken no public action was incorrect because of the conversations I had had quietly and without publicity with the Commonwealth Police and various departmental officers. Obviously no public action was taken by me, if one applies a proper interpretation of those words, because I thought that would be in the best interests of the man concerned and, indeed, of Australia’s policy. Those who were present were not a rabble or all louts, as the Minister said. He referred to dogooders. Now he is trying to say that he agrees with my assessment that the reverend gentlemen and Mr Badger were truthful and objective. The Minister made great play of potential violence at the airport. Students from the University of Western Australia were at the airport. I would hardly believe that most of those students would be supporters of the Liberal Party. There were representatives of Amnesty International and representatives of 3 unions who, I think, could fairly be said to cover the whole range of political views. The honourable member for Swan (Mr Bennett), who is in the chamber, was there, as were various departmental people and certainly a number of immigrants who formerly had lived in Eastern European countries. There was a pretty wide body of people. As for violence, noise and so on, I have heard far more noise in this House and in the Senate than occurred at the Perth Airport. Those people were concerned and they had a right to be concerned because the Government simply did not assure them and did not give any opportunity for them to satisfy themselves that coercion was not being used. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard some information on this matter: An article in the ‘West Australian’ of 15 August titled ‘Victim of a Bungle’; an article in the ‘Daily News’ titled ‘Ermolenko- the 24 hours that Changed a Lifetime’; and the remarks made by the honourable Ian Medcalf in the Western Australian Legislative Council on 20 August, all of which set out the facts in this case, some opinion but mainly the facts which I think it is necessary for the people of Australia to have an opportunity to see. If the Government will not allow me to have that information incorporated the people can draw their own conclusions.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Daly:

– No, I have not seen the documents.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Leave is not granted.

Mr MATHEWS:
Casey

-I hope that now that the Trade Practices Act is law the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) will take energetic action to stamp out the fringe operators in the field of radio and television repairs who have been allowed to batten on this community for so very many years. I hope that following the representations I have made to the PostmasterGeneral (Senator Bishop) the services of the Pink Pages of the telephone directory, which have so often facilitated these firms in the deceptions they practise, will be, if not withdrawn, at least severely modified and made conditional on the observation of basic ethical standards.

It is common at this time on Thursdays for honourable members to raise problems drawn to their attention by constituents. It is perhaps less common for honourable members to raise the predicaments in which their own families have found themselves from time to time. I take this course today only because I feel that an experience my own family had recently is one which many thousands of Australians have previously suffered and will go on suffering until something is done about firms such as Melbourne’s quite notorious Milleradio. The circumstances are these: A few months ago a television set in my home stopped working and my wife looked up the Pink Pages of the telephone directory to find a local repair man. She saw a local telephone number listed against a firm described as ‘Prompt TV Repairs’, in large display advertising. She telephoned the firm and a serviceman called at my home, looked at the television set briefly and advised her that it would have to be removed to a workshop so that a detailed investigation of the trouble could be made. He said that she would be given a quote for repairs within a few days.

After some weeks my wife rang Prompt TV Repairs at the number given in the telephone directory and queried the delay in the preparation of the quote. She was then advised that the telephone number given in the directory was simply the number of an answering service, and that the set had been removed to the workshops of Milleradio, more than 20 miles away in Prahran. She then rang the number of Milleradio which she was given and was told first that the repairs to the set would cost $60, secondly that there was a $24 fee for that quotation which she would have to pay regardless of whether the set was repaired or not, and finally, that if she did not go ahead with the repairs she would be obliged to go to Prahran herself and pick up the set.

The set was old and for a couple of months I thought that we would forget about it and leave it where it was because it was not worth $60 to have it repaired. But a week or so ago I changed my mind and we went and got the set, confirming at the same time the details I have just given. We paid the $24 and took the set away. We then telephoned a bona fide local television service man who came along, told us that his quotation was free and went ahead and repaired the set for $18.40. The set is now functioning satisfactorily. Having had this experience I looked up the reports over the years of the Victorian Consumer Protection Bureau. I found that in all but one of the reports made by the Bureau since it was established in 1968 reference has been made to Milleradio in the most unflattering terms. The 1968 report states:

In the year under review, 82 complaints were received against the firm Milleradio, and over the past 3 years, 234 complaints have been lodged against this firm.

The company was quite prepared to give quotes, but in many instances, these quotes were flagrantly disregarded. When consumers queried high quotations and demanded the return of appliances, they received accounts advising that half the quoted price would be charged for preparing the estimate.

The 1 969 report of the Bureau states:

In the year under review 337 complaints were registered, and of these, 197 were lodged against the firm Milleradio. Since the Council commenced operations in September, 1965, 431 complaints have been received against this firm. The public has complained about excessive over-charging, sloppy workmanship, extreme delays in the return of appliances, grossly inaccurate quotes and contempt for consideration of grievances.

The Bureau’s 1971 report states:

Although the Council has many times commented on the activities of the firm Milleradio, this firm continues to take advantage of consumers. The Consumer Protection Bureau has received a number of complaints against the firm and has referred them to the firm in order to obtain redress for aggrieved consumers. But the firm has continued to adopt an unreasonable stance in resolving these complaints.

The 1972 report states:

In the year under review 69 complaints for television repairs have been received against the Milleradio group whose registered office is situated at S50 Malvern-road, Prahran. The number of complaints received against all other television repairers throughout the State of Victoria amounted to 71 for the same period. The proportion of 69 complaints against Milleradio as against 71 for all other firms is an indication of the continuing gross disregard by Milleradio of all business ethics. The Council remains convinced that Milleradio is concerned only in extracting every possible dollar from a house-holder and that such service as is provided is only a means to that end.

The Consumer Protection Bureau in its 1972 report took the trouble to list the various names under which this firm Milleradio is trading. It is a very extensive list indeed, taking up more than half a foolscap page of the report. In the 1973 report, the last report available to us in the Parliament, the comment was this:

In the case of the Milleradio group whose registered office is situated at S50 Malvern-road, Prahan, the Council continues to receive many complaints and is convinced that Milleradio is continuing to take advantage of consumers on many of the repairs that it undertakes. This situation, as outlined in last year’s report, has not changed to any extent with the exception that the PMG Department has included a reference to ‘Milleradio’ in listings of service companies of the 27 trade names and S company names in the Pink Pages. Consumers will now at least be able to distinguish between this firm and other television repairers.

Unfortunately the Bureau was clearly too optimistic in this matter. I have looked up the Pink Pages of the telephone directory and have found that in all the very large and no doubt lucrative advertisements that are inserted there by Milleradio, the word ‘Milleradio’ is there in the smallest possible print. Very few people looking for a television repair service would read all the small print in an advertisement. They are looking for a name and a telephone number which is related by its code to the district in which they live. I have written to the Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop) about this matter, a matter which as I said at the outset concerns many thousands of Australians, suggesting that action should be taken. Either Milleradio is excluded from the Pink Pages of the telephone directory or its real name appears in type at least as large as the 27 trade names under which it advertises.

Mr O’KEEFE:
Paterson

– I want to raise a matter in the House this morning concerning the fuel shortage in both the coastal and inland areas of northern New South Wales. I refer in particular to the shortage of motor spirit and distillate which has existed for the past 3 months, and is causing great concern to the people living in these areas. Northern New South Wales is serviced with motor spirit and distillate from the port of Newcastle and industrial disputes in that port covering 7 unions have been one of the main reasons for the shortage. A number of industries have been affected by the fuel shortage. The wheat crop has been affected at a time when we want to produce as much grain as we possibly can. Irrigation for stock and crops by diesel engines has been seriously affected by the shortage. Land is now being prepared for the sowing of sorghum in the next few months. We need to produce as much sorghum in this country as we can. However, the preparation of the land for this crop also has been seriously affected. Transport, both rail and motor, has been affected. We have a situation where no trains have been running in the north because distillate has not been available for the diesel locomotives which haul the trains. This means that the carriage of goods and mail has been seriously affected. Also, pension cheques have been arriving a week late and other inconveniences are being caused.

Service station proprietors who have invested their money in the supply of motor fuel and distillate to their customers in many cases have been financially affected. I know of young people in my electorate of Paterson who have lost their life’s savings which they have put into service stations because of the rentals and wages that they have had to pay. These people have had to walk out of their service stations because fuel has not been made available to them. Also, the employment situation has been seriously affected in the petroleum distribution industry. Many thousands of people in northern New South Wales are employed in bulk depots, in service stations and in other areas of petroleum distribution. This situation is having a serious effect on many of the towns in northern New South Wales.

The Government is doing nothing at all to improve the situation. Inquiries made yesterday on the eastern seaboard revealed that Vh days supply of motor spirit was available. This situation has been brought about by the go slow tactics at the refineries at Kurnell and Clyde in New South Wales and the Amoco and Ampol refineries in Brisbane. Yet, as I said a moment ago, the Government is doing absolutely nothing at all to correct this situation. There has been a shortage of fuel for 3 or 4 months. Ample representations have been made to the Government advising it of the problems that exist. The Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) in reply to a telegram from me said:

I wish to acknowledge your telegram of 19 August 1974 concerning the current fuel crisis.

I have noted your concern and wish to advise that I am doing everything in my power to achieve a settlement in this dispute.

Absolutely nothing has been done. I wrote to the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) about this situation on 19 August. It took him almost 2 months even to reply to my letter. Rome burns while Nero fiddles. All the Prime Minister did in his letter of 27 September was to advise me of the situation at the port of Newcastle about which of course we already knew. He only sent me back the same information which we had relayed to him.

The unions involved at the port of Newcastle represent tugmen, fitters and turners, ships9 engineers, transport workers, storemen and packers and clerks. We have had situations in which work on the unloading of a tanker which perhaps had been going on for a few hours has been interrupted because fitters have gone on strike. The fitters have then decided to go back next day but after they have returned to work the storemen and packers have gone on strike. These are very serious matters of which the Government has been fully advised and is aware. Yet it has done absolutely nothing. I understand that most of the unions involved come under Federal awards. I thought that, if we made strong representations to the Government, the Government would take this matter up with the unions to see that some sanity was restored because the adequate supply of motor spirit and distillate is the life blood of country areas and the transport system in Australia.

A very serious situation could arise in regard to overseas tankers which service our 8 ports if these delays are allowed to continue. What tanker company or oil company would want to send tankers to Australia when it takes about a month to discharge their cargoes? We have had an instance of the ‘Caltex Wellington’, which is an overseas tanker, taking nearly a month to discharge distillate in the port of Newcastle because of the delays to which I have referred. Demurrage has been incurred by the company chartering this vessel. Inconvenience has been caused to the users of these fuels in northern New South Wales. So it is obvious that the overseas companies which supply Australia with 30 per cent of our distillate and motor spirit will think twice before they allow their tankers to come into our regions.

I ask that the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Overseas Trade (Dr J. F. Cairns) and the Cabinet take a serious view of this fuel shortage on our eastern seaboard and in particular in northern New South Wales. These Ministers should be aware of the reason the shortages are occurring in northern New South Wales and not in the southern part of the State or in other States. They should be able to put the finger on the cause and effect a remedy to support the economy of northern New South Wales by ensuring that supplies are made available. Country areas rely entirely on motor transport. Our farms are mechanised; the work is done by machinery. When the supply of fuel is short industries in these areas cease to operate and there is a resulting effect on the local economies and the employment situation. As I have said, the employment of thousands of people who distribute petrol through depots and service stations, and who are engaged in primary industries and in the great transport industries of our nation is affected by the supply of fuel. Therefore I put the fuel situation to the Government as a very serious matter. It is one that I hope will receive the attention of the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Cabinet Ministers.

Mr RIORDAN:
Phillip

– I wish to make a special plea this morning on behalf of the surf life saving movement of Australia. I give full credit to the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart) for the magnificent job that he has done in showing some interest in and concern for this organisation; nonetheless it is still urgently in need of further assistance. It is true that in 1973-74 an additional amount of $ 100,000 was made available on a dollar for dollar basis for surf life saving equipment to be purchased. That, of course, was in addition to the $50,000 which had been made available previously for administrative purposes. In the recent Budget that amount has been increased to $160,000 on a dollar for dollar basis for the provision of surf life saving equipment, and an additional $70,000 has been provided to help needy clubs and also for the purchase of power boats. That means that the total sum now being made available to the surf life saving movement in Australia is $280,000 as compared with the miserable sum of $50,000 which was made available under the previous Liberal-Country Party Government. It did not care too much about this very important aspect of life.

But, in spite of what has been done, more still needs to be done. The surf life saving movement has expressed great appreciation to the Government for its assistance. Those members of it in my area have asked me to convey their gratitude and thanks to the Minister for Tourism and Recreation for the job that he has done so far. But they do need additional assistance. I point out to the House that the maintenance costs alone of a power surf boat are $ 1 ,000 per annum. The equipment being used these days for the saving of lives in the surf is much more sophisticated than it was when surf life savers used necktoknee costumes. The equipment now being used includes the power boats of a very sophisticated kind, a helicopter service and up to date radio and telecommunications equipment.

The task is worth while. The surf life saving movement has been responsible for rescuing 200,000 people in the Sydney area. The Bondi club alone has been responsible during its history for pulling 10,000 people out of the surf. Many of those people might have perished but for the activities of those dedicated young men who risk life and limb for no other purpose than to give protection to the Australian community. Surfing is a recreational activity that is very beneficial. I suggest to the House that 1 0 minutes in the surf is better than 2 bottles of tranquiliser pills. Surfing is an activity that is very popular. But it is popular only because of its safety- a safety guaranteed by young men who serve the community. If some organisation could guarantee that no lives would be lost on Australian roads in the next year, I venture to say that the Government would say that no cost would be too great to meet its operations. If the surf life saving movement did not exist many thousands of lives would be lost in surfing activities around our coastline. The development of character and the development of youth are things that the Government has set out to encourage. The surf life saving movement has done a great deal in that regard.

My plea for additional assistance falls under 2 broad headings. Firstly, during May storms lashed the east coast of Australia, causing many hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of damage to all sorts of facilities, both natural and man-made. Included in those losses was surf life saving equipment. Through no fault of thenown through the very heavy ravages of naturethe surf life saving clubs are now confronted with thousands of dollars worth of debts to try to replace equipment which has been lost. So far they have received no assistance from the appropriate State authorities in restoring the equipment that has been lost. Even at this stage, so soon after the introduction of the Budget, I make a plea to the Minister for Tourism and Recreation to take special steps either to encourage the State authorities to make funds available or to make a special effort to have funds made available from Australian Government sources so that the beaches of Sydney and elsewhere will be safe for those who will use them during the coming surfing season, which will open on Monday next.

The other plea I make is in relation to club house facilities. Surf clubs have to find their own funds. They do that by levying fees and running raffles and other fund raising ventures. I suppose that the surf life saving movement is the only organisation that is performing an essential and highly desirable community service that has to pay for the right to do so. Sydney’s beaches would be unsafe but for the surf life saving movement. It is ludicrous to think that those who make them safe have to pay for the right to do so. The community should pay them, not the other way round. Let me tell honourable members about the sorts of costs involved. I will give just a couple of examples. The Coogee surf club needs to find $9,000 every year, the Tamarama surf club needs to find $8,000 every year, the Clovelly surf club needs to find $6,000 every year and so on. In fact, the cost of painting the club houses is very high. The paint on the buildings erodes quickly because of the closeness to the surf. The spray from the sea has a very disastrous effect on the paint on those buildings. Each time the Coogee surf club wants to paint its building, which is situated virtually right on the water, it has to raise $6,000 to do so. To put the club house at Bondi beach, which is one of the greatest beaches if not the greatest beach in the world, in reasonable condition will cost the Waverley Municipal Council $40,000. That Council had to establish a new complex at Bronte because some kind soul was responsible for it being burnt down. I am not being critical of whoever was responsible for that happening, because he did a good turn. The dilapidated, broken down, shambling old building which was there and which was a disgrace has been demolished because of an accident and a new one has been constructed in its place. That building cost the Waverley Council $180,000. The surf club section of it cost $52,000.

There is no reason why the councils in the areas in which the beaches happen to be located should have to bear the whole cost, because citizens from all over the Sydney metropolitan area use the facilities at the beaches on the north side and south side of Sydney Harbour. It is fundamentally wrong that the citizens who happen to live there should have to bear the whole of the cost. I make a plea to the Government to take special steps in this regard. The surf life saving movement needs to attract more and more young men, and one way of attracting them is to provide decent and reasonable facilities in which they may enjoy their recreation. There is also a need, with the introduction of new oxygen equipment, for more highly skilled professional instructors. I believe that the Government would do well if it were to give serious consideration to the subsidising of the surf club movement so that professional instructors could be available full time rather than reliance being placed on the part time instructors, medical practitioners and the like who give their services and time free of charge for this very important function.

I conclude by saying that the surf boys movement- that is, the one which deals with boys of from 5 to 13 years of age- is also deserving of some assistance from the Australian Government. I put this very sincerely and very strongly: The Australian community needs the surf club movement of Australia. It provides a remarkable and wonderful service. It is deserving of greater assistance than it is getting. I have made this strong plea on its behalf.

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I endorse the comments of the honourable member for Phillip (Mr Riordan), who was the previous speaker in the debate. Every time the surf life saving movement holds an art union in Queensland and sends me tickets I have no hesitation in buying an entire book of tickets and sending the money back because I recognise the great job that it is doing.

I have risen to speak on a subject of real concern at the moment to the people of my State of Queensland. I refer to an article in the Brisbane ‘Telegraph’ of Saturday, 14 September, headed ‘Queensland ‘s aged are worried sick’. It states:

Four thousand sick age pensioners in Queensland are living beyond their means.

The article goes on to talk about the plight of those persons who are living in nursing homes. I spoke on this subject in the adjournment debate on Tuesday night. I have endeavoured for some days to get the call during question time because this is a subject which I believe the Government and the Minister for Social Security are not facing in as responsible a manner as they should. For the record, we have in Australia some 54,420 beds accomodating people in nursing homes. In Queensland as at 30 June this year we had 8,340 beds. There are 2,192 State beds and 6,148 nongovernment beds. Those people who read the Queensland Press could not help but be aware of the concern which is being expressed in all directions in my State. There have been a number of letters to the editor in the Brisbane ‘Courier Mail’- letters from matrons, from the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden), a fellow Queenslander, and then a reply from the matrons, as well as a number of articles. The stage is fast being reached where because of the reluctance or refusal of the Minister to review the rate of subsidy paid to the pensioners many elderly people who are in no fit condition to do so might be faced with no alternative but to get out because they simply cannot afford the fees which are necessary to keep these nursing homes viable.

In 1972 the previous Government introduced a fee system or a standard weekly fee to assist persons in the various States. I know that the Minister will tell the House that it was a Liberal Government which introduced a system which had a variance of application in the amount of fee for each State. We readily concede that that is true, but a lot of things have happened in Australia since 1972. The economic stability that we previously knew is but a memory. Even in the last election campaign the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) in the Fitzroy Town Hall on 1 May 1974 said this:

The nursing home benefit rates introduced in January 1973 have been steadily eroded by increasing costs incurred by nursing homes. These costs have risen at a rate faster than living costs generally in the community. This has meant that, notwithstanding generous increases in pension rates, only a small proportion of patients are now adequately protected by nursing home benefits.

A little further on in his speech when referring to increases he said:

We promise urgent action on this matter.

The Minister for Social Security said that: ‘We promise urgent action on this matter.’ I ask the Minister at the table if I could incorporate those 3 letters to the editor and the extract from the speech in Melbourne of the Minister for Social Security.

Mr Daly:

– I understand the Minister for Social Security has approved of this, so leave is granted.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Leave is granted. (The documents read as follows)-

(‘COURIER MAIL’, 24 SEPTEMBER 1974)

As matrons of some of the most up to date nursing homes in Australia, we are dismayed and disgusted by the attitude of the Social Security Minister (Mr Hayden), towards patients in Queensland nursing homes.

Queensland patients obtain the lowest subsidy for any State in Australia. The only reason Mr Hayden gives is that Queensland has a lower standard of care and accommodation.

This is absolute nonsense. We nine matrons, who between us have 214 years of nursing experience, have nursed in several other States and we affirm categorically that our standard in Qeeensland is unsurpassed by any other State.

Mr Hayden is, of course, disadvantaged by lack of firsthand information. Mr Hayden, we and our nursing colleagues would welcome you up-dating your information by visiting for the first time one or more of our nine nursing homes so your comments on the Queensland nursing homes would be more accurate.

We also wish to stress we comply with your Commonwealth standards, both as to accommodation and care, so see no reason for your attack on State standards generally.

This letter is signed by the matrons of the nursing centres named.- Matron Griffiths (Annerley); Matron Hay (Broadbeach); Matron Cornwell (Bundaberg); Acting Matron Watson (Huntingtower); Matron Gilbank (Jindalee); Matron Barnard (Labrador); Matron Hughson (Mermaid Beach); Matron Perry (Mt Gravatt); Matron Lewald (Toowoomba).

(‘COURIER MAIL’, 26 SEPTEMBER 1974)

MINISTER’S REPLY

I am surprised and disappointed that a group of matrons from profit-making nursing homes should misunderstand my simple statement about nursing home standards set by State Governments (C-M Letters, 24 September).

It is an incontrovertible fact that standards set by the Queensland Government are not as demanding as in some other States, such as Victoria. i have said on a number of occasions that Queensland standards are good. But the standards of staffing and facilities imposed by other States are more extensive and therefore more costly for the homes in those States.

The matrons would know that the Queensland benefit rates are based, to a large degree, on their approved fee structures.

They would also know that their fee structure, which is lower in Queensland than other States, was drawn up by the previous Coalition Government.

No one has criticised the standards of care in Queensland.

If the spokesman and spokeswomen for the profit-making homes were to stop their carping and petty personal jibes and were prepared to submit a proper case in support of higher bed day subsidies, I would be only too glad to consider their claims.

I think the public would have noticed that I have refrained from reciprocating some of the nasty personal comments from people who claim to represent the profit-making homes.

Perhaps now they will produce a submission which would justify the Government increasing the taxpayers’ alreadyhigh commitment to supporting profit-making enterprises. Bill Hayden, MP, Minister for Social Security.

(‘COURIER MAIL’, 30 SEPTEMBER 1974)

In reply to the Social Security Minister, Mr Hayden (C-M, 26 September) we, the Matrons, wish to declare that we are in fact not the spokesmen for the private enterprise nursing homes, but are speaking on behalf of our patients.

Mr Hayden must be aware the patient subsidy helps the patients, not the nursing homes, therefore an inadequate subsidy hurts the patients, not the nursing homes. [Mr Hayden said (C-M Letters, 26 September) he was surprised and disappointed that group of matrons from profit-making nursing homes should misunderstand his earlier statement about nursing home standards set by the State Governments. If the spokesman and spokeswomen for the profit-making homes were to stop their carping and petty personal jibes and were prepared to submit a proper case in support or higher bed day subsidies, he would be only too glad to consider their claims.] Currently in our ten nursing centres all Tweed Heads pensioners are retaining a portion of their pension, but this does not apply to a single Queensland pensioner.

To stress this point, the average patient contribution for our 797 Queensland patients is $88.90 per fortnight, and for our 79 Tweed Heads patients $54.60 per fortnight.

This means on top of their pension of $62, Queensland patients have to find an average of $26.90 per fortnight, whilst the Tweed Heads patients retain $7.40 for the same period, a difference of $34.30 per fortnight.

The figures are calculated from the following: Average fortnightly patient contribution for each nursing home: Annerley (118 patients) $90.30; Broadbeach (93) $84.55; Bundaberg (59) $91.06; Huntingtower (75) $85.09; Jindalee (93) $91.17; Labrador (69) $84.85; Mermaid Beach (64) $83.30; Mt Gravatt (148) $96.96; Toowoomba (78) $84.31; Tweed Heads (79) $54.60.

We do wish to stress that without staff assistance 352 of our patients cannot afford these fees for any prolonged period.

Mr Hayden: Please come to the assistance of patients immediately, so there is no longer the need for us to continue with our ‘carping’, and this will prevent the need for our staff to continue with their present patient subsidy scheme.

Matron Griffiths (Annerley Nursing Centre), Matron Hay (Broadbeach Nursing Centre), Sr West-Oram (for Matron Cornwell, Bundaberg Nursing Centre), Acting-matron Watson (Huntingtower Nursing Centre), Matron Gilbank (Jindalee Nursing Centre), Matron Barnard (Labrador Nursing Centre), Matron Hughson (Mermaid Beach Nursing Centre), Matron Perry (Mt Gravatt Nursing Centre), Sr Phelan (for Matron Lewald, Toowoomba Nursing Centre).

NURSING HOME BENEFITS

Another of our new initiatives announced by the Prime Minister was that we will be increasing the level of Australian Government assistance for nursing home patients. When we came to power in 1972 we inherited from the previous Government proposals for new nursing home benefits arrangements that were authorised by the National Health Act 1 972 for implementation from January of 1 973.

As a responsible Government we proceeded with those arrangements but improvements are needed and we have been working towards both long-term and short term changes. In the short-term we have concentrated our review on the position of patients, giving particular attention to the equitability of the amounts to be paid by patients towards meeting their nursing home fees and to the position of homes conducted by religious and charitable organisations.

The nursing home benefit rates introduced in January 1973 have been steadily eroded by increasing costs incurred by nursing homes. These costs have risen at a rate faster than living costs generally in the community. This has meant that, notwithstanding generous increases in pension rates, only a small proportion of patients are now adequately protected by nursing home benefits.

In reviewing the levels of benefits to be paid we will seek to establish a situation whereby pensioners, in the great majority of cases retain $4 per week from their pensions and supplementary assistance to spend their personal needs.

A survey of nursing home fees conducted by my Department showed that after allowing for patient contributions based on the standard pension rate, benefits would have to be increased by the following amounts if the substantial majority of patients are to be adequately protected: New South Wales $5.60 a week; Victoria $18.20; Queensland $2.80; South Australia $13.30; Western Australia $3.50 and Tasmania $1.40. We will therefore increase nursing home benefits by these amounts.

We recognise, of course, that further increases in nursing home costs may occur before legislation authorising increases in these benefits can be passed. We will review the benefit needs of patients closer to the time the increases will be introduced so that all increases in costs that occur can be taken into account. We promise urgent action on this matter.

The rates of increases in benefits I have just mentioned are based on present nursing home costs and would involve additional Government expenditure of approximately $6m in 1974-75 in respect of Pensioner Medical Service pensioner patients.

Hospital benefit funds will be expected to increase their benefits by similar amounts for nursing home patients who are insured and the extra cost to the hospital benefits funds is estimated at $ 1.5m annually. There would be no necessity to increase hospital benefits contributions in the short-term.

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I thank the House. Mr Speaker, if I may return to the rates, and keeping the words of the Minister in mind, the figures show that from January 1972 the subsidy paid in Queensland consisted of a basic benefit of $24.50 plus, an additional benefit of $10.50. We have reached the stage where the basic benefit paid in Queensland is still $24.50 but the additional benefit has gone up by only $6.10 a week. It would be dishonest of me not to mention the fact that the patient’s contribution by virtue of pension increases has also risen in that time by $5 a week. But in the Minister’s own words, the cost of administering these homes has risen at a rate faster than living costs generally in the community. We have now reached the stage where hundreds upon hundreds of elderly people cannot meet the fees being set by the nursing homes to enable the nursing homes to remain open.

Despite the answer given by the Acting Prime Minister this morning to a question when he told us we are doing so well, we have reached the stage where the nursing staffs in many of these homes in Queensland have recognised that the homes are being driven into the ground and if these homes close the patients will have to be thrown out into the streets. The nursing staffs have recognised that this is an emergency and they have voluntarily forgone salary increases because they know that the homes simply cannot afford to pay the new salary rates. If the homes are forced to pay those salary rates they are going to have to close.

I make a plea to the Minister to cast aside his prejudices, to forget about the fact that there- are and have been a handful of nursing homes who have been, to use a fairly classic but expressive word, unethical. Do not paint every nongovernment or private nursing home as being an exploiter. As I said the other night, if you find a rotten apple in the case you do not necessarily tip out the entire case, but that is what the Minister is doing. He would dearly like to see the day arrive when there is no one other than charitable or government institutions involved in the care of the aged; but what he fails to recognise is that private nursing homes have supplied in the past a most necessary service. We have some 54,000 persons in nursing homes and 80 per cent of these are in non-government homes. The figures speak for themselves. A little compassion, even if only for the sake of the sick and the aged, is very much needed at this time.

Mr HURFORD (Adelaide) ( 1 1 ^^Government assistance to nursing homes is recognised as a very live issue and the form of politics in Australia is such that it is inevitable that the Opposition would make a lot of capital out of a very serious situation. I know it is serious. The very best nursing home in South Australia is in my electorate, the one that gives the highest degree of service in the way of rehabilitation. It is the Walkerville Nursing Home. Because it is giving so much more and therefore costing so much more it is in serious financial trouble. Unfortunately, at the present time the circumstances are such that the 79 patients at the home will have to be moved elsewhere on 1 1 October unless some further help can be given.

All I can say at this stage is that I believe some further help will be given very shortly, and that an announcement will definitely be made within the next 10 days, despite the fact that the Australian Labor Government has given a lot of additional help, from memory amounting to $26m of taxpayers’ funds, dating from as recently as 1

August. However I am also hoping that when the extra help is given- I repeat that I believe an announcement will be made within 10 days- that there will be a contraction as between the States in the amount paid. At the moment, of course, South Australia and Queensland deserve greater amounts per bed day than do some of the other States, which have a margin which was introduced by the previous Government. If these margins are deserved, it will be the job of the State governments to see that the necessary funds are available for those margins. If my expectations are achieved, I hope that my own State of South Australia and the State of Queensland will be particularly favoured by a Government announcement.

I think it is only proper to point out that the Government has agreed as from 1 January next to cover the deficits of all the religious and charitable nursing homes in Australia. I have heard from very experienced administrators in this field that they are extremely pleased with the plan being put forward and discussed right now for the take-over by the Commonwealth Government of the deficits of these wonderful institutions. So it is not as though the Australian Labor Government is ignoring a tremendously great problem in our country. I anticipate, I believe correctly, that further announcements will be made shortly. I am one who asked questions about this matter as recently as last week. The seeds sown by me and a lot of my colleagues on the Government side of the House- and I will not neglect to mention those on the other side who have also been drawing attention, as is their duty, to a particular problem in this country- are not falling on stony ground.

I rose in this debate to talk about my grievance, which is that political capital is being made out of a disaster which is not the responsibility of the Australian Government in any way. I am referring to the very tragic situation in Cyprus, which is causing a lot of worry and grievance not only to Greek people, particularly Greek Cypriots, but also to people in the Turkish community in this country. My grievance is against the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay), who is from my State. He has made political capital by releasing a statement to the Press. I am not aware that any newspaper in Australia took up this Press release because of its scurrilous nature, but apparently because the newspapers did not take it up the honourable member distributed it in the Greek clubs. In my electorate of Adelaide there are a number of these Greek clubs, and these fine citizens from Cyprus and Greece have drawn my attention to the statement by the honourable member for Boothby. Let me read some of it. The opening sentences read:

The present Federal Government appears to have no concern for the feelings of the Australian Greek Community over the plight of war victims in Cyprus.

The Greek Community in Australia is striving to raise more than Sim for the relief of the people of Cyprus but the Government can do no better than send a miserable $50,000 to the International Committee of the Red Cross.

The Whitlam Government . . . can only manage $50,000 for the 200,000 war victims on Cyprus … 40c per person.

And so it goes on in this vein. Let us just learn what are the facts about the Australian Government’s help for the Greek people in Cyprus- indeed for all the victims in Cyprus. There is no substance whatsoever in the accusation that Australia’s contribution to the relief of Cyprus victims was miserable and ignored the sentiments of the Greek community. Australia was amongst the first 7 countries to contribute emergency relief to Cyprus. Moreover, its donation of $50,000 was exceeded at the time it was made by only 3 other donors. Further, this amount by no means represents the total of our contributions towards helping to find a solution to the problems of Cyprus. Australia’s contribution to the peace-keeping force for Cyprus, for instance, is presently running at $450,000 per annum. That figure includes, of course, the cost of maintaining the Australian contingent.

The Australian Labor Government’s contribution is most generous when compared with emergency relief grants for similar cases which were made in the last years of the LiberalCountry Party Government. For example, the disastrous earthquakes which caused a great loss of life and extensive damage in Peru in 1 970 attracted only $15,000 from Australia. This contribution, of course, was in the time of the Liberal-Country Party Government. The flood disasters in Romania in the same year led to a grant of only $5,000 from Australia. The serious Philippines floods in mid- 1972 before the Labor Government took office, led to a grant of $20,000 from the Government at that time.

Australian assistance to Cyprus has by no means ended. The peace-keeping force mission is continuing and Australia will probably contribute to the relief of refugees through the United Nations High Commission for Refugees’ program which has not yet been fully worked out. Also, it was announced in the Senate and it has been announced in many other forms- in telegrams to me, for instance- that tremendous help will be given to private citizens in Australia by Australia’s national airline, Qantas Airways

Ltd, in sending goods- food and clothingcollected in Australia by fine citizens, both of Greek background and of other origins, for the relief of the distressed people in Cyprus. I refer to a telegram sent to me only last week by the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones), which reads:

Following my request Qantas have agreed to assist in transport of relief supplies to Cyprus and will carry supplies free of charge on a space available basis on its scheduled services. Goods will be taken off at most convenient point probably Athens. Onward movement of supplies to Cyprus will be responsibility of community leaders in Australia.

I interpose to say that this is already being organised.

National committees for relief supplies for Cyprus are located in Adelaide, Sydney and Melbourne and it is through these committees that transport arrangements with Qantas are to be made.

I draw the attention of the House and the people of Australia to the number of refugees in Cyprus. This information has been supplied by the Cypriot communities of Australia. They have divided the needs of the refugees into the various centres- -Kakopetria, Nicosia, Limassol, Larnaca and Paphos. There are 191,309 people who are in need, and of that number nearly 160,000 need food. I also have some statistics about the number who need shelter. Any citizens in Australia who can donate sleeping bags, bed sheets, face towels, children’s wear, knitting wool or any other commodities like these can contact the Cypriot communities in Adelaide, Melbourne or Sydney, who have details of the great needs of the Cypriot refugees. As I said, the Australian Government is helping through Qantas to supply these goods via Athens to the people in need in Cyprus. The raising of an issue like this as though nothing had been done about it is a despicable way of conducting politics in Australia. I deplore it and I grieve about it.

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

Mr GILES:
Angas

– I do not intend to comment very much because I do not know the facts in relation to the Press release evidently issued by my colleague and friend, the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay) amongst the Greek communities in Adelaide. I think it is awfully difficult to resist in these circumstances the temptation to take sides as between groups of people in one’s electorate. I do not intend to fall for that one today. But I must say in passing that the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) read out the first two sentences from the Press release and referred to them as being of a scurrilous nature. I do not have the full facts that he may have at his fingertips but, frankly, I could not see anything scurrilous about it at all. I expected some one-eyed abusive attack on the Government for one thing or another but that did not eventuate. The only attitude I can take is that I hope the Government will do more to assist in this situation and in any such situation that occurs. Nothing is more tragic than people of one country or one island being in the circumstances of a civil war. I think that all honourable members of this House will agree with me. Anything that the Government can do to assist the big effort of the Greek community- I am not knowledgeable about the Turkish community in Australia- will obviously be welcomed by all members of Parliament on both sides.

I think it is probably salutory for the House every now and again to hear from the member for Angas on the matter of brandy and the brandy industry. I do not know whether the House has yet absorbed the dreadful fact that growers, who are on very minimal wages or returns from their investment and for their enterprise because of the price control measures in South Australia which fix the minimum price of brandy grapes receive $70 a ton for their produce. Today the Government is taking in excess of $ 1 , 100 a ton of grapes used for brandy. There is something wrong in the state of Denmark when growers are hammered down to this level of return while the Government takes such an exorbitant cut of the cake that directly affects their interests.

In its misguided fashion the Government has said that there should not be any differential between the production of Australian vodka, gin, brandy and whisky. It has totally misassessed the position. If the demand for Australian rum were to fall it would not affect the grower of Australian sugar of which it is a by-product. If the demand for beer were to fall, to suggest that it would rarely affect the barley growers or the cereal growers of Australia would be a very wild assertion indeed. The same sort of circumstances can apply to other Australian spirits produced as a by-product of one industry or another. But this condition does not apply to the person who grows grapes for brandy production. His economic plight is a very serious one in some parts of my electorate today.

Let me read briefly one or two comments from the industry leaders that have recently been sent to me. The first is from Mr Angove. Honourable members will be aware of St Agnes brandy. I am not giving him free advertising when I say that it is probably the finest brandy in Australia, particularly as no brandy is produced in the Hunter

Valley electorates of my friends. Mr Angove said that the 94 per cent increase in brandy duty imposed in August last year had reduced brandy sales by 20 per cent He said:

This latest excise increase - that is the current one- amounting to 4214 per cent, plus sales tax at 15 per cent, making 49 per cent overall, was a total increase of 178 per cent in less than a full year.

Mr Lusher:

– What percentage?

Mr GILES:

– A 178 per cent increase in Government rake-off. He said:

Such savage treatment levelled at brandy can only be construed as intended to severely cripple the industry, grape growers, producers and distributors.

Brandy stocks at the Berri Winery and Distillerythe biggest single winery in Australiawere severely reduced by the bond store fire in February, but the company was nevertheless alarmed, according to Mr Lever, the general manager. He said that duty prior to the August Budget last year was $8 a proof gallon. This was increased to $15.58 by the August Budget and was now up to $22.20 as a result of the miniBudget.

Mr Lusher:

– What is the total increase?

Mr GILES:

– I have not added it up but, to recapitulate what I said a while ago, there was a 178 per cent increase in less than 12 months. When the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) opened the South Australian Barossa Co-operative’s new building a little while ago he advised growers to get out of grapes that could be used for brandy production. There was an interjection from the back of the audience which caused some amusement. Someone said that the only way you can make money out of brandy today is to burn it. It was a direct reference to the fire at the Berri Winery some time ago.

The situation is as serious as this. It is significant that the Government seems intent on maliciously destroying only one section of the wine industry. Amazingly enough- this has happened in more than one case and I have written evidence of it- a Minister writes and says: ‘ I hear you are in trouble. What can we do to help?’ Having knocked the man down and half killed him the Minister says: ‘What is the trouble, old fellow? Is there anything we can do to try to lift you up again?’ In most instances this is far too late I think it is probably becoming too late now for the brandy industry. One can only sit and watch in horror at what happens to an industry such as that of Mr Angove. He is typical of many. He has put his whole life into the art of produc-‘ ing a brandy comparable with the best brandies produced in the world. He has acquired this art over many years and now by the capricious whim of Government, uninformed of the implications of its actions -

Mr Kelly:

– Indifferent.

Mr GILES:

– One would hope that it was not indifferent. It is certainly uninformed. The Government is prepared to let this art which has been learned from experience over many years fall into disuse, to the complete disadvantage of this country which surely should be aiming in every industry possible to increase the knowledge, the know-how and the capacity of that industry, to update with plant and modern equipment. In the case of this industry and of many of the industries in the electorate of Angas which I represent, all these things have been given exactly the opposite treatment. They are short of capital to update and upgrade. In the middle of all this we have a marvellous little remark from the nice but ineffectual Federal Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) who says in answer to repeated requests from me, the honourable member for Barker (Dr Forbes), the Premier of South Australia and many others: The Government must have another look at it. ‘ We are getting too used to this sort of answer. The Government has another look but nothing ever eventuates. All I can do is join with the Premier of South Australia- I am not on his side very frequently- who said -

Dr Forbes:

– He is good on this, though.

Mr GILES:

– He stood and allowed himself to be counted on this matter. He said that the Federal Government had placed him in a shamefully difficult position. He expressed his sense of shame at what happened. I can only back him up on that point of view and ask the Government once again to reassess this position.

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

Mr BENNETT:
Swan

– I rise to speak in this grievance debate of the 29th Parliament because of the number of letters and other communications I have received from constituents saying that they hope that this Parliament will continue, that sanity will prevail and that the Parliament will not be curtailed in mid-stream as the previous one was by an election which cost more in terms of manpower, money, and lost progressive time than any industrial dispute in the nation’s history.

Dr Forbes:

– Will you table them?

Mr BENNETT:

– Public, reaction to these stop-go parliaments is one of disgust. I have taken the opportunity to send the text of the newspaper cuttings relating to private armies and matters of that nature about which people are complaining to the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and have asked for his comment. When that is available I will send it to my constituents in reply. The complaints are so many that I think a circular will be required. Perhaps that will answer the interjections. The reaction of people is that we should get on with government and that honourable members opposite should stop playing the man and start playing the game. Perhaps the interjector will take note of that point. I have my personal doubts about whether the wishes of the public will be upheld for already there is the indication that attempts will be made to continue constant elections until the Opposition wins what it considers to be the lottery of the ballot. Because of what has transpired over the last few months we have seen a general downturn in public respect for the Parliament. I am losing my respect for some honourable members in it- and what it stands for. The people are losing respect for those who practise the profession of politics. I do not say this lightly but arising out of my contact with people not only in my electorate but also in other electoratesI interpose to say that I travel interstate often and have wide contact with people in other electorates- I find that people are fed up with political allegations and counter allegations and the old saying: ‘Anything you can do, I can do better’. We should settle down to looking after the nation’s interests and not our own interests.

This Government has shown a consistency of purpose in its adherence to stated and published welfare policy no matter what the opposition. The Government is sincere. Indeed it was prepared to go again to the people soon after its election on its record to receive re-endorsement of its mandate. Above all the Government has demonstrated to those who had any doubts about what was said to be its lavish welfare program that such program would be implemented despite the desperate methods used within and without the Parliament to prevent its implementation. Any reversal of these policies by any antiLabor Government pressure groups, such as we have in this House, would mean that many people in my electorate would be adversely affected and many more in dire need.

Western Australia has had a long history of neglect in State Housing Commission areas, particularly in respect of maintenance works. Some properties have been neglected for so long that it is now claimed that it is uneconomic to repair them. People are expected to continue living in those houses. Had the properties belonged to other than the State Housing Commission the local shire councils would have instituted work orders or condemned the properties. Recently the Western Australian State Government retrenched maintenance workers despite the desperate neglect of some State houses. An unfortunate aspect of this situation is that the properties are allocated to tenants who have already suffered life’s setbacks and sorrows. They are deserted wives, widows, widowers, invalid pensioners and people who have been evicted from homes because of unfortunate circumstances. These people are not in a position to reject the neglected properties when offered them. In most cases such people are offered only one house; they have no choice. If a person refuses an offer he is expected to wait a further 6 months for another offer. If he accepts the offer he must wait 2 years at that address before becoming eligible for a transfer to better accommodation. These people have little desire to draw attention to themselves by public protest. In fact they comprise the least likely section of the community to protest at any level.

Some of these homes have leaking roofs, damp and collapsing ceilings and dangerous electrical wiring and fittings. Many are in dire need of painting. They have rusting roofs. Not only are these homes uninhabitable but also they lower the standard of the area in which they are situated. These areas are usually sufficiently depressed without having these neglected homes. Other residents are trying at their own expense, to maintain a reasonable standard of living. Many of their homes are of credit to them. The shires often contribute to the depressed state of these areas by persisting with the original and narrow roads, open stormwater drains and few, if any, footpaths. These areas lack playing fields. The theory seems to exist that the shires do not get sufficient rates from these areas to justify expenditure on general maintenance, rubbish removal and pothole repairs. The housing authorities are just as guilty as the shires for tolerating the situation. It is not sufficient to simply build meagre accommodation and then forget the tenants. I raise the issue here, for the disgrace is that the funds for the dilapidated buildings, the branch maintenance funds, originally were allocated by the Parliament to the State on the trust that it would look after the welfare of the State citizens- all Australian citizens. All Australian citizens should be treated equally and the Western Australian citizen should receive as much consideration as a citizen in another State. If the State is not performing the functions entrusted to it the Australian Government should take a closer interest in the welfare of neglected people.

I have raised this matter with the Federal Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Les Johnson) who has asked his Department to investigate neglected homes in neglected areas. In fact the Minister was good enough to personally inspect the area of Maniana in my electorate with me recently. Undoubtedly that area needs upgrading. Apart from the homes needing maintenance the area requires roads and footpaths. A large number of homes lack basic comforts necessary for aged and infirm people. Invalids are expected to use chip bath heaters. This may not seem a matter of great importance but it is of concern to a person who is incapacitated in some way. When such a person applies for a better facility he is told that no funds are allocated for this purpose. The national Parliament is able to supply funds for pensions, surely the State could make these homes habitable. Some attempt was made by the previous State government to clean up the backlog of neglect but the project was so vast that it was hardly under way when the new State government laid maintenance workers off despite the obvious need for their services. I am, therefore, pleased that welfare housing will be a priority of the national Parliament. One hopes that the shires which are undertaking regional redevelopment schemes and receiving Australian Government funds under the employment schemes will pay attention to these areas because this is a matter of urgency.

I trust that the State authorities will pay urgent attention to this matter particularly when it is already planned to institute a massive program of upgrading homes. If this work were undertaken there would be no unemployment of building workers in the Perth area. In all areas of maintenance work- painting, structural repairs and plumbing- there is sufficient work to ensure a continuity of employment for some time not in the provision of new homes but in making existing welfare homes comparable to the homes supplied by private enterprise. There are several housing commission areas which do not require attention. All I ask is that all people who occupy government housing be treated equally.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2171

NATIONAL COMPENSATION BILL 1974

Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KingsfordSmithSpecial Minister of State · ALP

– I move:

The National Compensation Bill 1974 will provide the framework for the compensation aspects of the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Compensation and Rehabilitation in Australia. Volume 1 of that report, dealing with compensation, was tabled in this Parliament on 10 July 1974. 1 tabled Volume 2, dealing with rehabilitation and safety, in this House last Thursday, 26 September. I feel constrained to point out at this stage that, so far as the total report is concerned, the Government and the Committee itself place primary emphasis on the matters contained in Volume 2, namely, safety and rehabilitation, rather than compensation, which is dealt with in Volume 1 , and is the subject of the present Bill.

I should like to pay tribute to the work of the Chairman of the Committee of Inquiry, the Right Honourable Sir Owen Woodhouse, D.S.C., of the New Zealand Court of Appeal, and to his learned colleague, the Honourable Mr Justice C. L. D. Meares, of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, who is also Chairman of the New South Wales Law Reform Commission. These gentlemen have performed a most admirable task and presented to the Government a scholarly and challenging report for which we are in their debt. The Government is grateful for the co-operation and assistance of the Governments of New Zealand and the State of New South Wales in making available their services.

The Bill now before the House introduces a social measure of great significance. This Bill is based upon the draft Bill contained in Volume 1 of the Committee’s report, with some amendments resulting from the Government’s examination of the report, and from consideration of representations already received. I wish to make it clear that, while the Government has adopted the measure in principle, it is not irrevocably committed to every detail of it. As I have already pointed out, we have made amendments to the Bill as the result of representations received and we remain open to consider further amendments in the light of representations, both during the passage of the Bill and in the subsequent period between the enactment of the Bill and the coming into operation of the scheme. The Government sees this measure as being of such importance to the Australian community that we shall welcome any views which any person or organisation including representatives of the insurance industry, women’s organisations, trade unions and, of course, the Opposition Parties in this Parliament wishes to place before us, and I foreshadow now that the Government will propose amendments to the Bill during its passage through the Parliament.

The Bill provides for earnings-related compensation to all people incapacitated as a result of injury or sickness and to the dependants of deceased persons. The scheme envisaged in the report of the Committee embraces injury, congenital disability and sickness. The Government, at this stage, cannot see its way clear, much as it would like to see this done, to the immediate implementation of the whole scheme and has decided that it should be introduced in 4 stages. The draft Bill has been amended accordingly. Stage one, which will extend to personal injury and congenital disability occuring on or after 1 July 1976, will come into operation on that date. The Government sees the period between now and 1 July 1976 as being necessary to phase out existing systems, allow the insurance industry to make adjustments, and enable the Government to prepare the administrative machinery to implement the scheme. Stage two, which will extend to personal injury and congenital disability occuring before 1 July 1976, will come into operation on a date to be proclaimed. Stage three, which will come into operation on a date to be proclaimed, not earlier than 1 July 1979, will extend to sickness occuring on or after that proclaimed date. Stage four, which will extend to sickness occuring before the date proclaimed for stage three, will come into operation on a date to be proclaimed.

As honourable members will see, this is a long term program. An initial waiting period of 18 months between the enactment of the legislation and the coming into operation of the scheme was recommended by the Committee. The operation of the first stage of the scheme will be closely watched, and decisions to implement the ensuing stages will be taken in the light of experience and the economic and other circumstances existing from time to time. It would not be possible for me in the short time available to explain all the implications of the scheme. My colleague, the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation (Senator Wheeldon) has arranged for the printing of an explanatory memorandum on the scheme and on the details of the Bill. These will be distributed to all honourable members.

Honourable members will note that entitlement to benefits under the scheme replaces the present remedies for personal injuries at common law and under workers’ compensation legislation. These remedies have an important place in the history of social justice, but they are both inadequate and unnecessarily expensive. These issues are well explained in Volume 1 of the report of the Committee. With the discontinuance of common law and workers’ compensation remedies, the need for compulsory insurance in the motor vehicle third party and workers’ compensation fields disappears. As honourable members are aware, experience in these areas over the last 10 years or more has shown the need for the type of drastic re-thinking which has led to the development of this scheme. This is a measure which is designed to replace what we have now. This is a new scheme. It brings a fresh approach to compensation. It more efficiently, cheaply, and justly provides that compensation for the injured, sick and disabled, towards which those jurists who built our present system of common law remedies were striving. It is interesting and relevant to note that both Sir Owen Woodhouse and Mr Justice Meares are outstanding representatives of a judiciary founded upon our English common law.

The Committee of Inquiry recommended in its report that the scheme be financed from a levy of 10c a gallon on petrol and diesel fuels used on the road, replacing the third party insurance premiums, the imposition of a levy of 2 per cent on the wages bill of employers and on the income of self-employed persons, replacing the present compulsory workers’ compensation premiums, and the raising of any residual amounts from general revenue. The Government has considered this matter and, while it sees merit in the recommendations of the Committee, it has not committed itself to this or any other method of financing. The Treasurer, the Honourable Frank Crean, is investigating the options available to the Government and will bring forward proposals for later consideration.

The abolition of the present remedies will, of course, affect the insurance industry. With the cessation of compulsory motor vehicle third party and workers’ compensation insurance, there may be a diminution of income to the insurance industry. However the present experience of many insurance officers shows that, in recent years, both of these fields have become increasingly unprofitable to such an extent that many companies either have withdrawn or are anxious to withdraw from these socially essential forms of insurance. For example, in an address at a symposium conducted in Sydney on 7 June 1973, during the Australian Insurance Institute Annual Conference, Mr D. G. Pettigrew, the Managing Director of Sun Alliance Insurance Ltd, said:

Workers ‘ Compensation insurance poses special problems for the insurance industry due to the natural desire of governments to increase compensation rates in response to increasing community wage levels.

While this is essentially desirable the insurance company must pay this compensation out of the premium fixed, in many cases, years previously.

Mr Pettigrew then went on to say:

Obviously, the estimations of claims costs poses difficulty and raises the quesion whether private enterprise is the proper medium to private protection when liabilities are emphasised by statute and potential liabilities are unpredictable

The Committee of Inquiry was unable to assess the full effects which its recommendations would have upon the insurance industry, and hence was unable to make specific recommendations as to how they should be met. This matter has been placed in the hands of the Treasurer who is setting up a consultative committee comprised of representatives of the insurance industry and Government officials to look into the problems of the industry resulting from the Government’s plans to introduce this national compensation scheme.

The Minister for Repatriation and Compensation has been in constant touch with the representatives of various different organisations representing insurance companies operating in Australia, and with the Australian Insurance Staffs Federation, and has invited these organisations to make suggestions to him as to amendments to the BUI, including necessary transitional provisions, and has undertaken to take such reasonable advice as he may receive from these quarters. The Minister for Repatriation and Compensation has recently visited New Zealand where he discussed these matters with representatives of the insurance industry in that country, and has learned something of the problems which may be expected. It is to be noted in this regard that the New Zealand accident compensation proposals were amended in many respects following the report which was made to the New Zealand Government by Sir Owen Woodhouse in 1967.

The Bill provides for the payment of benefits at the rate of 85 per cent of earnings, calculated on earnings of up to $500 a week, for any person unable to work because of injury or sickness. The upper earnings limit of $500 a week was reached by the Committee of Inquiry after consideration of” income levels payable in Australia. Any person in receipt of an income in excess of that amount would have his benefit calculated on the basis of earnings of $500 a week. We support the principle stated by the Committee in Inquiry at page 105 of Volume 1 of its report that:

Real compensation demands the provision of incomerelated benefits for lost income throught the whole period of incapacity and the opportunity for every incapacitated person to maintain the living standards he or she had earlier achieved by energy and hard work.

The Bill makes provision in respect of permanent incapacity. A person who suffers total permanent incapacity would be entitled to a continuation of his benefit at the rate of 85 per cent of his average earnings. A person who suffers a permanent partial incapacity will be paid a benefit calculated on the percentage of his incapacity and based on national average weekly earnings. The Bill also provides for payment of benefits to widows and other dependants of persons who die from injury or sickness. Once again, the benefit is related to the average weekly earnings of the deceased spouse. Benefits will be payable also to non-earners. These include housewives and others who are not members of the work force. In these cases, the benefits payable will be based on a notional earnings figure of $50 a week.

One of the most significant advances in the law of accident and sickness compensation proposed in this Bill is the recognition of the right to compensation of non-earners, such as housewives and children. In particular, it should be noted that, although no one could deny the important contribution made to the economy by housewives and others not otherwise employed, they have until now been excluded from any scheme of workers compensation. The report and this Bill propose that this gross injustice should be remedied, and the community should accept the same responsibility for these citizens as it does for employees receiving a wage or salary. In the same way this Bill proposes that compensation should be paid in the appropriate circumstances to another important group, also excluded from the present workers compensation laws, namely self-employed persons, of whom the farming community, for example, forms a substantial part.

Provision is made for the automatic adjustment of benefits each quarter based on movements in the consumer price index plus an element to reflect productivity growth. This will enable beneficiaries to retain relativity of income with movements in the cost of living. The minimum income figure of $50 a week and the maximum income figure of $500 a week will also be. brought up to date. These will be adjusted annually on the basis of movement in seasonally adjusted average weekly earnings. As I have indicated, the Government has made some amendments to the draft Bill, but it is substantially as published in Volume 1 of the Committee’s report. One major change, however, which we have made is to provide that payment in respect of injuries arising from work, that is the type of industrial injury presently covered by workers compensation, will cover the first week of incapacity. Payments in respect of other injuries will commence, as recommended by the Committee, from the second week of incapacity in the case of injuries to earners and from the fourth week of incapacity in the case of injury to non-earners and in the case of sickness. The Government believes that it would be retrogressive to deprive workers of the rights already existing under compensation law to receive payment from the first week in respect of injuries arising at work. Equally, it would be inequitable to expect employers to be responsible for payment in the first week in these cases which at present are covered under their workers compensation insurance.

As honourable gentlemen are aware, the Committee of Inquiry did an amount of research and calculation to arrive at cost estimates for the scheme recommended in the report. Work is still proceeding on the analysis of these cost figures. The major costs will, of course, occur when stage 3, related to sickness is implemented. Revised estimates have been prepared for stage 1, in respect of anticipated expenditure in its first year of operation from 1 July 1976 to 30 June 1977. It is estimated that the cost for that first year of operation will be $30 lm. Work on the cost estimates will continue and they will be revised and brought up to date on the basis of the Government’s staging of the scheme. The estimated costs in respect of each of the ensuing stages will be one of the factors which the Government will take into consideration before proclamation of those stages.

I should like to repeat that this Bill introduces a most important social measure. We are dealing in this Bill only with the compensation aspects arising from the report, which covers also rehabilitation and safety. These are 3 arms of a total concept, namely that we must provide a safe environment at work and elsewhere, rehabilitate those unfortunate enough to suffer incapacity and ensure compensation during rehabilitation and for residual handicap. We must seek first to prevent, so far as humanly possible, the occurrence of injury and sickness. Already in Australia in the post-war period great advances have been made in accident prevention, particularly in industry and on the roads; but much more remains to be done. Where, in spite of all endeavours, incapacity occurs, the payment of compensation in itself is not the answer. The prime and important issue is rehabilitation to the maximum degree that society can provide. The role of compensation during the early stages of disability is to remove the financial worries which could interfere with effective rehabilitation. If all rehabilitation efforts fail to restore a person’s total capacity, then compensation is paid to recompense the individual for that permanent residual incapacity.

Until now, insufficient stress has been placed on the rehabilitation role. This is particularly so in the common law area and has been the subject of comment by many learned judges, medical practitioners and others who see delays in litigation and settlement as being against the best interests of the injured person and, in fact, often worsening his condition by encouraging the mental approach, often referred to as ‘litigation neurosis’, which may lead the person to reject improvement until settlement of the claim. Through this comprehensive program, of which compensation is but one part, the Government intends to ensure that the people of Australia will enjoy the benefits of this scheme and so avoid the problems, delays and weaknesses inherent in the existing systems.

The accident compensation scheme now operating in New Zealand which has many similarities to the scheme proposed in this Bill, was introduced by a National Party Government, and supported in principle by the New Zealand Labour Party. It is the Government’s hope that the same bipartisan approach, will be achieved in the Australian Parliament and that it will be free from invective and polemic so far as possible in the sometimes heated atmosphere of Parliament. My colleague, the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation, has undertaken to representatives of the Opposition Parties to make available to them all of the facilities and information available to him, including discussions with the officers of his Department and the perusal of any relevant documents and statistics. I am pleased to be able to say that this offer has been accepted by members of the Opposition. On several occasions, Sir Owen Woodhouse has met groups of Opposition members, and others have had discussions with officers of the Department of Repatriation and Compensation and members of the Minister’s personal staff. The Minister arranged for the Opposition spokesman on repatriation and compensation, Senator Drake-Brockman, to visit New Zealand, and assisted him to meet those people in that country who could speak with some authority on the New Zealand scheme.

It is naturally the Government’s hope that the passage of this Bill will not be delayed for so long that the proposed date for the introduction of stage 1 would have to be postponed. At the same time, it is the Government’s wish that the exchange of ideas should in no way be stifled or that representatives of those persons in the Australian community who have an interest in this proposal should be precluded from offering suggestions to the Government, either by way of amendment or in matters relating to the administration of the national compensation scheme. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Dr Forbes) adjourned.

page 2175

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION BILL (No. 2) 1974

Bill presented by Dr Cass, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Dr CASS:
Minister for the Environment and Conservation · Maribyrnong · ALP

– I move:

The Broadcasting and Television Act has been subject to many amendments in a piecemeal fashion over a number of years and, for some time, the Department of the Media, in association with the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, has been giving consideration to detailed amendments which Will be required to bring the Act up to modern requirements. Meanwhile there are 2 primary matters which in the opinion of the Government are in urgent need of attention and which are the subject of this legislation.

The first concerns the powers of the Broadcasting Control Board to regulate appropriately the programs of commercial broadcasting and television stations. This power existed in the Act until it was amended in 1 956. Prior to that time it was provided that stations must present programs ‘to the satisfaction of the Board’, but in 1956 this was amended to provide that stations’ programs must comply ‘with standards determined by the Board’. In recent years some stations have challenged the Board’s powers in the programming area by relying on a narrow legal definition of the word ‘standards’, and the Government’s legal advisers have confirmed that this approach has had some validity. The Board has consistently drawn attention to this lack in its powers of the past 7 years, but no action has been taken until now to correct the anomaly. The relevant section of the Act is section 16, which sets out the powers and functions of the Board. The major function of the Board is stated in that section to be:

To ensure that adequate and comprehensive programs are provided by commercial broadcasting stations and commercial television stations to serve the best interests of the general public.

Unfortunately, however, the Act does not provide the Board with a power comparable with that function. The proposed amendments to section 16, which are included in clause 6 of the Bill I now present, specifically provide the Board with a general power to carry out all its functions. Further, it inserts two new specific powers. The first will become paragraph (e) of sub-section (3) of section 16, and provides that the Board shall have power to determine rules and standards to be observed by licensees in relation to commercial broadcasting and television programs. The second new power is provided by the new sub-section (3) (a) which specifically provides power to the Board to determine, subject to the Minister’s approval, requirements with regard to programs of Australian origin.

These 2 new powers will place beyond question the powers which, I think it is fair to say, the general public has always thought the Board to have. I believe they will be generally welcomed within the industry itself as putting these matters which have been the subject of debate beyond doubt. While amending section 16, the opportunity is also being taken to provide that, in exercising its powers under the Act, the Board shall consult not only representatives of commercial broadcasting and television stations, but also such other persons as the Board considers appropriate. It has in fact been the Board’s recent practice to discuss matters of programming with appropriate unions and others concerned, but the fact that this consultation has not been mandatory under the Act has given rise to some criticism. Clause 7 of the Bill amends section 21 (2) of the Act regarding the right of a witness to elect to make an affirmation rather than an oath. This merely brings the Act into line with current practice.

The second important matter which is dealt with by the Bill is contained in clause 11. This provides that, instead of the present licence renewal period of 12 months, licences may be renewed for variable periods from 3 months to 3 years. A somewhat similar proposal for variable licence renewal periods was put forward by the previous Government in 1971. At the time, the matter was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts, which was charged with the responsibility of inquiring into all aspects of television and broadcasting. In its second interim report, that Committee suggested for consideration a number of measures for strengthening the Board’s powers, including one to the effect that the Board be empowered to recommend graded renewal periods to the Minister.

Apart from the obvious value of this provision, in enabling the Board to recommend short-term renewals in cases where a licensee’s performance has been less than totally satisfactory, this is an essential first step towards implementing the Government’s policy that all licence renewal applications be considered at a public hearing of the Board. It will be appreciated that, since more than 200 broadcasting, television, translator and repeater licences come up for renewal each year, it would not be possible at the moment for each application to be the subject of a public hearing. It is the Board’s intention, as soon as this legislation is passed, to recommend to me that renewal of licences for varying periods so that the work-load may be spread equally over a 3-year period- that is, so that only approximately one third of licences will need to be considered each 12 months. Another important advantage will be that all translator licences will be brought into step with the licence of the parent station so that these can all be considered at the same time, as is of course only logical.

Clause 12 of the Bill provides for some machinery amendments to section 85 to facilitate the new proposal regarding the renewal of licences, and clause 13 provides the consequential amendments to section 99 of the principal Act resulting from the amendments to the Board’s powers in section 16 to which I have already referred. Section 99 of the Act provides, at present, for the Board to determine standards which must be met by licensees in the presentation of programs. The amendments now proposed replace standards by a reference to the determinations which the Board will make under the new provisions of section 16. Though the major legal difficulty regarding the use of the word ‘standards’ in the Act has occurred with regard to programs, the opportunity is also being taken, in clause 14 of the Bill, to amend section 100 of the principal Act, which refers to standards in connection with advertising, in order to ensure that the Board ‘s powers under this section are equally unequivocal. Clauses 15 and 16 of the Bill embody machinery amendments designed to make the new proposals which I have outlined regarding licence renewals equally applicable to television translator and repeater stations.

So far in this outline of the provisions of this Bill, honourable members will have noticed that I have referred to the Broadcasting Control Board as the authority responsible to Parliament for the administration of provisions laid down for commercial broadcasting and television stations in this country. I have done this in order to facilitate an understanding of the continuing provisions of the Act. I should point out, however, that the Government does not believe that the functions of the Broadcasting Control Board are, or should be, confined to the control of broadcasting. In clauses 3 and 4 of this Bill, the Government proposes to change the name of the authority responsible for broadcasting in Australia to the logical alternative: The Australian Broadcasting Authority. Elsewhere in the Bill, it is made plain that the membership of the Authority is to be continuous with the membership of the Broadcasting Control Board as established at the time of the commencement of the amending legislation. Within this Bill, the opportunity has also been taken to incorporate various amendments to bring the provisions for the remuneration and allowances of the various statutory office holders mentioned in the Act into line with the Remuneration Tribunals Bill at present before the Parliament.

The opportunity is also being taken, in clause 17 and the accompanying schedule, to make some formal amendments to bring the wording of the Act into line with current practice. As I have already said, the Bill sets out to overcome obvious and serious defects in the existing legislation. The Broadcasting Control Board has laboured for years under severe criticism from some quarters for its failure to carry out adequately its function to ensure that adequate and comprehensive programs are presented by licensees. Though legal challenges made it clear some seven or eight years ago that the Board’s powers were deficient in this area, this is the first time that any action has been taken to correct the anomaly. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Dr Forbes) adjourned.

page 2177

BROADCASTING STATIONS LICENCE FEES BILL 1974

Bill presented by Dr Cass, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Dr CASS:
Minister for the Environment and Conservation · Maribyrnong · ALP

– I move:

This Bill is consequential upon the Bill which I have already presented to the House proposing the amendment of the Broadcasting and Television Act to provide that licences for commercial broadcasting and television stations should be renewed for periods varying from 3 months to 3 years. This Bill is a machinery amendment to the Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Act 1 964- 1 973, providing for an appropriate method of calculation for a licence fee when, in fact, the licence is renewed for a period other than one year. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Dr Forbes ) adjourned.

page 2177

TELEVISION STATIONS LICENCE FEES BILL 1974

Bill presented by Dr Cass, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Dr CASS:
Minister for the Environment and Conservation · Maribyrnong · ALP

– I move:

This Bill is consequential upon the Bill which I have already presented to the House, proposing the amendment of the Broadcasting and Television Act to provide that licences for commercial broadcasting and television stations should be renewed for periods varying from 3 months to 3 years. This Bill is a machinery amendment to the Television Stations Licence Fees Act 1964-1966, providing for an appropriate method of calculation for a licence fee when, in fact, the licence is renewed for a period other than one year. The opportunity is also being taken to make formal amendments to bring the wording of the Act into line with current practice. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Dr Forbes) adjourned.

page 2177

BOOK BOUNTY BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 26 September (vide page 1 854), on motion by Dr J. F. Cairns:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr ADERMANN:
Fisher

-The Book Bounty Bill 1974 proposes an amendment to the Book Bounty Act to give effect to the recommendation of the report of the Industries Assistance Commission of 21 September 1973. The main purpose of the amendment is to raise that bounty, in accordance with the recommendation, from 25 per cent to 33W per cent. The Opposition does not oppose the Bill. However, there are a number of things that I would like to say about it. In January 1969 book manufacturing members of the Printing and Allied Trades Employers’ Federation of Australia submitted a request for assistance to book manufacturers in Australia to the then Minister for Trade and Industry, the right honourable Sir John McEwen. In May 1969 the then Minister announced the Government’s intention to assist Australia’s book manufacturers by approving the payment of a bounty. The payment of the bounty has been somewhat of an interim measure up to this stage pending a report by the Tariff Board. We have now received the Board’s report and subsequent upon that report the legislation now before us was introduced. I hope that the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) who introduced the Bill in this place will consider some of the things I will say. There are some aspects of the Bill which call for comment.

A slight change is proposed to the Act. This change is spoken of in the last paragraph of the second reading speech made by the Minister in which he said:

The subjective requirements of literary or educational character contained in the present Act are deleted but all other exclusions are retained.

The change that is proposed by the BUI is that the definition of the word ‘book’ is to be removed and a rather negative provision has been substituted. This change does not make any material alteration to the Act. It just puts what is in the Act at present in a somewhat different way.

I want to refer to that part of the BUI which says that the bounty Will not be payable in respect of a book that is not a publication of a literary or educational character. I am perfectly aware that it is very difficult to define this objective in legislative terms, and having defined it to interpret it because what is indecent, what is educational and what is of a literary character would vary very much according to the point of view of the person making the decision. One magistrate or one State may differ from another in what they regard as acceptable or objectionable.

I am concerned, and the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay) has expressed his concern in a number of places, about who may be receiving this bounty. We do not particularly want to attack the Government on its censorship policy or any other policy. That is not the purpose of our statement today. I hope that we will at some time have an opportunity to talk about these things because from the petitions that have been received by honourable members and the discussions that one hears around the electorate I think that we should consider and talk about censorship. There must be some aspects of this subject which concern not only members on this side of the House but also members on the other side of the House. I think that we should look again at our censorship provisions not only in the literary and film spheres but also in regard to what appears on television. I do not want to express a point of view on this subject today but I hope that the Minister will allow us the opportunity at some time to talk about these things.

As I said, I am concerned about who may be getting this bounty. I am concerned because we have no real information on what books are being subsidised. We know, of course, that the bounty is paid to the printer and not to the publisher. That being so, we ought to be able to find out the titles of of the books that attract the bounty. But we are not able to ascertain this information. The honourable member for Boothby has for quite some time directed questions on notice to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Overseas Trade (Dr J. F. Cairns) who represents the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Murphy) in this place in which he has asked whether the titles would be made available to honourable members. I will read the reply that was given to one of his questions on notice. I am not criticising that reply but I want to point out the deficiency that exists because if we are to subsidise books and to pay such a bounty we ought to know and the Australian taxpayer ought to know where the bounty is being applied.

Mr James:

– That is fair enough. It might be embarrassing to some of us on both sides.

Mr ADERMANN:

– It could well be. The Minister in his answer stated: . . . a record of titles is not kept

He is referring to a specific request for an answer in respect of South Australia. He stated: 892 titles were involved in South Australia in 1972-73. Regular maintenance of a consolidated list of titles appearing on individual claim forms is not an operational necessity.

I disagree with that. He further states:

Preparation of the record now sought would thus impose a significant and- it is felt- unjustified work load on the Department ‘s South Australian office.

This situation would apply to all of the other offices of the Department of Customs and Excise. I cannot accept that answer as sufficient because when we talk about book bounties we are talking about a lot of money. The official figure of the amount of money paid in 1972-73 in the form of a book bounty was $2,984,430. The bounty in that period was paid on over 30 million books. That is a substantial amount of bounty on a great number of books. I do not think it is reasonable to say that the preparation of a record would impose such a work load on the Department that we should not be able to receive details of the payment of the bounty.

Mr James:

– Would ‘Portnoy’s Complaint’ attract the bounty?

Mr ADERMANN:

– I do not know about ‘Portnoy’s Complaint’. The honourable member for Boothby raised the question in the first place because he had a list of books that were printed in Australia -

Mr Riordan:

– By whom?

Mr ADERMANN:

– I will give the honourable member the answer to that. The honourable member for Boothby did not make any accusation at the time that he asked his question that these books did or did not receive a bounty. He is not making that accusation now. He wanted to know the titles of the books that were receiving the bounty. He asked a fair and reasonable question about whether the bounty was being paid on these books. When I give honourable members the title of just one or two of these books they will understand why the honourable member for Boothby asked his question. For instance, one of the books was entitled: ‘Inside Linda Lovelace by Linda Lovelace’. It is reasonable for the honourable member to ask whether such a book attracted a bounty. Some of the other books were entitled: ‘Poor Alice ‘, ‘ Dangerous Game ‘, ‘Adultery Without Men’, ‘Stag Film Girls’, ‘First Experience’, ‘The Coming of a Woman’, ‘The Painter of Passion’ and ‘The Wife Will Play’. Is it not reasonable to ask whether the publication of these books attract any bounty? If they do perhaps it is a matter for our assessment as to whether they should.

In the first place we ought to know what printers are receiving the bounty and the titles of the books on which the bounty is paid. I know that such a requirement is not adequately covered in the Act because the Act can only broadly specify what sort of books qualify for such a bounty. The legislation talks about educational and literary standards. Our argument today is not what those standards ought to be. That is a matter for another time. Our argument is that a list of those books on which such bounty is paid ought to be available to us and to whoever wants the information on demand.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr ADERMANN:

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting I had explained the Opposition ‘s stand on this Book Bounty Bill. I had said that the Opposition will not be opposing the extension of the bounty. I had pointed out that it was actually a Liberal-Country Party Government which instituted it. I had said that the Opposition is quite happy about the increase in the bounty rate to 33’/> per cent of the cost of production. The point I was making immediately prior to the suspension of the sitting related to the subject of to whom the bounty is being paid and to the lack of information as to which books attract it. I cannot understand why a list of such books ought not to be available, because surely whenever applications are made for the bounty- and they are made frequently- they must be made on an application form and surely both the applicant and the Department of Customs and Excise must retain a copy of such an application for their own purposes. For that reason, I cannot concede that it would impose an unreasonable work load on the Department to require it to make available such a list. To those honourable members who queued outside my door during the luncheon break I say that I have no copies of any of the books I have mentioned. I have not read any of them. I read out their titles because I thought they might indicate something of the contents of the books.

For a bounty to be payable the book must be a publication of a literary or educational character, which is absolutely right. I suppose none of us would be stupid enough to impose his own standards of literature, art or anything else upon any other member. I think that there is plenty of room for division and difference of opinion. But the only restriction imposed on payment of the bounty is that it will not be paid on publications the printing, publishing or postal transmission of which would be an offence against a law of Australia. There is a great area for argument there. There is a great difference of opinion as to what is reasonable, what is decent, what is not obscene and what should be able to be trafficked in a particular State. As we know, different emphases are placed on those matters in different States.

I am very pleased that I come from Queensland. I know that sometimes Queensland’s censorship laws are called archaic and that sometimes its standards are called conservative, but I have been making a study of censorship in both the literary and films field- I have been helped very much by the officers who carry on that task and I understand and appreciate what they are doing- and it has made me feel happy to belong to conservative Queensland when I have seen what literature is being peddled in Australia today. As I have said, I do not wish to impose my own standards. Once again I appeal to the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) to make it possible for us at some time to discuss freely and fully the censorship of literature, films and television programs in Australia because I think many people on both sides of the House would like to comment on and talk about those things.

The only restriction is a restriction in law and understandably that law differs from magistrate to magistrate. One magistrate might call something obscene or indecent, but somebody else might say in a changing climate and in a changing circumstance that he does not see it in that way.

Mr James:

– There is no fixed definition to guide them.

Mr ADERMANN:

– I take the point made by the honourable member for Hunter, but I understand that it is very difficult to define what is offensive to decency, obscene or blasphemous as referred to in the legislation.

Mr James:

– It is as wide as the heavens.

Mr ADERMANN:

– Once again it is a matter of who is doing the interpreting at a particular time. I know that it is very difficult to frame in words the intention behind an Act. That is why I have said that the only restriction here is one of law.

I think that we would not find any disagreement in this House that some literature that might not be specifically banned by law still ought not to qualify for a bounty under the terms of the literary or educational qualification. That is the point I am making. That is why I think it is so very important for us to have the information I have sought when we are considering the payment of a bounty which is, as I mentioned before, of such a magnitude. Honourable members ought to have that information and the Australian taxpayers ought to be able to see to whom these bounties are being paid. A record is kept, even down to the very small amounts of all other bounties that are paid. For that reason I just cannot understand the answer that has been given to us that it is impossible to make such records available in this case. I do not want to cause any suspicion in the minds of people that there is a reason why we are not being given this information. I am not implying that. I hope that there is no reason for anybody to infer that that is what I am implying. But I do say that this information about the bounties of which we are approving ought to be available.

Of couse we want to see Australian publishers and printers helped and we want to see these books being printed in Australia. Of course we want to see such a bounty continue and to see increased use made of it. But we also want to see the direction in which the money is expended. Because we are not being given that sort of information there can be very much misunderstanding. I know that my colleague the honourable member for Boothby, whom I have mentioned before, is very concerned about this matter and has asked previously for such information. Before he finished doing so on that occasion the Press came up with the story that he was proclaiming that South Australia is the pornography centre of Australia. The honourable member for Boothby and I were not attacking the Government at that time; we were not attacking the legislation either. What we were trying to do was to find out what was happening. In seeking that information the honourable member received a lot of unjustified criticism. Many innuendoes were drawn about what I think was a straight-forward, reasonable and logical question to ask.

I do not want to hold up the proceedings of the House any longer but I do wish to repeat that we ought to take note of the fact that the bounty paid in 1972-73 amounted to just about $3m, which is a considerable amount of money. Nearly 3 1 million books, on which we have no information, benefited from the payment of that bounty. I have not been able to obtain the title of one book in relation to which the bounty was paid. It would be easy for me to pick up the list to which I referred earlier today and say that the bounty was paid to certain people who ought not to have received it. The books mentioned in the list to which I referred earlier today- I hesitated to name some of the titles on the list- are not books in relation to which I claim any bounty was paid, but they are books which were printed in Australia and about which we cannot obtain any information as to whether the bounty was or was not paid. Without repeating the titles, I say to honourable members: If those titles are an example of the contents of those books, do they think that we ought to make any bounty available in respect of those sorts of publications? Let us have the information I have sought. I hope that my request will be passed on to the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Murphy) and that he will see it as being a reasonable request. My request is not made with any ulterior motive in mind. No honourable member can receive the letters and petitions I receive without knowing that this is in an area of particular concern to a large number of people.

The Opposition will not be opposing the Bill; it will be supporting it. But the Opposition does appeal for more information to be made freely and readily available as to who is receiving this bounty and under what circumstances it is being paid and for those lists to be made available to us so that we can make our own objective judgment on whether this bounty is achieving what I believe the Government wants it to achieve and what we want it to achieve and wanted it to achieve when it was introduced by us when we were in government.

Mr MATHEWS:
Casey

-The Bill that the House is discussing replaces the Book Bounty Act 1 969- 1 973. That Act was introduced, as you will recall, Mr Speaker, at a time when the printing industry in Australia, at least in as much as it was geared to the production of books, had reached a state of collapse. If the then Minister for Trade and Industry, Sir John McEwen, had not taken the initiative in bringing in the Book Bounty Bill of that day it is quite safe to say that the industry would have passed the point of no return and that the quite considerable body of book publishing which is generated in this countrythe works of Australian authors, the works of authors from overseas for which rights are bought by Australian publishers- would all have gone on outside Australia. As the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Adermann) has pointed out to us, the expenditure under the Book Bounty Act has reached very large proportions in recent years. The honourable member for Fisher told us that the sum expended last year was very nearly $3m.

I involve myself in this debate on a relatively narrow aspect of the legislation. It is true that the major expression of creativity involved in any book is the writing itself; but it is also true that an important subsidiary field of creativity has grown up in recent years in the design of books. This extends not only to the technical layout of the book, to the designation of the type face for the book, to the illustration of the book, but also to the way in which the book is put together. It has been a source of concern to me that the way a book has been defined in section 3a (1) (c), of this legislation, both in its earlier form and in the form which is now before the House, is a restrictive influence on the way in which books are put together in this country. I give the House a particular instance. A constituent of mine who is the proprietor of a firm known as Hanging Lake Books designed a book on mathematics in such a form that the chapters of the book were not sewn or stapled together in the customary manner but were simply put together in a box so that they could be read in any sequence. The publication was refused bounty on the grounds that it was not a book within the meaning of the Act. It seems to me that this was an unnecessarily legalistic and pettifogging interpretation of the legislation which negated the intentions of Sir John McEwen. If we are to retain the capacity of Australian printers to publish books, if we are to encourage the ingenuity of Australian designers in thinking up new and more attractive and perhaps more stimulating- if the honourable member for Fisher will forgive the word- ways of presenting books then we can do without interpretations of legislation as narrow as the one that was made in that case.

I was intrigued by remarks the honourable member for Fisher made about the need to have the names of books on which bounty is to be paid published. Of course, the inhibition to which he referred, the fact that the Department has replied to the Minister that the titles of these books are not required for the administrative implementation of the Act and are therefore not recorded, goes back to the inception of the legislation in 1969 and the administrative procedures that were adopted at the same time. I suspect that they were included for the very good reason, in the eyes of the sponsors of the legislation that the identity of the people who produce material commonly described as pornographic- pornographies perhaps by general consent- in this country is at variance with the normal image of a pornographer as somebody lurking in a grubby shop with a printing machine in the back room. In fact, the material which excites the honourable gentleman from Fisher and the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay) to their expressions of indignation -

Mr Adermann:

– And the honourable member for Hunter.

Mr MATHEWS:

– No doubt the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) too. That material emanates from some the largest printing concerns in this country. Its production is not a back street activity, it is not a covert activity, but one in which the greatest publishing enterprises in the country are eager to participate. The honourable member for Phillip (Mr Riordan), who I may say takes a closer interest in these matters than I do, said by way of interjection while the honourable member for Fisher was speaking that the most significant of these publishers at the present time are in fact Consolidated Press and Rippon Press, the latter of which is a subsidiary of the Adelaide ‘Advertiser*. In fact, it is the great pillars of the Establishment in this country whose names would have been put abroad, who would no doubt have been named by the honourable members for Fisher and Boothby if they had been subject to scrutiny under administrative procedures prescribed by this Bill. Over the luncheon break, I must confess, I was so intrigued by the interjection of the honourable member for Phillip that I looked up the board of the Adelaide ‘Advertiser’, these entrepreneurs in the fields that the honourable members for Fisher and Boothby so righteously deplore. I must say I was intrigued to find that the Deputy Chairman of the Board is in fact a Liberal-Country League member of the South Australian Legislative Council. Judging by the decorations appearing after the names of other gentlemen on the board, I think their political persuasion was not dissimilar.

Looking back on the whole thing, I suspect that the sponsors of the original legislation, the original Book Bounty Act, were acting in the best interests of their supporters when they impressed upon their public servants the need for a measure of reticence in these matters and that the honourable members for Fisher and Boothby will be opening up a Pandora’s Box if they press thendemands for the disclosure of the publications which attract bounty and have attracted it from the inception. The Government has brought down this legislation in conformity with the desire, shared by all parties in this House, that the book publishing trade in this country should not die. It has made a realistic adjustment from the original level of 25 per cent to the level of 33 V4 per cent prescribed in the legislation before us today to see that that intention is given effective expression. I believe that this is legislation which is likely to be with us for many years to come and that we should all support it.

Mr ADERMANN (Fisher)-Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr ADERMANN:

-Yes. I do not think it was advertently done but the honourable member for

Casey (Mr Mathews) brought into the debate the name of the Griffin Press. I do not recall mentioning it. He talked about its associations with the Adelaide ‘Advertiser’. I did not mention that. He said that I deplored the Griffin Press but I would not like it inferred that I was accusing Griffin Press of any particular type of publication. What I did say was that every publisher should make available the names of the books on which bounty is claimed. I was not picking out any firm, any publisher or any printer for any purpose. I want to make it clear that if my remarks were interpreted in that way they were not meant in that way.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2182

BRANDY INDUSTRY

Mr GILES:
Angas

– by leave- I wish to clear up a misstatement I made this morning. During the grievance debate I said that under price regulation in South Australia growers of brandy grapes received $70 a ton for the produce they sell to brandy producers. I have been informed that the figure should have been $72.40. I said that the gross rake-off by the Government was $1,100. In fact it is $1,235.

page 2182

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment:

State Grants (Universities) Bill 1974.

Universities Commission Bill 1974.

Nitrogenous Fertilisers Subsidy Bill 1974.

page 2182

REMUNERATION TRIBUNALS BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 19 September (vide page 1555), on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Wannon

– The Opposition supports this legislation. The original legislation concerning the Remuneration Tribunal was clearly somewhat hurriedly drafted and that has led to necessity to clear up some of the provisions of that legislation by means of the Bill that we now have before us. As the House would know, the Bill expands the former jurisdiction of the Remuneration Tribunal beyond the limits set out in the existing Act to make sure that the Tribunal can cover all the higher salaries of the Commonwealth. That is a principle that the Opposition supports. At the same time, there were a number of other areas apparently included in the original legislation but which were not meant to be included. As the Special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen) said in his second reading speech Trade Commissioners, to use them as an example, were included and they have now been clearly excluded in this legislation. The Opposition looks upon these changes as clarifications, as technical changes.

The Bill proposes a new section relating to academic salaries. For a long while I have feltand it is Opposition policy- that there ought to be a tribunal to look at academic salaries. Although there have been independent tribunals in the past, people in the universities have generally had to argue for six or nine months before they could get a tribunal established. There were no set procedures and no set time for a review of their remuneration. This Bill will enable a more regular procedure to be developed. I think that is consistent and proper. There is no real reason why academics in universities should have no court to which to go. They are about the last group to be covered in some regular way.

There are some differences, as the Minister would be aware, between the procedures for academics and the procedures for Commonwealth public servants. In this respect I draw the attention of the Minister to a letter that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) wrote either to the Minister or to the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) concerning representations made by the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association. I merely note that it is apparent that the Government has chosen not to take up the requests put forward by the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association. It should also be noted that whereas determinations of the tribunal dealing with public servants and others need to be made at one time, for the purpose of determining the salary of academics the Chairman of the Tribunal is constituted as a separate tribunal and can report at any time. I merely note that as a difference and I point out that the Government did not take up the point made by the ACOA, which was probably put directly to the Minister but which was also put to him through the Leader of the Opposition. The Opposition supports the measure and wishes it a speedy and peaceful passsage.

Mr COATES:
Denison

-We are debating the Remuneration Tribunals Bill. I would like to concentrate mainly on those aspects of the Bill affecting academic salaries. The Bill also deals with other matters, as the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser) pointed out, including the inclusion of certain senior officers similar to statutory officers amongst those for whom the Remuneration Tribunal should determine salaries, and the exclusion of certain less senior officers for whom it is not appropriate for the Tribunal to determine salaries. As the House is well aware, the Remuneration Tribunal was set up as an independent body to determine the salaries of first division officers of the Australian Public Service, statutory office holders, members of Parliament and judges.

This Bill extends the Remuneration Tribunal Act to include an Academic Salaries Tribunal which will have the responsibility of determining all academic salaries for universities and colleges of advanced education and the salaries for some other senior employees of those institutions such as vice-chancellors, registrars and bursars. The Academic Salaries Tribunal will be separate from the Remuneration Tribunal itself, and hence the title of the Act is being altered to the Remuneration Tribunals Act. Determinations of the Academic Salaries Tribunal will strictly apply only to the Territories, but of course they will be the basis for the States grants which will be necessary for the same salaries to be paid to academics in institutions set up under State legislation. The Tribunal will consist of only one man, the Chairman of the Remuneration Tribunal itself, Mr Justice Campbell, but assessors can be appointed, as they have been appointed in the past, and the procedure will be the same as for the full Tribunal. It will have power to decide when to make reports and determinations, and the Minister will have to table a copy of the determination in each House within IS sitting days of receiving it. Either House will have the power to disallow any determination within 15 sitting days after tabling. It must be a single determination, so that any disallowance would be an all or nothing operation.

It may be worth while tracing some of the history of this issue. Until now academics have been probably the only group in the work force not to have a salaries tribunal or similar machinery to review what they should be paid. Members of Parliament and senior members of the Public Service shared this distinction with them until late last year. What happened in past years for academic staff was that ad hoc inquiries were held from time to time to review academic salaries. It was interesting to hear the honourable member for Wannon say that the Opposition supports the appointment of permanent review machinery because honourable members opposite did nothing about it during the whole time they were in office. The ad hoc reviews were usually few and far between.

I will not go right back to the Eggleston inquiries of previous years. The most recent case was the appointment of Mr Justice Campbell by the previous Government in September 1972 to conduct an inquiry. He reported to this Government in May 1973. The Minister for Education (Mr Beazley) tabled that report on 17 May 1973. The report recommended increases of between 2 1 per cent and 24 per cent- the higher percentage being recommended for the lower levels, which was only right. Judge Campbell also recommended the establishment of an independent tribunal for regular salary reviews, as had been asked for by staff associations for many years. That increase was the first pay rise since 1 970. As a member of the staff of the University of Tasmania at that time and an active member of the Staff Association, I had helped to prepare the case for the tutor and senior tutor levels for the Federation of Australian University Staff Associations to present to the inquiry. It was pleasing that that part of the submission was largely accepted, because, as honourable members may be aware, the sub-lecturer levels of teaching staff had been well behind those with equivalent qualifications and responsibilities in the school teaching service and the Public Service generally.

On 28 May last year the Minister for Education announced that the report had been accepted. He further announced on 20 June that the States, which then still shared the costs of universities and colleges of advanced education, had also agreed to the increases. Unfortunately, it was not until 4 April this year that the Government announced that it would legislate to set up permanent machinery. As honourable members will recall, 4 April was only a few days before the double dissolution, with the consequent election, and hence the whole issue was held up for the months it took for the election to be decided, for the Parliament to reassemble and so on. So in July the Government asked Mr Justice Campbell to proceed with an interim inquiry pending the legislation being changed to provide for the permanent machinery. Once again, shortly after that event in July, the Senate disallowed the report of the Remuneration Tribunal. That was the one referring to honourable members and senators and also to senior levels of the Public Service. Following that, I can well understand Mr Justice Campbell wondering whether he ought to proceed with his interim review. Because of this doubt the Government decided early in September to give Mr Justice Campbell statutory backing and to advance this legislation.

On 19 September an Opposition member asked the Special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen) what was happening about the interim review. It was on that day that notice was given that the Remuneration Tribunal Act would be altered. The Minister said at the time:

The significant factor of the whole report of the Remuneration Tribunal is that it was disallowed in another House. No doubt the honourable member - referring to the member of the Opposition- took part in a ballot in his own Party as to what it would do in relation to that disallowance. Naturally, when the report was disallowed, Mr Justice Campbell felt it would be improper and inappropriate to proceed with any determination without statutory support. The reason nothing has been done with respect to academic salaries is due directly to the activities of the Opposition. It is because of that, as the honourable member would know if he looked at today’s notice paper - that is, for 1 9 September- that we are to introduce a Bill to amend the Remuneration Tribunal Act, which will allow for academic salaries to be so determined. I am very confident that if the Opposition will give its support and the proposed legislation becomes law His Honour will then proceed with that interim determination.

The Bill was then introduced, and we are now debating it. Once it is passed- I anticipate that it will be passed as the Opposition, at least in this House, is giving it support- Judge Campbell can go ahead. The Bill allows him to go ahead himself and make a report at any time, but he may still wish to have some indication from the Government as to what the Government will support.

Perhaps it could be said that, in the current economic climate and with a rather informal freeze on higher salary levels, only the lower levels of academic salaries should be determined. Professors are currently being paid $18,600 per annum. I am certainly not plugging for them. Their salary is at about the level of those officers who will not receive an increase because of the disallowance of the determination of the Remuneration Tribunal. Even though thenincrease last year was the only one since 1970 they may have to forgo it for the time being, as readers who receive $15,500 may have to do. Certainly at least the levels of lecturers and below deserve a review and an increase, particularly the lower levels I mentioned before of tutors and senior tutors. Mr Justice Campbell’s report of last year has fixed up the situation to a certain extent. I would like to quote briefly from part of what he said in paragraph 7.1:

Very early in the course of my Inquiry, it became clear to me that sub-lecturer staff in ^Australian universities were suffering greater disabilities, in relation to salaries, than other members of the academic staff. Unlike senior grades of lecturer and above, sub-lecturer grades have not been standardised in terms of qualifications, functions, responsibilities, nomenclature, salaries and other conditions of appointment. Substantial disparities exist not only among universities generally, but also, in some cases, within individual universities.

I could point out to the House that the commencing salary for a tutor-demonstrator, as recommended by Mr Justice Campbell last year, was $5,500. Apart from the national wage case increase, that remains the salary. Of course, it is now below average weekly earnings. I am not suggesting that in this debate we should have a work value inquiry ourselves as to what junior members or the teaching staff at universities and colleges of advanced education should be paid, but I think it would be acknowledged that, in comparison with what school teachers and graduates entering the Public Service receive on commencement, tutors and senior tutors should receive an increase. Therefore I hope that Mr Justice Campbell will proceed rapidly with an inquiry and that the Government will encourage him to do that, even if the Government discourages him from bringing in any recommendations about professors and readers.

That covers the history of academic salaries. It is important that the BUI be passed as quickly as possible because Mr Justice Campbell cannot go ahead until the Bill receives royal assent. As soon as he does, I am certain that representatives of the staff associations of universities and colleges of advanced education and their national bodies will be ready immediately to put submissions to him. I hope that if he does intend waiting for the nod from the Special Minister of State he will quickly receive the nod and proceed with the inquiry. I support the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KingsfordSmithSpecial Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Matters relating to the Public Service · ALP

– A machinery amendment to clause 9 has been circulated to all honourable members. The relevant part of that clause reads:

Section 7 of the principal Act is amended-

by omitting sub-section (9) and substituting the following sub-sections:- ‘(9) Remuneration or allowances to which a subsisting determination applies shall, notwithstanding the provisions of any other law of Australia, of any law of a State or Territory, of any instrument having effect by virtue of such a law or of any contract, but subject to the succeeding provisions of this section-

in the case of remuneration or allowances payable to a person who-

holds an office or appointment as, or as a member of, or in the service or employment of, a public statutory corporation; or

holds an office or appointment as a director of, or in the service or employment of, an incorporated company, being a corporation or company that has funds under its control that are lawfully available to pay the remuneration or allowances- be paid in accordance with the determination out of those funds; and

I move:

In proposed section 7 sub-section (9) paragraph (a) (i) after ‘corporation’, insert ‘or an office or appointment as a member of a body established to manage, conduct or control the business or affairs of, or otherwise to perform functions in relation to, such a corporation’.

It appears that there are certain groups in a category not yet denned- groups such as the Export Payments Insurance Corporation which has a board of management. The amendment seeks to include that sort of structure so that officers of such boards of management can be paid from the management’s funds. It is felt that unless this is done it will be a charge on Consolidated Revenue. The amendment merely seeks to ensure that structures such as the one mentioned pay the officers from their own funds.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

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

Third Reading

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

page 2185

REFRIGERATION COMPRESSORS BOUNTY BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 26 September (vide page 1 854), on motion by Dr J. F. Cairns:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Dr EDWARDS:
Berowra

-As the Minister for Overseas Trade (Dr J. F. Cairns) stated in his second reading speech, the purpose of this Bill is to implement the Government’s decision to adopt a recommendation of the then Tariff Board that assistance by way of bounty be afforded the manufacture in Australia of sealed unit compressors of 1.5 kW or less, the bounty to be in addition to the protective tariff. The tariff rate on these compressors, following the 25 per cent across-the-board cut, was 43.125 per cent. What extraordinary apparent precision! In its report of 10 October 1973 on ‘Domestic Appliances, Heating and Cooling Equipment, Etc’ the Board recommended that the tariff rate be reduced to 25 per cent but that for a period of 2 years from 4 February 1974 a bounty of $5 be paid per compressor with an annual limit of $2m to the subsidy. Since it is held to be important from the point of view of the finished appliance manufacturers that the new 25 per cent rate apply immediately the provision of this bounty is essential if the industry is to have any chance to survive, so the Opposition supports the Bill. At page 1 1 of its report the Tariff Board states: . . . local production costs (and consequently disabilities against imports) are … so high that it may not be possible to reorganise production in Australia on an economic basis.

Later on that page it states:

Useful economies would be realised if production were less fragmented. There is also substantial excess capacity. It is clear that the local demand for compressors in this range will support economic production by no more than one company, and even then economic production may not be possible without continued substantial export sales.

Hence the board considered that the present main producer . . . should be given the opportunity to develop profitable operation under the proposed level of protection.

Later in the report the Board says:

It would . . . be in the interests of all concerned if other manufacturers took advantage of the adjustment assistance provisions being recommended to discontinue their present production which operates largely on a marginal cost basis.

There are those who would argue that this represents an unacceptable degree of interference with private industry and the market mechanism. But for my part I would not accept that view; rather I believe it is only reasonable to recognise that the vitality and competitive power of Australian manufacturing will benefit from the greater rationalisation of manufacturing industry. I say that, notwithstanding the philosophy of the Trade Practices Act which pushes the other way. In point of fact too much of this is happening today. The trade practices law, the Prices Justification Tribunal and the

Industries Assistance Commission are all pulling, or perhaps pushing, industry in different directions. I have said that I support the proposed rationalisation. In fact, I wish the Government would come up with a bit of planned rationalisation in the colour television area. What a shambles looks like emerging there, repeating all the chaos of the early days of monochrome television. Far from heeding the warning of the Tariff Board on fragmentation and its advice on rationalisation, the Government and, in particular, the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), seem to have gone out of their way to welcome newcomers.

Broadly, therefore, I support the Board’s recommendations and the intention of the Government as evidenced by the terms of the Bill, notably clause 5(b), to give effect to these recommendations. But the rationalisation of this and other parts of the appliance industry, especially the domestic white goods industry, is commendable and desirable providing 2 things apply: First that the machinery for structural adjustment is around and functioning effectively. As yet I suspect it is not much more than words on paper- and likewise the labour retraining and relocation program. With present Government policies, both parts of the adjustment program are going to be increasingly necessary. But second, this rationalisation of industry in the manufacture of these compressors, the subject of the Bill, and in the areas where others are to be ‘adjusted to’ is OK if subsequently the Australian firms in these several areas of production can command the market.

One may be forgiven for feeling some concerna whole lot of concern- as to whether this will be so. The rate of protection recommended for most things covered by this reference, ‘Domestic Appliances’ is 25 per cent. That, as I have said, is the long term rate recommended for compressors, the subject of this Bill. But even the IAC does not know whether it is adequate. Thus the Board states at page 1 2 of its report:

Because of the significance of the price of compressors to the cost efficiency of (and the market available to) the white goods industries using them (as well as for more general economic reasons) it is considered that they should be accorded no higher rate of protection than that being recommended for white goods generally, viz., 25 per cent.

But- … it remains uncertain whether such duties will support profitable production in Australia.

As I said, even the IAC does not seem to know whether this rate will be adequate. But if we ask why the rate being recommended for white goods generally is 25 per cent we find a pretty general and wide ranging discussion culminating in this- I quote from page 7 of that Tariff Board report:

In determining the appropriate duty rates, the Board has paid considerable regard to the points of reference described and discussed in recent Annual Reports and particularly to the range of effective protection designated as ‘low cost by Australian standards’, viz. up to 25 per cent effective. The duties recommended are, except for a few cases, equivalent to effective protection of the order of 25 per cent.

We had a general and wide-ranging discussion culminating in that statement. I submit that that is hardly what one could call a convincing basis for so important a decision in the particular- this particular- case.

I take this opportunity to assert again that the arithmetic or statistical levels of protection and points of reference just referred to are not accepted in the tariff policy of the Liberal Party. Evidently however, the Board- now the Industries Assistance Commission- and the Government in accepting the report, is so committed, especially, as the passage I quoted underlined, to the ‘low point’ or to what one might call the magical 25 per cent which keeps coming up. It came up in the report on foundation garments tabled yesterday. It is the same long-term rate recommended for the motor vehicle industry. It is the rate recommended for many of the goods under reference in the electronics industrythough that was not accepted by the Government which opted for a 35 per cent level. One could extend the list.

The proposition evidently is- certainly there is an increasingly widespread belief in industry that this is so- and that what cannot survive at 25 per cent is dispensable. This is not the occasion to enlarge further on this theme. It is however, I believe, a matter of truly major moment for the sound working and economic development of Australia. If what is suggested were the guiding principle, it is not good enough, and the development by the Government of a national industrial policy with the tariff as the servant of the policy, not an end in itself, is becoming increasingly urgent. Meanwhile, the Opposition supports the Bill before the House.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2187

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1974-75

Second Reading (Budget Debate)

Debate resumed from 2 October (vide page 2106), on motion by Mr Crean:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Upon which Mr Snedden had moved by way of amendment:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ‘this House is of the opinion that the Budget fails to tackle Australia’s economic crises, in that:

1 ) unemployment is permitted to grow and the prospect for school leavers is prejudiced,

inflation is accelerated,

existing poverty is ignored and new poverty is created,

personal income tax is increased 45 per cent,

5 ) living standards will be lowered,

private enterprise is stifled,

Government power is further centralised,

individual incentive and thrift is penalised, and

a double tax is levied on estates; and because the Government:

has made the Budget a socialist vehicle to intensify the attack on the States and break down the free enterprise system,

believes the absurdity that the Government can spend without people paying or can build without people producing, and

has preached private restraint but has threatened its achievement by its own Government extravagance. ‘

Mr LUSHER:
Hume

-Last night I had the opportunity to make a 10 minute contribution to this Budget debate. Today 10 minutes of my speaking time remains. I am sorry that members of the Labor Party are not thronging into the chamber in their full numbers to listen to my speech because it will contain a bit of fresh thinking. Government members have sat opposite for the last week or two and have asked us where we would make cuts in proposed expenditure. Last night, I made reference to this and suggested a few areas where we might start. To pick up the threads of my argument, I will repeat a few of these points today. I suggested first of all -

Mr Uren:

– Is your name Jones?

Mr LUSHER:

-No, it is not Jones.

Mr Uren:

– There was a Jones here once.

Mr LUSHER:

– Sorry.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Order! The honourable member for Hume will address the Chair.

Mr LUSHER:

-The Minister for Urban and Regional Development, Mr Uren, was interrupting. The national pipeline is one project on which we could start. Its construction will cost millions and millions and millions of dollars. This area of activity properly belongs to private enterprise. In a time when private enterprise is supposed to be slack, this would have been a magnificent opportunity for the Government to show its magnanimity and to transfer one project back to the private sector. But no. It is to be paid for out of Commonwealth revenue.

Mr Kelly:

– Isn’t there something also about paintings?

Mr LUSHER:

– Yes. I was going to come to the arts. I suggested last night that we could make serious cuts in the allocation of money to the arts. We are spending a fortune in the purchase of such things as ‘Blue Poles’ and ‘Woman V. We are now moving into the area of ceilings, sculptures, birds and that sort of thing. I sincerely believe that we could stop making an absolute fool of Australia in the eyes of an people around the world.

Mr Cohen:

– Stick it into superphosphate.

Mr LUSHER:

-Yes, stick it into superphosphate; the money would be far more efficiently expended. The situation now is that the art brokers of the world are rubbing their hands together every time Australia goes on a spree. What sort of a spree has it been? It is about time that we gave serious thought to expending the money allocated to this area on far more acceptable purposes. I made mention also of unemployment and the rackets which are going on. Vast sums in unemployment benefits are being paid out to people who are perfectly able to work but who will not accept jobs. People in fact are drawing unemployment benefits in two, three or four different centres. This is providing them with a very comfortable income, thank you.

I spoke also of the 115 committees and commissions of inquiry which have been set up by this Government. These bodies are costing vast amounts of public funds and are not serving any particularly useful purpose. I referred also to the growth which has taken place under this Government in the size of the Public Service. We have suggested that the growth ceiling should be much lower than that established by this Government. I mentioned also the overseas jaunts which have been occurring for some months past and which are taking place at this time. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) is presently on his eighth overseas trip. People are fed up with the waste of money occurring on these sorts of things in the Government sector.

Another area of concern is expenditure on Aboriginals. I support completely the idea that money should be expended in the area of Aboriginal policy to try to overcome some of the problems that are experienced in this respect. But it is no answer for the Government just to make untold hundreds of millions of dollars available, as it is doing, and then wiping its hands of the problem and saying: ‘Well, we have done our bit’. Far more concrete policies and a far more satisfactory and sensible approach to the expenditure of that money are called for.

What has happened is that all members of the Labor Party who are in government today have been issued with the same economic primer. They cannot even get a grasp of that. They cannot understand even the basic facts. They are all digging around trying to find the few benefits that this Budget will provide. Nobody can argue that any Budget does not have some good features. But they are failing to see the total impact of the Budget and its overall effect. Nobody seems to understand those aspects. They all have the same tutor in economics just as they seem to have the same drama tutor, because they all sound identical. They are not prepared to be original because they are all being totally dominated by this structure that is being laid on from the top.

Yesterday I asked how Labor members can hold their heads up when they go into the pubs in their electorates and hear what their fellow men and supporters are saying to them when they go into their electorates. How can they possibly hold their heads up in such surroundings? It is a Budget of absolute hypocrisy. Yet, members of the Labor Party go home and say that they have increased welfare benefits and that the people should be happy about that The people will realise, as the months roll on, just what a disaster this Budget has been. What about this hypocrisy of restraint? Restraint is being called for by everybody in the Government. The Ministers and the backbenchers are all running around saying that we have to have restraint. Among those calls for restraint come the proposals to boost government expenditure by more than 30 per cent. That follows an increase of 20 per cent last year. So, we have had an increase comfortably in excess of 50 per cent in government expenditure.

We are watching and witnessing a massive shift from the private sector to the public sector. This is a socialistic approach. There are plenty of areas, such as housing and the pipeline which I mentioned, where money could have been better applied within the private sector. I quote the Treasurer

The relatively subdued conditions in prospect in the private sector provide the first real opportunity we have had to transfer resources to the public sector.

What is the basis for that statement? Having brought the economy to its knees, having completely destroyed it and having pulled the rug out from underneath it, is the Government in a position to say that because of subdued conditions that exist in the private sector it will drag all the resources into the public sector?

I suggest that the Government could easily have spent the money, if it wanted to, in providing some stimulus, some incentive and some meaningful tax cuts to the economy- to business, to the private sector and to individuals- rather than these phoney tax cuts that will be meaningless by Christmas. The Government could easily have got some activity going in the private sector so that it could have taken up its own slack. The Government has created conditions for making further inroad into the private sector and transferring much more into the public sector. This Budget will add significantly to wage claims and industrial unrest as people inevitably fight to maintain the real value of their wages in their pockets. This Government, with its meaningless tax cuts and its massive shift into the public sector, will create many more problems, much more unemployment, much more pressure on wages and much more inflation.

What could the Government have done in this Budget about interest rates? Interest rates in this country are at an all-time high. It is a disaster, particularly for those who are trying to buy a home. The Labor Party says that a person has to own his own home. It says that that is the Australian dream and it will see that people get their own home. Eight or nine months ago the repayments on an average $20,000 mortgage through a building society were $150 a month. Today on the same mortgage as a result of interest increases the payments are $230 a month. That is hitting the pocket of the average fellow, the little fellow, the chap who is supposed to be being taken care of by the Labor Party.

I wanted to make reference to the capital gains tax and the serious effect it will have on family farms, small businesses and the general economy in the private sector. I wanted to make reference also to the Prime Minister’s statements in overseas arenas about what this Government could do for providing the hungry world with food. I wanted to refer also to what it could have done in this Budget to provide some incentive in the area of agricultural production so that we could have looked forward to some stimulation, some increased production and some better productivity in this area.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

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

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

-During the past 2 weeks of this Budget sitting I have listened intently to the speeches of members of the Opposition- and those that I have been unable to hear I have followed in Hansard- hoping against hope to hear some contributions that were original; some contributions that, if not original, at least showed some depth of understanding of the sort of problems that face Australia today. I had hoped and even expected to find some comprehensive plan for how Australia, alone of all the advanced economic countries today, could solve its economic problems. I thought that the first infusion of new blood into the Parliamentary Liberal Party for many years might introduce into this Budget debate the first glimmer of rethinking of its social and economic policies in nearly 3 decades. Tragically for this country, that was not to be. The new Liberals are the same as the old Liberals but without the wrinkles, the paunches and the grey hair. Nothing has changed. The new faces and the old faces are shouting the same old tired cliches about manning the barricades against the terrible Whitlam socialist government. They are loud in their praise of individual endeavour and the holiest of holies- free enterprise. Hopefully they will realise that one needs a little more than cliches to run a country and to solve the economic problems that beset the world today.

Rarely does one find in this place any real debate on political philosophy. Listening to members of the Liberal and Country Parties using these tired old phrases, one gains the impression that for them the debate is over; that if one can say the word ‘socialist’ with enough sneer in one’s voice and the words ‘free enterprise’ with enough reverence, there is nothing more to be said. It may have been appropriate in the forties and the fifties. It may even have applied in the early sixties. But for 1 974 it is positively ludicrous. Opposition members do not seem to realise that in the past 10 to IS years a new generation has grown up. It is a new educated generation which is not satisfied with slogans of the Left or of the Right. It wants answers to today’s problems with less simplistic and less dishonest catch-cries. I am surprised that members of the Opposition have not realised that more and more people see the absurdities of Liberals being champions of the free enterprise system while at the same time doing their level best to see that the system is anything but free and anything but enterprising. If they genuinely wanted free enterprise- which, as I understand it, means the law of supply and demand and the flow of free market forces free of any form of government controls- they would applaud any move to reduce tariffs, but they do not; they would applaud the end to special government handouts to business by way of tax incentives, depreciation allowances or special write-offs for businesses of any kind, but they do not, they would oppose any form of market control, limited franchises, restrictive trade practices, monopoly contols, price fixing or any of the other cosy little agreements between government and business and between business and other businesses that grew up during their 23 years in government, but they do not. Not only do they oppose these moves, but they scream like stuck pigs when those terrible socialists try to create some of that very free enterprise environment which they claim to admire so ardently.

What I find so amusing about the debate is that those who profess so loudly in this Parliament their faith in free enterprise know virtually nothing about the subject, primarily because few of them have had any business experience at all. It will probably come as a shock to many Liberal and Country Party supporters to find that probably fewer than half a dozen of them have had business experience. The majority are farmers and lawyers. Let that not be interpreted as an attack on farmers and lawyers, but they are not noted for their business experience. This has been perfectly obvious in the inflationrevaluationdevaluationtariff debate that has occupied so much of our time during the past 18 months and during this Budget debate. Members of the Opposition have totally failed to understand what was happening in the business world and the necessity for the Government to take the steps it took when one takes into account the lack of powers that the Government has available to it through the obstruction of the Senate and the restrictions placed on it by the Constitution.

Shortly after we came to office an inflationary situation had arisen through factors totally outside the control of the Australian Government. The 1972 Budget, aimed at winning the December election by pumping money indiscriminately into the economy; the huge inflow of foreign capital and available funds which enable anyone and everyone who wanted to take off on some speculative venture to do so without any consideration of the supply of goods, labour and materials that was available; and the international rise in prices of commodities such as wool, wheat, meat and so on and later oil caused a rapid rise in domestic inflation. That did not stop the Liberal and Country Parties from blaming the Labor Party. In fact, if one reads speeches made by members of the Opposition from March to June 1973 when the Government had made no major economic moves that would, at that stage, have had any significant effect on the economy, one is struck by the absurdity of their claim that the then existing inflation rate of from 8 per cent to 10 per cent was the fault of the Australian Labor Government, when it was obvious that at that point the inflation we were suffering was totally as a result of economic policies pursued by them during their last months in office.

Lacking powers over prices and operating in a free market economy, the Government took the only steps open to it to reduce inflation. It revalued the currency twice and cut tariffs across the board by 25 per cent to reduce prices to the consumer. It also tightened the inflow of foreign capital, much of which had gone into land speculation and development, to take some of the pressure off the building industry which had reached absurd levels of growth and was forcing the price of land and housing through the roof, while at the same time it was building office blocks that were not needed.

Representing one of those areas that had had one of the highest growth rates in Australia, I had a fair insight into the mad speculation that had gone on during the previous 2 years. Land often changed hands two or three times in a few months with each new speculator putting a few dollars deposit on the land and placing it back on the market after adding a few thousand dollars to the price. The price of land I purchased to build a home on in 1970 had risen by 400 per cent. House building had reached the absurd position where a person wanting a house built could wait from six or eight months for completion. There was a mad scramble for labour as builders outbid each other for skilled tradesmen. I was told of one example where in a hotel, notices were posted each day by local builders offering $35, then $40 and finally $45 per day for bricklayers. Bricks, nails, timber were unobtainable or involved long delays. It became perfectly obvious to anyone with even half a brain that providing unlimited funds for land and building, did not provide homes; it merely fuelled the fires of inflation.

Another disastrous cost of this situation was that virtually no labour was available for low income houses, housing commission homes or for public works. Areas like the Central Coast where building booms had taken off were already years behind in basic amenities, such as water, sewerage, roads, drainage, kerbing and guttering, welfare, recreational, sporting, health and educational facilities. What hope was there of providing the needs and doing the new works, let alone catching up on the backlog of services from 23 years of Liberal-Country Party rule, and 8 years of State Liberal Government. This inflation caused by the Liberals’ handling of the economy had created the situation where anyone who did not have his money in land and property speculation, and instead had it invested in banks, building societies, etc., was losing heavily on his investment.

The profits being made in this area were similarly having its effect in the retail market where consumer demand was rocketing ahead of our capacity to produce the goods. Only last Christmas the list of items that could not be purchased in the shops was a daily news item in the Press. At that stage the effect of the revaluations and tariff cuts had not been felt. Retailers were having a ball with turnovers up by an average of 25 per cent to 30 per cent. Despite their orchestrated screams about rising overheads they were making bigger profits than they had ever made in their history. They had had 2 bumper years but that was nothing to what they were planning to make out of the imported goods that were due to hit the market for the winter and summer of 1974. What the business world was doing was neither moral nor immoral; it was amoral, because business has no morals- that is at least when it is talking about profit margins. No doubt this will bring forth a cry of horror from the business community. What I have said is no condemnation of businessmen, but simply a condemnation of the system.

The free enterprise purists will argue, and I agree with them, that there is no such thing as the correct, right or moral profit mark-up. The right mark-up is what the market will allow. No one compensates the retailer when he has to sell his goods at a loss, which he occasionally has to do. No one, he would argue, should therefore, dictate what his profits should be when he can make them. If he can buy a block of land for $5,000 and sell it next month for $ 10,000 why should he be a mug and sell it for $7,500? Why, if he can buy a shirt from Hong Kong at $2 and can sell it in Australia for $8, should he therefore sell it at $3.50 or $4? He does not think of himself as being immoral or as a profiteer; he see himself simply as a good businessman. He did nothing illegal, so why does society condemn him as a profiteer? He would argue that no one was forced to buy his merchandise. Providing he does not misrepresent the product and keeps his side of the bargain then, he believes he should be admired, not denigrated. His responsibility to himself and his company is to buy as low as possible, to sell as high as possible and to pay as little as is required in costs, including labour, to maximise bis profit. Anyone who does otherwise, again he would argue, is either a fool or a bad businessman.

Normally this system of supply and demand operates fairly successfully. I mean successfully in the sense that the competition in the market place usually reaches a level that enables a few to make substantial profits because they are more efficient at what they are doing, the majority to make a comfortable living and a few to go under. The market adjusts itself between over-supply and under-supply, enabling the public to receive goods at reasonable prices. There are, of course, constant abuses of the free market system such as monopolies, cartels, price fixing, restrictive trade practices and straight-out fraud. Governments both here and abroad have tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to moderate these abuses. However, these abuses aside, every now and then the system fails to work, as it has in Australia and other parts of the world during the past 12 to 18 months.

The Government, lacking power over prices and incomes and able only to fine-tune the economy by exercising the controls it has over the flow of money both into and within the country, and its powers of currency valuation and tariffs, sought to make the market more competitive and less speculative by using those powers. The reduction in the tariffs and the revaluation of the currency should have led to lower prices of imported goods, particularly in the electrical, clothing, textile and footwear industries. That it failed to do so initially was caused by importers and retailers in particular, being able to sell goods they bought at the same prices, and even higher prices in some circumstances, than they had previously. The only difference was that after the tariff cuts they were buying the goods at half the price of locally manufactured articles of a similar quality.

Let me give an example of how it works. The price of a locally manufactured shirt is $5. The retailer sells it for $8, showing a margin of 60 per cent. After revaluation and tariff cuts, plus the fact that it probably was originally a bit cheaper overseas anyhow, he can now buy it for $3. If there were such a thing as business morality he would sell at, say, $3, showing a better mark-up of 66 per cent The market, however, is buoyant and he sells is easily for $8. The profit margin is not now 60 per cent; it is 170 per cent. This is only a mild example of the son of mark-ups that have been operating over the past 12 months.

The example I have cited here is typical of every time of business enterprise, whether one is talking about clothing, textiles, real estate, minerals, building materials or whatever. The opportunities open to the retailer to maximise his profits were created by Government action.He will not act unilaterally to co-operate with the Government’s objectives. He will be forced by further Government actions to create a climate which forces him to lower his prices. Even in countries like the United States, which has the power to control prices, he will react like the beef producer and withdraw his cattle from the market until the price freeze is over.

Mr Peacock:

– Tell us about the role of the Government.

Mr COHEN:

– What gives me a pain in the neck when I listen to people like the honourable member for Kooyong is not that this occurs in a capitalist society, but the incessant whining of the business community that the Government should not interfere in free enterprise. If the honourable member really meant that he would be pleading for an end to all Government action -stabilisation schemes, guaranteed floor prices, tax incentives, subsidies, restrictive trade practices protection, award wages and the removal of all tariffs and import controls. Of course he does not believe in that and neither do we. So stop talking all this garbage about free enterprise. What each business sector wants is action on its behalf to maximise its profits. It is not the responsibility of one retailer to look after other sectors of business and also the consumer. What the Government has to do is constantly to balance the needs of each sector of the community to bring about the greatest benefit. Twelve months ago, and even before that, our predecessors were faced with the problem of rocketing land prices. That problem is over. We now have the problem of the crash of some of the speculators and the investors who put their savings into those companies in the hope of making profits out of their speculation. That is the way the system operates. You cannot have it both ways.

I recently had the misfortune to read an incredibly ill-informed, incredibly stupid speech by Mr J. H. Valder, Chairman of the Sydney Stock Exchange. Quickly brushing off the international situation and the economic situation prevailing when we came to office in 1972, he blamed the present state of the domestic economy on fear- fear of socialisation. He quoted no facts but simply rattled off a series of cliches and slogans that sounded more like a speech from 1949 than the 1970s. I am sure that he made the Rotarians, to whom the speech was given, feel warm inside, but it was a totally dishonest speech with no other objective, as far as I can see, than to blame this Government for every economic ill that besets this country today. To illustrate his limited and selective use of prejudice he gave as his example Great Britain and said:

I myself find it hard to escape the conclusion that Australia is being headed in exactly the same direction that Britain has been going for the past decade or so and where the situation generally now seems to have reached an absolutely critical stage.

The inference is clear. Australia is heading in the same direction as Great Britain because it too has a Labor Government. What garbage. Great Britain has had during the past 24 years, 17 years of Conservative government and 7 years of British Labor Party Government. Since June 1970 there have been only 7 months of a Labor government. Britain’s economic problems have continued for years under both political parties- the honourable member for Kooyong knows this full wetland the major reasons for the British voters throwing out the Heath Government was the economic chaos that had reigned early this year and during 4 years of Conservative rule.

I want to conclude, in answering the stupidity of the Valders of the community and the Liberal and Country Parties, by quoting from a cover story in the ‘Time’ magazine of 9 September 1974. 1 think that honourable members opposite would agree that this is hardly a radical rag. The magazine stated:

The US is afflicted by a massive economic migraine, and more than 200 million Americans know too well just how much it hurts. There incomes, savings and life-styles are being assailed by a whole group of aches and pains. There is feverish inflation, constriction of credit and throbbingly high interest rates. The stock market has scarcely been so shaky since 1929. Just about everybody who buys, sells, borrows or invests has that overall feeling of unease. And there is no fast, fast relief in sight.

The attack of problems seems to be almost diabolically coordinated. Inflation drives up interest rates; then money flees Wall Street to pursue the higher interest rates, pushing stock prices down further; then the high cost of borrowing and the impossibility of selling new stock issues in a collapsing market make it difficult for companies to raise the money needed to expand or in some cases even to stay alive, thus intensifying the threat of recession- or worse.

That sounds familiar does it not? It is true of Japan, Britain, France and almost every other Western developed country except perhaps West Germany. The solutions proffered by the Conservatives are the same in America as they are in Australia. The article continued: . . . Ford -

That is President Ford- once again declared that inflation is the nation’s primary problem … He vowed to make a start on fighting it by cutting at least $5.5 billion out of the federal budget for fiscal 1975 . . . Ford offered only bleak counsel: emulate the belt-tightening example of the Administration and ‘watch every penny’.

The article continued:

The jump in interest rates- as high as 10 per cent on mortgage loans in California- has forced many families to postpone indefinitely their dreams of buying a new or bigger house. Though corporate profits on the whole are still rising smartly, interest costs and inflated operating expenses are driving a growing number of businesses to the wall.

One could go on. It is utter hypocrisy for the Opposition to try to select economic problems that exist in Australia and say that they do not exist anywhere else. If one had time to read some more selections one would be able to show honourable members opposite that the sort of different solutions that the liberal economists in the United States are suggesting are the sort of solutions that are enshrined in the 1974 Australian Budget. One need only refer to the remarks of Walter Heller to illustrate this point. However, time limits me from detailing those facts to the House. If honourable members read the article to which I have referred they would be surprised to learn just how similar are the problems and the solutions offered by the conservatives on their side and by the social democrats on this side. I support the Budget.

Mr GRAHAM:
North Sydney

– I would like to begin my speech by saying a few words to my young and learned colleague from Robertson (Mr Cohen) who has been in this House for a limited period of time. I understand that he is a successful businessman and therefore he would be qualified to make some comment about the ethics of business people. I feel, however, that the party political type of speech which he made and in which he attacked the Opposition was not a very serious speech in the light of the circumstances that confront Australia today. As we know, the economic downturn within this country has been compounded by many of the actions of the Australian Government, as it now prefers to be called, as distinct from the Commonwealth Government. I would remind the honourable member for Robertson that the biggest shareholder in every business in Australia, the one shareholder who is most dependent upon the success of business in Australia, is his colleague the Treasurer (Mr Crean). There is no single shareholder in any business in Australia who derives more from the success of that business than does the Treasurer of Australia

It is absurd to see the economy on the one hand as being free enterprise and therefore different and on the other hand as being Government and absorbing enormous benefits from the success of commerce within the country. There is very little variation in humanity or human outlook whether one has a free enterprise economy or a socialist economy. I would advise the honourable member for Robertson if he were still in his place that he would find humanity is much the same on any part of this earth and when there is a black market, as there was certainly in Berlin, London, Tokyo and Sydney during the last war, there are any number of people, including a number of successful socialists, who are prepared to make what is know colloquially in the United States as the fast buck. I do not believe that this sort of thinking stops in commerce at all. I think there is ample evidence to indicate that many of the people who are expert in the business of the fast buck have found their way into the ranks of the much vaunted Australian Labor Party.

I support the amendment that has been moved on behalf of the Opposition by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden). It states:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with the view to substituting the following words: ‘this House is of the opinion that the Budget fails to tackle Australia’s economic crisis, in that:

1 ) unemployment is permitted to grow and the prospect for school leavers is prejudiced,

I think that that was not challenged by the honourable member for Robertson-

  1. inflation is accelerated,

That certainly was not challenged by him-

  1. existing poverty is ignored and new poverty is created,
  2. personal income tax is increased 45 per cent,
  3. living standards will be lowered,
  4. 6 ) private enterprise is stifled,
  5. Government power is further centralised,
  6. individual incentive and thrift is penalised, and

  7. 9 ) a double tax is levied on estates; and because the Government:

    1. has made the Budget a socialist vehicle to intensify the attack on the States and break down the free enterprise system,
    2. believes the absurdity that the Government can spend without people paying or can build without people producing, and
    3. has preached private restraint but has threatened its achievement by its own Government extravagance’.

I notice that the Treasurer in his Budget Speech said:

The abatement in demand pressures is widened also in the labour market, Unemployment has increased and overtime working has diminished.

I want to relate those events- other than international influences- which have contributed to these circumstances because I believe it is reasonable for us to accept in Australia that we should show how the actions of the Government have contributed to the economic situation and the crisis which we face today.

When the members of the Australian Labor Party came to power in 1972 they did so because they had said to the people successfully on that occasion, as they had said unsuccessfully on many previous occasions: ‘If you elect us we will do all sorts of things for you. All sorts of goodies will come in the bag. We will spend thousands of millions of dollars extra, which you have not earned but which we will give you because we are going to soak the rich and get it out of their pockets for you’. That was successful to a degree. Sufficient to put them into power. With all the charm of robbers down through the ages, they proceeded in 1973, despite the dire warnings that were being given to them and the red lights that were flashing around the world, to honour their promises. They poured hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars into honouring their promises, which tended to be fuel for the fire of inflation that was starting to burn in Australia. Certainly they stimulated the economy and certainly the unemployment that was apparent in August and September of 1972 had vanished by March, April and May of 1973. But from then on the story becomes one of very great significance for the people of Australia, particularly those people who one would have expected to support the Australian Labor Party.

There is a program that must be faced by a serious government if it is to deal with the economic crisis and that is the international program that has been recommended by the Chairman of the Union Bank of Switzerland. I will turn to the international field briefly to give honourable members an illustration of the type of thing which has been recommended by this international economist. He said that we must reduce inflation by imposing consistent and restrictive fiscal, monetary and foreign trade measures, with all industrial nations cooperating; end inflation-oriented thinking; recognise the simple truth that we must put something into an economy to get something out of it; gear wage and salary increases to productivity; curb excessive demands for wage increases, greater social benefits, shorter working weeks, and so on; and avoid creating more special- International Monetary Fund- drawing rights, raising the price of gold, imposing import restrictions, or forcing trade among industrial nations in a bid to correct the balance of payments problems. He said that nations will need to devise a mechanism for the recycling of surplus Arab oil money to those countries with balance of payments deficits. He said that there are major difficulties in this which would lead to the need for a second recycling from the countries with large monetary reserves into those with low reserves. That has been referred to in this House in recent weeks by the Treasurer and by a former Treasurer, the right honourable member for Lowe (Mr McMahon).

The Chairman of the Union Bank of Switzerland went on to say that governments must put their finances in the black primarily by reducing their spending. That means right across the board. Even if it is a matter of being unpopular, if one is talking about a reduction in education programs, a reduction in social service programs and a reduction in defence programs, one has to face up to the situation because if this country’s inflation rate goes to 20 per cent and if inflation is allowed to run riot for 2 years we will find that Australia will be collapsing around our ears and we will have hordes of people unemployed simply because those who provide employment for them in free enterprise will have become bankrupt and no longer will be able to provide the employment that is the absolute lifeblood of the workers of this country.

Surely it must be clear even to the most obtuse of the Government’s Ministers that it is no real answer to unemployment to take a man who has been working in some special field and offer him employment as a labourer in the building of a swimming pool or toilets in Tasmania or something of that nature, as was referred to by the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) in this House yesterday. Strong democratic governments that are able to employ unpopular means to achieve what is necessary and appropriate for their economies are the ones which will win the respect of the world and be the first to put their nations back on to a sound and rational level.

I was interested in yesterday’s article by the former Premier of New South Wales, the Honourable J. T. Lang, who would be well remembered, I am quite sure, by my distinguished friend the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Luchetti), who is present in the chamber. The former Premier of New South Wales, the Honourable J. T. Lang, who is now one of the patriarchs of our democracy and who is in his nineties, wrote a very interesting article in which he compared 1930 with 1974. The message that is quite clear for people who have the capacity to comprehend and for people who can read is that in future years we may look back on 1974 and see a greater similarity between 1929-30 and 1974 than we in fact realised at this time was possible. At the conclusion of the article to which I have referred the Honourable J. T. Lang had this to say:

In the United States the rate of inflation seems to have stabilised at a steady 10.7 per cent a year. In Britain it has reached 16.S percent, and in Japan 23.4 percent. Israel has a towering 44 per cent inflation rate due mainly to the cost of the October war, and taxation is currently taking 63 per cent of the national income.

That paints a terrible picture for the people of Israel. The article continues:

The international bankers and the economists failed to produce a satisfactory solution of the 1930 world depression, and now in 1 974 the same people -

He does not mean the same people in a physical sense; he means the people occupying the same positions of power and influence- have no answer to the problem of world inflation.

Excessive debt charges and restrictions on borrowing resulted in wholesale bankruptcies and foreclosures in 1930, and excessive interest charges and restrictions on credit have resulted in liquidations and forced sale of businesses in 1974.

The easy way out is to blame the Government for the crisis, but the blame lies well beyond that. The primary responsibility must be carried by the reserve banks, which act as advisers to the Governments and are the principal originators and directors of monetary policy.

With great respect to the former Premier of New South Wales, I doubt very much whether the Reserve Bank of Australia would be prepared to accept responsibility for the monetary and fiscal policies of the Whitlam Government. In fact, I have every reason to suspect that the chiefs of the Reserve Bank of Australia would quietly put on their hats and steal away into the darkness if such an incredible suggestion were put to them. The article continues:

The present crisis is entirely in the field of monetary management and that is where the prime responsibility rests for both the world depression of 1 930 and that of 1 974.

Cheaper money and acceptance of calculated risks by the lending bodies are the essentials for bringing the present inflation under control. But time is running out.

My friend the Treasurer had the hide to come into this House- these words send shivers up and down my spine- and say:

Crucial as the fight against inflation is, it cannot be made the sole objective of Government policy.

I venture to suggest that by this time next year that unfortunate man will be eating his words, because by this time next year it will be clear, even to the thickest ever crust of mankind, that the fight against inflation must be the sole main objective of government in this country.

Mr King:

– Did he not recommend the purchasing of BHP shares at $7.50?

Mr GRAHAM:

– My friend from Wimmera has reminded me that on one occasion the Treasurer did recommend putting in orders for BHP shares at $7.50. That was probably a fanenough recommendation some years ago. If he puts m an order next year to buy at $2 he will probably get substantial figures. That is my judgment on the matter. The Treasurer said:

The Government is committed to the program of social reform to improve the position of less privileged groups in our society and to maintain employment opportunities.

We have said in our amendment that the Budget ignores existing poverty and further increases poverty. After all, for people who were getting a small benefit from a $400 deduction for education expenses to be told that it had been reduced to $150 is tantamount to admitting again that the Labor Party is out to do all it can to destroy the independent school system in Australia. It is such a small amount in the context of the $ 16,000m that the Government has taken from the economy that it seems incredible that it could have been done with any economic motive in mind, and one wonders what on earth the social motive could be. Furthermore, this absurd tax that the Government is going to put on to unearned income in its first introduction to the House is quite clearly a sectional tax that is going to hit people who have invested as the years have gone by and accumulated some possible chance of small dividends. They are going to find themselves taxed because that particular income is described as unearned income. If I may say so, that is the most arrant bunkum I have heard for years. Most people who exert themselves throughout their lives earn income to invest in order to get other income. So in the first place income for most people is income that is earned by some form of endeavour. Surely if you are going to encourage investment, if you want Australian investment- I understand the Government disapproves of investment from overseas from what it describes as foreign multinationalswhy does it discourage people who are Australians from investing in their own country, because the Government is then going to tax them by an extra 10 per cent in this Budget? That is itself absurd. I believe that Australians must face up to the fact that the holidays are over, the good days are gone for a period of time, and that probably 60 per cent of the effect of that hitting the ‘lucky country’ comes from overseas but I am absolutely certain that 40 per cent comes from the stupidity, the cupidity and the immoral approach to politics of the Australian Labor Party. They have gone out into the market place with a bag in one hand saying: ‘Put your vote into this hand of mine and take your parcel of goodies out of the bag in the other hand. ‘

I reject the Budget. I will vote for the amendment and I hope that it will not be long before Australians understand that they have a group of people in their Government who do not know what they are doing as far as this nation and its economy is concerned, people who appear to have a very limited sense of” responsibility and who allow- the best one can say- their compassion and their sincerity to get the better of their own judgment, people who want something for nothing and who set abroad in this country this pernicious belief that you can get something for nothing when you can not. You can only get it at some other poor wretch’s expense, and this I warn you is in every social sense the very worst type of concept to have going abroad in the Australian community. I hope the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) will do all he can as robustly and as quickly as he can to stifle the concept.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Order The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr DAVIES:
Braddon

-I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate because it will enable me as a Tasmanian to answer some of the criticisms that have been levelled at the Australian Labor Government for alleged neglect of the island State of Tasmania. I refer to arguments such as those appearing in the ‘Advocate’ newspaper in Tasmania on Tuesday, 1 October, in which they complained about the neglect of the island State. As I say, this debate has given me an opportunity to put the record straight. Australian Government financial assistance to the State of Tasmania will increase dramatically in 1974-75. In the financial year 1973-74 total Australian Government payments to the State and its Loan Council program, which was supported by the Australian Government, were $225.3m. The corresponding total for this financial year, 1974-75, cannot be estimated with precision at this stage but in round terms it is expected that over $3 10m will be available, an increase of approximately 38 per cent. Even after allowing for cost increases thus is a very substantial increase indeed.

I would like to detail some of this expenditure and some of the revenue that is available to the Tasmanian people from the Australian Labor Government. In connection with general revenue grants I point out that these are up from $ 10 lm in the last financial year to an estimated $130m in this financial year, 1974-75, an increase of nearly 30 per cent. General purpose capital funds comprising capital grants and Loan Council borrowings are up from $64m in the last financial year to $76.4m this financial year. Tasmania will share in the wide variety of new and expanded programs of specific purpose assistance to the States, and I would like to give some special examples. New initiatives are provided in the field of health. An amount of $ 1.6m is provided for public hospitals in Tasmania, and we have never had anything at all before from any Australian Government. In Launceston the Australian Government will meet half the cost of the building and operation of the new general hospital. In Hobart, the capital city, the Australian Labor Government will wholly build and operate a new women’s hospital. In the field of community health services we have never had any assistance at all before, and in this Budget a sum of $2m is provided. In the field of school dental health, of course, we must be particularly pleased because we got this year an allocation of $3m. I want to stress that Tasmania gets more than 10 per cent of the total allocation with only 3 per cent of the population.

I am particularly pleased that in the Budget papers there is a special mention given to nursing homes. The Treasurer said:

It is proposed to amend the National Health Act to authorise the Minister to enter into agreements with religious, charitable and other non-profit organisations conducting nursing homes, under which the Government will meet the deficits incurred in running the homes. It is planned to introduce this arrangement in January next. The cost in 1 974-73 is estimated at $ 1 .8m.

I know that the nursing homes in Tasmania will be particularly pleased with this innovation of deficit funding. I think every member in this Parliament will be pleased, because we know how difficult it is in Tasmania to run these homes. The State Wages Board makes a determination in relation to pay for State nursing staff and after some months there is an application on behalf of staff in private nursing homes. It takes some while for this salary determination to flow on, so there is a heavy impost of salary arrears that has to be met by the nursing homes. This deficit funding, where the Commonwealth will enter into an agreement with the nursing homes to assist them with the losses that they incur through no fault of their own- and after doing the wonderful work that they do- will certainly be a great innovation in that particular field.

Under general roads legislation, Tasmania will receive $31m, which is an increase of more than 40 per cent over the allocation of the previous 2 years. Over the next 3 years, including this year, Tasmania will receive an allocation of $53m and $2.7m for urban transport assistance programs. Of course in the field of housing the attitude of this Government to Tasmania is really spectacular. In the last year the Liberal-Country Party Government was in office, Tasmania received an allocation of $300,000. Last year under a Labor Government this allocation increased to $16m and this financial year that amount will be increased to $20m. In the field of social security we have done a great deal to keep contact with the people who need assistance and advice. I point out to the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser), who is the Opposition spokesman sitting at the table, that no new buildings were constructed in Tasmania by his Government during the last 7 years of its office. Under the Labor Government new offices have been opened up at Devonport, New Norfolk, Queenstown, Bellerive and Glenorchy, and new offices are being considered for Georgetown, Huonville and Ulverstone.

The Australian Assistance Plan initiated by this Government is of course a magnificent concept. It will bring the people, the community, into the planning stages for welfare programs. In Hobart last year the southern regional councils were allocated $5,000 and the same amount has been allocated this year. In Launceston the allocation to councils has been doubled from approximately $2,500 last year to $5,000 this year. Councils in the region I am particularly interested in, the Mersey-Lyell area, received $5,000 last year and will receive $6,000 this year to assist with planning and administration expenses. Tasmania is to receive $6.3m this year for urban and regional development works and this includes $2.7m for sewerage and $2m for the lands commission. There is also a commitment in the Budget for a north-west regional water scheme. I will deal with that matter later. There is also an amount of $ 1.3m in the Budget for the completion of the Hobart airport which is planned for 1975-76.

It is in the field of education that this Government has made spectacular progress and has done a tremendous amount of good work. Tasmania alone will receive $20m this year for universities. I point out to the House that this amount is more than 3 times that allocated in the previous 2 years. Tasmania will receive $ 14m for colleges of advanced education and that amount is about 4 times the allocation of the previous 2 years. For technical education it will receive $2m, which is almost 3 times the allocation of the previous 2 years. Tasmania government and non-government schools will receive $16m, which is about 4 times the allocation of the previous 2 years. Anyone who says Tasmania is neglected is miles away from the truth. The school dental scheme that I referred to earlier was initiated under a Labor government in financial year 1973-74 and in that year an amount of $ 1 .4m was allocated by way of grants. This year the estimated grant will be $1.7m, an increase of $0.3m.

On Tuesday night the Government was criticised in the House for its policy towards the Tasmanian apple industry. I point out that it was the previous Government that started the tree pull scheme and refused to give growers any subsidy assistance in the export of fruit. But under the Labor Government an amount of $2m has been allocated in the 1974-75 Budget on a dollar for dollar basis in order to assist the apple export industry. The Budget also includes $2.7m for assistance for sewerage schemes in Tasmania. I am very pleased indeed that the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) has now made it possible for towns of more than 20,000 people to be included in the scheme. This will mean that the new sewerage scheme will now encompass the towns of Devonport and Burnie. In this financial year $2.7m is provided for urban public transport in Tasmania. An amount of $1.4m is provided by the Government for the King Island shipping service to enable the Tasmanian Government to buy the ‘Ra’, which is the replacement vessel for the ‘Straitsman’ which unfortunately sank in the Yarra River last year.

Local councils are particularly pleased with the allocation from the Grants Commission. Tasmania received $1.7m for municipal authorities last year. This is the amount that was recommended by the Grants Commission. Of this, $500,000 went to councils in the Braddon electorate. When this was mooted I can remember some Liberals saying: ‘This is pie in the sky. This will never eventuate’. They got an awful shock when some councils received up to $100,000 with no strings attached. You ought to see these Liberals scurrying around and opening their mouths now, when they are visited by the commissioner from the Grants Commission, to make sure that they get a bigger slice of the cake. They were full of criticism when it was first mooted, but they certainly do not mind taking the money.

Tasmania receives much more Australian Government assistance per capita than do any of the other States. For example, last year funds for Tasmania totalled $565 per head of population compared with $335 on an average for all States. This additional assistance paid in recognition of the State’s unique circumstances is continuing to increase under the Labor Government. Tasmania’s per capita allocation is 70 per cent higher than the average for the rest of Australia. The generous treatment of the State of Tasmania by the Australian Labor Government has replaced the undignified haggling and meanness to which Tasmania was subjected by past Liberal Party governments in Canberra. Tasmania has about 3 per cent of the population of Australia but will receive almost 5 per cent of the total assistance grants from the Australian Government this financial year.

I wish to turn to shipping, because shipping is of great importance to Tasmania. Unlike the other States, Tasmania does not have road and rail links with other parts of Australia, and shipping is its lifeline. The Federal Government will spend $54.7m on new ships and equipment this year to expand the Australian National Line. Over the past years the ANL never had a Budget figure of more than $ 10m. This year this Government will be allocating more than 5 times as much as was allocated in any previous year. Money will be spent on starting new ships, which will be worth more than $200m. Most of the money will be used to build, charter and operate enough ships to carry a fair share of Australia’s exports and imports. A cellular container ship of 29,000 tonnes is being built for the AustraliaEurope trade and a ship has been built for the Australia-Japan trade. Contracts have been let for building 4 modern bulk carriers, all more than 100,000 tonnes, for use in the AustraliaJapan ore trade. Delivery dates for these vessels are June, July, and December 1976 and May 1977. Two of the carriers will be of 120,000 tonnes and two will be of 140,000 tonnes. For the first time the Australian flag will fly regularly in the bulk trades. Coastal trade has not been neglected. Six ships have been bought or are being built for it. A new Melbourne terminal is also being built and this will help remove the cargo congestion and improve turnround. The previous Liberal-Country Party Government allowed the shipping service on the Tasmanian run to run down.

I am pleased to see that adequate recognition is given in this Budget to the need to upgrade the shipping services to Tasmania. The Australian National Line has on order from the State Dockyard a 6,700-ton vehicle deck container Sea Coaster due for delivery in approximately 12 months. Delivery of this vessel was expected early next year, but because it is now 12 months away the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) has approved the purchase of a 5,400-ton unit load vessel at present under construction in

Norway. These two vessels, together with the order of a second Sea Coaster from the State Dockyard, will provide Tasmanian exporters with a more economic service of greater capacity. I appeal to the Minister, however, to keep the ‘Bass Trader’ and the ‘Echuca’ in service on the Bass Strait run until such time as these new vessels are on the Tasmanian run.

I turn now to the question of freights. These, coupled with the availability of adequate shipping, are of tremendous importance to Tasmania. I maintain that the Government has honoured its 1972 and 1974 election promises.

Mr Nixon:

– It has done nothing.

Mr DAVIES:
BRADDON, TASMANIA · ALP

-You did nothing at all. The Government has removed the disadvantage facing Tasmania by reason of the fact that it has only a sea link to the mainland. The honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon) who was the prevous Minister for Shipping and Transport knows quite well, because he was responsible for authorising the increases in ANL freights, that under the previous Liberal-Country Party Government ANL freight rose by about 30 per cent but that Government did nothing at all about giving a subsidy to Tasmania to compensate for that disability. For the first time, from 1972 to 1974 since this Government came to office, when the ANL sought an increase of 25 per cent because it expected losses on the MelbourneTasmania run of $3m and on the SydneyTasmania run of $lm, this was brought to the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and Tasmania received a subsidy of $2m, which will equate to approximately $2 a ton on the basis of 1 million tons of northbound general freight from Tasmania to the mainland.

One has to bear in mind that at the same time that the ANL asked for the 25 per cent increase, road, rail and sea freights on the mainland rose by an average of 35 per cent. So I maintain that the Government’s promise has been honoured. In addition, since it came into office this Government has given a subsidy of $ lm to the passenger service on the ‘Empress of Australia’. That was provided for in the 1 973-74 Budget and it is provided for in the 1974-75 Budget. So the subsidy now applicable to the Tasmanian passenger and freight runs is worth $3m a year. I simply repeat that, despite all the increases that the previous Government authorised, it refused absolutely to give Tasmania a subsidy to offset this disadvantage. Tasmanians are looking forward to the Nimmo report with a great deal of eagerness because we hope that this will be the blueprint for the future for our shipping service.

I am delighted that there is a commitment in the Budget for the north-west regional water scheme. As the Minister for Urban and Regional Development said earlier this week, a commitment has been made to the extent of about $ 10.5m which will be spread over some 6 years. He said:

The commitment agreed upon in principle was that 40 per cent of the scheme would be paid for by the Tasmanian Government and 60 per cent by the Australian Government. Of the Australian Government’s commitment of 60 per cent, 30 per cent will be in interest free non-repayable loans and the remainder will be lent at the long term Commonwealth bond rate which is the same as the provision for the national sewerage program.

The Minister also went on to say why there were no actual funds provided in this Budget but if agreement were reached this year between the State and Commonwealth governments an amount of money could be provided in the Autumn to make sure that that work will commence. I strongly support the Budget. I strongly support the wonderful work that has been done in Tasmania. I utterly reject the rubbish one sees in the newspapers -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

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

Mr BONNETT:
Herbert

-I sympathise with the back bench members of the Government having to defend the shocking Budget introduced by the Treasurer (Mr Crean) on 17 September. There certainly is not much in it that they could point to with pride and honestly say that it would help cure the nation’s economic ills. It is the first annual Federal Budget I have ever heard of where, within a week of its introduction, the Government back bench members have sought to have some of its provisions adjusted or deleted because of the disastrous and unjust results they would have on some sections of the community. In fact, within 2 days of its introduction responsible Labor leaders were saying that an interim Budget would have to be introduced within a few months to off-set the economic problems created by this Budget. This is a sad state of affairs which is certainly being reflected throughout the entire country among all sections of the community.

One of the most frightening aspects of the Budget is that it appears to make no provision whatsoever to ease the unemployment situation which is increasing rapidly. Even the leaders of the Labor movement seem to think that there will be massive unemployment by the end of the year and in the early part of next year. Apparently the Government thinks so as well, for we have been advised that a Regional Employment Development Scheme Committee, consisting of

Government Ministers, has been formed to try to off-set the unemployment problem. We have been further advised that they have met and are providing finance for local government projects in order to employ some of these unfortunate people who have been thrown out of work.

Some examples of their decisions are as follows, and they intrigue me: In Bega for the extension of the Cooma Creek plan they expect to employ 20 persons; in Maitland for the extension to the community centre they expect to employ 4 persons; in Lismore for tree planting and construction of public facilities they expect to employ 14 persons; in Benalla for footpath, kerb and channel construction and showground improvements they expect to employ 26 men; in Devonport for clearing of bushland and development of parks and the elimination of potential fire dangers they expect to employ 25 men; in my own city of Townsville they expect to employ 19 persons on a drainage project. Nineteen persons will be employed, when the figures as late as Monday last were 860 males and 440 females out of work. These figures are expected to increase, and then of course will be augmented by the school leavers in November.

I have no quarrel with the idea of a regional employment development scheme; in fact I applaud the idea, but might I suggest that it does not go far enough. I say this to prove my point: The Government appears to be prepared to spend a few hundred thousand dollars or $Xm to ensure employment for a short period for a very small percentage of people out of work, but is also prepared to spend $1.8m on unemployment benefits each week to help the greater percentage of people out of work who do not even have to work at all but can go on drawing this sustenance for as long as they wish, providing they fill in the requisite forms. This situation applied even before the sharp increase in unemployment we have experienced since this Government came to office nearly 2 yean ago. The point I am making is this: It is quite clear that the Government recognises that local governments need financial assistance to implement such projects that would benefit their respective communities and it is equally clear that the Government has decided that if they are to assist financially those out of work they wish this assistance to be productive, hence the formation of the Regional Employment Development committee. But why do they hesitate and help only a few? Why do they not allow all the finance they are prepared to spend on unemployment to be productive?

In the financial year 1973-74 the amount spent on unemployment benefits was $58.2m, or an average of $ 1.1m each week. In July this year the Government spent $5.3m on these benefits and in August this year the outlay was $7.2m, or $1.8m each week. It is anticipated that the September figures will show an outlay of almost $2m each week. While this money is serving a useful purpose it is not productive but could be made so. If the Government is prepared to help a few unemployed people through its regional employment scheme by offering them useful employment, why does it not gainfully employ all people who are out of work and receiving unemployment benefits? They could be usefully employed two or three days a week in making a worthwhile contribution to the community. I am sure that all local governments would welcome the opportunity of such a work force for local projects. It would mean that local governments would be able to commence and finish necessary projects which they have had to shelve because of lack of finance. It would mean an easing of the demand for increased rates to meet the loan moneys required for these projects.

I am sure that the great majority of those unfortunate people who have been forced out of work would appreciate earning money instead of receiving a hand-out from the Government. It would certainly make those people who do not wish to work earn the money they receive. In other words, no work no pay. The millions of dollars that the Government is prepared to pay out through unemployment benefits and under its regional employment scheme would be productive. After all, it is taxpayers’ money. Everybody who pays tax contributes to these funds and I am sure they would like to see such outlays of finance used productively. Speaking of finance being used to good purpose, if the Government would restrain its eagerness to spend millions of dollars on overseas art works, at least until we are in a better position to afford them, and use such money for the advantage of our unemployed people, it would be doing this country a service. If the Government must spend millions on art works, why not purchase such works from our local artists and not fill the pockets of some overseas artists? I get a bit touchy when it comes to a matter of spending millions of bucks on art works.

Two very important projects which come immediately to mind and which could be undertaken through the scheme I have mentioned are reafforestation and necessary work on river trust projects. I note that the Regional Employment

Development Committee would give sympathetic consideration to projects which would contribute to permanent employment. The two projects I have mentioned would do just that. For some years I have been consistently advocating a program of reafforestation for the Ingham district for in that area there are approximately 100,000 acres of land ideally suited to the growing of soft woods. In that climate trees would mature in ten or twelve years. The pulp, with the waste from our northern cane mills, would help considerably in overcoming the paper shortage which is world wide and which will remain so for a long time. The clearing, planting and subsequent care of the plantation could well be undertaken by those people who, unfortunately, at present are unemployed. As well, this reafforestation would be an economic asset to the Ingham district and to north Queensland.

Work undertaken by river trusts is another important and nesessary task, especially in the matter of conservation. During the monsoonal season the rivers in the north are subject to heavy flooding and severe damage results, especially in the gouging of the river banks which results in untold damage to surrounding farmland. Areas affected by heavy flooding have to be strengthened and often rebuilt. This is constant work. Those people who have been forced out of work could be usefully employed on this type of work. This would certainly ease the burden on those local governments which have to be concerned with this type of conservation. These are only 2 projects which come immediately to mind. Undoubtedly local governments could produce many more which would be of value to the community. However the main purpose is to keep our unemployed people active and productive. They are unemployed through no fault of their own and if the Government’s policies have caused this problem the Government must accept the responsibility and do something constructive about it. Time itself is not the solution. It will take action, and immediate action, to solve the unemployment problem.

Another item in the Budget which is causing much dissatisfaction throughout the community in the north is the reduction in the education allowance from $400 to $150. Why this reduction? I know that the Government is money hungry, but why penalise parents who wish to educate their children at private schools, to get it? Is the Government doing this simply in order to have another crack at the private school system? Why should parents not have the right to educate their children at a school of their choice without being penalised? Every taxpayer who has a child attending school has $250 added to his taxable income. Are the Treasurer (Mr Crean) and his advisers aware of the cost of outfitting a student these days? I doubt it, and I doubt if much thought was given to the repercussions flowing from such an unjust reduction in the education allowance or to the people who will be adversely affected by it.

It could also be claimed that little thought was given to the effects of the proposed tax on unearned income on the great number of people who do not deserve such treatment. If the Government is determined to destroy the incentive of people to save, it could not have chosen a better way to do it. It is refreshing to know that supporters of the Government are taking a stand against such imposition. I should have thought that in view of the promises made by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) during the election campaign of last May this Budget would certainly be directed at solving the problems of inflation and unemployment, but it is not. If the Government intended it to be so, it has either hidden its solutions among the jumble of words or it is waiting for time somehow to cure our economic ills. I can assure Government supporters that time is thenworst enemy because the longer they govern the bigger the mess.

During the May election campaign the Prime Minister told the people he had inflation by the throat. He said it had been reduced and was no longer a problem. He also promised full employment. He said that employment and inflation do not march side by side. In one sense he was right; they are not marching, they are galloping, and the Government has dropped the reins. He gave a pre-election promise that inflation would be reduced to 8 per cent by the end of this year. He even repeated that promise early in this Parliament. Perhaps he meant that 8 per cent was half of what it would be. If this Budget is an indication of how to stall inflation, 8 per cent will be only a third of what it could be by the end of the year. Inflation and unemployment have both been ignored apparently to serve the Government’s own peculiar purposes. The Australian people do not deserve this type of treatment.

I see no mention of the Burdekin Dam in the Budget. I thought that this important project would have received a high priority in the provision for water conservation. I am not the only person to say this project is very important; no less a person than the Minister for Northern Development (Dr Patterson) also thinks so. I remember in June 1 970 his saying:

The Burdekin River development is vital, not only to the important towns and hinterland of Bowen, Home Hill and

Ayr but it is an essential pre-requisite for the growth and expansion of Townsville, the most important city in northern Queensland.

Later in that statement he said:

In terms of the cost of gross storage capacity per acre foot the Burdekin Dam is an outstanding proposition.

I wholeheartedly agree with him; he has never been more right. I know that a study of the Burdekin Basin is proceeding at present but surely enough favourable studies have been made over the years to warrant an immediate start on the project. This area grows the richest sugar cane and the best rice in the world, but it is a dry belt and water is the lifeblood of the district. I am aware that recently the Government allocated $3m towards the cost of construction of the Clare Weir, but it will be two or more years before this can be of any assistance to water supplies- 2 years of wasted time because the main dam could have been commenced, saving money and time. The dam will serve a multitude of purposes. It will provide for hydro power, flood and drought mitigation and an umlimited water supply for people, industry and agriculture. At the present rate of growth the Ross River Dam will be sufficient for Townsville ‘s needs for between five to eight years. But what then? Will the people have to experience water restrictions for six to nine months each year when only a few miles way the Burdekin dam could supply sufficient water to serve cities, towns and farmlands in an area almost as large as Victoria? I say to the Minister for Northern Development and to the Minister for the Environment and Conservation (Dr Cass): Get the Government cracking on the Burdekin Dam project. If they do, I promise to have a statue erected to each of them for their efforts. I would even do the same for the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) if he also pulled his weight in the matter.

Looking at the Budget in an overall context, I think that the best possible thing to do would be to scrap the lot and to start again. In this way, it may be possible for the Treasurer and his advisers to introduce a Budget the provisions of which would contain some semblance of sanity, responsibility and justice. I support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition.

Dr GUN:
Kingston

-The world is going through very troubled times. In every industrialised country in the world we are being reminded of the fundamental weaknesses and contradictions of the capitalist system. The economic welfare of the system depends upon the decisions of individuals to invest or not to invest. From the point of view of the individual or the firm making it, the investment decision may be perfectly rational, but whether serving the interests of that individual or firm is also serving the interests of society as a whole is a matter of coincidence. The consequence is that society is faced with the immutable law that economies will go through successive cycles of boom and recession. This law is as immutable as Newton’s law of gravity.

At the present time, the economies of the nonsocialist world are undergoing recession. Australia, being a capitalist society, and a great trading nation as well, cannot completely insulate itself from what is happening in the rest of the world. What is happening in Australia today, with the severe problems of maintaining full employment and coping with inflation, is partly rooted in the national economy, but it is due more to the international situation. The mechanism of recession spreading from one country to another is not hard to detect. As one country goes into recession, its consumers buy less. Manufacturers find themselves with increasing stockpiles of unsold goods. They cannot sell them at home and their only recourse is to try to export them, even if they have to cut their prices to sell them on the export market. We know what is happening in the economies of Japan and Hong Kong. Is it any wonder that we are experiencing a huge inflow of low-priced imports from those countries? Like other countries, Australia also had a boom in 1973, and like other countries, we cannot escape the inevitable downturn which follows a boom. So as well as an international element, there is a national element.

This is the genesis of our problem, and it is this diagnosis upon which the Budget strategy and the Government’s long-term strategy are based. It is senseless and wrong to lay the blame on such measures as tariff decisions or the up-valuations of the Australian dollar. The tariff cuts and the revalutions of 1972 and 1973 were correct decisions at the time. The situation has changed, and so has the policy, as evidenced by last week’s devaluation. This decision was a good one, but it does not make the earlier decisions to reduce tariffs and the revalue wrong. I reject the proposition that these earlier decisions are the cause of our present problems. The main cause of our problem is an international recession, and if we had not revalued or cut tariffs, our situation now would be only marginally different. That it is the world economy, rather than tariffs, which determines the level of imports was quite clearly shown in our experience last year. When tariffs were cut, the volume of imports was almost unchanged. Why? Because there was a world commodity boom, and the imports were unavailable.

The same reasoning applies in the opposite situation today. Foreign manufacturers are looking to export markets such as Australia because they have nowhere else to go. Take the hypothetical example of a shirt coming into Australia at a landed price of $1, and the equivalent Australian price is $5. Supposing we had not cut tariffs or revalued, and the import cost $1.25 instead of $1. How much difference will that make to the competitiveness of the Australian producer? In fact, the foreign manufacturer, if necessary, might even be able to cut his final cost back to $1 from $1.25. This argument is of enormous importance in deciding what to do about it. In my opinion, some action is called for to protect employment in the short term, and I therefore support the devaluation and the temporary voluntary restraints in textile imports. But let us not delude ourselves that this is the long-term answer to our problems. We have to remember that if every country puts up barriers to trade, the result will be not more employment but less, and living standards not higher but lower. Based on this analysis, the strategy of the Budget and the long-term economic strategy of the Government are correct and should be supported by all Australians. The Government has a social goal and an economic goal, and the Budget strategy coincides with both.

The objective is to incorporate a very much greater share of the economy in the Government sector, by transferring resources from the private sector to the public sector. The social aim is known, as it is to carry out this social aim for which the Labor Government has been elected on 2 occasions. The economic aim is equally important. It will mean that the much larger public sector can maintain planned and ongoing investment and welfare expenditures, and thereby reducing the vulnerability of the economy as a whole to the stops and starts of international capitalism. It also means that the residual private sector will be more efficient, and operating in those areas where Australia has comparative advantages over other countries. This means that in future world economic downturns we will not be damaged by imports, and we will not have to take restrictive action which is so damaging to other countries in return.

I find it very difficult to understand the objections which have been raised to the planned expansion of the Government sector. May I make 4 comments on this matter? Firstly, the Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr

Anthony) has described this strategy as socialism, and presumably this is meant to say that it must therefore be wrong. He can call it socialism, or anything he likes for all I care, but he should have some regard to what is in the Government programs. There is a huge increase in outlays on education, a large outlay on public hospitals, and more funds for welfare housing. Is more education socialism? Are public hospitals socialism? Are higher pensions socialism? For that matter, the Leader of the Country Party could tell us whether he regards a bounty on nitrogenous fertiliser as socialism? If he does, the public has a right to know whether he regards this form of socialism as evil.

The second point is that the Opposition has soundly condemned the planned increase in Government expenditure, but it is not prepared to indicate one single item of expenditure which it would cut. I invite honourable members to scan the long amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) to see whether there is one single item of expenditure which is claimed to be excessive. They will search in vain. Opposition members will have a further chance to vote for a reduction or a deferment of expenditure when the Estimates come up for each department. But they will again be lacking in the courage or the conviction to do so. The Opposition should put up or shut up.

Thirdly, the Opposition has invoked the old Tory argument that only the private sector generates real wealth, and that the Government somehow lives off the fat created by private enterprise. I challenge the Opposition to name one respectable economist or even one respectable argument in support of this assertion, because that is all it is, an unsubstantiated assertion. If this argument were taken to its logical conclusion, it would follow that those socialist countries with no private sector at all would have no wealth, no production at all, and no consumption at all.

Fourthly, I would like to draw attention to the fact that the size of the public sector in Australia as suggested by taxation, is lower than in many other countries. Honourable members will have just received a Treasury paper on taxation containing a table which shows that, of 23 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries studied, Australia’s percentage of taxation to gross national product is the tenth highest if social security contributions are excluded and, if they are included, Australia ranks eighteenth in 23 countries. I ask for leave to incorporate the table in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Dr GUN:

– Nobody denies that the tax schedule needs revision, particularly in favour of lowincome earners; but it cannot be argued that the Government takes too big a share compared with other countries.

I have stated my belief that the transfer of resources to the public sector is the correct strategy, but I believe that we will have to give a great deal of attention to the very great structural problems in trying to bring about this transfer. Planning government programs is a timeconsuming process, and the actual retraining and relocation of manpower from the private sector to the public sector is very difficult and cannot be achieved overnight. In other words, increased demand in the government sector cannot be expected to take up the slack in the private sector without a considerable delay, because resources are not readily transferable. Thus, in analysing the present economic situation, we are looking at not one economy, but two. On the one hand there is the public sector, where there is excess demand because of the difficulty in transferring resources, and on the other hand there is the private sector, where at present we have the opposite situation of supply exceeding demand.

The strategy called for is therefore twofold. Firstly, we must lubricate the mechanism of retraining people for the employment which will be created in the new Government programs. The Government has announced a comprehensive program of adult retraining, but that is not enough. People must know where future job opportunities lie so that they know for what they are being trained. The demand is there, in the Government’s programs, and the supply is there, from those seeking retraining. We need to marry the two. All the Ministers who are responsible for new programs should ensure that urgent studies are carried out to find out the future manpower requirements of their programs, and the type of skills and training needed. Where these programs are to be implemented through State governments, there should be consultations with the appropriate State government department to find out the future manpower needs. If the Department of Labour and Immigration has this information, it will be in a much better position to advise applicants for adult retraining as to what training will best guarantee their future security of employment.

Secondly, until the Government programs and the adult retraining are under way, some short term assistance is needed in the private sector. This should not be taken as guaranteeing every inefficient industry in Australia, but it does mean something to buy time until the Government programs can be implemented. As I said at the beginning of my speech, we are still beholden to the private sector. Because there is slackening in the private sector, I believe that a stimulus to it would be less inflationary in the short term than any further stimulus to the public sector. The devaluation of the dollar will protect our import competing industries, and I hope that the exporters who gain from the devaluation will soon be purchasing more goods and services. I think that a further increase in the money supply will be needed, however, either by further tax cuts or by supporting the bond market. I note with approval the activities of the Reserve Bank in this area in the last couple of days

Finally, I call on the Government to give special attention to the employment potential of what should be our No 1 growth industry, and that is the housing industry. One of the great problems in transferring from one industry to another is that the new job means transferring to a job which is lower in pay, lower in status and less pleasant. The result is that such jobs are advertised, but even the unemployed people simply will not apply. This does not apply to the building industry, where the work certainly is not unpleasant compared to many other jobs which Australian workers endure. Surely there is a great growth potential in this industry. The demand will always be there because Australians will always want houses. The opportunity exists for thousand of jobs for men and women, not just in construction but in the manufacture of building materials.

One problem which does exist here is the restrictions on entry into the building trades. I do not criticise the building unions for their opposition to adult retraining for the building industry. After all, if training more building operatives means less job security for the workers already in the industry, who can blame them? On the other hand, if the building workers were given per.mancy, the situation would be quite different. We have a good precedent in the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority, which was a great advance in the stevedoring industry. I suggest that we need a similar arrangement for building workers. The Government could then show that an expansion of the housing industry would mean more jobs not fewer. Hand in hand with an arrangement for permanency there would need to be a planned housing program, carried out jointly by the public housing authorities and the private housing industry. I strongly commend this course of action to the Government.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Riverina now has the call. I remind honourable members that this is his maiden speech and I ask them to extend the usual courtesies.

Mr SULLIVAN:
Riverina

– I rise to make my maiden speech fully conscious of the important task I have been given as the democratically elected representative of the people of Riverina. I congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on your election to the high office of Speaker of this House. I also congratulate other new members who have made their maiden speeches in this, the Twenty-ninth Parliament. My first duty is a very personal one. On behalf of my family and myself, I wish to convey sincerely out heartfelt thanks for the comfort given to us from both sides of the House, from the House staff and from not only the Riverina but all over Australia since the tragic loss of my eldest son. The grief and utter desolation associated with the loss of a loved one cannot be shared, but the comfort gained from the sympathy given by compassionate people is a true expression of human love and understanding and cannot be forgotten. Mr Speaker, I assure you that my family and I will never forget.

It is only fitting that I pay my respects to former representatives who have worked so hard in the past to look after the interests of all people living in this vital electorate. Mr Hugh Roberton is still remembered with affection, for he was truly a man of the people. I am sure that his friends will join with me in wishing him well in his retirement in Canberra. Despite his unfortunate and untimely incapacity through premature loss of sight, his spirit and love of life remain high. Mr Bill Armstrong, gentleman and personal friend, continues his involvement and retains his interest in the Riverina. I believe that his work in the field of estate and death duties while a member of this House has not been given due and justifiable recognition. The last sitting member, Mr A. J. Grassby, needs no introduction from me. He was, above all else, a man of the people and his energy, his vitality and his desire to help all must give him a special place in our hearts. It was a pity to see this man who had built up such goodwill fail to identify himself with his supporters in defeat. It was not reasonable or just for him to imply or suggest that the campaigns conducted by the Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony) and by me were anything but clean and honourable. Nevertheless, I do wish him well in his new job.

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to refresh the memories of honourable members on some general aspects of the electorate of Riverina. Of almost 40,000 square miles, covering rich agriculture land, Riverina is probably one of the most important electorates in Australia. Every form and type of farming endeavour, with the exception of the growing of tropical fruits and sugar cane, is undertaken. I can only heartily concur in the words of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), who wrote less than 5 weeks ago:

The Riverina district, rich in history and rich in economic potential, contributes greatly to Australia’s wealth and prosperity.

In this fertile and beautiful region are to be found many of the great rural industries on which Australia depends, and some of her most attractive cities and towns.

This afternoon I would like to speak about these industries, some of these towns, the people who live and work in them, and the problems facing them today. I know that ultimately I must be judged by these people on how I fulfil the task of seeking solutions to these problems.

The electorate divides itself roughly into 5 areas: The northeast wheat area, the western grazing area, the southern grazing area and Murray Valley irrigation districts, the Murrumbidgee and Coleambally irrigation areas and the eastern mixed farming areas. Naturally, these areas overlap and some similar types of farming are practised in all, but the divisions are important because each one described has its own distinct set of problems. There are of course problems common to the whole area concerned with roads, telephones, mail and rail services which I will refer to later in this speech.

To speak in some detail about each of these areas, first the northeast wheat area where West Wyalong, Lake Cargelligo, Ardlethan and Barmedman as well as the smaller but equally important towns like Ungarie, Tullibigeal, Rankin’s Springs, Weethalle, Tallimba and Ariah Park, support the magnificent wheat farms covering this area. The chances are that the bread eaten by honourable members today had its origins in this part of Australia. As well as its great rural industry, Ardlethan is also proud of and grateful to its tin mine and workers for their contribution to the prosperity of a small country town.

The great western grazing areas stretching from Goolgowi and Hillston through Hay and the famous Booligal to Balranald gives a glimpse of the sheer size of the electorate. Cattle and sheep are bred and fattened for home and for what once were thriving overseas markets. I sincerely hope that the recent currency devaluation will help in reopening these markets for the farmers and graziers of this area as well as for the rest of Australia.

In the southern area stretching from Barooga to Euston along the great Murray River Valley including the centres of Berrigan, Tocumwal, Finley, Conargo, Deniliquin. Mathoura, Moulamein, Moama, Barham one finds vast irrigation districts as well as beautiful sheep and cattle grazing properties. The major problems are associated with drainage and salinity. These 2 words, ‘drainage’ and ‘salinity’, are to be heard at practically every meeting considering rural matters in this area. Both problems have far-reaching implications and are of national importance. The time has come for action from both State and Federal authorities as talk, investigation, planning and consideration and more talk will no longer serve any useful purpose. The people living in these once highly productive areas face continuing financial hardship in the short term and complete loss of homes and farms unless we, the politicians, take the necessary steps to avert such an outcome. I am aware and delighted to hear that the New South Wales State Minister will be visiting the area this month, but as a representative of the people, I would be neglecting my duty to them if I did not emphasise the need for action.

Mr Speaker, special reference must be made to the town of Deniliquin, which is the central or main town in the southern area. Its energetic council has worked hard to provide the district, as well as the townspeople, with a prosperous, modern town. If decentralisation is to be more than just a word then towns such as Deniliquin must receive priority treatment for assistance in the future. The Murrumbidgee and Coleambally irrigation areas are in the centre of the Riverina and provide a magnificent example of the rewards for hard work. When one thinks of hard work, one must naturally think of the tremendous contribution made by the wonderful Italian people and other migrants who have seen fit to settle in this part of Australia. Rice in abundance, citrus and stone fruits and grapes and vegetables provide this area with prosperity and stability. Who has not heard of McWilliams wines, Sunwhite rice and Letona fruits? Griffith and

Leeton, dynamic towns, share an almost unlimited potential for development in the future. I personally visualize these towns becoming a regional growth centre and I shall work for this to occur. The last but certainly not the least important area lies on the east of the electorate. Wheat growing and sheep and cattle grazing from Barellan, through Narrandera to Jerilderie guarantee a livelihood for the farmers living here although the last 12 months have been extremely difficult.

Mr Speaker, I take time to praise the efforts of the Narrandera Shire Council on the work it has done in developing Lake Talbot as a tourist attraction. People from all over Australia will join with me when I congratulate the planners and workmen who have produced this inland oasis. From the foregoing description it is easy to understand why we of the Riverina feel justifiably proud of our contribution to the national wealth and prosperity of Australia. In return for this contribution we ask for no more than a fair share of the national wealth and prosperity. Currently we feel we are being discriminated against.

You see, Mr Speaker, very few people of the Riverina drink filtered purified water, more than half of our dwellings are unsewered, many of our children travel an incredible 7,000,000 kilometres each year to attend school, and many of these are travelled over shocking roads. Buses have to be pulled by tractors in the wet season and in one shire during the current year the school children on one bus route lost 1 1 school days through the state of the roads. As well as this, the mail services have been irregular. The services are not as good today as they were in the 1950s, and train services are being reduced. Unfortunately in most cases the passenger train service has been the only means of travel for the aged, the invalids and the low income earners. I am aware that rail services are not a Federal matter but they are nevertheless a problem about which all of us should be concerned.

The cost of installation of telephones and the cost of telephone calls are a real cause for concern and anger among country people. Telephones are vital for survival by families isolated from normal community services and for the purpose of communicating with doctors, tradesmen, business and friends. I make the point that these country people I refer to are not merely living in the country to escape from the city. These are producers. These are the people the Prime Minister said contribute greatly to Australia’s wealth and prosperity. Yet the cost of telephones in 1974 is becoming a crippling burden, if not completely prohibitive. Costs of provision of lines to farms in some cases have been quoted in excess of $2,500. This is an intolerable burden for the average farmer or rural worker to bear and because of the vital job they do there is not one valid reason why they should be expected to pay such massive costs.

Excessive rain during the past two seasons has produced some additional serious problems. Flooding this year has reached record heights on the 3 rivers, the Murray, the Murrumbidgee and the Lachlan. Many families have suffered the heartbreak of seeing homes and personal possessions destroyed or damaged, while the farmers with land situated in the flood plains have suffered losses to pasture and stock. That there was no loss of life along the Murrumbidgee during the recent record flood is a credit to the State Emergency Service, the flood warning system and the many voluntary organisations including service clubs, rescue clubs, church groups and the Country Womens Association, which helped in the crisis as the record peaks moved down the river. It was heartening, indeed, it was magnificent, to see the people in Narrandera, Darlington Point, Hay, Balranald and Euston rally together as one to cope with the problem. I pay them all the highest tribute.

Special praise must go to the young men of the Leeton Rescue Club who travelled to, and worked in Darlington Point, some without the promise of pay from employers, for the duration of the flood. It is this sort of community activity and spirit which is so desperately needed in the country today if we are to solve the national problem, one even more dangerous than the flood just described. The damage caused by the excessive rains and flooding to the rural industry and to the roads is difficult to assess, but the figure for roads alone could be as high as $4m. Additional funds will be needed to bring roads back to a reasonable state of repair as they have never been in worse condition.

No political speech about the Riverina would be complete unless mention was made of Aborigines. In most centres in the Riverina there are communities of Aborigines and these people have their own special problems. Understanding, education and time must be 3 ingredients in any satisfactory plan initiated to solve these problems but, sadly, I observe that there are little, if any, of these ingredients in the present policy. In many ways this Government’s current policy is isolating the Aborigines to a greater extent than ever before and it is also helping to create additional and certainly more serious problems for the future. I would suggest that in many cases understanding and compassionate white leaders would achieve more at the local community level than Aborigines, however well intentioned, who are perhaps unskilled and untrained in the work that must be done. Furthermore, straight handouts of money are to be condemned as they merely produce a dependent response from the receiver whether he be Aborigine or anyone else. Some of the Aborigines’ handouts discriminate against the underprivileged white citizens- and we have far more under-privileged white Australians than we have under-privileged Aborigines

I am here to seek a better deal for the Aborigines and for the under-privileged whites. I am here, like many other honourable members on both sides of the House, to fight to keep Australia free and democratic, I am here to fight for, because I believe in, a free enterprise system where hard work and thrift stand the best chance of being adequately rewarded, and I am here to fight specifically for the needs of the people in the Riverina. Perhaps most importantly I am here to speak as a representative of the Riverina people on legislation being considered by this Parliament. If legislation put forward by the Government is designed genuinely to cater for the needs of people it will have my full support, but if legislation is designed merely to achieve some sort of political advantage then, Mr Speaker, you can be assured that I will be a hard and unyielding opponent to such legislation.

In conclusion, let me emphasise that all of us as Australians, whether we come from the city or country, are inextricably bound together, our future is shared, our fortunes rise and fall together. If the great rural industries fall by the wayside weakened by subsidising consumers and secondary industries, while at the same time competing unaided on the world’s markets to earn more than SO per cent of Australia’s overseas income, it will mean the end of Australia as we know it and love it and I am here to help prevent that from happening.

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

-At the outset may I congratulate the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Sullivan) on the maiden speech which he has just made. I would also like to express the sympathy of myself and my colleagues for the recent bereavement in his family. The Budget represents the framework of the Government’s economic policy for the current financial year and as such it deserves to be seriously debated in this place. With some notable exceptions this is not what has been happening on the

Opposition side of this chamber. If the Opposition believes that the policies of the Government are inappropriate to the economic circumstances facing the country it has an obligation to the people of Australia to say not only that it considers that to be the case but also to explain what alternative policies it would implement and why those policies would be more successful than those adopted by the Government. This has not been happening in this debate. Instead, the Opposition has set out to score as many cheap political points as it can and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) has been the prime offender in this behaviour.

Simply comparing current rates of inflation or unemployment with those of 2 years ago or comparing what the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) says now with what he said previously in entirely different economic circumstances is a pathetic and puerile exercise from a pretender to the Prime Ministership. Yet that is what the Leader of the Opposition spent much of his time doing in this debate. The principal and the quite unforgivable weakness of his argument was his complete failure to mention the fundamental reality of our time, that is, that the competitive market economic system which operates in most countries and governs their international trade is in a state of world-wide crisis. Almost every country similar to Australia has a problem of growing inflation and unemployment. The Leader of the Opposition and his followers make not a skerrick of allowance for that fact.

The only acknowledgment by the Leader of the Opposition of international factors in his speech was his allegation, in direct contradiction of the facts, that under a Labor government Australia’s rate of inflation is accelerating faster than that of any other OECD country-OECD being the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development which covers practically all the countries of Western Europe, North America, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. To make his point the Leader of the Opposition had a table incorporated in Hansard. That table was quite out of date when he had it incorporated in Hansard and is completely misleading in the way it is drawn. Basically it lists the rates of inflation in Australia and other OECD countries for the 12 months to April this year and compares those inflation rates with the average rates which applied in each of those countries over the decade 1961-1971. Although it lists the inflation rate for 1972, the last year of the Liberal-Country Party Government, the Leader of the Opposition did not use that figure for comparison with the rate of inflation for the 12 months to April 1974. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table. I have received the approval of the Opposition to do this.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr WILLIS:

-This table gives the latest available figures and compares the rises in prices for the 12 months to July 1974 with those of 1972. It shows that by 1972, the last year of the LiberalCountry Party Government, prices in Australia were increasing substantially faster than the average for all OECD countries. So they were increasing faster than the average of OECD countries in the last year of Liberal-Country Party government. Since then the rate of inflation in Australia has increased considerably but so too has the rate in all OECD countries. In fact, the latest figures show that the disparity between the rate of inflation in this country and the average rate in all OECD countries has declined considerably. In 1972 the Australian inflation rate was 1.23 times the OECD average. In 1973, the first year of the Labor Government, it remained exactly the same- 1.23 times the OECD average.

But in the most recent period available, the 12 months to July 1974, the disparity declined to 1.08 times the OECD average. That means that the disparity now between the OECD rate and the the Australian rate is considerably less than it was in the last year of Liberal-Country Party Government. These figures show that the assertion of the Leader of the Opposition in this debate that under the Labor Government the acceleration in inflation has been greater than in any other OECD country is completely and utterly false.

The fact is that inflation is Australia has increased at a substantially lower rate than it has in OECD countries generally. While dealing with this subject may I correct the outrageous untruth contained in the speech of the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in this debate. He asserted at the outset of his speech that since the Labor Government had been in power the value of money had depreciated by approximately 40 per cent. This is an enormous exaggeration of the fact. If the honourable member meant that prices had increased by 40 per cent since Labor came to office that is completely false, as the actual increase in the price index since the December quarter of 1972 was 20.7 per cent. That is about half the figure asserted by the honourable member for Wannon. But if he meant what he said, that is, that the value of money had fallen by 40 per cent since Labor came to office, it would imply that in his opinion prices had increased by 67 per cent since Labor came to power. If honourable members opposite have difficulty in understanding that, I suggest that they consider a situation in which prices rose by 100 per cent. That clearly would mean that the value of money had halved; that is, had been reduced by 50 per cent. By the same arithmetical process, if one says that the value of money has fallen by 40 per cent one is implying a 66.7 per cent rise in prices. However, I suspect that such subtleties are beyond the honourable member for Wannon and that he really meant that prices have increased by 40 per cent since Labor took office, in which case, as I have already said, he was exaggerating the factual position to the enormous extent of virtually doubling the rate of increase that has occurred.

These incredible mis-statements of the facts on our inflation rate by senior members of the Opposition signify the desperation of the Opposition to cash in on what it sees as a politically advantageous position, without making any concessions to the realities of the world in which the Australian economy is now operating, without worrying too much about sticking to the facts and without bothering to explain how its rag-bag of alternative policies would improve in any way the situation in which we now find ourselves. The fact is that the economy of almost every developed capitalist country in the world is plagued by growing inflation, as I have shown, and by growing unemployment and high interest rates. Indeed, a general state of recession and rapid inflation exists throughout all the countries in which the market system operates. That even includes one communist country- Yugoslaviawhich, although it has the world’s most developed system of worker control, also has a competitive market economy similar to that operating in capitalist countries. The world is thus faced with a malaise of the competitive market system. It is absurd in the extreme for members of the Opposition to claim, as they have done in this debate, that the economic troubles of this country are due in some way to mismanagement by the present Government, to increased government spending or to some other action of the present Government. The fact that the rest of the capitalist world is in similar straits surely proves that the present Government cannot be held responsible for the deteriorating economic situation in Australia.

I do not have time in which to analyse in any great detail how the world-wide malaise in the economic system has developed. But, put briefly, it has much to do with the simultanous boom in economic activity that occurred throughout most of the developed capitalist countries last year and the consequent tremendous boom in world commodity prices. The prices of practically all internationally traded commodities rocketed up last year as world demand substantially exceeded world supply. That had a consequential effect on the internal price level of the various nations, particularly the developed nations which were the purchasers of those commodities. Added to that was the tremendous increase in oil prices last year as a result of the decision of the petroleum producing countries to lift oil prices by a prodigious amount. In fact, Middle East oil prices have increased four-fold in the last 2 years. Although Australia has been protected from that to some degree by our indigenous oil supplies, it has nevertheless increased the cost of the 30 per cent of our oil supplies that we import and raised freight rates as well as increased directly the cost of our imports from other countries which have been fully affected by the oil price rise.

The result of all this is that inevitably we have been lifted up the inflation scale along with everyone else. Commodity prices have now fallen on world markets as demand for them has been reduced in all the developed countries as they have taken action to offset their inflation by introducing credit restrictions and tightening their fiscal policies. The results of those actions, however, have not been so much to reduce the rate of inflation- indeed, it has tended to gather steam- but rather to increase unemployment and introduce a world-wide recession. Countries such as the United States and Canada have inflation rates that over the last 12 months have been about 3 per cent below our 14.4 per cent, but their unemployment rates have edged up and up. The United States now has an unemployment rate of 5.4 per cent and Canada of over 6 per cent. Germany, which for decades has rarely had more than a 1 per cent unemployment rate, has now edged up to 2.3 per cent, and that it not counting the tens of thousands of guest workers whom it sent back to Turkey, Greece and Yugoslavia. Britain and Italy are in an appalling state, with inflation rates well above ours, much higher interest rates, unemployment levels much higher than ours and acute balance of payments problems. I could go on and on with the list, but I think that reference to the countries I have mentioned is sufficient to prove the point.

It is clear that we are caught up in an international crisis that creates enormous difficulties for the government of the day. The economists in this country, as elsewhere, are hopelessly divided as to what action should be taken for the best. In these circumstances it seems to me that certain basic objectives should be kept clearly in mind. The fact that it is an international problem indicates that it will require international action to solve the problem and co-operation to overcome it. We should be strongly advocating such cooperation at international monetary forums, and in particular urging other governments not to choose the unemployment path to cure inflation. If they do, it will create an acute world depression which will be far worse than the discomfort of international inflation.

The Labor Government in this Budget has adopted a strategy that conforms to the approach of rejecting the unemployment path, despite substantial advice to introduce a tough Budget in an endeavour to cure inflation by the traditional approach. The Government rejected that option and has introduced a mildly expansionary Budget. At the same time the credit squeeze is being eased in a number of ways, and the devaluation will further accentuate that easing. Although unemployment is increasing at present, the Government is currently pursuing policies which will soon reverse that trend unless the international recession continues to worsen, in which case it will be extraordinarily difficult to stop unemployment from increasing in Australia. Having rejected the Draconian method of curing inflation by creating massive unemployment, the Government’s task now is to bring inflation under control by other measures. No one suggests that this will be easy. A further tax cut, reduced government spending or a national conference of unions, governments and employers, such as is advocated by the Opposition, would not be anything like a solution. It is simply not enough to state those propositions without pursuing or elaborating them in any way. If they were elaborated their synthetic nature would soon be obvious to the people of this country. What is needed now is a guarantee to all wage and salary earners that their real incomes will be protected against inflation, so that they do not make wage claims that anticipate some higher rate of inflation and thereby help to bring it about.

Indexation will not solve inflation but it will do much to stop it from getting worse unless international inflation accelerates further. The process of obtaining indexation is not easy for the Government because it does not have the powers to legislate directly for indexation of wages and salaries or any other incomes in this country. We sought at the end of last year powers to control incomes, but this was denied us by the Australian people. If that referendum had been passed we could now have legislated for indexation and given to all wage and salary earners of this country a guarantee that their wages would be maintained in real terms. Because we have not that power we have had to pursue the process by means of the conference of unions and employers before Mr Justice Moore of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The process is proving extremely difficult. The employers are rigid in their opposition to indexation of wages. In those circumstances it appears likely that the unions will have to go to arbitration to try to get a decision for indexation. If they do, the Government will support them, I would imagine, as we are certainly supporting indexation before the Moore conference.

I believe that apart from indexing just wages we should also give close consideration to indexation of the tax schedule. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) advanced in this debate such a system and seems to think that he originated the idea. I would like to assure him that the trade unions have talked about it for years. It has been discussed on this side of the House for as long as I have been a member of this Parliament, that is since December 1972. The attraction behind the idea is that wage earners will be assured that their after tax wages will go up by the same proportion as their gross wages. If we do not index the tax schedule, their after tax wages do not increase at the same rate as gross incomes. It is claimed that this could well be an accelerating factor in wage claims and therefore a factor in the inflationary process. I personally think that there is probably something in this and that the Government should give close considerations to indexing the tax schedule.

Finally, may I say that we will need substantial co-operation from the whole of the community if we are to solve the difficult situation we are in at the moment, a situation which has not been the creation of this Government but a creation of the whole system. I think the people of Australia and indeed the members of the Opposition should bear in mind that in the period this Government has been in office the international factors have been infinitely more difficult than ever they were, certainly in the 2 decades prior to the Labor Government coming into office. We had the difficult problem last year of the tremendous boom in international prices; we had the difficult crisis of disruption of the international monetary system, which began in the early 1 970s and 1971 and has become worse since. We have now got the even more difficult international factor of growing international recession. None of these factors operated in the previous Liberal Government’s term of over 20 years. They have been factors with which this Government has been trying to cope in the less than 2 years in which it has been in office. It has also had to cope with the mismanagement of the economy in 1972 when the Liberal Government allowed the money supply to increase at an enormous rate- 17 per cent in the last 6 months of 1972 - because of its refusal to revalue the currency, a pigheaded refusal for which the Labor Government has had to pay in dealing with a more difficult economic situation than would have been the case had sensible measures been applied in 1972 by the previous government. In fact, keeping the money supply under control has been one of the most difficult problems facing this Government in the 134 years it has been in office because of the mad acceleration of the last 6 months of 1972 and the very difficult economic circumstances that have applied in that 1 % years.

I have said we will need the co-operation of the people. To solve inflation and recession in this country and throughout the world we will need co-operation within the country and without. We need international co-operation to prevent international recession. Within the country we need the co-operation of wage earners with the Government. I am not suggesting that the wage earners should be called upon to make sacrifices which are unreasonable. One certainly asserts that they should be entitled to have their incomes maintained in real terms and to share in increased productivity, but if they pursue claims beyond that to any marked degree they will make it extremely difficult for this Government to retain full employment and difficult for this Government to remain in office. I suggest that this Budget is a good Budget in the circumstances and that certainly it should be supported by the House.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-The capacity for self-delusion on the part of the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) is rather beyond belief. The ability to keep on blaming adverse circumstances on those who were in government previously forgets 2 things. It forgets that conditions are worsening in terms of all the economic criteria the further this Government gets away from 1971 and 1972. Everything is worsening. The long and tedious explanation of what inflation is in Australia and what it is not has been given in terms of the consumer price index, but everybody knows that for at least five very valid reasons the consumer price index seriously understates the real rate of inflation in Australia.

Mr Willis:

– It probably does it everywhere else too.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I was hoping the honourable member was going to engage in some self-examining honesty in respect of this. The implicit price deflator accelerated beyond belief during the last quarters of the 1973-74 financial year and a reversion to the past is not always justified. I was particularly interested in the reference by the honourable member for Gellibrand to full employment, because when John Dedman, the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction, in 1945 introduced the White Paper on full employment in Australia he did not have any excuses. He did not make any alibis. He was clear and unequivocal. The words he uttered on that occasion are very appropriate to Australia today. They were brave, courageous words and were a guarantee. John Dedman said:

The policy of full employment is the Government’s positive contribution to the security of the individual. Full employment spells opportunity and opportunity opens the way for achievement At the same time the Government recognises that this needs to be supplemented by social security measures which protect the less fortunate from hardship and supplement the standards of thing of those in greatest need.

Mr Kelly:

-Who said that?

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-John Dedman. He made no equivocal guarantees in this matter, no alibis and no attempts at self-delusion. What ought to be remembered by the Australian people is that the social contract- it was a social contract- of that day has been broken by this Labor Government. Dedman’s policies for curing full employment are now a little out of date. They were envisaged only in terms of public authority expenditure. Over the years a much more lively and vibrant private enterprise sector of the economy has grown up. It is easier, therefore, in these days to secure full employment with reasonable price stability than it was when the guarantee was given in 1 945.

Mr James:

– What did you do in 1 97 1 ?

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– That is merely a speck on the market compared with what the Government is doing now. If the honourable member listens I will illustrate my point. An unalterable social obligation was made but it was to be done never by excluding common sense. It was never to be done by doubting what in fact full employment was. I am not going to go through the range of percentages of those registered for unemployment as a proportion of the work force to illustrate my point. What is quite clear now is that we are sliding further into grave unemployment and sliding more steeply than has ever been recorded in Australia since World War II. Unemployment is sliding at such a rate that it is far in excess of the unemployment which occurred in 1952. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Graham) well remembers those days. He will remember the late Sir Arthur Fadden introducing a budget in those days- the famous credit squeeze. That credit squeeze looks like a gentle embrace compared with what has been proposed in this Budget. In the first 2 months of the financial year in 1 952 an extra 20,000 people were put out of work. In the first few months of the new financial year in 1961 an extra several thousand became unemployed. This year not only has the seasonal pattern been broken but also in the first 2 months of this financial year 30,000 people were unemployed. One cannot evade that data, regardless of the statistics. But in all this, a deal of courage is appropriate. A lot of academic economists and journalists have dealt with this matter. I think some credit must be given to Kenneth Davidson who writes for the Melbourne ‘Age’ who, with a good deal of courage, has outlined the alternatives which are available to the Government. His judgment, based on facts and reason, has led him to certain conclusions.

Mr Kelly:

– Eccles was in that league.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I am told that Eccles was in that league also. I acknowledge that fact. In times such as this inflation is the responsibility of all, including a government and an opposition. The Opposition does not believe that we should make political capital out of the fact that the present Government is making a mess of the economy. The Opposition does not take that attitude and I would not be a party to it. I disagree with some of the propositions that have been put forward. It has been stated quite categorically that Australia is in a state of stagflation. ‘Stagflation’ is a lovely word- it brings to mind the words ‘depression’ and ‘recession’. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) used another word yesterday in a very fine speech. He used the word ‘slumpflation’. Now we cast another word on the waves which I think might more precisely prescribe the situation. Australia is in a unique economic situation. It is one of negflation, which is described in this way: We are in a state of absolute decline in production growth. In the last quarter of the last financial year, at current prices, non-farm products decreased by $490m. In fact, during that last quarter there was actually a negative productivity growth. However uncertain the measurements are, it was certainly worse than minus 2 per cent. We have not experienced that before. Negative productivity, negative growth, together with seriously rising prices and the steepest slide into unemployment ever measured- all those things add up to negflation.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr J. F. Cairns) in his latest analysis of the problems- he has given a variety of analyses- said quite clearly and quite correctly that we have to work our way out of it. Australia has to work its way out of it, but it cannot work its way out of it with rising living standards unless measurements of productivity are the key. There is an old saying in terms of living standards and economics that there is no such thing as a free lunch. If somebody is to be given something by the Government it comes from someone else, whether it is from corporations, from income tax, from people who save- from wherever you like. In terms of rising living standards over any long period of time there is no such thing as a free lunch. The only way it can be engineered is through raising real rates of growth in productivity, and negflation does not allow that to occur. I believe that is appreciated by many in the Government at this time. Whether they have the will to deal with it or whether they do not is a matter for their own consciences.

The present state of the economy is illustrated in another way, a curious way. The vital catalytic elements that are needed in an economy to push living standards up are not in fact growing. Last week a production analysis of 34 items was put out by the Commonwealth Statistician. That preliminary assesment for August made it quite clear that of the 34 items production of 27 had declined. It is a long time since that has occurred. But much more interestingly it is appropriate to ask which items are showing an increase of a most persistent and constructive nature. The items which showed the greatest increase for several months under this Government were three, chocolate lollies, beer and cigarettes. I like pleasure as much as anyone else does, and I am sure that the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) who is sitting at the table does. But in terms of common sense and in terms of the production of basic wealth in the community through which living standards rise, is it a proud thing to say that the most constantly advancing production in the ecomomy is in chocolate lollies, beer and cigarettes? Common sense rejects that proposition, as it ought to reject the proposition.

So for 3 reasons the economy is decreasing its production in an absolute sense. It decreased its productivity in the last quarter by about 2.5 per cent, and increases in production are not occurring in the areas in which they should. Years ago accusations used to be made that Australia had a milk bar economy because it was being propped up by some public investment. This expression was invented, I understand, by the late Professor Copland. We do not have a milk bar economy; we have gone beyond that today. We have an artificial ersatz coffee economy, and that will not secure constantly rising standards of living.

One thing has to be said in honesty about the Budget. If this analysis is correct, including the analysis of the last quarter of the 1973-74 financial year, it was appropriate for the Government to introduce a Budget which was somewhat expansionary. That is appropriate. It was a Budget which decided that the expansionary elements in the economy were to be developed in the public authority sector, and were not to be developed in the private enterprise sector. It is fair to say that for an interventionist government, a socialist government, it was according to its philosophy. I do not argue with the expansive elements of the Budget but I do argue about the effects that the Government’s interventionist attitude with respect to the economy is having on the right of the people to have full employment without inflation and real rising standards of living.

I return to where I began: Full employment is an article of faith in the Australian economy, and it ought to be an article of faith. I well remember a campaign waged years ago in 1949 wherein we were accused of trying to create Professor Hytten’s pool of unemployment. The honourable member for Berowra (Dr Edwards), no doubt through his researches, would remember it; he would be too young to have experienced it. One well remembers accusations made about a former Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies. Honourable members will remember that it used to be said: ‘You will all be cool in Menzies ‘ pool ‘. I am almost moved to tears when I remember how two or three years ago the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron), who lately has been promoted, was concerned that under the Liberal Party Government in 1971 and 1972 a lot of married women were going to work. He looked at the social effects of this movement. At that time he said: ‘What is greater for a young person growing up than to have the affection and care of his mother?’ He indicated that his own gentle nature derived from the care of his mother for him. Accusing the Liberal-Country Party Government at that time- the honourable member for Mackellar will remember this, as he does nearly everything- the honourable member for Hindmarsh asked: What would be more disastrous than for such a situation to be deliberately engineered by a government?

The illustration used by the honourable member for Hindmarsh remains in my mind. He referred to a child who returns from school, rushes into the front door of his home and, as he said, throws his bag on the floor- that is what happens in his household and it might happen elsewhere. The child then rushes into the kitchen and says: ‘Mum, can I have a piece of bread and jam?’ But mum is not there because she has been sent out to work by the Liberal-Country Party Government. What does that child do today? He comes home from school and is concerned for his mother’s love. He throws his bag on the floor or the bed, whichever it is, rushes into the kitchen and says: ‘Can I have a piece of bread and jam?’ His mother says: ‘No, you cannot’. The child says: ‘Why?’ She replies: ‘Because your father is out of work. He is getting cool in Cameron’s pool.’

Mr Wentworth:

– Cameron was priding himself on the fact that more women had been sent out to work.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– He is liable to change his attitude according to circumstances. In these present circumstances an Opposition has a responsibility to assist. It should not merely play the alternatives of inflation or unemployment- no matter how academics might argue otherwise, there is a certain effect between the two- one against the other, in order to gain political advantage. Responsibility in these areas has to be based on fair judgment and knowledge. I am not one of those interested in making events worse just to gain a political advantage. I say that as a person in the Opposition who holds the most marginal and dicey seat in my State. In difficult times like this, one of the saddest things to do is to read the debates during the last depression years. On that occasion the Opposition, I believe not due to ill will but to a lack of knowledge, refused the famous Treasurer Theodore’s fiduciary notes issue legislation. That was a mistake. But the Opposition today does not adopt an incorrect and irresponsible attitude. No body would want to repeat that kind of history. I certainly would not want to do so.

I want to return to something a little out of context. It concerns the monetary situation in my own State. It has now been disclosed that a quite serious run has been generated as a result of pessimism about the circumstances of building societies in Queensland. That run has to be considered in the circumstance that a few days ago the Acting Treasurer (Mr Hayden) indicated that he was not interested in assuming controls, which he can now legitimately assume, with respect to building societies- presumably because he did not judge them to be sufficiently liquid to be able to direct the investment of their assets. But in today’s circumstances that kind of excuse is unsatisfactory.

The Financial Corporations Act has made it quite clear that, even though it is only an enabling Act, this Federal Government wants to take a direct interest in the activities of fringe financial corporations and certainly building societies in Queensland. I suggest that the Reserve Bank- even though it has never defined its powers in this respect; it always works by gende persuasion and by talk- has the powers of lender of last resort to act with respect to those building societies, and has those powers now. I believe that it ought to indicate that it has those powers. Section 8 of subsection (c) of the Reserve Bank Act reads:

The Bank has such powers as are necessary for the purposes of this Act and, in particular, and in addition to any other powers conferred on it by this Act, has power . . . to lend money.

It has power to lend money to corporations such as building societies.

I ask the Acting Treasurer whether in those discussions that occurred between the Government and the Reserve Bank, the Bank has been explicitly instructed not to utilise that power with respect to building societies which are concerning many people in my own State. If the Government contends that it has not that power, it certainly has the power under regulations which it could bring down pursuant to the Reserve Bank Act and possibly even in relation to the Financial Corporations Act. The incredible thing is that this interventionist Government, this socialist Government, that has sought to intervene nearly everywhere else in the economy where it has a right to intervene and where it is foolish to intervene, refrains from taking action under this section in an area where I believe it has explicit and clear power to act. I ask the Acting Treasurer to reply to this matter during the hours that remain of the Budget debate.

This matter concerns many people. It concerns many honourable members from my own State and throughout Australia. There are hundreds of thousands of people with modest savings in these corporations. The Government should, under the reference powers or the discussion powers it has with the Reserve Bank, direct the Bank to utilise what authority it has under section 8 subsection (c) of the Reserve Bank Act to prop up those institutions and make it clear to people that their savings are not placed at risk. It has a little time in which to do it but it has the opportunity during several hours of debate tonight to indicate that it is interested not only in devaluation but also in the stability of the currency available to ordinary modest citizens of Australia with modest savings accounts.

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

-At the outset I would like to congratulate the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Sullivan) on his maiden speech this evening and also to extend my sympathy to him and his family on their sad loss. I support the Bill and oppose the amendment. As the Treasurer (Mr Crean) said, the Budget is not only an economic document; it is a political document. The Budget presented by the Treasurer in a fine speech on 17 September is designed to comply with the philosophy of my Party- that is, to redistribute the burden on the wage earner to the more affluent people in our society, those who have a greater capacity to carry it. The main thrust of the Budget is directed to continuing the programs in social welfare, health, urban and regional development and many other areas. The program is contained in the policy speech of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) for which the Australian Labor Party received a mandate from the Australian people at 2 elections- in December 1972 and as late as May of this year. It is a good Budget. It deserves the support of all people who have benefited by the implementation of the policies of the Australian Labor Party and who will benefit as a result of the allocations made in the Budget.

Before I turn to one or two sections of the Budget I shall take the opporunity to congratulate Mr Ian Macphee, the honourable member for Balaclava, on his maiden speech. I am sure he will contribute a great deal to the deliberations of this Parliament in the future on matters concerning labour and industry. He will lift the level of understanding of the Opposition on matters of industrial relations as he is the only person on that side of the House who has any understanding of the requirements necessary to achieve a high degree of efficiency and responsibility in that area. It is pleasing to hear the honourable member for Balaclava support the notion of amalgamation of industrial organisations as being a desirable concept. I agree with him that it is desirable that there should be minimal intrusion by any government into industrial disputes, except to encourage co-operation, negotiation and conciliation.

I subscribe to the view that in the main the larger and more powerful industrial organisations have acted in a more efficient and responsible way than most of the smaller, fragmented organisations. The Budget provides for an allocation of $ 17.8m for the national employment and training system in the years 1974-75. This system will further extend its program of assistance to industry and commerce to encourage a training consciousness in the private sector. A sum of $452,000 has been allocated for the training of training officers in order to give effect to the scheme. There will be an increase of $8.8m in the amount provided for apprenticeship training. I am glad to see that these provisions did not go unnoticed by the Honourable F. M. Hewitt, MLC, who is the Minister for Labor and Industry in New South Wales. Mr Hewitt stated:

I am really very pleased with the generous increases provided by the Federal Government. Subsidies for metropolitan employers have almost doubled from $260 a year to $460 a year for each eligible first year apprentice. Country employers will also receive $460 a year.

Where employers are providing special initial off-the-job training for apprentices in their own workshops or at technical colleges the subsidy has been increased by $4 per week to $20 per week.

That acknowledgement by the Minister of those provisions is richly deserved. Progress has been made in this area. One or two other points were not mentioned in the letter. There has also been an increase in the living away from home allowance to be paid to country apprentices who are in full time training. This allowance will move from $10 a week to $12.60. All second year apprentices will be paid $5 a week. As has already been indicated, as from 1 October 1974 a wages subsidy covering both metropolitan and country apprentices of $460 will be paid.

One of the causes of rising costs, particularly in the building industry, is the acute shortage of skilled personnel. For this the previous Government and a whole range of employers must stand condemned. Companies would not take on apprentices. Each year over the past seven or eight years thousands of lads throughout the country were turned away when they made application for the very few apprenticeships which were available. A classic example involves the electrical contracting industry in Victoria which was a most unstable section of the electrical industry. It was training 95 per cent of the electrical mechanics. Of course the contracts in this industry varied from time to time. On many occasions lads were placed in the position of having their indentures cancelled because the industry did not have work for them. It was well known at that time that due to technological changes and other factors it would probably be necessary in the future for individuals to be trained at least twice during their working lives. The LiberalCountry Party Government was either totally oblivious of the situation, due to its incompetence, or simply prepared to ignore the fate of individuals who would become redundant as a result of changes in the mode of production. Had that sort of program been initiated at about that time we would not be in the difficulty we are in today in supplying skilled personnel. In order to have an effective retraining program and appreticeship training as well as finding a formula for some of the economic difficulties we now confront, it will be necessary to have the cooperation of efficient and responsible organisations from both sides of the industrial fence. The Government’s policies have played their part in providing such a result, despite the fact that the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill was successfully mutilated by the professional obstructionists in the other place. It is a pity that the honourable member for Balaclava was not here at the time to talk a bit of sense into some of his colleagues.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) must have a hide like a rhinoceros. He had the audacity to stand in this chamber as though butter would not melt in his mouth and move some phoney amendment that reeks of hyprocisy and is indicative of the cynical, empty contributions we have learned to expect from the white hope of the Liberals. Thank God he belongs to them. This was the man who, as Treasurer, introduced the Budget that set in train the inflationary spiral we are now experiencing. The level of inflation has been kept at the level it is now at only by action taken by this Labor Government. As the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) observed, inflation is an international problem. I will have more to say about this aspect in a few moments.

We frequently hear the cry from the Opposition that the Labor Government has done nothing about inflation; that it has taken no steps to combat it. The Labor Government has revalued our currency, provided tariff cuts, introduced restrictive trade practices legislation and initiated the Moore conference. I subscribe to the view of the honourable member for Gellibrand that there will necessarily have to be a lot of co-operation by the 3 areas involved- the employers, the unions and the Government- to overcome some of the difficulties that arise because of the obstructionist attitude of the Opposition. We also hear from the Opposition comments about what we should be doing about inflation, but when it had the opportunity to provide the constitutional authority for the Government to come to grips with prices and incomes it supported the opposition. That was sheer hypocrisy. Of course, this is the view of Government supporters, but it might be noted that Mr Alan Woods, the Economic Editor of the ‘Sydney Morning Herald ‘-a journal not famous for its support of the Labor Government- his similar ideas, because in November 1973 he said:

There is good reason to believe that, without the actions taken by the Government, the current rate of inflation would be a good deal higher than even the present 10 per cent.

He also said:

It is also true that the successive revaluations and in particular the 25 per cent tariff cuts were economically necessary actions that a Liberal-Country Party Government could never have taken because of the influence of the Country Party.

Dr M. Porter, of the International Monetary Fund, in November 1973 said that if the Government had not revalued the dollar Australia would have faced an inflation rate of 20 per cent in a short time. A leading management consultant is reported to have said:

The Federal Government is not to blame for the present rate of inflation.

Melbourne managing director, Mr. J. Young, is quoted as saying:

Australia is caught up in a wave of international inflation and there’s very little the Australian Government can do about it.

This supports the contention of previous speakers that inflation, by nature, is international and that factor directly affects our capacity to come to grips with it. It has also been the cry of the Opposition and those who run with it that inflation emerged as a problem in Australia only after the election of the Labor Government in December 1972. What a lot of rubbish!

Let us look at the history of economic matters through the 1960s. In common with most developed countries, Australia suffered a sharp increase in the rate of inflation. It was sent off in a spiral by the incredible budget strategy of the McMahon Government in 1 97 1 . The honourable member for Lilley spoke of the unemployment that exists today. There is a sharp difference between unemployment today and unemployment in 1971. The unemployment being experienced today was not created by the budget strategy of the Labor Government. But the unemployment of 1971-72, which set this in train, was deliberately created by the Liberal-Country Party Government.

Mr Graham:

– How?

Mr INNES:

-I will tell you how. It is worth repeating that the then government received its riding instructions from an individual who was then the retiring chairman of Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd, Sir Colin Syme. On 1 4 April 1 97 1 , he said:

Inflation in Australia is reaching danger level. We should regard the situation as very serious and encourage the Government to take steps to control it. We should then put up with what the Government does without too much whingeing. One necessary measure seems to be to reduce over-full employment.

The demand-depressing action taken in the 197 1 budget when there was no real indication of a demand recovery and the continued assertion in that Budget that wage increases were the basic cause of inflation led to the situation that developed. I might add that the then Treasurer, Mr Snedden, who is now the heir apparent, on 22 January 1972 answered certain questions from the ‘Australian’ newspaper. This was mentioned by the honourable member for Phillip (Mr Riordan) in his address. When commenting on the latest unemployment figures, which showed that 120,574 were registered for employment in December 1 97 1 , the then Treasurer said:

We have achieved what we set out to do in that we have created an environment in which over-award payments are depressed.

Mr Riordan:

– He was answering his master’s voice.

Mr INNES:

-Of course he was. The policy followed by the Government was a ruthless tightening of the monetary screws. It brought economic growth to a jarring stop. A large pool of unemployed was created in which there was the human misery and frustration associated with that development.

Mr Lusher:

– Is that the sort of unemployment that your Government has created?

Mr INNES:

– You have never worked in your life, so you would not know. Other individuals subscribe to the view that I have expressed. They are people who do not commonly support the policies of the Australian Labor Party. I refer first to Professor J. W. Nevile, Professor of Economics at the University of New South Wales, who said:

In common with most developed countries, Australia suffered a sharp increase in the rate of inflation at the end of the ’60s.

Also, Professor Michael Parkin, Visting Research Economist and Professor of Economics at Manchester University, speaking on ‘Monday Conference ‘in November 1973 said:

I think to explain your present inflation you have to . . . go back to, really back to the middle ’60s, as early as 1 966 . . . it’s been built up over quite a long period, almost- well getting close to- a decade, now.

I turn again to our friend Alan Woods of the ‘Sydney Morning Herald ‘ who stated:

The extraordinary rate of growth is a major factor in the present high level of inflation in the economy, and it was a situation that Labor inherited from its predecessors. The misguided 1971 Budget and the subsequent easy-money policy that followed it, the over-expansionary 1972 Budget and the previous Government’s failure to act effectively on the exchange rate and capital inflow all led up to the explosive growth in the money supply.

In the course of the contribution of the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) some remarks came from the Opposition when he spoke about inflation being an international phenomenon. Once again I will quote from one of the experts in this field, Professor Galbraith, who said:

In all countries, the higher price of imports is cited as an important factor in inflation. In other words, the disease is international.

There are many other quotations, but I think we can rely on Professor Galbraith to put forward an authentic view. I think he would be regarded as an expert. What about the vague and negative contributions that have been made by honourable members opposite? Have we heard any alternatives from them? No, we have heard just completely negative contributions that mean absolutely nothing. Of course, the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton) believed that that was the case, because he is quoted in the ‘National Times’ of 10 November 1973 as saying:

If the Liberal Party won an election tomorrow, we wouldn’t be able to reduce prices.

Once again I am relying heavily on the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’. This is what it said about the heir apparent, the alternative Prime Minister, after his televised appeal for a prices and incomes freeze- it indicates the opinion which people held of him at that time:

Altogether the Opposition leader appears to have about as little real understanding of the Australian economy today as he did when, as Liberal Treasurer, he got it so fouled up as to produce the worst unemployment for a decade together with a totally unnecessary recession . . .

On the evidence of last night’s broadcast and his earlier statements, he still imagines that wage rises are the sole and simple cause of inflation, when it is abundantly obvious - to everybody except the Leader of the Opposition that the bulk of the present problem of rising prices is due to the importation of overseas inflation in primary commodities.

Another quotation reads:

Mr Snedden ‘s own anti inflation program is contradictory and on such an important point as how he would cut Government spending, it is vague.

He has never been more vague than he is today. I believe I have exposed honourable members opposite for what they are- a phoney bunch of individuals, masquerading as people who are different from those who were thrown out of office because of their complete incompetence. They are the very people who created the climate for the economic problems which we face today. They are professional knockers who do not have a positive contribution to make.

Despite what has been said by the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns), basically the economy is sound. I do not know how the honourable member arrived at his figures, but my information is that, compared with the position in 1971-72, the value of exports of rural origin has increased by 33 per cent, and over the same period the gross value of rural production has increased by 59 per cent. So I wonder at the effort which the honourable member for Lilley has made in trying to hoodwink the Australian people into believing that honourable members opposite are a real alternative government. During the past 12 months the gross national product has increased by more than 5 per cent. The prophets of doom in the Opposition are acting in a completely irresponsible manner, and this is a time when objective reasoning and co-operation from aU sections of the community are absolutely necessary in order to get us out of our present difficulties.

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I join with other members in extanding congratulations to the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Sullivan) who has just made his maiden speech. I think that all of us in this House admire greatly the intestinal fortitude that he displayed in making his speech to this chamber on this occasion after the tragic loss of his son. All of us express to the honourable member, to Mrs Sullivan and to their family our profound grief in their bereavement. I also extend my congratulations to all the other honourable members who have made their maiden speeches either in the Budget debate or in other debates. I think the fact that so many maiden speeches have been made indicates something of the vicissitudes of political life.

It is remarkable to those of us who have been in this House for some time- I have not been here for very many years- how many new faces come into this chamber at the beginning of each Parliament, and even during the life of each Par.liament. Of course, this is what democracy is all about. The changing voice and face of representatives ensures that the changing face of the electorate is itself adequately and efficiently represented. It is only tragic when those in government lose touch with the people whom they are supposed to represent. Tragically the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes), who succeeds one of the redoubtable figures of the Labor Party, has demonstrated, even in the brief time he has been in this Parliament, that he has got out of touch. If anyone thought that the Ministry were in touch, they need to have been listening only to the incredible reply given by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Les Johnson) at question time this morning. The reply indicated that he has in no way recognised the cost pressures and the industrial pressures that have completely destroyed the vitality of the building industry in this country. Yet he came in and initially said that things were all right in the building industry, but then he did say they were a bit patchy.

Mr Hunt:

– Who does he think he is kidding?

Mr SINCLAIR:

– I wonder, as my honourable friend from Gwydir says, ‘Who does he think he is kidding? Unfortunately the only person he is kidding is himself. It is that which, in this Budget, demonstrates the tragedy of what is happening to this country today. For the country itself is drifting, not only because of the intentional actions of those in government, but also because those in government are no longer in touch with what is happening out in the paddocks, in the streets and the highways and the byways of this nation. For the honourable member for Melbourne to talk about unemployment as though it is something that happened in the last 10 years but is not currently with us, and to talk as some members of the Government have talked about inflation being contained and that really it is an inherited world problem, is regrettably just another illustration of their complete failure to recognise the symptoms of what this country is about.

As far as inflation is concerned let me briefly refer to Professor Hogan’s analysis of the reasons why the problems of inflation in this country can be completely distinguished from those of other countries. First of all we are significantly dependent upon indigenous sources of fuel. In other words the accelerated cost to the industrial countriesJapan, Germany and other European countries- of crude oil has not in any way affected costs in Australia.

Mr Riordan:

– What nonsense.

Mr SINCLAIR:

-‘ What nonsense’ he says, demonstrating how little the honourable member knows of what is going on. We import a very minimal percentage of crude into this country. The percentage which we import relates principally to the heavier fractionated parts of the crude and those products are, in fact, at the moment in almost negligible supply. They are in negligible supply because the Prices Justification Tribunal has failed to give to importing companies a price to compensate them for the additional cost of landing it here. Because of this, fuel is not available.

Mr Whan:

– Come on.

Mr SINCLAIR:

-I am glad to hear that the honourable member for Eden-Monaro is in the chamber. I might add that he is one of the few Government members who are here. It is of interest that in northern New South Wales the wheat harvest at the moment is likely to be seriously affected because of the inaction of this Government in trying to help to get fuel supplies to country areas. In my own home town of Tamworth, of the nine principal oil distributors six have no distillate supplies available at all. The other three have at the very maximum 2 days supply available. A very similar and not much better position applies to gasoline.

Here we have a Budget. Let us talk about the degree to which the economy itself is running away with the very vitality of this nation. We are at a record level of unemployment. With inflation the economy is being destroyed in such a way in any area- whether it be the building industry, home ownership or private investmentthat this country is in a worse position than it has been at any stage since the war and the blame lies entirely with this Government. This Budget is designed to correct these deficiencies. This it does not do. After the suspension of the sitting for dinner perhaps I will identify the reasons why I believe the Budget might well have been framed in an entirely different way.

Sitting suspended from 6.15 to 8 p.m.

Mr SINCLAIR:

-Prior to the suspension of the sitting I was talking about the impact of inflation. I referred to Professor Hogan’s reasons for the separation of the causes of inflation in Australia from those abroad. I suggested that the first reason advanced by Professor Hogan was that we in Australia are significantly dependent upon indigenous sources of crude and are therefore not prejudiced by the way in which the Arab oil exporting countries have advanced the price of crude and have therefore affected the price of crude in so many other countries. The second reason advanced, of course, is the significant reduction in import duties, in tariffs, which has meant that we have been able to buy goods from abroad at prices significantly lower than many other countries can and that therefore the claim that we are importing their inflation is denied. The third reason advanced, of course, is in relation to currency revaluation which, until the last devaluation, had put Australian currency at such a point that goods could be imported into Australia at a significantly lower price than other countries could import them, because of the rate at which the cost factor was moving up in those other countries. Therefore the cost to the consumer in Australia, if the relative currency parity were passed on, should be the same as it was prior to the inflationary impact.

I mention inflation and I am delighted to see that the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor), who was to be the Acting Prime Minister, is in the chamber because it is of tremendous importance to the Australian people to realise the farcical manner in which this Government pursues its administration. Those people who are listening to the debate, including the very few Government members who are in the chamber, must have listened with some extraordinary amazement to an announcement that some uniform discrepancy between members of the Royal Australian Air Force and the Chinese Government has precluded the Deputy Prime Minister, the present Acting Prime Minister (Dr J. F. Cairns), from embarking on his visit which was to have begun tomorrow morning. I am sure that all of us have not been unconscious of a Cabinet meeting which apparently took place- I do not know whether this is true, but rumour has it- in the absence of the Minister for Minerals and Energy this afternoon in order to determine whether or not the Cabinet, or those who attended the meeting, were prepared to accept the leadership of the Minister in a period of economic crises which the policies of the Labor Party have induced. But Labor supporters say, as they did this afternoon: ‘But our policies have nothing to do with it. Inflation has been induced by those big bad boys in the Liberal and Country Parties 2 years ago’. Have honourable members opposite not read their Budget? Have they not heard about a thing called a property surcharge, or were they not at the Caucus meeting the other day?

The surcharge on unearned income is a tax on savings. We on this side of the House believe that we should encourage the community to save. Indeed, we introduced a homes savings grant scheme not only to encourage private investment in housing but also to encourage young people to own their own homes and to set aside money- to wit, savings- during those working years of their lives before marriage, in order that at the time of marriage they might be better able to finance the purchase of their homes. This Government has done nothing but destroy the opportunity of home ownership in our community. This Government has created the circumstance of uncertainty in economy. The Labor Premier of South Australia pursued a tactic which was pursued by another Labor Premier of New South Wales back in the depression days when he found it necessary to go out into the streets and tell the people of his State not to worry about the policies that his Federal Labor colleagues were pursuing.

I believe that Australia has a sound future. I believe in the future of permanent building societies. I believe in savings. I deplore the tax introduced in this Budget, about which this debate is taking place, which penalises people with savings. It is a tax by which the Government says to the retired people of our community: ‘If you have put money aside in order to help you to maintain your standard of living when you retire we will tax you on that. We will not just tax you at the normal rate that applies to somebody who is able to go out and earn his living by physical exertion; we will add to it a penal surcharge. You are really hurting our community. You are doing a terrible thing. ‘ That is what the Government is saying. This is the Government which is now saying: ‘Oh, but it is the Liberal-Country Party that has really induced inflation. It is the LiberalCountry Party that is creating uncertainty in our financial institutions.’ If I may say so, I have never heard more arrant nonsense.

That, of course, is the problem. This Government is incompetent, irresponsible and has no confidence even in the men who are Ministers. The man who is No. 3 in the hierarchy is to be denied the opportunity, as he should be- but that of course is an expression of view which comes from the Opposition and according to the Government is to be discounted- of being the Acting Prime Minister at a time when there is economic uncertainty. If the Deputy Prime Minister were genuine in his belief and his expressions of his point of view, would he resort to the devious device of saying that the Royal Australian Air Force uniforms are not acceptable in Communist China? Mr Speaker, have you ever heard anything more nonsensical? I have honestly never heard a more blatant admission of irresponsibility than that which came out of the mouth of the Acting Prime Minister of this country tonight.

This Budget regrettably is another manifestation of irresponsibility. This Budget, produced as it was at the beginning of this new session of Parliament, now 2Vi weeks ago, has been changed by actions of this Government inside and outside the Parliament on almost every day since the Budget was introduced. What more blatant admission of incompetence could one have of the Government than that even the day after the Budget was introduced there was an admission that because of the policies of the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Whan) and the Minister for Northern Development (Dr Patterson), who is sitting in the front bench opposite, the wool market had collapsed and it was therefore necessary to bolster the Australian Wool Corporation in its buying policies. The Minister for Northern Development and the honourable member for Eden-Monaro came out and said that 300c a kilo is too much and that no wool grower deserves to survive in a circumstance where inflation is eroding his ability to maintain his standard of living by comparison with the wage earner. They said that a floor price of 300c a kilo for wool and the maintenance of wool buying at that rate by the Australian Wool Corporation was irresponsible. Those were the statements by the Minister for Northern Development and the honourable member for EdenMonaro.

However, the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) in another place had more sense. He said: ‘I have confidence in the commercial judgment of the members of the Australian Wool Corporation. They are acting in accordance with their charter. They are discussing the base price upon which they are purchasing wool with me and officers of the Treasury in accordance with the requirements of the Act. Therefore, I do not believe that the statements by my colleagues are accurate’. The Minister for Northern Development and the honourable member for EdenMonaro stand condemned because of the way by which they have eroded the returns of every Australian wool grower. Let no Australian be mistaken, the income that our agricultural exports generate still serves as the bulwark behind which this country survives. The erosion that those 2 honourable members have made on payments that might otherwise have been generated from abroad is the vehicle by which the standard of living of every Australian, be he wage earner or employer, whether he lives in the city or the country, is being debased. That is what these 2 people have done.

I think it is also necessary to look at the Budget and see those other things that have been changed. The Minister for Health (Dr Everingham) shortly after the introduction of the Budget- not in the Parliament because these men have given away the concept of making policy statements in the Parliament; these men no longer regard the Parliament as significant- decided that in excess of $600m over the next 3 years, or $200m a year, for the construction of public health facilties or hospitals will be spent by this Government. This is not included in the Budget and not referred to in the Parliament, but specifically it is placing an additional outlay on the Budget which the Treasurer himself, on page 3 of his Budget Speech, estimated as providing for an additional 32.4 per cent of outlay or $3,980m in 1 974-75.

Mr Cohen:

– Put some pep into it. We are getting bored.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Interjections are out of order.

Mr SINCLAIR:

- Mr Speaker, I need no protection from these men. In other words, only 2 nights after the presentation of the Budget, outside the Parliament, without any reference to the people’s representatives -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Interjections will cease. I call the honourable member for New England.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– Thank you, Mr Speaker. Outside the Parliament, an additional outlay of $600m was announced over the course of the next 3 years. Then, of course, we had the devaluation decision. Did the Ministers or those who are advising the Ministers- the departmental officers- know of the devaluation decision? Of course they did not. Yet the Budget was predicated on a valuation of the Australian currency which was 12 per cent different from that which was current one week after its introduction. You know, Mr Speaker, it is rather fascinating that even last night the Acting Prime Minister (Dr J. F. Cairns) and the Acting Treasurer (Mr Hayden) seemed to me to be determining the financial policy of this country in a way which one would believe would be more becoming of those who are the permanent incumbents of those positions. They are doing this to the point at which one wonders how permanent their incumbency might be. If ever there has been a palace revolt in Australia, perhaps it was apparent in the reasons, which were revealed to be false, for the Deputy Prime Minister remaining in Australia. The farcical reason given for this was that the uniforms of the Royal Australian Air Force officers on the aircraft were not acceptable to the Peoples ‘ Republic of China. This has been used as the reason to hide the fact that these men are incompetent to govern. Tonight we have heard the reason why this Budget -

Mr Armitage:

- Mr Speaker, I rise to order. My point of order is that the Deputy Leader of the Country Party is reflecting on the integrity of the Acting Prime Minister. I think that his remarks are in breach of the Standing Orders.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I do not think that was intended. I cannot see that any point of order arises. I call the Deputy Leader of the Australian Country Party.

Mr SINCLAIR:

-I think that the honourable member has just served me well. He has illustrated how little respect he has for the excuse which the Acting Prime Minister has announced publicly as the reason for his non-visit to China. I would agree that if that was a valid reason, perhaps it might be acceptable to the people of Australia that he should remain in Australia. But let us acknowledge the fact that he has no confidence in the man who is standing behind him, the man who supposedly was going to be the Acting Prime Minister. But the reason that the present Acting Prime Minister is remaining in Australia is not because of the exaggerated, nonsensical excuse that he has given; it is because he is concerned about the state of the economy, and well he should be.

Mr Speaker, I notice that my time for speaking has nearly expired. This Budget is ineffective, firstly, because it has destroyed confidence in the private economy. The Acting Prime Minister has said that we need confidence and yet this Budget destroys it. The Acting Prime Minister has said that we must produce our way out of inflation. Yet, he has denied the ability of every sector of the economy so to do. The Prime Minister of Australia is predicating his future and our country’s future on his status in the United Nations and on our ability to equate ourselves with other men and with other countries who are doing just what the Deputy Prime Minister says we should do. Australia is a land of traditional ability and competence. It is a land of tremendous potential. But, this Budget, by its financial imposition on the average citizen, by its destruction of incentive, by its excessive expenditure in the public sector, by its denial of the right of the private sector to employ people, by its destruction of the confidence of every citizen in those traditional avenues of investment, has turned the page backward in a way which this generation will not forget.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr MATHEWS:
Casey

-People listening to this debate tonight can only have been dismayed by the destructive note on which it commenced. If Australia’s economic problems are to be overcome it might be an idea for this House to stop knocking everything that the Government is doing about them and give the country a chance to go about its business without scaring it to death. Before people go on predicting increases in inflation or unemployment they ought to remember how easy it is for predictions of this sort to be self-fulfilling. Anybody who thinks that something is done for public confidence by calling on somebody to restore it had better give some thought to the queues which formed this afternoon outside building societies in Brisbane and Adelaide. Scoring of political points and pushing of party barrows are not activities of which we can be proud at a time when all around us the economies of countries like our own are sliding down into chaos. If we do not wake up to ourselves soon, being the lucky country is an idea we will have to give away.

In the first 6 months of this year the annual rates of inflation recorded by the monthly Consumer Price Index of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development rose to 7.2 per cent in West Germany, 10.3 per cent in New Zealand, 1 1 per cent in Canada, 13.5 per cent in France, 13.6 per cent in Australia, 15.9 per cent in Britain, 16.1 per cent in Italy, 16.3 per cent in Spain, 18.1 per cent in Finland, 19 per cent in Turkey, 23.2 per cent in Japan, 26.6 per cent in Portugal and 31.9 per cent in Greece. Over the same period the output of the world’s 7 largest industrial countries fell at an annual rate of 1 V4 per cent in what the OECD has called ‘the most exceptional deceleration of growth ever experienced’. Six million people are going to be out of work in Europe before the end of the year. Five per cent of America’s work force is unemployed already and before long that figure may rise to 8 per cent. The risk of the world to which Australia belongs finding itself in a hyper-inflationary slump is confirmed by every reputable economic authority.

The London ‘Economist’ pointed out on 27 July:

Economies have become too interdependent for any but governments of the largest countries to be able to control their own destiny, while politically countries remain too independent to be willing to co-operate in controlling the reemerging trade cycle . . . Businesses are cutting their forward investment plans while many governments ar; saying they must follow sterner budgetary policies. If business and government decisions move simultaneously in the same deflationary direction all over the world, the cumulative effect will be a crash.

The ‘Australian Economic Review’ noted in its second issue for 1974:

The forces underlying this deteriorating outlook . . . include the destabilising effects of massive trade deficits for the oil importing countries as a whole (estimated at some S60 billion for the OECD countries); the widespread cost inflationary pressure which intensifies the impact of any credit restrictions and tempts most countries to try deflationary measures; and the deflationary impact of higher oil prices, of continued cost inflation in tight credit conditions and of world wide measures to contain inflation. Although these three problems- the threat of chronic imbalances in international payments with consequent instability in the international financial system, the possibility of accelerating cost inflation and the threat of a world slump- have been evident since the beginning of this year, virtually nothing of a constructive nature has been achieved towards their solution.

In the same issue the ‘Australian Economic Review ‘ concluded:

In 1974-75 Australia faces, for the first time in its history, the very real possibility of a developing hyper-inflation. The country faces the most serious economic situation since the Depression days of the 1930s and there is an urgent need for a national consensus in the face of the economic threat.

We are not going to overcome that threat or obtain the necessary consensus without a measure of commitment on the part of all the interest groups which make up our community. There are at least 4 matters over which we must do better as a community than we have ever done before. Bringing down inflation involves a better appreciation on the part of the community as a whole that if restraint is required it can be achieved only on the basis of equality of sacrifice. Bringing down inflation involves a better understanding of the importance of productivity and better arrangements to stimulate increases in it by rewarding the work force immediately and proportionately in the wages and salaries that are paid. Bringing down inflation involves better standards of job satisfaction which can be achieved only if capital and labour accept one another as equal partners in the process of production. Bringing down inflation involves striking a better balance in the allocation of our resources between immediate personal consumption, investment in the plant and machinery through which our future wealth will be generated and spending on the community facilities and services which determine so overwhelmingly the quality of our lives.

The demand inflation which was triggered by the 1972 Budget and the 1972 liquidity explosion was brought under control early in 1974 by measures such as revaluation of the Australian dollar, tariff reform and the establishment of the Prices Justification Tribunal. This tapering off of demand inflation characterised by too much money chasing too few goods was signalled by the lower rate of increase in the consumer price index for the March quarter. Unfortunately it was followed immediately by the onset of a vicious cost inflation as income earners of all sorts scrambled to maintain their purchasing power in the face of repeated price increases generated during the demand phase. The Government has been urged by many people to attack this cost inflation by budgeting for a massive surplus and generating unemployment on a massive scale, but it has chosen instead to use this Budget as the foundation for a social contract through which inflation can be brought under control without resort to the brutal alternative of unemployment. The Government has been encouraged in this belief by the overwhelming majority of reputable economic commentators who regard the idea of bringing down inflation through unemployment as ineffectual, inappropriate and unacceptable.

In these circumstances we have a Budget which is designed to enlist the co-operation of the trade union movement through a reassurance to trade union members that they will not lose out by seeking real rather than illusory increases in wages and salaries and will not be asked to contribute more to the fight against inflation than is expected of other sections of the community. This Budget is designed to draw an equal contribution in the form of tax reductions forgone and the payment of a capital gains tax and a property income surcharge from people whose incomes are derived from high level salaries, professional fees, dividends, rent and interest. If it is too soon to say that this approach has been successful, it can be said at least that the signs are promising. At their meeting 2 weeks ago in Sydney, the unions responded positively to the Budget with a declaration which, I regret, has not been published in full in any newspaper throughout Australia and which therefore I seek permission to have incorporated in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

This Conference declares that the two problems of increasing inflation and rising unemployment are not unique to Australia but are apparent throughout the economic system of which we are a part; they are to be found in the other 23 countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The trade union movement, neither here nor in these other countries can sensibly be blamed for the endemic problems of the capitalist system. This does not mean that we do not have a responsibility to examine the current situation in Australia and to make proposals aimed at securing a more stable efficient and equitable society.

Conference expresses its general support for the social concepts and economic strategy contained in the Budget in 1974-75. Particularly on the expenditure side we welcome the significantly increased outlays, for instance, upon education, health, welfare and urban and regional development. On the receipts side, we congratulate the Government for certain initiatives towards greater equity, for the first time tax cuts mean more in money terms to low and middle than to high income earners.

However, Conference, in endorsing these submissions put by the ACTU officers to the Government in pre-Budget discussions, assert that until indexation of taxation is introduced, there could be no adequate protection against the erosive effects of inflation on real after-tax incomes. This effect has continued to be a significant factor in the level of wage and salary demands.

While we congratulate the Government on its rejection of Treasury budgetary strategy aimed at the early creation of massive unemployment, Conference expresses real concern at the existing level and trend of unemployment. The Government must be prepared to introduce supplementary measures directed towards the restoration of full employment. These measures should include the degree of quantative restrictions on imports necessary to provide assistance to industries, such as clothing, textiles, footwear and ‘white’ goods, which are currently suffering reductions in activity and employment well beyond that even contemplated in July 1973. Such measures should be supplemented by direct assistance to sections of industries in particular need and consideration should also be given to increased direct Government participation in industry.

The Government should, at the earliest opportunity, seek to achieve a lowering in rates of interest throughout the community.

Cuts in indirect tax would also have a stimulatory effect on activity as well as being equitable in terms of relevant income distribution. Such cuts in indirect taxes would also have a direct impact in reducing the price level. As a further direct measure to reduce prices, the Australian Government should consider the introduction of special grants to States to reduce charges in service industries, which enter into the cost of living

Conference declares that co-existent with action by the Government along the above lines, the objective of the trade union movement to secure wage and salary justice would be pursued in the following manner

Automatic quarterly adjustment for cost of living changes (indexation) of award wages

b ) annual ad justment for national productivity changes; and

within individual awards and determinations, changes in work value and other relevant considerations.

Contrary to those commentators and sections of the media who have sought to confuse this important issue by deliberate misrepresentations, the implementation of this total package will not constitute ‘wage restraint’ but will provide a sound basis for real improvements in wage and salary standards. Conference also expresses its concern at the effects of inflation on pensioners and others on fixed incomes and urges the Government to constantly review pension rates and other social service benefits in accordance with ACTU policy. Conference believes that the fundamental prerequisite of the co-operation envisaged in this Resolution is full and continuing consultation between the Government and the trade union movement on all matters affecting the level and direction of economic activity and the social welfare of the community. The trade union movement stands ready to participate in such consultations with Government and, indeed, with other important sections of the Australian community.

In putting many proposals for action by Government in the past, the trade union movement has repeatedly come up against the assertion of lack of constitutional po wers. Should it appear to Government in consultations with the trade union movement that it is confronted by a lack of appropriate powers which it would wish to exercise to achieve these objectives, the trade union movement will give sympathetic consideration to supporting attempts by the Government to acquire these powers.

Mr MATHEWS:

– That declaration and the Budget which made it possible are both preliminary statements of positions which can provide a basis for future negotiation. The criticisms that have been made of the Budget and of the declaration, in such form as it was published in the newspapers and publicised by the media, missed the point. These are preliminary statements of the position on which the process of negotiation will continue until a solution- an arrangement acceptable to both sides- can be reached. With goodwill on both sides we are going to be able to establish a social contract which will provide enduring protection against the difficulties caused by greedy and irresponsible economic behaviour in the past.

Preserving and enhancing still further the prospects of this contract is a task that demands responsibility on the part of not only this Parliament but also all of Australia’s media. In normal times, scepticism towards governments on the part of the media serves the best interests of a democratic society. Normally it is fair enough for newsworthiness to determine what the media disseminate and for sensation to be the stuff of which media profits are made. But we are all media consumers now and even the most sceptical of us are influenced in our moods, and attitudes and actions by what the media give us to read and hear and see. The media cannot credibly or consistently go on expressing alarm about an economic situation which they seem to be determined to worsen. If the various sections of the media cannot bring themselves to praise the many good things contained in the Budget, they should at least give the community information about them with a minimum of destructive and dismaying commentary. The media could remain sceptical about the overtures that the Government has made and the response those overtures have drawn from the unions without doing everything in their power to deny to the community the hope on which, after all, confidence depends. The fear which prompted Roosevelt’s famous warning was not all a product of direct personal experience on the part of the Americans to whom it was addressed. Much of it was manufactured in the process of the media of the day marketing their news. That is not something that we can afford to allow to happen in this country.

Over and beyond the problem of reaching the sort of accommodation between interest groups in society of which the social contract is a first expression there looms the problem of a more adequate level of productivity. The Acting Prime Minister (Dr J. F. Cairns) said correctly enough on Monday- some speakers in this debate have since confirmed it- that the only lasting solution for the inflation by which our society is gripped is for us to produce our way out of it. Australia has barely begun to appreciate the enormous gains that are waiting to be won from the people who contribute labour to industry and the people who contribute capital working together on the basis of an equal partnership. The idea of sharing not only the earnings of an industry but also the decisions which make them possible is one we have as yet barely begun to explore.

Our failure to achieve reasonable levels of productivity is a failure not so much of vigour as of vision. We have failed so far to see beyond the crudities of piecework and incentive payments to a situation in which the best is given to enterprises which people working in them recognise as their own. It should be a considerable relief to our community that for the first time the attention of management consultants, academics specialising in industrial relations and government departments is being turned towards this approach to the increase of productivity. We were previously in a blind alley. We kept on repeating the same old slogans and getting nowhere. The breakout in this area is being made and it is integral to the whole problem of inflation. There cannot be a lasting solution to inflationsocial contract or not- unless we can come up with arrangements under which industrial relations can be harmonised and productivity can be maximised. That is the goal towards which we should be working, not as separate interest groups but as interest groups with some idea of the things that bind us together as a nation and a community. The day after the Budget the ‘Australian Financial Review’, in a leading article, concluded:

The Government has made its own political judgment and decided it can defuse the pressures of cost inflation by demonstrating to the trade unions its intention of restructuring society along lines which will benefit them. It is now up to those Mr Hawke represents to declare themselves. It would be a short sighted Australian who did not wish the Budget to succeed at this level.

Those Mr Hawke represents have declared themselves. The declaration has come forward from the meeting of unions that was held in Sydney. The process of bringing inflation under control by negotiation between the trade union movement and the Government, which other nations might envy, is under way.

The question now is: How many Australians are short sighted, and how many Australians in fact are capable of taking the national view and of discerning where the national interest lies on these crucial matters. The signs, as we have read them in the media and heard them in this debate, are not encouraging. Australians listening tonight would have good reason to be dismayed. For many other countries less fortunate than ours in their resources and less manageable than ours socially, serious economic difficulties may be unavoidable. For Australia this is not the case. The Parliament and the media through which the community learns about the thinking of its government must shoulder heavy responsibilities. If we pull together, the problems which face us are not insuperable. If we go on the way we are going, we are down the drain.

Mr VINER:
Stirling

-The speeches made in this House by the honourable member for Casey (Mr Mathews) are always interesting to listen to, but I regret to say that I am never quite sure where they lead us. I think that can be said of the honourable member’s speech on the Budget. He called for an allegiance of the Press to the Government, an allegiance of the Press to the social contract of the unions and an allegiance of the unions to the Government. He called for such things as good will and productivity in the community as a solution to inflation. All of those things were mentioned and yet in the end I was puzzled as to the direction in which he would want to take Australia, and this is the centre of the great debate at the present time. The Opposition and the Government certainly have different views on the direction in which Australia should be taken and the methods by which it should be taken in that direction; but at least one thing is certain, and that is that the present Government knows neither the direction in which Australia should go nor the method by which it should be taken there in that direction. That is abundantly clear from the Budget itself and from the speeches on the Budget from the Government side.

I heard earlier today in the speeches from honourable gentlemen on the Government side criticism of any member of the Opposition who even suggested that there was an element of despair or gloom pervading the economy of Australia. Yet we have the honourable member for Casey really forecasting a situation of doom and despair not only in Australia but in the world. It is very good of him to call for good will on all sides because certainly, above all things, other countries of the western world have found that good will and a unity of purpose are what is required to defeat inflation, but when the honourable gentleman speaks of good will I would endeavour to inject a note of practicality into the debate. Good will is a fine sounding sentiment, but in the world of economics what is needed above all is sound economic management. If one thing is sure it is that we have not had sound economic management from this Government since it has been in office. There is no need for me to catalogue the series of fiscal and monetary changes of pace that have occurred since December 1972.

My colleague the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) in a most eloquent way last night in a penetrating speech analysed the criticism of stop-go policies and showed how stop-go policies are the very epitome of the actions of this Government. He coined a phrase that might well be used more often in this House and outside: Slumflation. We have heard of stagflation; we have heard tonight of hyperinflation, but the honourable member might well have coined one of those words that will live for a long time- -slumflation. That is a quite accurate description of the situation in which we might well find ourselves in Australia within a short time.

But let me go back to the 1973 Budget. Before that Budget we were told 2 things by the Treasurer (Mr Crean) and the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam). Firstly, we were told by the Treasurer that the Budget was only one part of the Government’s overall economic strategy to manage the economy. We know full well that the other parts of the economic strategy simply have not worked. Secondly, we were told by the Prime Minister that inflation was the most serious economic matter commanding the attention of the Government. That was said before the 1973 Budget. It took an election on 1 8 May this year to persuade the Prime Minister that inflation was a real issue within the community. Having won that election by a reduced majority, the result of the election compelled the Prime Minister to acknowledge as a serious matter what he was only prepared before to flirt with in words. But having won the election, spoken to the people and acknowledged inflation the Prime Minister very promptly in this Budget abandoned the idea that inflation was a real problem. In the 12 months which have passed since that 1973 Budget it is obvious that this Government has no strategy for managing the economy and it does not really regard inflation as a serious matter. Rather the Government feeds off inflation and tinkers with the economy as each shift in prices, wages, unemployment or money supply occurs. In other days this was condemned by the Government when it was in Opposition as stop-go policy.

Today the economic gyrations of this Government are recognised as the consequence of abject abandonment of any pretence to economic leadership. There is no economic strategy exercised by this Government. There is no leadership- let alone economic leadership- in this Government. Above all, there is no real commitment to fight inflation. One has only to read the Budget Speech to recognise that. There is no commitment at all by the Treasurer to fight inflation. Rather, there is only a frightened group of men twitching in response to every economic pressure in the country. It is a group of men led by a leader who is more concerned about tripping overseas with his public relations entourage to try to get Senator Willesee elected president of the United Nations. I wonder whether the people of Australia are more concerned about the election of Senator Willesee as president of the United Nations than they are about fighting inflation. I do not think that the people of Australia give a damn whether Senator Willesee is elected President of the United Nations. I do believe they give a damn about the state of the economy of their country. This is a matter of paramount importance to Australia today. Unless the Prime Minister of Australia realises that fact he has no hope within his own Party of sustaining his leadership of that Party and he has no hope within the country of sustaining his purported leadership of the nation.

The people of Australia sense that they are living in the shadows of a world economic crisis of proportions not faced since the depression years of the 1930s. The people know this. They may not be able to articulate it because they are not all academics, neither are they all economists. But many of them are ordinary Australians with a commonsense appreciation of how to manage their own household.

Today, in the affairs of our great country, I say without any hesitation that the Prime Minister ought to be here at home and not playing about abroad. The economic affairs of this nation are of much greater importance today than is speech making at the United Nations, however important the United Nations may be in bringing about some order in the international community. We are living in times of great uncertainty in the world. As I look upon it, the world is at a watershed in its post-war economic history. There has been a fundamental shift in the wealth of the western world resulting from the actions of the Arab oil producers late last year. In one massive stroke they have syphoned off from the western world tens of billions if not hundreds of billions, of dollars which once financed the industrial expansion of Europe, Japan, North America and other countries of the western world. There is no need for me to turn to statistics like an economic technician to justify this point.

I think it is observable by anybody who wants to look at what has happened. The Arabs gave the international monetary system a shove from which it cannot recover either in the short term or perhaps in the long term, at least without a fundamental adjustment of the world monetary system. The balance of economic power in the world will not be the same again. Australia must recognise this quickly and adjust itself to the new world economic order, because Australia must find its place in the new world economy. All the outpourings of the Government about multinational corporations will be old hat, because if the Government would only recognise it the multinationals of the world do not have the liquidity that they had a few years ago. Therefore, they cannot move their income or their wealth around the world as they could before. The multinationals have gone home; they have taken their money back to their home countries because their home countries are in dire need of it.

What Australia has to look to is the way in which it can, in the national interest, take advantage of the money which has been siphoned off from the western world into the Arab nations by way of the petro-dollar. It is interesting that the present Government has been dealing with the Shah of Iran, but at the same time it has been denying any sentiment towards economic nationalism. It has been denying any sentiment towards resources diplomacy. At the same time through the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor), it is using the weapon of economic nationalism to the hilt and using the weapon of resources diplomacy to the hilt.

But Australia cannot find its place in the new world economy which is to come without clear headed economic thinking and unmistakable political leadership. Regrettably we are having neither of those things from within the ranks of the Government. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) has abandoned any pretence to economic leadership, let alone political leadership of his own Party. He has abdicated responsibility for economic affairs to the Deputy Prime Minister (Dr J. F. Cairns). The poor Treasurer (Mr Crean) has been left only to deliver his annual little boy monologue at Budget time. Waiting in the wings of the Australian Labor Party is the President of the Australian Labor Party and the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Mr Bob Hawke. One can recognise the unmistakable stance of a feline animal waiting to pounce when the next election comes and the Prime Minister loses his head. But Australia cannot wait for these things to happen within the Australian Labor Party because Australia cannot find its place in this new world economic order without controlling the situation at home. We must, as a nation, have a blueprint for the future and a battle plan for the present. This Australian Labor Party Government has neither.

There is no doubt that the dominant subject for political debate in Australia in 1974 is inflation. Yet, as I said, one finds no word of that in the Treasurer’s Budget Speech. But if inflation is dominant in many ways, it is a strange and quixotic thing. The Government does not recognise it and the Opposition wants to debate it. All of these things must leave the public rather perplexed. Maybe this is one of the deficiencies of our party system of government. It takes the people longer to decide which side of the argument to accept- the Government’s side or the Opposition’s side. Which side they accept in the end is very largely dependent upon the turn of economic events and then one or other of the sides of the argument can say: ‘I told you so’.

In contrast we find, when we look to some of the other western nations and in particular the United States of America, that there is a commitment to defeat inflation. President Ford has declared inflation to be public enemy number one, and so it is. What a heartening thing it would be if we had the Prime Minister, the Treasurer or the Deputy Prime Minister declare that inflation in Australia is public enemy number one. That is what it is and that is what it must be recognised to be. With an inflation rate approaching something of the order of 20 per cent as against the United States inflation rate of something of the order of 1 1 per cent, how much more sure it is that it is public enemy number one in this country. Having identified it for what it is the American nation has set itself upon a path of public debate and public involvement by all sectors of the community to see how this enemy can be defeated. Labour, business and agriculture are all drawn into the battle, along with the academic economists and the practical politicians.

In Australia there is no identification of inflation as an enemy of the community. There is no leadership within the Government and there is no will within the Government to defeat inflation. If only those 3 things would appear how much better off Australia would be. We hear so many conflicting statements from these 3 people within the Government, the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Treasurer, at a time when we have inflation running at a much faster rate of growth increase than ever there was in those 23 years of Liberal-Country Party Government. How well we remember Bob Hawke condemning the McMahon Government as an evil government because unemployment was running at the rate of 120,000.

Mr Mathews:

– Because it was created deliberately.

Mr VINER:

– When we compare that figure with the present figures, which are running in the order of 180,000- these are not my figures but those of the Deputy Prime Minister- what would the honourable member for Casey say if we condemned the Whitlam Government as an evil government for promoting unemployment? We have only to look at the statements of the Deputy Prime Minister who acknowledges that in July the Government was advised that its policies and its actions would lead to an increase in unemployment. Both inflation and unemployment are evils. For the benefit of honourable members on the Government side, I draw upon the Labour Chancellor of the Exchequor of the United Kingdom, who recently referred to the twin evils of unemployment and inflation, for that is what they are; unemployment so degrading of human dignity, a waste of human resources and debilitating to the economy; inflation so destructive of the standard of living, rendering savings if not worthless then seriously depleted and setting despair amongst the community.

We have only to look at the movement of inflation rates in Australia since December 1 972, from somewhere around 4Vi per cent, to Budget time in 1973, somewhere around 12 per cent or 13 per cent. Now the rate is somewhere around 20 per cent. What all this indicates, Mr Speaker, is the dearth of both political and economic leadership in Australia at the present time. We have the Prime Minister away from the country, the Deputy Prime Minister about to go to China, and the Treasurer also out of the country. We have talk, which is not unreal, of, if not a run, at least a rapid withdrawal of funds from building societies, pressure on the banks, and the Reserve Bank being asked to stave off this run on the financial institutions of the country. If the Deputy Prime Minister leaves this country tomorrow for China, throughout next week, which will be a critical time in the affairs of this country, we will have as Acting Prime MinisterHeaven forbid- the Minister for Minerals and Energy. Anyone who has studied the affairs of that Minister’s portfolio will know what a dire time we are in for under him.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

-The previous speaker, the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Viner), followed the course followed by the Opposition since it came to this place in December 1972 and again in May this year, a course of deliberately setting about to frighten people, to scare individuals, to undermine public confidence and to undermine business confidence. I have said it before and I say it again: The greatest enemies of business are its representatives in this place. They have set about on a course of undermining public confidence, to create division and unrest in the community. If establishing better relations with our trading partners is playing about abroad, that is the definition of the previous speaker. If seeking new major markets for our produce, which is something the Opposition when in government could not do, is playing about abroad, that again is the definition of the previous speaker. He represents in this place an ideology which is based on divisivness and on setting one Australian against another. Yesterday in his own State there was a general strike involving 100,000 people and supported by the Law Society of Western Australiaa society, I would expect by the nature of the previous speaker’s profession, of which he would be a member.

Mr Viner:

- Mr Speaker, I rise to order. The statement by the honourable gentleman is quite wrong. The Law Society had nothing to do with it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is no point of order involved. If the honourable member has been misrepresented he may make a personal explanation at the conclusion of the speech.

Mr MORRIS:

– The State which he represents was the scene of a general strike yesterday, unprecedented in this nation, of 100,000 people in opposition to the most repressive piece of legislation ever to come before an Australian parliament. I refer to the Fuel and Energy Bill now before the Western Australian Parliament, the brainchild of that great reactionary, the Premier of Western Australia Sir Charles Court. That is the kind of ideology that the previous speaker represents. That is all I have to say about it. The matter speaks for itself.

It is unfortunate that the Opposition’s approach to this debate has in the main been a negative one. Honourable members opposite have chosen to continue to carp and criticise rather than to offer constructive alternatives to the propositions put forward by the Australian Labor Government. Their constant harping on the difficulties flowing from the inflationary situation which exists in Australia and in all the industrialised non-communist countries is proof of their negative attitude to the financial problems that confront our nation and our trading partners. They deliberately ignore the fact that they in government, and particularly the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) as Treasurer in 1971-72, followed a course of financial irresponsibility that generated the inflation that now affects Australia. The present excess inflation had its beginnings in Australia in 1 97 1 .

Will anyone forget the 72-hour cliff-hanger in December 1971 when the Leader of the Opposition as Treasurer fought and lost out to the Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony) in an attempt to revalue the Australian dollar? In the 2 years that followed, as a result of that dereliction of duty by the then Treasurer, the Right Honourable Billy Mackie Snedden, over $2,000m more was earned from exports, and about $3,000m of capital or, should I say, hot money came in from overseas. Australian banks and fringe institutions created another $2,000m or more. It was in that upsurge of money in the private sector that our domestic inflation had its beginnings. It is all very well for the Opposition to forget its past financial policies, particularly its exchange rate policies, but it is patently dishonest for the Opposition to criticise this Government’s anti-inflation policies when in fact this Government inherited a greatly over-heated economy from the Opposition.

The public should be reminded that every step- even the prices and incomes referendum of last December- that this Government has taken to control inflation since December 1972 has been blindly opposed by those who sit opposite. Like their obstructionist colleagues in another place- the Senate- whatever the Australian Labor Government proposes, they are ‘agin’ it even before they have heard the proposal. Inflation is the most serious problem facing the industrialised nations of the world since World War II. As the previous speaker said, President Ford of the United States of America recently declared inflation as public enemy No. 1 in the United States. He stated at the opening of the recent conference to find solutions to inflation in the United States of America that ‘there is no miracle solution’ to inflation and other problems. That statement needs to be driven home particularly to the Opposition and to every responsible citizen in our land. There is no miracle solution to inflation; no simple, easy answer. Honourable members opposite who attempt to lead people to believe that there is a simple, painless remedy for inflation are deceiving our nation, are building up false expectations and, by their refusal to face the reality of the situation, are sabotaging the best interests of the Australian people. To reap the longer term benefits of a lesser rate of inflation we must be prepared to endure the short term pain of corrective action.

However, this Government will not accept a solution which embodies long term massive unemployment. That is the package deal or, should

I say, the Snedden ‘snack pack’ which the Opposition proposes. Inflation is an international disease which afflicts all our trading partners. Its ultimate world solution will demand international co-operation, an international approach, and a system of international financial arrangements. As a major earner of energy resources we are in a favourable position compared with many of our neighbours. However, if Australia and other western nations pursue a ‘begger thy neighbour’ monetary policy, much more difficult times lie ahead for the western nations. We will not be able to remain forever an impregnable island in an international financial sea. Our neighbours’ attitudes and approaches to inflation must affect the success or otherwise of Australia’s efforts to regulate inflation. The decision of oil producing countries to quadruple the price of oil has posed the greatest threat for over a generation to the economy and to the political stability of the industrialised nations. The increase in the oil prices by the oil producers is the equivalent of the levying of an annual tax on the rest of the world of approximately US$70 billion. Unless this money is put back into the economies from which it has been extracted in the form of consumer and capital expenditure, it must have a contractionary effect on the economy. Australia is yet to feel the full effect of the increased oil price on its trading customers.

The solution to international inflation lies not in individual financial policies of the nations concerned but in a joint political and financial solution evolved in co-operation with all industrialised nations and oil producing nations. What we need in Australia is a joint effort by the Government and by the private sector to develop a consensus of approach to the international financial scene. The Treasurer (Mr Crean) in his Budget Speech said that the keynote of the Budget was social progress. An examination of its schedules proves the truth of that statement. For example, there was an increase of 78 per cent in expenditure on education; $7Sm was provided for pre-school and child care programs; $28m was made available to commence the construction of new hospitals in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane; provision was made for home dialysis appliances free of charge; additional funds were provided for nursing homes and for the national drug education program; a further step has been taken in the abolition of the means test for pensioners; increased rent assistance has been given to pensioners; there has been a doubling of the capital subsidy available under the Aged Persons Homes Act; a new handicapped childs allowance of $ 10 a week is to be paid to parents and guardians in respect of a child under 16 years of age who is cared for at home and who, because of the severity of the handicap, is in need of constant care and attention; a 34 per cent increase, which is $67m, is to be made available in grants to the States for welfare housing and there is the possibility of further grants should circumstances warrant. These are but a few of the many items provided for in the 1974-75 Budget which make it truly one of social progress.

I turn now specifically to the benefits provided to local government in this Budget. In New South Wales for almost 30 years local government associations have fought for recognition of the principle that local government should receive a share from the common pool of taxation. When local government was established councils were called upon to provide only basic services which were related to property. However, in the years since World War II councils have been called upon to provide an increasing range of cultural, recreational and community services which benefit all people while revenue capacity has been limited to the collection of rates levied on property. Local government was caught in the vice of limited revenue capacity and a rising public expectation of service. It is useful to remember that in over 23 years of successive LiberalCountry Party Administrations the debt of local government multiplied 12 times. Local government authorities are borrowing more each year now than was the total amount of their outstanding debt of just over 20 years ago.

Our opponents opposite, who regularly cry ‘centralism’, deliberately refused to recognise the desperate financial plight of councils. For 23 years local government was hamstrung by the Liberal-Country Party Administration in office. This Labor Government, committed to the upgrading of the status of local government, has implemented, with maximum speed, its preelection promises of financial assistance to councils under several headings. The Budget provides $56.3m in ‘no strings attached’ grants to 807 councils, or 92 per cent of the applicant local government bodies in Australia. The purpose of these grants is to assist councils to provide a standard of services comparable with the services enjoyed by other communities in Australia. They are not intended to replace existing State government grants or rates collected by councils. They are intended to help lift the standards of less favoured areas to a parity with average standards.

Following the expansion of the Australian Grants Commission last year- another proposal opposed by the Opposition, which even opposed at the polls the referendum relating to local government- 876 councils made submissions to the Australian Grants Commission and 807 of them will receive assistance ranging from $3,000 up to $2m, the average grant being about $64,000. I am particularly pleased that in my own electorate of Shortland, Lake Macquarie Shire Council will receive $870,000 and Newcastle City Council $716,000. These grants will enable those councils to carry out expanded works programs, thus providing much needed services years sooner than would have been possible but for the actions of this Government. As I said earlier, the grants are not intended to replace existing State grants or rates charged by councils. It needs to be made clear that the grants are designed to equalise or top up council revenues so as to allow the councils to provide a satisfactory range and level of services. The grants are to be spent at the discretion of the councils concerned.

The assessment of the amount of the grants was made by the Grants Commission and was based, firstly, on the revenue capacity of each applicant council as compared with constituent councils in the relevant region, consideration being given to the actual revenue being collected by the council; secondly, the required expenditure of the applicant council as compared with that of brother constituent councils in the region to provide a quality of services comparable with the services of” brother councils within the region and as compared with other regions; and, thirdly, the degree of disability or deficiency suffered by the council in the form of a physical nature, such as area, topography or distances and disability in the form of population, such as sparse population or dense population requiring a greater intensity of public services. Whilst many councils made submissions setting out projects they needed to be carried out, such projects were not a major factor in the assessment of the disability and/or deficiency of the councils. The adoption by this Government of the Aus.tralian Grants Commission’s recommendations for 1974-75 is the greatest boost local government has received since Federation. It is unfortunate that some outgoing councils in New South Wales, in some cases at the final meeting of their 1971-74 term of office, saw fit to allocate expenditure of their grants aware that the grants cannot be legally available to projects before December this year. They did this to try to gain political kudos at the recent New South Wales local government elections.

Mr Speaker, the funds for local government in this Budget, as recommended by the Australian Grants Commission, are only the beginning. The Grants Commission, commenting on the poor quality of information submitted by some of the applicant councils, said at page 37 of its first report:

The recommendations should not, therefore, be taken as necessarily representing the relativities that will apply in the future when the Commission has the benefit of more reliable data and better knowledge of local conditions.

Another first for local government in this Budget is the allocation of $ 14.1m for the first year of a 3-year area improvement program spread over the 13 regions identified by the Department of Urban and Regional Development. Applications in respect of this program have tended to be confused by councils with applications and submissions to the Australian Grants Commission. It needs to be pointed out also that applications under the area improvement program are for specific projects only whereas applications to the Grants Commission are for assistance by way of equalisation or by the topping up of financial assistance.

The types of projects which have been approved under the areas improvement program are projects that have long been needed in many local government areas. The grant to the Hunter region, which comprises 18 local government bodies, representation of which I share with my colleagues, the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Lucock), the honourable member for Patterson (Mr 0’Keefe), the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James), the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones), and the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen), is approximately $lm. This grant will be much appreciated and will enable projects to be undertaken and services to be provided there much sooner than otherwise would have been the case. The Budget, in one word, for local government is a milestone.

Mr Lusher:

– It is a millstone.

Mr MORRIS:

– You are a millstone to the people whom you represent. The provision made in this Budget for local government is a milestone. It is to be hoped that it is only the commencement of the full and responsible role that local government plays as the third and important member of our federal system. It ought to mark the release of local governments from the captivity of the States in which they are situated.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Berinson:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-In calling the honourable member for Canning, I remind the House that this will be the honourable member’s maiden speech. I invite the House to extend the usual courtesies to him.

Mr BUNGEY:
Canning

– I am proud to represent the electorate of Canning in this House. I follow Mr Jack Hallett who represented Canning in this Parliament for some 1 1 years. Like Mr Hallett, my prime interest is in agriculture. Again in common with Mr Hallett, I have a vital interest in the wool industry although many of my views on the need for comprehensive wool marketing reform differ markedly from the views he often expressed. I pay tribute to Mr Hallett ‘s contribution to this Parliament and his contribution to the electorate of Canning.

Canning is an electorate of some 49,000 square miles- the ninth largest in Australiacovering outer metropolitan areas within 16 miles of Perth and stretching through the agricultural areas of Western Australia to Esperance some 500 miles from Perth. Sixty per cent of people in the electorate live in rural areas. Their dependence is directly or indirectly on agriculture. I will be largely concentrating on the impact of this Budget and of other Government decisions on agriculture, on country towns, and on the economic and social welfare of rural people. The remaining electors of Canning live in the near metropolitan shires of Arnadale-Kelmscott, Rockingham and Mandurah. Government decisions on shipbuilding and manufacturing at Kwinana, and on bauxite mining and processing at Pinjarra vitally affect them. Also, being rapidly growing residential areas, they are concerned with policies on housing, sewerage, provision of community and sporting facilities and of education.

I first wish to express my concern at the growing division between the metropolitan areas and rural areas. On too many occasions, the relationship between city and country appears to be expressed in the terms of a grand final football match: That only one side can win; and that a concession or benefit given to one side must automatically result in a disadvantage or penalty to the other side. This division is fostered not only by political parties but also by union leaders and by farmer organisations themselves. It is time that all realised that country and city, rural and metropolitan, are interdependent, and that each has a vital part to play in the growth and development of Australia. One of the virtues of the document ‘Rural Policy in Australia’ is its examination of rural policy within a context of national policy, to be judged by its contribution to overall economic and social objectives. Whilst the country-city division is promoted by politicians of all political parties for short term political gains, I want to comment particularly on the attitude of farmer leaders. Too often, I feel, farmers rely on the views of the eighteenth century French philosophers and embryo economists known as the physiocrats. The physiocrats saw land as the ultimate source of wealth, and agriculture as the only fruitful labour. Trade, commerce and industry were regarded as sterile, merely transforming the products of agriculture. By promoting such views Australian farmer leaders are ignoring the inter-dependence of all sectors necessary for the development of a strong, vital Australian economy. Acceptance of the inter-dependence of sectors does not place agriculture at a disadvantage. It is still vitally important both in its contribution to the total Australian productive effort and in its contribution to Australian trade and overseas earnings.

Promotion by farmer leaders and farmer organisations of demonstrations and retaliatory action against governments or unions can only be self defeating. Such demonstrations and retaliatory action can give internal solidarity to an organisation, but the net result is that they widen and give permanence to the existing gulf between farmers and the rest of the community. The resources of farmer organisations can be used much more effectively. Farmer bodies are now operating within a different framework in which there is an Industries Assistance Commission, and in which submissions on rural matters to Government will be reviewed critically within the national context. This is not a phenomenon of the Labor Government, the same was developing under the previous Liberal-Country Party Government and would, I expect, continue under the next Liberal-Country Party Government. Submissions to government and submissions to the Industries Assistance Commission must be of a high order, more professional, more logically argued and better supported by facts and statistics than have been many rural submissions in the past. I see this as the greatest challenge now facing farmer organisations, and it is pleasing to note the number that have already responded to this challenge.

Farmer leaders and farmer organisations have a vital part to play, too, in making effective and positive contributions in many other areas. Presumably, the Green Paper report has to be adapted to become a set of guidelines for rural policy, and I would hope that vital changes are to be initiated in wool marketing. Although on occasions in the past the Labor Government has shown scant concern for consultation with farmer organisations, I would hope that in the future it and subsequent governments will accept the need for thorough and detailed consultation. Farmer organisations have a further responsibility to put forward experienced and capable representatives for marketing boards and the like, especially in view of the claim by the current Government that it will choose the best man available, although I am afraid this often merely means a union official rather than a rural producer.

The Government has been inconsistent in its decisions on rural industries. Many Government members have used the Green Paper to support Government decisions but fail to take account of a number of decisions which run counter to the recommendations and spirit of the Green Paper. Many of the Government’s decisions on agriculture appeared to be based on the facile slogan ‘You’ve never had it so good’. At the time it was made it may have been superficially true, but the author of that slogan took a very shallow view and made no serious attempt to evaluate trends in the costs of agricultural inputs or of the market outlook for a number of agricultural commodities. Is it any wonder that there was a fierce reaction by farmers and by political Parties on this side of the House, who take a genuine interest in agriculture, particularly when the slogan appears in many cases to be the sole justification for many rural policy decisions?

The slogan certainly has no validity in the current rural situation. Whilst the outlook for sugar and grain may be bright, the outlook for beef, sheep meats and wool is far from being so. Cost pressures are severe because of uncontrolled inflation, and when this is coupled with a tight credit market the picture, long or short term, is not cheerful. If the Government justifies many of its decisions of 1973 by the buoyancy of the rural sector at the time, it would appear logical and consistent to expect a reversal of such policies and a reinstatement of some concessions, maybe in a different form, in the current poor situation of farmers. This Budget does not do so, and in fact the contribution being paid by farmers by way of levies and taxes is greater than ever before. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), addressing the National Press Club on 4 July 1974, said:

The objective of the Government in requesting a Green Paper indicates our general approach to the making of decisions in the rural sector and indeed for other industries. It shows the way a Labor Government will make decisionsafter full public inquiry and free public debate.

I need only point to the case of the superphosphate bounty to show the inconsistency between the spoken word and Government action. The removal of the superphosphate bounty was an arbitrary decision, not discussed and not investigated. The current reference to the Industries Assistance Commission concerning superphosphate is a narrow reference relating only to new land farmers in Western Australia. The view recently expressed in this House, that the reference will enable an overall review of the bounty, does not accord with fact. The original request by the Farmers Union of Western Australia was for an overall investigation, but the Government determined that the inquiry should be limited solely to new land farmers.

Further inconsistencies are shown in the Government’s treatment of the nitrogenous fertiliser subsidy. The arguments for and against both the fertiliser subsidy and the superphosphate subsidy would appear to be identical, yet the Government has made 2 widely different decisions. The inconsistency is even more blatant when we realise that sugar prospects are good and that the application of superphosphate does have residual benefit on soil fertility. Rural credit is another vital area in which members of the Government Party have talked large and acted small. One recalls their promises of 1972 to provide long term, low interest loans for farmers. In effect, they have merely continued credit facilities existing on their entry to office; no significant initiatives have been made. The Green Paper saw no threat to the family farmer, if there was adequate flexibility in the supply and availability of rural credit. The 1972 Bureau of Agricultural Economics paper ‘Rural Credit in Australia’ pointed out deficiencies in rural credit.

In effect, this Government has acted conversely and, by tightening credit through monetary restrictions, by increasing interest rates, by lessening the amount allocated for rural reconstruction and, in this Budget, by introducing a capital gains tax, has gravely weakened the position of the family farmer. With a capital gains tax making no allowances for inflation, it will be particularly severe on farming estates, where assets are illiquid. The capital gains tax is another vulture, joining the vultures of death and probate duties at the death of the family fanner. Lack of action on promises to provide means of stabilising rural incomes to counteract seasonal fluctuations places the family farmer at a further disadvantage.

In the House last week a Government member attempted to prove that agriculture was receiving more support today than under the previous Government. He grouped under government outlays all expenditure, whether financed by agricultural producers or whether in the form of loans to the agricultural sector. This total outlay figure is misleading. Government outlay on wool this year is shown in the Budget Papers as $ 102m, to which a Government supporter would probably add $150m being the loan to the Australian Wool Corporation for marketing support. Growers will contribute $7 1.7m this year through levies on wool sold. Of the total of $252m claimed as Government outlay on wool, only some 9 per cent or $22.9m is aid to the industry not to be repaid or not to be paid by grower contribution. Wheat outlays are shown at $1.8m, but $1.5m will be paid by grower levy. A further payment of $39m is expected from wheat growers for the stabilisation fund. The true picture shows Government expenditure of $0.3m, compared with a grower contribution of $40.5m. Examination shows similar results for such items as inspection services, rural reconstruction and certain irrigation projects. In fact, the amount to be extracted from producers this financial year by way of wool tax and other levies is $ 162.3m, as against $64.5m last year- a rise of 150 per cent or, in money terms, $84m. Additionally, much of the other outlay forecast is in the form of interest bearing, repayable loans and cannot be counted as a permanent burden on the taxpayer.

I wish to touch on the social and economic welfare of people living in rural areas. The Green Paper recommended as follows:

The aim of policy should continue to be to reduce disparities in the provision of public service and amenities, between urban and rural areas.

Government charges for telephone installation in country areas and the cost of telephone calls in country areas hardly accord with this recommendation. Whilst the Budget proposal to abolish television and radio licence fees may appeal to many, the decision in effect taxes those people in outlying areas who do not have a television service. It worries me that so many people are enthusiastic about the introduction of colour television when significant areas of my electorate are still unable to receive a black and white television service.

The Budget decision to reduce the education concession for taxation purposes from $400 to $150 reacts harshly on some country people. Parents who live some distance from high schools who are required to board their children will be severely affected. Boarding costs at government hostels in Western Australia are about $ 1 , 1 85 a year. A family can receive $350 a year under the isolated children scheme. Ignoring other costs such as fares, pocket money, uniforms, etc., the net expenditure of $835 by the parents can be offset only by a claim of $ 1 50 as a taxation deduction. This position is compounded if more than one child is involved. Much the same picture emerges even if the parents combined income is below $6,300- a figure very close to the average weekly earnings- and they qualify for the additional boarding allowance. I am referring to children attending state high schools and staying at high school hostels, not those attending private boarding schools. Similar disabilities apply to country people in getting medical or specialist treatment. Taxation concessions do not apply to the cost of transport to and from treatment, even though in many cases transport costs far outweigh the cost of treatment. In the publication ‘This Land- Labor’s Rural Program’, Senator Wriedt says:

One in 4 families in country towns live in poverty or near poverty conditions. There are more poor families in Australia’s small country towns than there are in Sydney and Melbourne combined. This means that the incidence of poverty in country towns is almost twice the level in those cities.

Our country poor must receive a better deal. This is another Labor undertaking on which no real action has been initiated. In fact the position is worse because current economic conditions in rural areas do not even assure continuity of employment in country towns or on farms. If the Government is serious in its attack on poverty, it will not solve the overall problem by merely transferring poverty from the urban areas to the rural areas.

Lastly, I wish to touch on the wool industry. I welcome the Government’s decision to put a floor in the market and the granting of additional finance and powers to the Australian Wool Corporation. I dispute the level of the floor price and feel that a level of 300c per kilo, clean, would more truly fit the current cost structures of the wool industry and would take account of the views of overseas wool users who have stated that they could live with that price. But whatever criticisms I make of the floor price level, they do not detract from my appreciation of both the Government’s decision and the readiness of the wool industry to make a substantial contribution to its own stability and future. Whilst I acknowledge the assistance given to the wool industry by a previous Liberal-Country Party Government during the period of stress several years ago, I have often outside this House, criticised that Government for its failure to take decisive action on wool marketing. In my view it was a forlorn hope to expect a flexible reserve price scheme, with severe limitations of the powers of the Corporation to make a significant contribution to the problem of wool marketing. This Government’s decision is to have effect for one year only. It still has to consider wool marketing in the long term and determine its reactions to the Corporation’s marketing recommendations. These recommendations provide a sound base for future action. I hope that the Government realises that its current short term decision does not absolve it from the responsibility of making a long term decision. Such a decision must recognise the need to integrate marketing, promotion and research; to reduce costs inherent in current wool selling and handling procedures; to better equate supply with demand; to better service the needs of wool users; and to provide a sound, stable return to wool growers.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you and the House for giving me a fair hearing. I support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden).

Mr WHAN:
Monaro · Eden

-I address myself tonight to the Budget. It is a Budget which reflects in every sense of the word the concern this Government has for the people it serves. The Budget is all the more significant because the way in which it is attacked is by innuendo and by myth. The arguments are not hard. The facts are not there. One can see these fear creating myths circulating around the countryside and being encouraged by the honourable members on the Opposition benches.

We can divide these into a number of areas. The favourite area, of course, and the one that has been worked on ad nauseam in this place is the rural area. In spite of what the previous speaker said, the fact remains that this Budget makes grants of a record nature to agricultural industries. This Budget provides $487.6m for agricultural industries.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Berinson)Order! There is too much conversation in the aisles. Would honourable members please be seated?

Mr Calder:

– No one wants to hear this nonsense.

Mr WHAN:

-‘ No one in the Country Party would want to hear this nonsense’, we hear the honourable member for the Northern Territory bleat to the House simply because it is a hard fact that members of the Opposition create the myths. They established the basis of fear which is eroding the confidence of the people. There is no question where that basis comes from. The hard facts are that in this area -

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The honourable member has accused other people of causing a great deal of fear in relation to rural industries when he knows that he was the initiator -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order involved in that interjection.

Mr WHAN:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall deal with that particular aspect in a moment. The facts are that this Budget contains $487.6m for agricultural industries compared with $329.5m in the last Budget brought down by the previous Government. It provides $309.2m net assistance after levies and taxes from agriculture are deducted, compared with $283.9m provided by the last Budget of the previous Government. This $309.2m includes those loans and other grants which are loanable to agricultural industry to tide it over a particular crisis. The figure may be compared with the figure in the Budget of the previous Government, which included an amount for loans to the agricultural industry for rural reconstruction and other activities. The Budget figures are comparable. There is only one conclusion: This Government has provided more for agricultural industries and enterprises than any previous government in the history of Australia. Those facts are hard to swallow by those who go around the countryside creating an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty about the Government.

We heard the honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) condemning the Government for not taking heed of the Green Paper, which he himself labelled as a document which would create political vandalism in the agricultural community. Consider the changing tides of the opinion of the honourable member for New England. During the last election campaign in May he said that it was a document that would wreak political vandalism on the agricultural sector. As recently as last week he shouted its praises and condemned the Government because we took no notice of it. Let us look at the facts there. This Green Paper emphasised the difficulties the agricultural industries experienced because of variable incomes. In recent months this Government has taken 3 significant steps as direct answers to this problem of variable incomes and its effect on agriculture. First, we introduced the wheat stabilisation plan, the first price plan that had a provision in it that cushions the agricultural community from the sudden shocks of changes in overseas prices. This wheat stabilisation plan is indeed an historic document. Incidentally, it is the first plan which has a mathematical formula to cushion the wheat industry against the shock of changing wheat prices overseas.

Mr King:

– Just a cushion; no stabilisation.

Mr WHAN:

– ‘A cushion’, as we have heard from one of the Country Party myth makers, a cushion against the shocks and variations in incomes from agriculture. We acknowledge that the variations exist. The Green Paper made a feature of them. The second step we have taken to cushion agriculture against shock is the introduction of the reserve price plan for wool- an action the previous Government would never take when it was in office. It refused resolutely to put a fixed reserve price into the wool market. Now, they are trying to get cheap political capital out of this matter by braying about 300c a kilo. The fact is that the Australian Wool Corporation recommended the figure of 250c to the Government. This is the body that we look to for advice on this matter. We also heard the honourable member for New England and the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser) trying to score a point on the aspect that both I and the Minister for Northern Development and Minister for the Northern Territory (Dr Patterson) raised. That was the fact that 3 members of the Australian Wool Corporation were prepared, at least in conversation, to use the Corporation as a tool against the Government. I do not retract in any way from what I said at that stage. It has nothing to do with my opinion as to where the floor price should be. The principle of political interference and using such corporations for political interference must be opposed by all responsible members of the Parliament. That was the principle that was at issue.

Of course, we are also developing the concept of long term contracts. These long term contracts will be invaluable in cushioning the shock of agricultural income for perishable products such as meat. It is easy to be able to develop a mechanism for products such as wool, wheat and sugar which are storable commodities. It is very difficult- in fact it is almost impossible- to develop the same sort of shock mechanism for commodities such as meat. The only way we can insulate ourselves against these variations in price for perishable commodities is by developing long term trading arrangements with countries that are prepared to honour their position in those arrangements when things get tough for the producer and, equally, they are contracts which have to be honoured by countries such as Australia- the producing countries- when things get tough for the consumer. In other words, when prices are high, we will be delivering meat to our contractual partners at lower prices than the international market would stand.

Obviously, the time to have negotiated a contract for beef would have been last year. The fact that the members of the Australian Country Party were able to create an atmosphere of fear at that time probably took away from the beef industry and the meat industry a very good opportunity to negotiate such contracts. Who was it who spread the scandalous rumour that the Government was going to put export taxes on the sale of beef? It was none other than the Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony). This was demonstrated time and time again by his quotations in the House -

Mr King:

– You tried pretty hard to do it, though.

Mr WHAN:

– Look, we have the admission. The honourable member for Wimmera said: ‘You tried pretty hard to do it though’. He has acknowledged that it was his own leader who spread the scandalous rumour. There can be no question about that.

Another area in which there has been myth making which has eroded the confidence of the people in the democratic processes- that, in fact is what has happened- is an area in which there has not actually been an attack on this Government. There have been scandalous attacks on democratic government as a principle. Honourable members opposite prefer to use the myth of fear rather than the facts in representing thencase to the electorate. There is no real mystery as to why they do this. They have absolutely no policy, they have no facts and they have no hard arguments to present to the electorate. Let us look at this second area in which this Government is constantly under attack. That is in its relationship to the States. I will take one example, that of Mr Askin who brought down a State Budget condemning this Government because he said it never gave assistance to the States. The facts are that revenue for this Government increased by 32 per cent and our grants to the States have increased by 36 per cent. In the last year that the previous Government was in power, it paid $52 1.9m to the State of New South Wales in financial assistance grants. In this Budget the present Government paid $723.4m which was $200m more than the previous Government paid in its last Budget.

The story is repeated time after time. If we look at the position in regard to the tied grants paid to the States, we find that the grand total of assistance being paid to the States in this Budget is $6,033m compared with $3,6 14m in the last

Budget presented by the previous Government. When we look at the nature of these grants to the States, we realise exactly what this Government is all about. It has a social concience. Every member on this side of the Parliament is proud to acknowledge it. If this is what socialism means, we are proud to hold up the socialist banner.

We have a social conscience which has been lacking in government for 23 years. The record is here for all to see. In the last Budget of the previous Government $259m was allocated for education. In this Budget $1,1 72 m has been allocated for education. Honourable members should consider some of the other items. The last Budget of the previous Government gave $77 1 m by way of grants for senior citizen centres. Perhaps some people might consider that this is a minor area. But this Government, in the Budget has allocated $ 1,650m to senior citizens. This is the response of a Government with a social conscience. One could go right through the Budget and time after time find examples of the response from this Government to the needs of the community.

When we look a little more closely at the myths that are created by the Opposition to put insecurity in the minds of the electorate we find out what they mean. We are told by the Opposition and by various people in private enterprise that they are over taxed. But let us consider for a moment a document entitled ‘The Level and Composition of Taxation in Australia ‘-Treasury Taxation Paper No. 2 which was recently released. This document shows Australia’s ranking with countries which are members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. We find that out of 23 countries we rank 18th. Australians pay 26.1 per cent of their gross national product in taxation. This compares with 25.6 per cent in Denmark. Countries including the United States of America, France, Switzerland, Japan and the United Kingdom are above us on the list. We are about three-quarters of the way down the list in terms of our contributions to taxation, including social security contributions, as a proportion of gross national product.

More importantly we find that up to 1971 5.5 per cent of the gross national product was paid out by Australian governments in cash benefits to pensioners, including invalid pensioners, and to the physically weaker people in the community. This was the lowest percentage paid out to pensioners of all the countries compared in the document. The United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden, France and Canada are countries which paid more in terms of welfare payments than Australia. Australia was once again at the bottom of the list in the field of education. In this instance 3.8 per cent of our gross national product was spent on education. This was the lowest percentage of the countries that were compared by the OECD. The United States spent 6.8 per cent of its gross national product on education. As I have pointed out, under those people in the Opposition who have no social conscience whatsoever 3.8 per cent- the lowest of the lot- was spent on education.

We have a Budget that we are proud to stand behind because for the first time in 23 years it is a response to the national need. It is a Budget that reflects a government with a social conscience. Notwithstanding all of the compassion and the reflection contained in the Budget, it is still a Budget which is well down in world terms in regard to taxation. The document to which I have just referred shows that this country has a relatively low level of taxation. Yet the Opposition is prepared to stir up fear by its mythcreating activities around the countryside taking peoples minds away from the real need of the elderly, the sick and the children in the community.

Mr Hewson:

– What rubbish.

Mr WHAN:

-‘ What rubbish’, they say. Members of the Opposition are not concerned about the elderly and the children. They believe that this Budget is rubbish- this Budget that concerns itself with these needs. Honourable members opposite want a restoration of the sort of philosophy that they represented so well in 23 years in government of directing people’s attention to the extra dollar that they could get and creating an atmosphere of greed and avarice among the community. They stand up here and condemn the trade union movement but forget that in the life of this Government it was the doctors who led the race in avarice and greed, closely followed by the sections that are strongly represented on the Opposition benches. But they zero in on the weaker elements of the community and the people who earn average weekly earnings or something less. Always the Opposition is prepared to go into battle for the doctors and for the groups which enjoy a high standard of living and always it uses as its fall guy the weaker element in the community. If it is short of arguments and cannot directly approach the subject of paying more money to pensioners and the unemployed the Opposition dismisses them, as the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) did last night, with an unparliamentary word. One could develop a whole area of myth-making in regard to the States. One could contrast the compassionate social conscience of this Government with the avarice-creating myths of the Opposition.

Let me turn to another important area of myth-making, and that is the use of the word ‘Caucus’. We hear the Opposition gently condemning the Caucus and it is useful to realise exactly what it is that the Opposition is gently condemning. It is condemning the principle of democracy. It is condemning the principle that government should come from the elected members of the government party. Let us face it; nobody else belongs to Caucus. Every member of the Labor Caucus has been elected to this House or to the Senate. They are the people who have been given a mandate to govern. We hear this system gently criticised. We hear the great myth of Caucus being a threat to government engendered and developed by the Opposition. Of course, the Opposition is not used to the type of government that allows the participation of the back bencher. It has always had a dictatorial method of government. It has always had government by a Cabinet which is strongly influenced by the bureaucracy in the Public Service. It is relatively easy for the bureaucracy to govern when the elected members of Parliament have no say in the Government, and it is true that that is the model which the Opposition set when it was in Government.

It is important when we hear this attack on Caucus that the electorate realises that the real attack is against the principle that the people they, as electors, put into this Parliament should have some say in what the Government does. This is the very essence of the Caucus procedures adopted by this Government. We have nothing to be ashamed of in providing government by those people who were elected to govern.

Mr Graham:

– That is nonsense.

Mr WHAN:

– It is nonsense, we hear. The Opposition perpetuates this myth even now. It says it is nonsense to have government by the people- all the people- who are elected to govern and that it is sensible to have government only by that small group of people put into Cabinet which is so strongly influenced by the Public Service. Again we find that the Opposition constantly returns to the hackneyed words and the hackneyed phrases. There is no need to explain them and if it was asked to explain them it could not. I speak of words like ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’. There is the innuendo rather than the argument, the innuendo that characterises the Opposition’s entire approach to government.

There is no need to argue if one can create a fear and associate it with a word. There is no need to put your case. There is no need to think. There is no need to address yourself to the real needs of the community if you can constantly create fear by an inane repetition of the words ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’ and any other words which can generate this atmosphere of fright.

This Budget is a response from the government with a social conscience to needs which have grown and festered during 23 years of neglect by the Opposition when it was in government 23 years in which the fear tactic was refined and prefected. Today the electorate reaps the whirlwind of these fears as the Opposition presses its repetitive words to create an image in the minds of the electorate. This is a Budget which will establish this Government firmly and forever in office.

Mr KATTER:
Kennedy

-I shall make just one or two comments about the speech made by the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Whan). I am rather fascinated by his comments though they are the ordinary sort of comments we hear regarding Caucus and the democratic structure of this body. I do not know whether they are completely in accord with a statement made to, I understand, the ‘CourierMail’ by the Acting Prime Minister, Dr J. F. Cairns, in which, talking about the super tax on unearned income, he expressed grave concern that Caucus could override the decision of the Cabinet. So much for Caucus or cactus or whatever it is. Another very brief comment I would like to make is that the honourable member for Eden-Monaro obviously adheres to the rather fascinating theory of the Australian Labor Party that the measure of its success is how much money it spends. I suppose he would say that the trips overseas, including the grand tour on which the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) is now embarked, are tremendous successes. However, one grand tour is apparently not going to come off. I have in front of me a Press statement which has been issued by the Acting Prime Minister and which says:

The Acting Prime Minister and Minister for Overseas Trade . . . said tonight that his proposed visit to the People’s Republic of China had unfortunately to be postponed.

He said a misunderstanding had apparently arisen.

He stated that he had been informed that the Royal Australian Air Force personnel manning the BAC-1 1 1 service aircraft could not wear uniforms whilst on a visit to China.

That in itself is a very remarkable statement insofar as they tell us what we can wear and what we cannot wear. The Press statement continues:

Dr Cairns said that he felt this misunderstanding should be cleared up and had informed the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China accordingly.

Dr Cairns said he felt it was very likely that the problem which had arisen could soon be cleared up.

That is pure and utter, unadulterated, 5 -star hogwash because when a Murray grey bull was sent to China it was taken there by the Royal Australian Air Force and the members of the Air Force who took it did not have to strip off and get into a pair of BVDs or anything when they arrived in China. Nixon went to China in ‘Air Force One’ with the United States Air Force and its members wore uniforms over there. There is a rather nasty rumour around the House that there was absolute uproar in Cabinet tonight. The nation has another crisis on its hands- at least there could be another one by now, I have not checked the newspapers during the last hour.

Mr Enderby:

– I rise to a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the honourable member for Kennedy to mislead the people and the House? I am a member of the Cabinet. There was no meeting of Cabinet tonight.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Berrinson)Order! No point of order is involved.

Mr KATTER:

-Perhaps I should have said there was a get-together during the day in which, apparently, it was indicated by the other members of Cabinet that the situation in this nation was so grave that they would not serve under the Acting Acting Prime Minister, Mr Connor. That may or may not be correct, but it is a story around the House. It is a rather nasty one, too.

A non-Budget has been presented to this nation. It is a Budget which is utterly devoid of any effective measures to control inflation and a Budget which reveals a contempt for the wageearner in 2 categories that affect him the mosthis security of employment and his capacity to borrow for his house, car and the education of his children at a reasonable rate of interest. It reveals clearly and finally the destructive and humiliating policies of the power drunk people who sit opposite. They are rapidly bringing the nation to its knees and building up a pollution of poverty and despair throughout the land. I say that the policies are destructive because the Government has started on a process aimed at finally destroying the two most important and most critical incentives on which the survival, the growth and the pride of any nation depend, that is, the incentive to produce and the incentive to work. The dropout, the parasite, the loafer has found his seventh heaven. He is provided for. He is the VIP in the context of this appalling Budget.

Do not let me mislead the House. I have a deep compassion, as my whole life style can testify, for the unfortunate who, through illness or sheer bad luck, is out of work and is in need. Our social welfare provisions should ensure that he never will be threatened with poverty or insecurity. But the sheer irresponsibility of the present Government is such that if an out and out loafer, his wife and three late-teenage loafer children care to lead the idle life they can between them get a handout of over $5,000 each year. It is little wonder that the miner who sweats underground, the fettler who swings a pick in a searing heat of 40 degrees and the self-educated student who burns the midnight oil to make his mark and add to the achievement of our people, have found out now that this Government, obsessed to a degree almost of insanity in forcing its fascisttype State controls on them, is now their enemy? It is little wonder that a community deeply dedicated to true Labor principles sought revenge on this so-called Labor Party. The community of fine, outback people in Broken Hill threw out every Labor member on their local council. A gallup poll showed recently a huge swing against these Australian Labor Party wreckers. I mean that they are wrecking the ALP as it was once constituted. It is revealed that if an election was held now we would come back with a majority of 37 seats. That was last week. What will it be after tonight ‘s occurrence?

Mr King:

– What happened in Canberra on Saturday?

Mr KATTER:

– Just be patient. The people of the city of Canberra- particularly our public servantsproved last weekend that they have now realised that they were used as the pensioners, the Aborigines and the school teachers were used. They have been subjected to a pre-election flirtation that was based on a serious miscalculationthat the average Australian can be brainwashed, can be bought. Once again there was a huge drop in support for the so-called Labor Party. To my mind one of the saddest spectacles we see today is the cruel manner in which the people occupying the treasury bench use and deceive Labor supporters into believing that they are giving their allegiance to a workers’ party.

With a few exceptions- worthy exceptions, I must admit- those sitting opposite have sold out every decent, genuine Labor principle. The great objective of the Labor movement was social justice based on the freedom of the individual. The whole philosophy of the Prime Minister and his storm troopers is to wipe out the freedom of the individual and to bring every phase of his life under control. Power unlimited was given to Dr

Coombs and his task force to frame recommendations. The finished document was a classic. It was a blueprint for national decline and disintegration. It was a political document framed to deceive people into believing that there were 2 groups of Australians in conflict- those who lived in metropolitan areas and the rest. To my mind, the acceptance of this attitude by the Prime Minister and his vassals was the most treacherous blow ever inflicted on this nation. It was designed with utter dishonesty to convince city people that out yonder were people who had been spoonfed and subsidised at their expense. It openly abandoned rural communities and, to a lesser extent, those living in provincial cities. This alone indelibly brands this Government as treacherous.

In direct contrast we recognise the interdependence of our city and country people. We are proud of our great cities and the industrious people living in them. In return we ask that we who produce 77.7 per cent of Australia’s overseas earnings be recognised as being what we are- Australians who do the yakka work and extract wealth from the soil, in most cases far away from the comfort and advantage of city life. Our people are angry with the uncontrolled prejudice that this Government with arrogance and obvious satisfaction levels against them. There is a stirring throughout the land, a reaction to this treatment. There are groups organising not for violence or anything even approaching it, but for concerted and decisive action which will hurl this Government out of office. Firstly, let us examine more closely what this Budget does not do and, secondly, some of the deceits it contains. The Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) and the Minister for Northern Development (Dr Patterson) will try to argue, on a basis of absolute fallacy, that more money than previously is available for rural roads through this Budget. This is humbug and they know it. They quote figures for rural road development, conveniently failing to point out that the amount quoted include allocations for the national roads scheme, which, by the way, had been evolved and accepted in principle by our coalition when in government. It is obvious to anyone even remotely interested in the development of roads in the country that the effective development of important rural roads has been set back to a staggering degree by the advent of this Government.

The Government constantly brags about what it has done for pensioners. The purchasing power of the pensioner’s current pay cheque is far less than it was during our term in office. I would point out that these people who crow about their benevolent hand-outs find it convenient to ignore the special problems of pensioners living in remote areas, pensioners who have to meet both the financial and emotional strains of living in such areas. For example, if a pensioner in a country area is ill and has to seek specialist treatment he has to meet many expenses. He may get free travel but that is only a part of the deal. There is still the problem of accommodation, the problem of making provision for someone to look after his home while he is away, the emotional experience of an aged person having to move to some other area to seek medical attention. This is the emotional strain. The financial strain is very, very evident indeed, because pensioners live in areas where, because of freight and other charges, the cost of living is infinitely higher than it is in more favoured coastal areas. They get not one cent to compensate for these charges. There are western allowances, there are northern parities, there are all sorts of industrial awards to compensate everyone but the pensioner, and the Government crows about how concerned it is.

Another infliction which is coming up- I do not know whether it has yet reached its climax -is what is nothing less than an imperial edict that has gone out to almost every local authority in Australia that local authorities will have to run their own airports from here on in. If I could give just one example: In my own State of Queensland there will remain only two airports which will be controlled by the Department of Transport- Brisbane and Townsville. I am informed that Townsville has remained under the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government only because it is a defence base. You should see the defence that is there. If a Mosquito flew over they could not shoot it down.

I would like to touch briefly on the unsympathetic treatment of this Government in the provision of television services. I think in all fairness the blame should be put on the Australian Broadcasting Control Board rather than on the various Ministers. We have been waiting year after year for TV installations. The honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder), the member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett) and I are sick and tired of lodging requests for an amenity which the people on the coast have had for 1 S or 16 years. The Government says it is a matter of finance. Was it a matter of finance when the Government decided to buy Willem de Kooning’s ‘Woman V for $646,000? Is it a matter of finance that it is now organising the purchase of a 17S0 rococo ceiling by Giambattista Tiepolo for $ 1.35m? How in all sincerity can this Government claim to be responsible when young people are not able to buy a home because of crippling interest rates, when it pays this sort of money, at least in one case for a second-rate painting that I believe was originally purchased for $3,500? What an arrogant contempt for the tens of thousands of unemployed!

I am in an electorate which I suppose is one of the most significant mining areas in the nation. I would like to say that staunch Labor supporters are concerned at the damage being done to the nation by the minerals and energy policy of the Minister for Minerals and Energy, Mr Connor. The Australian people have not been told the truth. They were led up the garden path completely by the FitzGerald report. They know that the Minister has been allowed a free rein without any real sobering restraint at all since he was appointed to that position in that tragic month of destiny, December 1972. His disregard for the rules seems to extend to Labor’s declared platform. Among other things, the Minister has done nothing towards establishing the promised fuel and energy commission. He tried to have legislation passed to establish this commission but the Opposition found that it was full of traps.

Having no love for advice from people who understand, the Minister still has not spoken with officers of the Bureau of Mineral Resources from his permanent Secretary down. He has appointed 30 or more advisers and assistant secretaries with little or no qualifications or experience relevant to the mineral or petroleum industries. It is little wonder that this industry has come almost to a standstill. Had there not been existing contracts and had there not been existing operations, this huge industry which is of such tremendous financial and economic importance to this nation would have been brought to a standstill. I know that my colleague, the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) will have much to say regarding that particular area.

I would just like to comment very briefly on the result of the election for the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. It will clearly indicate that the Territorians, like their colleagues in the Australian Capital Territory, will reject this phoney Labor Government. Prices under a halfbaked price control system are such that the average public servant in the Territory has to be a super-manager. His wife has to be a mathematician of untold ability to balance a budget in that part of the world. Again, the Government shows its contempt for people who live in these remote areas.

I would like to say also that the present Government made a very grand gesture to win the support of local authorities throughout this country. It gave them handouts but I do not think one single local authority has been duped by the Government’s attempt to buy their support. They, of all people, are federalists and they realise that these people who would establish full control in Canberra would soon whittle away any authority for making decisions that they may have. We have certain members of the Labor Party both in Cabinet and on the back benches who purport to represent rural areas. There are exceptions. I would say there are two in this House to whom my remarks do not refer.

Mr Enderby:

– Name them.

Mr KATTER:

– I will name them. They are the honourable member for Darling (Mr Fitzpatrick) and the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Luchetti). The Government’s proposed policy is to use jack boot tactics in regard to the many measures the Government is inflicting on country people. I will mention one or two of these: There is the phasing out of any serious concern for water conservation; the withdrawal of the subsidy on petrol- what a dreadful infliction that was; and the termination of the freight subsidies in the Northern Territory. If members of the Labor Party and Ministers do not show evidence that they are opposed to the above measures and are genuinely working to counter them and other anti-rural measures many of which are still contained in the Coombs’ recommendation- that diabolical documentthey have abandoned their electorates, they have betrayed the people they supposedly represent and they should get out because, whether they like it or not, they will go out come the next election.

Mr ENDERBY:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · Canberra · ALP

- Mr Speaker, one listened with amusement to the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter). One cannot help but compare the type of speech he elected to give with the type of speech given by the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Whan). They represent different parties.

Mr O’Keefe:

– And different areas too.

Mr ENDERBY:

-And different areas. The honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) represents the Australian Country Party and the honourable member for Eden-Monaro represents the Australian Labor Party. While they are still fresh in our minds, it is interesting to reflect on the things about which the 2 honourable members chose to speak in this Budget debate. The Labor member chose to speak about social consciousness, social issues and the democracy that exists fundamentally in the Labor Party. He also mentioned the Caucus.

I tried to jot down the key words of the harangue by the honourable member for Kennedy. I suggest to honourable members and to listeners that it was little more than a harangue. He made a general criticism of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) being in New York to represent this country at the United Nations and being in Washington, the capital of the United States of America. He also tried to make capital out of the fact that the Acting Prime Minister (Dr J. F. Cairns) was taking the point of view that the Chinese people might be wrong in saying that Royal Australian Air Force officers should not wear their uniforms when they visit China. What is wrong with that? That is asserting the Australian point of view. Yet the honourable member for Kennedy tries to twist it. We are trying to insist on the right of Australian servicemen to wear their uniform. The honourable member for Kennedy used deceit. He took the fact that an Australian Minister asserts the right of Australian officers to wear their uniforms when abroad and he turned it against the Minister. If that is not deceit, I leave it to honourable members to make up their own minds about it.

The honourable member for Kennedy used such words as ‘hogwash’. He said that many meetings of Cabinet took place today. They did not. I am a member of the Cabinet. I tell this House and the people of Australia that there were no meetings of Cabinet today. There were not even the suggestions of any meetings of Cabinet today. Utterances go forth telling the people of Australia that things have happened when they have not happened. There is little opportunity for people to put the record right, but one can only try. The honourable member talked of arrogance, stormtroopers and vassals. It is interesting, because he was talking in the context of the Caucus. We know what the Caucus is in this Parliament. We know the fundamental structural difference between the parties in the Opposition- the Liberal and Country Partiesand the Labor Party. The Labor Party allows its fundamental decisions to be made by the Parliamentary Party, which is known as the Caucus; that is our name for it.

It is true that it is widely misunderstood outside this place. It is true that some people listening to me talking now think that non-members of Parliament belong to Caucus. Members of the

Opposition feed on the misunderstanding and try to profit from it They put forward the word ‘Caucus’ because they rely on the fact that people do not understand it. The Opposition has its own caucus, but it chooses not to call it by that name. I say to the listeners that Caucus consists only of the people they send to the Parliament. It includes no outsiders, and members of the Opposition know it and I know it.

Mr Katter:

-What about Bob Hawke and others?

Mr ENDERBY:

– They are not members of the Caucus, and the honourable member knows it. Yet he relies on this misunderstanding and perpetuates it. He spreads fear and panic. He spreads deceit, confusion and uncertainty. That is all he has to offer the people of Australia. Many of the situations that this country faces now can be traced directly to the influence of the Opposition on affairs.

Opposition members- Rubbish.

Mr ENDERBY:

– Let us examine the facts. Let us examine what honourable members opposite have done in Opposition. Let us go back to the election of December 1972 when the people of Australia believed that they were electing a government for 3 years. They did not know the workings of the Senate, which the Opposition controlled. They did not know the Opposition’s frustration or the depth of it. They did not know the depth of its pent-up feelings or the arrogance which would not allow honourable members opposite to accept remaining in Opposition for even 3 years but which forced them, out of chagrin and pique, to refuse Supply, to turn off the tap of the fundamental source of money that all governments need to pay their public servants. They did not know that and the Opposition Parties knew that they did not know it. The Opposition relies on that ignorance because it basically rests its case on ignorance.

The Opposition opposed our measures for increased allocation of funds for education. It says that the Government, because it is doing the right thing, has become unpopular. Then it says: ‘Now is our chance’. The Opposition took its chance in May because it could not stand being in Opposition for 3 years. It is talking about it again. If it had its way, because it has the numbers in the Senate, its arrogance and tactics of that sort would result in this country having to go through an election every 6 months or so. No set of plans, no set of proposals, no set of reforms and no management could ever be implemented because no government would ever be able to plan more than two or three months ahead.

The Opposition Parties will not tolerate the verdict of the people of Australia. That fact comes through in everything they have done in this place and everything they have done when its members go out to the people. What nonsense honourable members opposite talk. One speaker on the Opposition side calls us a bunch of socialists and the next says we are fascists. According to my understanding of the terms they are diametrically opposed. The crux of what I want to say by way of criticism of what the honourable member for Kennedy said can be summed up in the word ‘Caucus’. Let us grasp the nettle because it is important that the people of Australia understand what the word ‘Caucus’ means. The honourable member for Kennedy said that Caucus can overrule Cabinet. Of course it can and it is quite right that it should be able to do so.

Mr Katter:

– You are supposed to be our Ministers. You are supposed to be the government of the country.

Mr ENDERBY:

– It is well known, although not widely enough known, that under a Labor Government Cabinet is the executive of the members of the Parliament who are members of the Labor Party. Members of the Party choose their Cabinet as their executive. But the members of the Parliament are the ultimate basic decision makers, not like in the Liberal Party where there is a fuehrer principle. Members of the Liberal Party elect a leader and say it is all a matter for him. Then they generally shut up except when they throw abuse at us because of our democratic tendencies.

I came into the House not intending to speak. I brought with me a book by a very great author, John Maynard Keynes, who would be known to the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly). He wrote on the subject ‘Am I a Liberal?’. I speak to the honourable member for Wakefield when I say this because he claims to be a Liberal, I am sure. John Maynard Keynes wrote this in 1925 on why he then thought he should be a Liberal and not a member of the British Labour Party. What did he say about why he turned away from Labour? I appreciate that this argument can be used against me but it is interesting. He said: . . . there are differences between the several parties in the degree to which the party machine is democratised through and through and the preparation of the party program democratised in its details. In this respect the Conservative Party -

He was talking about the British Conservative Party but this could be applied to the Liberal Party of Australia because we all know that it is a conservative party. is in much the best position. The inner ring of the party -

Substitute the Liberal Party of Australia- can almost dictate the details and technique of policy.

Substitute fuehrer principle. He continued:

Traditionally the management of the Liberal Party -

Keynes was a Liberal himself- was also sufficiently autocratic.

He spoke of that with approval. He went on to say that what he found lacking in the Labour Party was that it was in a far weaker position because it was democratic.

Democracy may well have its problems but let no one make any mistake about where the Labor Party stands on its structural make-up. It is the most fundamentally democratic. I see the honourable member for Wakefield nodding in approval and I thank him because he is an honest man even though he does not belong to our Party. Democracy does pose problems but the fundamental point to make at this stage is not whether democracy is good or bad. Most people would argue that it is good. Everyone knows that the Labor Party is democratic and that it is the most democratic party because it has the Caucus system. The iniquitous and deceitful situation that must be continually exposed is that the Liberal and Country Party Opposition conservative politicians rely on the misunderstanding of people as to what the word ‘Caucus’ means. They say: ‘The Labor Party is run by a bunch of outsiders. It is not democratic. There is something called a Caucus that runs it.’ The honourable member for Wakefield knows what the Caucus is. The honourable member for Kennedy knows what the Caucus is. The honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) knows what the Caucus is. But I have been in this Parliament for 4 years and I have never heard honourable members opposite speak of it in a sense that did not rest firmly and squarely on a basis of deceit; they try to confuse people.

The question of freedom of the indivdual was mentioned. Let us talk about that. When did the conservative parties of this country ever try to restore free competition, as the Labor Party has tried to restore it through its restrictive trade practices legislation? When did the conservative parties of this country- the Liberal and Country Parties- ever try to give encouragement to small businesses by setting up something like the small business bureau as the Labour Party has done? When did the conservative parties of this countrythe Liberal and Country parties- ever talk about passing legislation that would enshrine the principles of a bill of rights, of personal and human rights, in the Australian system of law?

They never did it. They reject the concept. The Government does not reject it; it embraces the concept. The legislation is at present before the Senate. But who in the Senate will oppose this attempt by us to enshrine basic principles of human dignity, anti-racist principles and principles of human freedom? Who will oppose it? On arguments based upon deceit the conservative parties of Australia- the Liberal and Country Parties- will oppose it. So much for the argument of who supports human individual freedom.

The honourable member for Kennedy mentioned storm troopers. Whom did he choose to give as an example of storm troopers? None other than Nugget’ Coombs- Dr Coombs, the Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University, ex-Governor of the Reserve Bank. What is the objection to Dr Coombs, to the well known and lovable ‘Nugget’? What is the objection? Is it that he was asked to lead a team of inquiry to advise the Labor Party when it came to office 18 months or so ago about what was wrong with the spending patterns in terms of social justice and equity and about what was wrong with them as they had been laid down by the previous Goverment the conservative government- so that we could put the priorities right and so that we could do what I heard and what we all heard the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Whan) say with pride in his voice that we have done?

We have redressed or begun to redress the imbalance. We have begun to put education on to the plane, the plateau, the level on which it deserves to be. The increase in expenditure on education in this country since we came to office has been nearly 400 per cent, or nearly 5 times what the previous Government chose to spend on it, if one allows for, say, a diminution in the value of the dollar by 20 per cent in that same time of 18 months or 20 months- they are unrelated, because we know what caused inflation and the honourable member for Wakefield knows what caused the situation we inherited. The percentage movement of resources towards what we call the needy and the provision of facilities for opportunity, to provide equality of opportunity so that people can benefit from the good things of this life, can be seen. Yet what terms does the honourable member for Kennedy use to describe it- handouts, bludgerism, parasites.

Mr Katter:

– I did not say ‘ bludgerism ‘.

Mr ENDERBY:

-No, you did not, but it was implicit in what you said. You forgot that word.

Implicit in everything the honourable member said was that by spending more money on low cost housing -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the honourable gentleman not to use that term.

Mr ENDERBY:

-The honourable member for Kennedy, speaking for the Country Party, speaking for the Opposition Parties, chooses to describe policies that spend more on housing, more on age pensions, more on social services and more on education as encouraging parasitism. That is what he said.

Mr Katter:

– I did not say that. What is the Minister talking about? That is untrue.

Mr ENDERBY:

– That is what he said. I wrote it down. The honourable member said that we were power drunk.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I have warned the honourable member for Griffith several times about the kind of remark he has just made. I ask him to withdraw what he said.

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– He is not telling lies. I withdraw.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I am asking the honourable member to withdraw what he said.

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I withdraw.

Mr ENDERBY:

-Mr Speaker, I paid no attention to him. But we are the Party which chose to move resources in the direction where they are most needed and we are accused of encouraging parasitism. We are called power drunk. We are the Party which believes in such control by the rank and file member of our Parliamentary Party -the backbencher- that we have our committee system and the whole Party is involved in our decision making.

Mr Katter:

– The whole Party will be on the backbench soon.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Kennedy will cease interjecting. I give honourable members a final warning. I shall name them if they keep interjecting. I am now warning honourable members on both sides of the House, whoever they may be. If there are any more interjections I shall - take appropriate action.

Mr ENDERBY:
ALP

-Thank you, Mr Speaker. In the short time that is left to me I single out 2 final matters which sum up the essential basis of deceit on which so much of the argument of Opposition spokesmen rests. The honourable member for Kennedy talked about centralism as if we wanted to concentrate everything in Canberra. He gave an example. He suggested that we were going to let the outback aerodromes of Queensland run themselves.

Mr Katter:

– All aerodromes in Queensland.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I warn the honourable member for Kennedy.

Mr ENDERBY:

-Yet he uses that argument of autonomy for local authorities as being equated with centralism. If that is not putting logic on its head I do not know what is. He spoke in derogatory terms about the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor), who, more than anyone I can name or think of, has summed up the determination of Australians to own and control their own fundamental mineral wealth. We know what happened in relation to the Fitzgerald report when honourable members opposite were in office. Australia’s wealth- its iron, bauxite and other mineral resources- rapidly fell into the hands of overseas interests. It was being sold off at cost. Our children and our grandchildren would have had nothing left.

Mr Fairbairn:

– What nonsense.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I warn the honourable member for Farrer. One more interjection and I shall name him.

Mr ENDERBY:

- Mr Speaker, they are hurt by the success and the determination of this Government to buy back a little bit of the estate. They are offended. They fall back basically on deceit as the only argument they can usefully put. Their case rests upon confusion and ignorance. They even turn the case of a Minister who is trying to have Australians run their own affairs and own their own resources and wealth into something that is bad. They want to frighten people. I remember a very great American who would be known to everyone in this House- Franklin Roosevelt. Back in the 1930s he said: ‘The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Honourable members opposite trade on it. That is all they have to offer.

Debate (on motion by Mr Donald Cameron) adjourned.

page 2243

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Mr McKenzie:
Diamond Valley · ALP

– I present the second report of the Publications Committee.

Report- by leave- adopted.

page 2243

ADJOURNMENT

Air charter by Mr Hawke-Landall Development Company: Statements by Minister for Labor and Immigration-Plant Breeders-Building SocietiesReserve Bank Interest Rates

Mr SPEAKER:

– It being 10.30 p.m., in accordance with the order of the House of 1 1 July 1 propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr MacKELLAR:
Warringah

-I should like to raise 2 matters of some importance. The first concerns the Federal President of the Australian Labor Party, the Chairman of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and his visit to Perth earlier this week. This was a well publicised visit Mr Hawke made a very intemperate- one could almost say an inflammatory- speech to the crowds assembled in Perth in Western Australia. This speech was the subject of a great deal of publicity. However, what I should like to know- I should like a member of the Government to tell me if it is possible- is how did Mr Hawke get back to Sydney. I am told by reliable sources that Mr Hawke chatered a plane from Swan Brewery Co. Ltd. I am quite sure that the Swan Brewery did not pay for the plane, but he chartered this plane from the Swan Brewery at a cost of $1,800. 1 am not at all sure whether the return flight to Western Australia was filled. If it was filled the additional $1,800 would have been paid by somebody else, but if the charter plane flew from Perth to Sydney and back again and Mr Hawke was responsible for the payment for that trip it would result in a total cost of $3,600. Who paid that amount?

Mr Whan:

– What business is it of yours?

Mr MacKELLAR:

– I should like to know. What are you concealing? The Trades and Labour Council in Western Australia has denied payment of that amount. All I am asking is for somebody to tell me who paid this $3,600. 1 ask a simple question and it seems to elicit some response from supporters of the Government. If they can tell me I will be grateful, and the Australian people will be grateful to know. The principal matter I raise this evening concerns the reply of the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) to a question asked of him by Mr Dawkins last week. That question concerned the matter of migrant nominations by development companies in Western Australia. In the Minister’s reply were some inflammatory statements- I believe some unfair statements. In the course of his answer on 24 September the Minister mentioned that a conference of Ministers for Immigration in November 1973 agreed on South Australian rules respecting the nomination of migrants. He said it was agreed that they should be introduced throughout the States. He gave the clear impression that this had been agreed to and was put into practice by the States, including Western Australia.

Mr Speaker, I have some information here which suggests that this agreement which the Minister spoke about was not put into operation in

Western Australia before the change of government which occurred there earlier this year. However, that is one point I do not want to dwell on; I want to dwell on the statements that the Minister made respecting a particular public company. I make it clear before speaking about this company that I have no association with the Landall Construction and Development Co Pry Ltd. I do not know personally any of the people connected with Landau’s and I have never met Mr Clark. I have spoken with Mr Clark on the telephone and I have received some letters from him. I think it most important that we look into the statements made by the Minister in his reply to the question in this House so I quote from page 1640 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 24 September. The Minister said:

I had this matter thoroughly investigated.

He said this in response to some queries about the company. He also said:

We found that there were serious allegations about the company’s handling of financial arrangements for the sale of houses. It was involved also in the sale to migrants of second hand cars which proved to be not worth the money that they were made to pay for them under terms which prompted serious complaints . . .

That is a serious charge and, of course, it was made under privilege in this House and cannot be answered by the company. Perhaps I should say it may be answered by the company, but the Minister cannot be held to account for it. The Minister said:

There is little doubt that the Landall company was engaged in some very questionable activities.

A little later he said:

The Landall company is quite a questionable one in more ways than one.

I am sure you, Mr Speaker, will agree that these are very serious allegations to make about a public company. They could result in a serious effect on the business in which that company engages. If one makes these allegations I think they should be backed up by some evidence. No evidence was produced by the Minister for Labor and Immigration to back up these statements.

I believe that this is a shameful abuse of the high responsibilities which a Minister of the Crown must bear. The Minister, within the confines of this House and with the privilege of this House, publicly abused a company in such a way that people outside this Parliament are led to believe that this company is not a bona fide company and has not been operating as one would expect a public company to operate. I do not think that is very fair at all, and the Minister has a very real case to answer.

Let me refer to 2 aspects of the matter. The first concerns the bona fides of the Western Australian

Minister for Immigration, Mr Grayden. On 26 September 1974, in answer to a question from me, the Minister for Labor and Immigration said:

A meeting of Ministers had been held on this matter at which it was agreed that conditions would be attached to the sponsorship schemes in Western Australia in line with the South Australian conditions. Accordingly, two new rules were adopted- rules 10 and 1 1.

That answer gives the clear indication that those rules were adopted and were in force. I refer next to a telegram from the Minister for Immigration in Western Australia. It is dated 2 October 1974. The telegram states in part:

Following instructions by the former Minister for Immigration a review of these conditions was undertaken -

I stress these words: . . .and a draft prepared for consideration. This draft was inadvertently distributed after the change of Government and without my approval before a decision was made. It is emphasised that this was a draft prepared for consideration only.

In other words, quite contrary to the implications contained in the Minister’s answer to me in this House, these measures had not come into effect.

Later, in his answer to my question, the Minister went on to say: . . . Mr Grayden wrote these words -

The Minister then read some words to the House. He continued:

I cannot read (4) properly, but it looks like- it is in Mr Grayden ‘s handwriting.

In response to that statement, Mr Grayden sent the Minister for Labor and Immigration a telegram and he sent a copy of it to me also. In it he said to the Minister. … the information you have given to the House of Representatives is not factual.

The telegram continues: . . . the letter that you have quoted was unlawfully removed from files in my Department and I request that you make it available to the Western Australian poliCe to aid them in their investigations into missing documents, from Western Australia departmental files. Contrary to your unequivocal statement that the marginal notes to which you refer are in my handwriting it is not so. Any handwriting must perforce be that of a departmental officer. Request you correct wrong impression which you have created.

The Minister for Labor and Immigration has not done that. If the Minister were a man of honour he would forthwith correct the very wrong impression he has given.

I now return to the question of the Landall company. This matter raises some very real questions and some very real concern. Why, Mr Speaker, if an investigation was carried out at the direction of the Minister did the investigating officer not discuss the matter with Landall? Landall offered to co-operate fully with the immigration task force operating in Western Australia. I have a copy of a letter signed by the Chairman of that company in which he states:

I would welcome the chance of meeting the Committee and personally explaining any detail . . .

That letter is from the Chairman of Landall to the Chairman of the task force. The Chairman of Lan.dall, Mr Clark, wrote also to the Minister for Labor and Immigration on 19 August. This is what Mr Clark said:

As my company’s name was mentioned in the article, following allegations made in the State Parliament by Mr M. Bryce, M.L.A. I am writing to seek your assurance that the officer concerned -

I add these words ‘in the investigation’: . . . will, as pan of his investigations, contact the Company to obtain its answers to Mr Bryce ‘s allegations and to see at first hand how our sponsorship scheme is administered.

Later in this letter, Mr Clark says: … the Company will do anything in its power to assist the Departmental Officer in his investigation.

I put this question to the House, Mr Speaker: Is this the action of a company which, in the words of the Minister for Labor and Immigration, was engaged in some very questionable activities or was a questionable company in more ways than one? It certainly is not.

Why was the State department which was involved in the original investigation not consulted by the investigating officer? How did the Minister get access to a document which was allegedly stolen from the departmental files in Western Australia? Why did not the Minister mention the additional protection given by rules 12 and 13 in the new rules brought down by the new Minister for Immigration in Western Australia. This affair raises some very real questions. I believe that a public company has been quite unfairly castigated and brought into some disrepute in this House.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr MARTIN:
Banks

-Mr Speaker, I propose to raise tonight a subject which to the best of my knowledge has not been ventilated before in this Parliament. It is the question of the need for plant breeders rights. It is interesting to note that if you invent a machine for harvesting plants, that machine can be patented, but there is no legislation in Australia which allows the patenting of the plant itself. Australia has been slow to take up the question of plant breeders rights, but the same cannot be said for other countries of the world.

Plant breeders’ protection is now law in many countries, particularly in the Common Market countries. This legislation is in existence in France, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and the United Kingdom. The legislation in these countries is very similar and is based on the 1961 Paris Convention which forms the basis of the Union for Protection of Plant Varieties. South Africa and the United States of America have plant patent Acts and New Zealand has a Bill drawn up ready for presentation to the Parliament. Austria, Poland, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and some other East European countries also have arrangements in operation for the protection of plant breeders.

There are many reasons why plant breeders rights legislation is necessary, but I will quote only a few. I believe legislation is necessary so as to give an adequate reward for the skills, effort and capital employed in plant breeding. It is also necessary to ensure the continuing viability of the agricultural and horticultural industries. In addition, the necessary encouragement must be given which will allow Australian breeding in all agricultural and horticultural areas.

The point which amazes me is that plant breeders have not been recognised in Australia before this when this recognition has already been granted in other countries. Surely the time is now ripe for recognition of this section of the horticultural and agricultural industry. If it is right for the inventor to be recognised in secondary industry, it is surely right to legislate for plant breeders’ rights.

Up to date, plant breeding in Australia has largely been carried out by government departments, universities and instrumentalities such as the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, and then only on a small scale. Consequently, Australia has had to rely very heavily on imports from overseas for most of the necessary strains for crop immprovement. In 2 important areas- vegetables and fruit- the United States of America has been the main source of such new strains. But many of these new varieties are no longer available to Australia because of the lack of the necessary protective legislation, namely, legislation to protect the rights of plant breeders.

New strains are vital for economic cropping, disease resistance, and so on. Australia is doing nothing to fill the vacuum caused by the lack of these new strains. On a conservative estimate, experts in this field maintain that even if the money were available to engage in plant breeding activities, it would take at least 10 years to fill the vacuum. Industry must have access to new strains of plants and urgent legislation is necessary to remedy this situation. In the long term, encouragement must be given to Australian plant breeders to develop strains suitable to our own local conditions which vary from State to State and within each State.

Members of this Parliament may not know that tomato plants grown in Australia are mainly from the United States of America, and these plants are not completely suitable for Australian conditions. Under Australian conditions the plants grow much larger and trail a great deal. The fruit ripens over a long period, and in wet conditions the yield is extremely low. At present there is a tomato sauce scarcity in Australia and at the present time it is necessary to import the ingredients for tomato sauce. What a catastrophe for Australia’s national dish.

Australia is at least 15 years behind the times in its types and varieties of apples, pears, grapes, and so on being grown. The reason is that Australia has not the access to overseas varieties and strains of plants and trees. One of the reasons why Australia has difficulty in disposing of our apple crop overseas is that we cannot compete with the newer varieties which are grown in other countries. This should be of importance to honourable members from Tasmania. I see many of them present in the House tonight. The reason why we cannot obtain these overseas strains is that Australia has no reciprocal legislation to guarantee the rights of breeders.

In regard to grapes, it is interesting to know that in overseas countries there are available tropical varieties which produce 2 crops a year. I notice that the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Sullivan) is not present, but he has had his problems and I did not tell him I intended raising this subject. What an effect those varieties would have on our own grape and wine industries. If the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) were here I am certain he would be interested in this subject also. I ask the Minister for Science (Mr Morrison) to use his best endeavours to have plant breeders’ rights legislation introduced as soon as possible. To do this I think it is appropriate that an independent committee of inquiry should be set up to advise the Government on the most appropriate type of legislation for Australian conditions, the committee of inquiry to comprise government and industry personnel. I trust that the Minister at the table, the Minister for Environment and Conservation (Dr Cass), will consider the points raised by me tonight. Possibly an inter-departmental committee has the matter in hand. If it has, it has been in its hands for a long time as the previous government did nothing on this issue. I grant that it was in office for only 23 years. I hope the present Government will do something and do it soon.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-The building society movement has developed since the late 1950s and has surprised very many Australians. In the late 1950s Dr Coombs wondered, appreciatively, at the growth in its strength and the support for its activities during its early years. In the years subsequent to that statement the societies have developed and have been trusted by the Australian people because they are strong and because requirements have been put on them with respect to their own asset structures. It is common knowledge that in one State of Australia, Queensland, concern has developed among a number of people for a variety of reasons which has caused them to attempt to take or to take their deposits out of the building societies. That is not necessary. But there is also a very grave obligation on the part of the Government to see that these societies are supported. It is a very grave obligation because, certainly in Queensland, which is the State concerned, the building societies have fulfilled a role with respect to the requirements of housing finance made vacant by the withdrawal of the savings banks, especially the Commonwealth Savings Bank, in regard to their own requirements to support housing in Australia and in Queensland.

This is essential background. It is to be argued that to the extent that they have fulfilled that role, especially in the past year, there is upon the Reserve Bank and upon the Treasurer (Mr Crean) a very grave moral, and I believe on the Reserve Bank a statutory, obligation to accord the societies direct support- not statements, which are indirect support. Let me illustrate. During the past year in Queensland the Commonwealth Savings Bank which was set up with one of its principal aims being to assist small borrowers, especially with respect to housing, has not operated with its funds in the best interests of its own customers. In fact, over the year the Commonwealth Savings Bank lent an average of only 26 per cent of its assets for housing purposes. During the same period it went into the bond market to an unprecedented extent in supporting Commonwealth Government bonds and effectively attempting to prop up the bond market; in fact, to indicate that there was a demand for bonds when the demand was slackening. The annual report of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation contains one very significant sentence on page 34, which reads:

Existing monetary requirements are such that banks hold large amounts of Australian Government securities.

Existing requirements dictated to the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, and especially to the

Savings Bank, through the Reserve Bank, that it should support the bond market to an extent which it had never previously done. The Commonwealth Savings Bank was not set up to support the bond market. Other banks engage in monetary management, but the Commonwealth Savings Bank does not have that role. At the same time private savings banks increased their assets in housing and in fact divested themselves of bonds.

I give that information by way of background. In what way does this involve the building societies? It involves the building societies, especially in Queensland, where there has been a very great demand for housing due to the high rate of growth and development. In the year ended 30 June and into July the building societies lent an average of 27 per cent of all the funds available for housing in that State; that is from the trading banks, finance corporations building societies and so on. Those are the major lenders. The savings banks lent an average of only 10 per cent of the funds available for housing in that State.

Since the Commonwealth Savings Bank, which is much closer to the Reserve Bank in responses to its dictates than are other banks, has a dominant role in that State, just as it has a dominant role in New South Wales, the building societies quite clearly have fulfilled their purpose and have taken up a slack which has been imposed on the banks, certainly through the Reserve Bank and, I would say, certainly through the discussions which take place between the Treasurer and the Reserve Bank.

Under these circumstances, therefore, when there have been reports of a run on the building societies, even though they are strong and have a very high ratio of liquid assets, the Reserve Bank has a quite special obligation under section 8 of the Reserve Bank Act. Section 8 reads:

The Bank has such powers as are necessary for the purpose of this Act, and, in particular, and in addition to any other powers conferred on it by this Act, has power-

to receive money on deposit;

to borrow money;

to lend money . . .

That proposition involves the Reserve Bank directly with building societies under these circumstances. Section 10 of the Reserve Bank Act states that the Board has the duty within its powers to operate its own policies- I will not go through this in detail- and to operate them in such a way that they contribute to 3 matters, the first of which is the stability of the currency of Australia and the third of which is the economic prosperity and welfare of the people of Australia. Those principles ought to guide the Reserve Bank now in terms of its relations with the Queensland building societies. I believe that, with the unreasoning fear that develops, the Reserve Bank has a direct obligation to give support in this area. There should not be indirect statements, such as we heard from the Acting Treasurer (Mr Hayden) last night when he talked about the trading banks lending a sympathetic ear with respect to support for building societies. It ought to be a direct obligation. There also ought to be a direct statement from the Treasurer or the Acting Prime Minister of this country indicating those points.

I believe that the Reserve Bank, were it not to be inhibited by this Government, would give that direct support- I have no precise reason for stating that- in its own common-sense judgment of what is appropriate for the economy. It also ought in those circumstances to announce quite directly that it will be a lender of last resort with respect to these institutions. After all, by doing so it will be doing a sound and very great job for the people who have their savings in these bodies. It would certainly be against the best interests of the people for the Reserve Bank to refrain from its obligation and to do anything foolish. That means, basically, that it has a pre-eminent obligation in these circumstances to restore confidence. I hope that that will be done. I think it should be done. If common sense prevails it will be done, especially as there is a moral obligation on the Bank to help those sources of funds which over the past year have stepped in to take up the artificial slack developed as a result of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation’s and Commonwealth Savings Bank’s activities during the past year.

Dr CASS:
Minister for the Environment and Conservation · Maribyrnong · ALP

– I rise simply to. make some brief comments on the points raised by the honourable member for Banks (Mr Martin) and to assure him that the matter has been brought to my notice and that interest has been taken in the matter of plant growers’ problems in terms of patent rights and so on. This does not come within my responsibility but I assure the honourable member that I shall draw the attention of the Minister for Science (Mr Morrison) to it. I assure the honourable member that the Minister for Science will give him his views on the suggestions made.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– Yesterday in the House I asked the Acting Prime Minister (Dr J. F. Cairns) what rate was charged by the Reserve Bank to the various member banks for facilities of lender of last resort. The Acting

Prime Minister was good enough to reply to me in these words:

I am not specifically aware of the rate of interest that is charged but I will have that checked and inform the honourable member.

This is recorded in Hansard. So far I have not received that information. On several occasions I have rung the Private Secretary of the Acting Prime Minister and I have asked whether the information could be provided. On each occasion he has said that it was being compiled and that it would be made available to me. It does not take very much to have this information compiled. It is a simple case of compiling half a dozen figures which are definite and well known.

I can well imagine that the Acting Prime Minister has been a little engaged in other things today and perhaps- I do not want to press the matter too hard- he may not have been in a position to check the answer and send it through to me. But I do say this: It is a very simple matter for him to fulfil the promise that he gave. I am very anxious to get these figures as soon as possible. It is a matter of some considerable disappointment to me that I have not been able to get them before the House rises for this recess. They are figures of tremendous importance to the Australian community at present. Tales are going around- I am not in a position to say whether they are true or untrue- that the banking liquidity crisis has been caused by the Reserve Bank’s charging these quite exorbitant rates to the member banks and that this is a fundamental error in policy. I do not know whether or not this is true because I have not the figures.

Mr Riordan:

– Well, why say it?

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I asked the Acting Prime Minister for the figures and I am trying to get them. When I get them I shall then know whether or not it is true. I ask the Acting Prime Minister once again whether he will let me have these figures without delay. He has promised to do so. The question is recorded in Hansard. They are figures which the whole of the community in Australia would be very interested in seeing.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! It being 1 1 o’clock the House stands adjourned until Tuesday, 15 October, at half past 10 o’clock a.m. or until such time thereafter as Mr Speaker may take the chair, unless Mr Speaker shall by telegram addressed to each member of the House fix an earlier day of meeting.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 2249

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Ministerial Councils: Contact with States (Question No. 41)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Will he provide a list of all formal committees, councils, etc., that have been established which enable him or officers of his Department to maintain contact with State Government Ministers or State Government officers.
  2. ) When was each body established and by whom.
  3. What is the (a) composition and (b) function of each body.
  4. On what occasions has each body met in the last 2 years and for what purpose.
Mr Whitlam:
Prime Minister · WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 ), (2), (3 ) and (4) The following list includes details of Councils upon which both Australian Government and State Ministers are represented. Where such a Council is advised by a high-level officials ‘ committee, the relevant details have also been provided.

Trans-Australia Airlines; Qantas: Advertising Budget (Question No. 252)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What are the details of the advertising budget for both TAA and Qantas in the 12 month period December 1971 to December 1972 and the equivalent period Dcecember 1972 to Decenber 1973.
  2. What if the total value of all advertising placed by both companies in the periods, which advertising companies have been given contracts to place those advertisements and what is the value of each contract.
  3. What amounts have been placed with each individual (a) television station, (b) radio station, (c) daily newspaper, (d) weekly publication and (e) other journals and publications not included in the above categories during the same periods.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

Details of the advertising practices and expenditure of Qantas Airways and Trans-Australia Airlines are of critical importance to those airlines in their relations with competitors.

For this reason, it would seem to be preferable to keep such details confidential.

Department of Services and Property: Inter-departmental Committees (Question No. 284)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Services and Property, upon notice:

  1. Does his Department maintain a record of interdepartmental committees in which it participates.
  2. If not, then how is he aware of all the interdepartmental consultations in which his Department is involved through inter-departmental committees.
  3. Will he ensure that such a list is in future available to him.
Mr Daly:
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 Prime Minister’s answer to question No. 964 on the 1 973 Notice Paper (Hansard, 27 September 1973, Page 1714) in which he drew attention to thee impracticalities of attempting to list all the consultations in which departments are engaged with other departments. My department keeps me properly informed of all important developments- this is a satisfactory procedure for the purposes of my Ministry.

Department of Transport: Inter-departmental Committees (Question No. 299)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. Does his Department maintain a record of interdepartmental committees in which it participates.
  2. If not, then how is the Minister aware of all interdepartmental consultations in which his Department is involved through inter-departmental committees.
  3. Will he ensure that such a list is in future available to him.
Mr Jones:
Minister for Transport · NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– The answer to the right honourable members question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) Yes. My Department does maintain such a record.
  2. ) See answer to (1).
  3. See answer to (1).

Department of Housing and Construction: Training in Financial and Auditing Procedures (Question No. 397)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice:

  1. 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.
  2. ) What is the division and classification of these officers.
  3. How many of these officers were in operational, as distinct from financial and accounting positions in the Service.
Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

The detailed and specific nature of the information sought by the right honourable member in this question is such that it is not collected centrally or published by the Department of Housing and Construction.

A great deal of statistical information on training within the Australian Public Service is presented each year in the Public Service Board’s annual report, and it will be noted that specific reference is made in pages 166, 167 and 168 to the extent of the participation by the Departments of Housing and Works.

The 1973 report for example included at pages 163 to 168 details of central courses conducted by the Public Service Board, courses sponsored by the Board in conjunction with external institutions, courses conducted in the States by the Public Service Inspectors and courses conducted by individual Departments including the Department of Housing and Construction. These courses are run at various levels and in a number of subject areas, and many included elements relevant to the honourable member’s question.

The Board’s 1973 Annual Report also included a statistical item on Study Assistance which indicated that a substantial number of officers had either completed or were engaged in external studies in accountancy and related fields.

This sort of information appears regularly in the Board’s Annual Reports.

In the Prime Minister’s reply of 24 July 1974 to an identical question Le. No. 329, he drew the right honourable member’s attention to the fact that the Public Service Board, the Auditor-General’s Office, the Department of Treasury and the Department of Manufacturing Industry are engaged in a study to review training needs and to develop new training programmes for finance officers in the Service.

The right honourable member will also be aware that the Terms of Reference of the Royal Commission to inquire into and report on the Australian Public Service include*.

1 ) personnel policies and practices, including elegibility recruitment, selection, appointment, tenure, training (especially management training), promotion, classification, discipline, morale and conditions of service of members of the Australian Public Service, both generally and in relation to particular classes of persons.

Department of Transport: Training in Financial or Auditing Procedures (Question No. 401)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. 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?
  2. ) What is the division and classification of these officers?
  3. 3 ) How many of these officers were in operational, as distinct from financial or accounting positions in the Service?
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s questions are: (1)231 officers.

(2)

(3)221 Officers.

Airport Facilities: Interdepartmental Committees (Question No. 404)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the membership, timetable and charter of each of the interdepartmental committees, referred to in your answer to Question No. 1475 (Hansard, 13 December 1973, page 4787), which were established to examine the airport requirements of each capital city.
  2. Are there any interdepartmental committees operating which have the task of examining the requirement of each State for additional or upgraded airport facilities in regional areas.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

  1. The membership, timetable and charter of the interdepartmental committees which were established to examine the airport requirements of the capital cities are set out below-

page 2257

AUSTRALIAN/NEW SOUTH WALES GOVERNMENTS JOINT COMMITTEE PLANNING SYDNEY AIRPORTS

Membership

Australian Government:

Department of Transport

Department of Services and Property

Department of Housing and Construction

Department of Urban and Regional Development

Department of the Environment and Conservation

Department of the Treasury

Department of Defence (Observer)

N.S.W. Government:

State Planning Authority

Department of Main Roads

Timetable

The first meeting was held in November 1 97 1 . Its future programme is under consideration.

Charter

The terms of reference are currently under discussion as to the nature of the Committee’s future investigations. As originally prescribed, they are:

Richmond

Somersby

But without necessarily restricting itself to these locations if the Committee considers that other locations merit detailed consideration.

page 2258

AUSTRALIAN/STATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO STUDY ADELAIDE’S REGULAR PUBLIC TRANSPORT (AIRLINE) AIRPORT REQUIREMENTS

Membership

Australian Government

Department of Transport

Department of the Environment and Conservation

Department of Services and Property

Department of Urban and Regional Development

Department of Housing and Construction

S.A. Government:

Departments of Roads and Transport and Local Government

Department of Environment and Conservation

Highways Department

State Planning Office

Director-General of Transport

Local Government:

West Torrens City Council

Corporation of the City of Glenelg

Timetable

The first meeting was held on 17 April 1973 and it is expected the study would take about two years.

Charter

Terms of Reference-

page 2258

AUSTRALIAN/STATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO STUDY WESTERN AUSTRALIAN AIRPORT REQUIREMENTS

Membership

Australian Government:

Department of Transport

Department of Housing and Construction

Department of Services and Property

Department of Urban and Regional Development

Department of the Environment and Conservation

Department of Air.

W.A. Government:

Department of Development and Decentralisation

Main Roads Department

Director-General of Transport

Department of Environmental Protection

Metropolitan Region Planning Authority

Town Planning Department

Local Government:

City of Perth

Belmont Shire Council

Timetable:

The first meeting was held on 24 October 1973 and it is hoped that the Committee can complete its work insofar as the Penh Region is concerned before the end of 1975; the further studies of the country areas could require until mid 1976.

Charter

Terms of Reference-

BRISBANE AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Membership

Industrial Australian Government:

Department of Civil Aviation

Department of Works

Department of the Interior

Queensland Government:

Co-ordinator-General’s Department

Harbours and Marine Department

Industrial Development Department

Lands Department

Main Roads Department

Railways Department

Transport Department

Southern Electric Authority

Local Government:

Brisbane City Council

Timetable

The first meeting was held on 16 February 197 1 and the report was completed in January 1 972.

Charter

The Terms of Reference were to revise and update the requirements for Brisbane Airport, to ensure that the airport continued to operate without causing undue noise nuisance in existing urban areas, and to ensure that the development of other than existing urban areas remained compatible with aircraft operations.

My Department is also providing technical advice and assistance on aviation matters to Australian and State Committees examining the planning and development of various growth centres such as Albury/ Wodonga, Geelong and Bathurst/Orange.

Automotive Industry Advisory Panel (Question No. 427)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What progress has been made on the formation of an automotive advisory panel.
  2. Was it his intention to have the inaugural meeting in February 1974; if so, what prevented it from taking place at that time.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The Automotive Industry Advisory Panel has been formed and its inaugural meeting took place on 17 July 1974.
  2. It was my intention to have the inaugural meeting in February 1974, but certain interested organisations had not determined their nominations for membership of the Panel at that time.

Hospitals and Health Commission (Question No. 471)

Mr Kerin:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the establishment of the Hospitals and Health Commission.
  2. 2 ) How many of these positions are staffed.
  3. ) What ceiling has been placed on the staff of the Commission in line with the Government’s decision to limit Public Service growth.
  4. What arrangements exist for co-ordination between his Department and the Commission.
Dr Everingham:
Minister for Health · CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The establishment of the Hospitals and Health Services Commission is set out under Section 9(1) of the Hospitals and Health Services Commission Act 1973. Under the Act the Commission shall consist of three full-time and not fewer than four nor more than nine part-time Commissioners, appointed by the Governor-General. A small Secretariat to assist the Commission is provided on the establishment of the Department of Health.
  2. Appointments have been made to the three fulltime Commissioner positions and the nine part-time Commissioner positions.
  3. The Secretariat staff provided to the Commission by the Department of Health is included in the overall ceiling applicable to the Department
  4. The Commission and the Department of Health work closely together. The Department provides for all routine servicing of the Commission to avoid unnecessary duplication. Officers of the Department attend Commission meetings and members of the Commission have access to all branches and officers of the Department. This arrangement has efficiently facilitated the implementation of the Commission’s Community Health Program and will apply to other programs sponsored by the Commission.

Chartered Flights (Question No. 558)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Services and Property, upon notice:

Will he provide a list of all approvals he has given since 2 December 1 973 for Members of Parliament to use chartered flights, indicating the Member concerned, the members of his party, the intinerary of the flight and the date.

Mr Daly:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) It would be misleading for me to give an answer to the right honourable gentleman’s question without giving some additional information which would put the answer to the right honourable gentleman’s question in its proper perspective. I am pleased therefore to provide full details of charter flights-

    1. 1 July to 2 December 1972 when the Liberal/Country Party Government was in power.
    2. 1 July 1971 to 30 June 1972.
    3. I January 1973 to 30 June 1974 after the Labor Government had instituted a proper system of control.

  2. ) A summary of the information is as follows:

From 1 July to 2 December 1972 the then Minister for the Interior, the Honourable R. J. D. Hunt, M.P., approved a total of 137 charter flights.

Of these:

  1. 136 charter flights were for Members of the then Liberal/Country Party Government at a cost of $28,425.68 and

  2. 1 charter flight was for a Member of the then Opposition at a cost of$85.00

    1. During thefinancial year 1971-72 the then Minister for the Interior, theHonourable R. J. D. Hunt, M.P., approved a total of 19charter flights.

Of these:

  1. 190 charter flights were for Members of the then Liberal /Country Party Government at a cost of $51,630.59 and

  2. 1 charter flight was for a Member of the then Opposition at a cost of $ 1 50.00.

    1. During the period 1 January 1973 to 30 June 1974, as Minister for Services and Property, I approved a total of 97 Charter flights.

Of these:

  1. 26 charter flights were for Members of the Govern ment at a total cost of $7,235. 14 and

  2. 71 charter flight were for Members of the Opposition at a cost of $8,644.69

    1. Refusals. During the period 1 January 1973 to 30 June 1974I refused:
  3. 2 requests for charter flights from Members of the Government and

  4. 6 requests for charter flights from Members of the Opposition.

    1. I submit a schedule showing details of the flights which were approved during the relevant periods.

Australian Domestic Airlines: One-class Fare (Question No. 574)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

Does the Government intend to give approval to the abolition of two-class travel on Australian domestic airlines.

Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

No request has been received from the major domestic airlines for approval for only a one class fare. If an airline, in its own commercial judgement, wishes to submit such a proposition to me, you may be assured that it will be carefully considered.

Australian Aid Projects (Question No. 696)

Mr Peacock:

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

  1. In what countries does Australia have personnel engaged in (a) bilateral and (b) multilateral aid projects.
  2. How many Australians are involved in each country.
  3. Under what programs are these people engaged, and how many are involved in each program in each of the countries referred to.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: 1 , 2 and 3. Australian personnel are engaged as aid experts under the following programs:

Bilateral Schemes

Colombo Plan (CP)

Commonwealth Co-operation (CCE) in Education

Special Commonwealth African (SCAAP)

Assistance Plan

South Pacific Aid Program (SPAP)

Australian-Asian Universities (AAUCS)

Co-operation Scheme

Multilateral Schemes

International Rice Research (IRRI) Institute, Philippines

South East Asian Ministers for (SEAMEO) Education Organisation

The numbers of Australian experts or advisers serving in various countries under these schemes as at 3 1 July 1974 are as follows:

Coober Pedy: Airstrip (Question No. 707)

Mr Wallis:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

Have any arrangements been made between the Civil Aviation section of your Department and the Progress and Mining Association at Coober Pedy to raise the standard of the airstrip at Coober Pedy. If so, what are those arrangements.

Mr Jones:
ALP

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

There have been a series of discussions between my Department and the Coober Pedy Progress Association.

The South Australian Lands Department has assisted in reserving land for the development of the local airstrip to full aerodrome licensing standards.

However, there remains the problem of a local Government authority or its equivalent accepting the responsibility of an aerodrome licensee, firstly to entitle Coober Pedy to50 per cent Australian Government grants for the economic development and maintenance of their aerodrome, and secondly to report the current state of the aerodrome for air safety purposes.

The Coober Pedy Progress Association has not yet decided whether it feels equal to that commitment as an aerodrome licensee.

Australian Public Service: Restructuring of Departments (Question No. 737)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice.

  1. Did he promise the Administrative and Clerical Officer’s Association on 3 May 1974 that he would introduce legislation to implement the recommendations of the Joint Council re action to protect the rights of employees suffering pecuniary loss following departmental restructuring.
  2. Has his attention been drawn to the concern of public servants at the restructuring undertaken by the Government in the absence of formal protection safeguards.
  3. Will, he now give an unqualified assurance that he will introduce such safeguards before any further restructuring occurs.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. Legislation containing safeguards of this kind is being prepared for introduction during the present sittings.

Australian Public Service: Fellowship Scheme (Question No. 738)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is it intended to establish a fellowship scheme in each Department to enable academics to work during study leave with the Department.
  2. Which Departments have introduced the concept to date.
  3. What steps have been taken to arrange a reciprocal scheme for public servants to undertake fellowships on paid study leave at academic institutions.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

– I am advised by the Public Service Board that the answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) There is no intention to establish a fellowship scheme in each department. Where a department has a special requirement best met by a fellowship scheme, it will consider establishing a scheme.
  2. In order to meet a special requirement, the Department of Urban and Regional Development has introduced a fellowship scheme for academics.
  3. Opportunities for public servants to undertake research studies at Australian and overseas academic institutions are provided by fellowships at the Australian National University and by postgraduate scholarships and financial assistance awards. Details of the kind of schemes referred to have been provided in the Public Service Board ‘s 1971 Annual Report (pp. 82 and 83) and statistics of the numbers of persons benefiting appear in successive Annual Reports. The more recent statistics are at page 193 of the Board’s 1974 Annual Report.

Australian Government: Departmental Vehicles (Question No. 740)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Will he provide a list indicating the number of 4- cylinder, 6-cyhnder and 8-cylinder vehicles owned by Government Departments.
  2. Does the Government intend to reduce the proportion of 6-cylinder and 8-cylinder vehicles purchased.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. The number of vehicles owned by the Australian Government, for use by Departments, as at the end of August was:

These figures exclude vehicles purchased for the Defence Force and Government vehicles located at Australian posts and missions overseas. Details of the latter are not readily available. Vehicles used for special purposes have also been excluded.

  1. The Department of Manufacturing Industry, which operates the main passenger fleets in the States for Australian Government purposes, has been reducing the proportion of 6 and 8-cylinder vehicles in the fleet over recent years. I am advised that this trend will continue. I am also informed that the intermediate 8-cylinder sedan used in the car pools is also being progressively replaced by a 6-cylinder sedan. In 1973-74 there was consequently a 30 per cent reduction in 8-cylinder vehicles.

Legal Aid Offices: Volunteer Workers (Question No. 755)

Mr Snedden:

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

  1. 1 ) How many volunteer workers have offered to work in conjunction with, or within, each of the legal aid offices presently in operation.
  2. ) In what field of welfare are they qualified or interested.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) In relation to each of the eleven offices opened to date in all States, various bodies and persons active in the field of welfare have offered assistance. The offices have been open only for a short time and the question of how the service of volunteers can best be utilised is being examined. For example, in the Brunswick office that opened on 19 July 1974, some 36 people have volunteered to assist and fifteen of these have indicated that they would be available for varying periods to staff a night and Saturday morning service. The 36 volunteers comprise seventeen solicitors, one clergyman, three social workers, a welfare officer, an employment officer, three typist/secretaries, one law clerk, one law student, three members of the Citizens Advice Bureau, one interpreter, and four persons who have volunteered to give general assistance, including a member of the State Parliament.

Airports: Capital Cities (Question No. 770)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

What was (a) the total number of flights in and out of each airport in each capital city in each State and Territory; (b) the number of passengers arriving and departing from each of these airports; and (c) the capital expenditure of each airport in Australia in each of the last ten years.

Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

The information requested is contained in tables under the following headings:

. Total Aircraft Activity at Capital City Airports.

Passenger Movements at Capital City Airports.

Capital Expenditure at Major Airports.

Royal Australian Nursing Federation: Appointments (Question No. 780)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

Is it intended to appoint a nominee of the Royal Australian Nursing Federation to:

the National Hospitals and Health Services Commission;

the National Health and Medical Research Council.

Dr Everingham:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable members question is as follows:

  1. The Governor-General has appointed Miss Mary Patten, a Secretary of the Royal Australian Nursing Federation, as a part-time Commissioner or the Hospitals and Health Services Commission.
  2. I am currently considering the appointment of an eminent lay woman to the National Health and Medical Research Council.

Department of Services and Property: Research and Development Staff (Question No. 868)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Services and Property, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many officers or employees of his Department, or of authorities under his control, are employed on research and development work.
  2. Where are they employed.
  3. What is the nature of the work being undertaken.
  4. What is the total expenditure per annum in maintaining this research and development program.
  5. Who decides the nature of the programs or projects included in this research and development work.
Mr Daly:
ALP

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

  1. Five (S) officers of my Department are engaged in work that could be described as ‘Research and Development’ as this expression is normally used. A number of officers in my Department and the Australian Electoral Office who are engaged in positions designated as ‘Research Officers’ have not been included in this reply.
  2. Australian Survey Office.
  3. and (S) Research is undertaken into the use of photogrammetric plotters and computers for the adjustment of XYZ co-ordinates in the production of digital terrain models and also into the use of computers and plotting systems to produce a completed map or plan. This work is under the direction of an Assistant Surveyor-General.
  4. The annual expenditure on salaries of the officers involved in this type of duties would amount to $60,000. Other expenditure on research and development work is minimal.

Australian Government Departments: Restructuring (Question No. 889)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Which sections, branches, divisions and authorities which were part of the former Department of Supply have been transferred to the newly formed Department of Manufacturing Industry.
  2. Which sections, branches, divisions, and authorities which were part of the former Department of Supply have been transferred since its abolition to the Department of Defence.
  3. Is it intended that the Department of Manufacturing industry as presently composed, will continue in that form.

  4. If not, which sections, branches, divisions and authorities are subject to consideration with a view to being transferred to other departments.

    1. Will he ensure that any further restructuring that may be under consideration is announced as early as possible to remove uncertainties for officers and employees as to their future employment.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

– I have received advice from the Public Service Board and the answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) All sections, branches, divisions and authorities which were part of the former Department of Supply have been formally transferred to the Department of Manufacturing Industry.
  2. None. Formal transfers cannot be made before the relevant legislation has been amended. In the meantime, administrative and operational control of the Research and Development Division of the former Department of Supply has been transferred to the Department of Defence.
  3. No.
  4. The functions of the American Projects Branch and the Stores and Transport Branch of the former Department of Supply are under consideration for transfer to other Departments. The purchasing and disposals functions are to be transferred to the proposed Australian Government Purchasing Commission.
  5. Yes; announcements on restructuring will be made as soon as it is practicable to do so.

Foreign Fishermen (Question No. 987)

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Can he say whether or not foreign fishing vessels off the northern and western Australian coast often carry goats and animals which themselves could be carriers of foot and mouth disease.
  2. Is there any evidence of any person from these vessels temporarily camping on the Australian coast.
  3. Is there any evidence of any animals from these vessels being landed temporarily on the Australian mainland.
  4. What action does he intend to take to prevent the danger of foot and mouth disease entering Australia.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Occasional reports have been received that foreign fishing vessels off the northern and western Australian coast carry goats and animals which could be carriers of foot and mouth disease. It is only very rarely that such reports have been substantiated.
  2. Yes.
  3. No.
  4. My Department is working in close liaison with other interested Departments to prevent intrusions of foreign fishermen on Australian mainland and waters. When reports of alleged landings of foreign fishermen are received, the Western Australian Division of the Quarantine Service sends out aircraft for surveillance. Regular nights also have been undertaken during the traditional fishing season when overseas fishing vessels are likely to be in the area. If landings are confirmed, a helicopter service is arranged. These flights are in addition to patrols made by the Departments of Customs and Excise and Defence, which are mounting near continuous patrols in and around the highest risk areas during the August to October and March to May periods when the majority of intrusions occur.

Quarantine Deficiencies (Question No. 1027)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did the departmental committee which investigated quarantine in Western Australia in March 1974 report any quarantine deficiencies (a) at Fremantle, (b) at Perth Airport, (c) at ports in the north west of Western Australia, (d) at aerodromes in the north west of Western Australia, (e) at Kwinana or (f) in the examination of overseas mail arriving in Western Australia.
  2. If so, what were the deficiencies, and what subsequent corrective action has been taken.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: . (l)(a) Yes.

  1. Yes.
  2. No.
  3. No.
  4. No.

  5. No.

    1. (a) Fremantle.

The Committee was informed that there had been several recent occasions over week-ends when masters of vessels in port had allowed small quantities of garbage to be left standing uncollected on the wharves and the bins containing the garbage had either been overturned or the contents spilt, thus constituting a quarantine risk. It was recommended that ships’ masters should be required to pour waste oil or disinfectant over the garbage to make it unattractive to birds and unsuitable for feeding to animals. It was also recommended that Quarantine Assistants should visit wharves daily (including week-ends and holidays), and arrange for collection by a Port Authority truck if garbage collection was overdue. These measures have been implemented.

  1. Perth Airport.

The lack of an adequate incinerator at Perth Airport was seen by the Committee to constitute a serious quarantine deficiency. This deficiency has been a matter of increasing concern to my Department, and for some years it has recognised the need for the installation of a new incinerator that would be capable of destroying all galley refuse from overseas aircraft at the Airport. The incinerator has not yet been supplied and its provision is still under discussion. The Committee arranged that, until better incineration facilities are provided, the ashes remaining after usage of the present small inadequate incinerators should not be removed for burial until a Quarantine Assistant is satisfied that effective incineration has taken place and has authorised their removal. This supervision is now effective.

The Committee further recommended that there should be two Quarantine Assistants to supervise collection of food scraps and refuse in the Qantas Kitchen at Perth Airport when refuse was being collected from an overseas 747 aircraft or when two overseas aircraft were being serviced at the same time. Hitherto one Quarantine Assistant was assigned this duty. The recommendation has been implemented.

The Committee also considered that, because of the ease with which they are torn, plastic bags containing refuse should be placed in bins for storage and transfer to the incinerator. It was also recommended that, to make galley refuse unattractive for unauthorised removal, a disinfectant containing diluted phenols should be added to the waste. These measures are being carried out.

Department of Health: Officers Engaged in Quarantine Duties (Question No. 1028)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

What is the quarantine experience and training applicable to quarantine of each officer or employee of his Department employed in quarantine duties in Western Australia.

Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

Officers engaged in quarantine duties throughout the Department are given on-the-job training and instruction to facilitate their part in the discharge of the quarantine function.

Formal training courses are currently in progress at which each officer will attend in progression.

Imported Brushware: Louse Eggs (Question No. 1030)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Have louse eggs been detected in recent shipments of boar bristle brushes imported from Austria.
  2. ) If so, what action has been taken.
  3. Have any of these brushes already been sold to the public.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Formerly consignments of imported brushes were released if they were accompanied by a satisfactory certificate of disinfection issued by the health authority of the country of origin. Since discovery of louse eggs on some brushware, consignments are also inspected and, if they contain louse eggs, delivery is withheld. The consignee is given the option of returning the brushes to the exporter or destroying them locally. Examinations of louse eggs have shown them to be sterile and incapable of transmitting disease.
  3. It is possible that some imported brushes containing louse eggs were sold to the public prior to the introduction of inspection on arrival.

Ashmore Reef (Question No. 1032)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Has his Department received any information in respect of Ashmore Reef indicating (a) use of the Reef as an Indonesian camping site, (b) the presence of animal offal and/or grain or (c) the presence of graves on any island in the Reef.
  2. ) If so, what action has been taken.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. (a) Yes; ( b) Yes; (c) Yes
  2. HMAS Diamantina visited Ashmore Reef on 8 July 1974, following a report that Indonesian fishermen were living on the Reef. My Department received a signal from the vessel confirming that Indonesians were using the Reef as a base, that there were nine graves on the Reef, that there were present kegs of corn and also the head of a cow (about two weeks dead).

My Department in liaison with the RAN sent a patrol boat to the area immediately. Included in the party were the Chief Quarantine Officer (Animals) and a Wild Life Officer, both stationed at Darwin, Northern Territory.

When the patrol reached Ashmore Reef, the fishermen had left and there was no sign of plant or animal residues on the Reef.

I understand that talks have been held and will be continued with the Indonesian Government on intrusions by fishermen into Australian waters and that a near continuous patrol system has already been introduced by the RAN to operate in the highest risk areas during the August to October and March to May periods when the majority of intrusions occur. Numerous vessels have already been escorted from Australian waters since the patrol system was commenced.

Playgroup Association of New South Wales (Question No. 194)

Mr Ruddock:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has he received requests for Government aid to assist in establishing and expanding the activities of the Playgroup Association of New South Wales.
  2. If so, (a) what is the nature and extent of the aid requested by the State Association and (b) what aid has the Government given to the Playgroup Association to date.
Mr Beazley:
Minister for Education · FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. There were discussions between members of the Executive of the NSW Playgroup Association and officers of the Department of Education on 2 August 1 974. These discussions were suggested by me in my reply to an earlier letter from the NSW Playgroup Association. At these discussions a statement setting out assistance proposals was submitted.

  2. (a) The proposals put forward at that meeting sought financial assistance (i) to establish and operate a central and some regional resource centres, (ii) to cover the cost of some publications, (iii) to employ playgroup advisers, (iv) to employ playgroup leaders to start groups in needy areas, (v) to develop a parent education program, and (vi) to develop new playgroups. The estimated cost of the assistance sought on the basis of a minimal capital outlay was $26,363 initial capital and $209,230 per annum for recurrent costs.

    1. No aid has been given to the NSW Playgroup Association by the Australian Government. However, playgroups are seen as making an important contribution towards the Government’s policy objective of integrated and comprehensive early childhood services. Playgroups are specifically referred to in the Terms of Reference for the Interim Committee for the Children’s Commission. These Terms of Reference are included in the statement tabled by the Honourable Lionel Bowen in the House of Representatives on 19September 1974.

Department of Customs and Excise: Inter-departmental Committees (Question No. 279)

Mr Snedden:

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

Will the Minister provide a list of the inter-departmental committees, which have been established since 2 December 1972, of which officers of the Department of Customs and Excise are members.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

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

No. On 20 September 1973 my colleague, the Prime Minister, informed the right honourable gentleman in reply to a question without notice about inter-departmental committees that, if he wishes to know the composition and function of any particular inter-departmental committee, and for what period of time it had been active, the Prime Minister would be happy to provide him with that information.

I also refer the right honourable gentleman to the Prime Minister’s answer to his further Question Without Notice on this subject on 1 5 November 1973 (Hansard, pages 3373-4).

If the right honourable gentleman wishes to have information about a particular committee on which my Department is represented, I will assist him as far as possible having regard to the Prime Minister’s answer to Question Nos 964 and I0S7 (Hansard 27 September 1973, page 1714 and 24 October 1973, page 2665).

Department of Customs and Excise: Inter-departmental Committees (Question No. 280)

Mr Snedden:

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

  1. 1 ) Does the Department of Customs and Excise maintain a record of inter-departmental committees in which it participates.
  2. If not, then how is the Minister aware of all the interdepartmental consultations in which his Department is involved through inter-departmental committees.
  3. Will the Minister ensure that such a list is in future available to him.
Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. and (3) See (1)

Hearing Conservation: Administrative Order and Instruction (Question No. 409)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has the Department issued an Administrative Order and Instruction documenting the conclusions of the working party on hearing conservation.
  2. If so, will he incorporate a copy in Hansard with his reply to this question
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

  1. The document to which the right honourable the Leader of the Opposition refers is undergoing prepublication editing and its issue is imminent. Supporting technical documentation is well advanced and should be issued within a few weeks. Implementation of the procedures for protection and testing of persons exposed to risk of hearing damage, for specification of noise emission limits in equipments and buildings, for training of Noise Control and Hearing Conservation Officers is almost complete in anticipation of the issue of the documentation. The major staff associations affected have agreed with the principles and most of the details of our program and have agreed to assist us with implementation if required. An employee training course designed to educate noise-exposed persons to the hazards of noise and to methods of prevention of hearing damage is in an advanced stage or preparation.
  2. Arrangements will be made to forward 4 copies of the Administrative Order and Instruction to the parliamentary library immediately the document is produced. The draft Order has been widely circulated to the ACTU and 18 unions and I shall be pleased to let the right honourable the Leader of the Opposition have a copy if he so wishes.

Media: Cross Ownership (Question No. 560)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Media, upon notice:

  1. When will the Government instigate the proposed National Inquiry into Cross Ownership of the Media.
  2. Will the inquiry be public
Mr Morrison:
Minister for Science · ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. and (2) No decision has been taken by the Government to conduct a National Inquiry into cross ownership of the media. As the right honourable gentleman would know, the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts has been enquiring for some time into all aspects relating to radio and television and doubtless this matter would be one of the subjects being investigated and eventually reported upon by that committee.

Details of multiple shareholding interests of newspapers and others in broadcasting and television stations are published in the Annual Reports of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board.

The Planning and Research Section of my department is currently examining interlocking patterns of media ownership and control that might be exercised by way of shareholdings and directorates. This exercise is being undertaken to provide detailed information for a variety of planning and research projects. Existing public sources of information are used in the compilation of this material, including the records of the Corporate Affairs Commissions and Stock Exchange.

Home Mortgage Interest: Income Tax Deductions (Question No. 723)

Mr McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Does the Government still propose that its tax deductibility scheme for interest on home mortgages will be retrospective to 1 July 1974, and will taxpayers be able to claim deductions on a weekly basis.
  2. If so, what arrangements should eligible taxpayers be making to obtain the benefit of the deduction now.
  3. If not, when and how does the Government propose to assess the deduction, especially in relation to wage and salary movements.
Mr Crean:
Treasurer · MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA · ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) The Government’s scheme to allow income tax deductions, subject to an income test, for home mortgage interest will have effect from 1 July 1974. Details of the scheme will be announced when the legislation to authorise the scheme is introduced in the forthcoming Budget sittings.

The Treasury: Use of Management Consultant Firms (Question No. 795)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) For what purpose has the Department used management consultant firms in the last 12 months.
  2. Which firms have been used.
  3. 3 ) What was the total cost.
Mr Crean:
ALP

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

The following schedule provides details of the purposes for which the Treasury has used management consultant firms in the last 12 months and the names of the firms used. The total cost for the services provided was $9,86 1 .

Department of the Media: Use of Management Consultant Finns (Question No. 797)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Media, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) For what purpose has the Department of the Media used management consultant firms in the last 12 months.
  2. Which firms have been used.
  3. 3 ) What was the total cost.
Mr Morrison:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) In the 12 months ending 3 1 July 1 974 the Department of the Media has not utilised the services of any management consultant firms.
  2. Not applicable.
  3. Not applicable.

Department of Health: Use of Management Consultant Firms (Question No. 810)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) For what purpose has the Department used management consultant firms in the last 12 months.
  2. Which firms have been used.
  3. 3 ) What was the total cost.
Dr EVERINGHAM:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) Nil.

Book Bounties (Question No. 941)

Mr McLeay:

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

  1. 1 ) How many books for which book bounty has been paid were submitted to the Attorney-General’s Department for examination during each of the years 1972-73 and 1973-74.
  2. ) What were the titles of the books.
  3. Who were the applicants.
  4. Which titles were (a) approved and (b) not approved as suitable for bounty.
Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) 1972-73: 6 titles, 1973-74: 68 titles.
  2. , (3) and (4) No titles were approved or disapproved as suitable. Bounty was paid on books which qualified under the Act. The applicants were:

1972- 73

New Century Press

Apex Engraving Co. Pty Ltd

Maxwell Printing Co. Pty Ltd

1973- 74

The Griffin Press Ltd

Rotospeed Press

Spendloves Pty Ltd

Watson Ferguson and Co.

North Shore Binding Co. Ltd

E.D. Printing Pty Ltd

Wymond Marell (Printers) Pty Ltd

Australian Direct Mail Advertising and Addressing Co. Pty Ltd

Tomato Press

Kralco Printing Co. Pty Ltd

Photo Offset Pty Ltd

Book Bounties (Question No. 942)

Mr McLeay:

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

  1. 1 ) When will the 1 973-74 return under the Book Bounty Act be presented to Parliament.
  2. What are the requirements for a printer to be registered as a book producing shop for the purpose of obtaining bounty.
  3. What is the form of application for bounty, i.e. is there a printed form or is it by letter from the printer.
  4. What are the gradings of the public servants who (a) process and (b) approve the application.
  5. Are the application forms or letters destroyed; if so, how long are they retained before destruction and who destroys them; if not, where are they filed.
  6. Will the Minister provide Parliament with a record of the titles on which bounty was paid in respect of South Australian printers (a) for the year 1973-74 and (b) for the months of July and August 1 974.
Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. Section 18(2) of the Book Bounty Act requires the Minister to table a copy of the return in each House of the Parliament within fifteen sitting days of that House after that return is received by him. The return for 1 973-74 will accordingly be tabled in the current session of Parliament.

  2. ) Requirements for registration of premises are that:

    1. all or any of the production processes in relation to books can be carried out on those premises
    2. b) the costing and accounting records are satisfactory.
  3. A printed form.

  4. (a) Officers at Class 5 or 6 classification in the Third Division

    1. as delegates of the Minister, officers of the Second Division other than in Tasmania and Northern Territory where the Collectors of Customs are Class 10, Third Division.
  5. Forms are retained in the Department’s offices in the States and Territories.
  6. As stated in answers to two previous questions on notice by the honourable member, a record of titles is not kept. Eight hundred and ninety-two titles were involved in South Australia in 1972-73. Regular maintenance of a consolidated list of titles appearing on individual claim forms is not an operational necessity. Preparation of the record now sought would thus impose a significant and- it is felt- unjustified workload on the Department ‘s South Australian office.

Department of Science: Female Senior Positions (Question No. 123)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many women have been appointed to senior positions in his Depertment since 2 December 1 972.
  2. Who are they.
  3. 3 ) To what position has each been appointed, and what is the function of the position.
Mr Morrison:
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 Prime Minister’s reply to question on notice No. 97 (Hansard 24 July 1 974, page 625).

Department of Health: Inter-departmental Committees (Question No. 303)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Does his Department maintain a record of interdepartmental committees in which it participates.
  2. If not, then how is he aware of all the interdepartmental consultations in which his Department is involved through inter-departmental committees.
  3. Will he ensure that such a list is in future available to him.
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 Prime Minister’s answer to Question No. 964 on the 1973 Notice Paper (Hansard, 27 September 1973, page 1714/15) in which he drew attention to the impracticalities of attempting to list all the consultations in which Departments are engaged with other Departments. My Department keeps me properly informed of all important developmentsthis is a satisfactory procedure for the purposes of my Ministry.

Department of Science: Training in Financial and Auditing Procedures (Question No. 440)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice:

  1. 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.
  2. ) What is the division and classification of these officers.
  3. How many of these officers were in operational, as distinct from financial or accounting, positions in the Service.
Mr Morrison:
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 Prime Minister’s reply to question on notice No. 329 ( Hansard 24 July 1 974, page 626).

Antarctic Expeditions (Question No. 442)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Are women able to join Australian expeditions to the Antarctic; if not why not.
  2. Does he intend to revise the expedition program so that women may be included in it.
Mr Morrison:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) In principle it is possible for women to join Australian expeditions to the Antarctic Continent. However, this is not the present practice. Firstly, conditions and facilities at our stations are not suitable at the present time for women to spend the winter in the Antarctic. Secondly, for summer visits, whilst it would be possible for women to sleep on board and make brief visits in the vicinity of the stations during the annual relief voyages, the obstacle to this course is the shortage of ship berths and their arrangement in 4-berth cabins.

Similar difficulties as at stations on the Antarctic continent confront women who wish to winter at Macquarie Island. Berths, however, are sometimes more readily available on the Macquarie Island voyages and women have visited the island for a few days in summer to undertake short-term projects. Priorities for such visits are usually determined by the Tasmanian Government Advisory Committee on Macquarie Island.

  1. It is unlikely that the situation regarding wintering with Australian expeditions can be altered in the next few years but this will not preclude consideration being given to women making brief visits during the annual summer relief operations if their proposals have sufficient merit on the basis of scientific or other considerations.

Consumer Advice Booklets (Question No. 589)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice:

  1. Does the Government plan to prepare consumer advice booklets which detail purchasing features of various items of equipment.
  2. If so, what booklets will be produced.
  3. How will they be distributed and to whom.
  4. What will be the total cost of the project on an annual basis.
Mr Morrison:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The advice of consumer groups will be sought on those items for which they consider booklets should be prepared.
  3. The method of distribution shall be appropriate to the subject matter e.g. the flammability brochure was distributed through the Royal Melbourne Childrens Hospital and the then Department of Immigration: the buyers guide for colour television will be distributed through the Australian Government Bookshops.
  4. No estimate of cost can be given until details of the range, quantity and timing of future booklets have been determined.

Western Australia: Quarantine (Question No. 1026)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did the departmental committee which investigated quarantine in Western Australia in March 1974 report any deficiencies in the

    1. training,
    2. experience,
    3. administration of quarantine staff in Western Australia, or
    4. in the safety procedures applied in the quarantine section in Western Australia.

  2. If so, what were the deficiencies, and what subsequent corrective action has been taken.

Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. (a) Yes.

    1. No.
    2. Yes.
    3. Yes.

  2. (a) Training.

The Departmental Committee concluded that better training would lead to improved confidence, motivation and performance among quarantine staff. Hitherto quarantine staff had received only on-the-job training. A formal training program on a national basis was subsequently instituted for all levels of quarantine personnel. Consideration is also being given to a further recommendation of the Committee that an in-service qualification- as distinct from the present Health Surveyor qualification- should be developed.

  1. Administration.

The Committee was satisfied that the quarantine service for the Port of Fremantle and for Penh Airport is adequately staffed, and that most, if not all, of the matters that come to attention could be overcome by improved communication to and from the Penh office, by a speedier attention to matters of personnel concern, and by the introduction of a more positive training program. The recommended improvements have been initiated. An earlier instruction of the Director-General of Health that the responsibility for technical matters concerning quarantine should be transferred from the Assistant Director (Executive Services) to the Assistant Director ( Medical) is now fully effective.

  1. Safety Procedures.

The Committee found that there was a failure for some years to have gas masks on issue to quarantine staff periodically checked by Defence Standards Laboratories as required in departmental instructions. These masks are used by personnel supervising fumigations. The Committee was informed that staff had, within the previous twelve months, been issued with new gas masks and that these masks will be tested regularly in the required manner.

Chinese Shaving Brushes (Question No. 1029)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Have there been instances of shaving brushes imported from China, which have not fully met quarantine requirements, being released for sale.
  2. If so, how many were involved, where were they released, and what action has been taken.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. 315 dozen brushes were released in Sydney in 1972 and 1973 and 3,600 dozen brushes were released in Adelaide in the same years.

The attention of all quarantine staff has been drawn to the improper entry of these brushes and to the need for strict conformity with import prohibitions prescribed in quarantine legislation.

However, anthrax is the main disease entering into quarantine concern with shaving brushes and it is considered that the risk of human infection by this means is almost negligible. Anthrax already occurs in livestock in Australia.

The quarantine legislation which prohibits imports of shaving brushes from many countries including China, is at present under review to take into account modern manufacturing technology methods which may have diminished the risk of anthrax transmission.

One Arm Point: Smallpox Vaccinations (Question No. 1031)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

Has any action been taken by his Department to vaccinate Aboriginals at One Arm Point against smallpox following visits by Indonesian fishermen.

Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

No. My Department has not initiated any action as the Western Australian State Health Authority has vaccinated Aboriginals at One Arm Point and Aboriginals on the central west coast who are employed as waterside workers.

I would also mention that the World Health Organization has reported that Indonesia is free of smallpox.

Fire Fighting Procedures (Question No. 1155)

Mr Snedden:

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

  1. With reference to the answer to question No. 548 (Hansard, 19 September 1974, page 1621) in which the Prime Minister indicated that the form and frequency of exercises in Government Departments in civil defence preparedness are as determined by individual Departments, on what dates in the last 1 8 months have exercises of this nature been conducted in his Department
  2. Which officers and employees took part.
  3. How many officers and employees took pan.
  4. 4) What was the purpose of each of the exercises.
  5. Does he accept that this is an area where the Australian Government can give a lead to other employers.
Dr Cass:
ALP

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

  1. Nil.
  2. to (4) See answer to 1.
  3. Yes in the case of appropriate departments and authorities.

Department of Housing and Construction: Inter-departmental Committees (Question No. 301)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Housing and Construction:

  1. 1 ) Did the Department of Housing maintain a record of inter-departmental committees in which it participated.
  2. If not, then how was he aware of all the interdepartmental consultations in which that Department was involved through inter-departmental committees.
  3. Will he ensure that such a list is in future available to him.
Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · 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 Prime Minister’s answer to Question No. 964 on the 1973 notice paper (Hansard, 27 September 1973, page 1719) in which he drew attention to the impracticalities of attempting to list all the consultations in which Departments are engaged with other Departments. My Department keeps me properly informed of all important developments- this is a satisfactory procedure for the purposes of my Ministry.

Department of Works: Inter-departmental Committees (Question No. 302)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did the Department of Works maintain a record of inter-departmental committees in which it participated.
  2. If not, then how was the Minister for Works aware of all the inter-departmental consultations in which that Department was involved through inter-departmental committees.
Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) I refer the right honourable member to the Prime Minister’s answer to Question No. 964 on the 1973 notice paper (Hansard, 27 September 1973, page 1719) in which he drew attention to the impracticalities of attempting to list all the consultations in which Departments are engaged with other Departments. My Department keeps me properly informed of all important developments- this is a satisfactory procedure for the purposes of my Ministry.

Department of Manufacturing Industry: Training in Financial and Auditing Procedures (Question No. 425)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, 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.
  2. What is the division and classification of these officers.
  3. How many of these officers were in operational as distinct from financial or accounting, positions in the Service.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: (1)I refer the right honourable member to my reply to question No. 426 relating to the former Department of Supply. In regard to the former Department of Secondary Industry, no officers received such training during 1973-74.

  1. Not applicable.
  2. Not applicable.

Department of Supply: Training in Financial and Auditing Procedures (Question No. 426)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, upon notice:

  1. How many officers in the Department of Supply had been given some form of formal training in financial or auditing procedures used in Commonwealth departments in the last 12 months.
  2. What was the division and classification of these officers.
  3. How many of these officers were in operational, as distinct from financial or accounting positions in the Service.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. During the 12 months ended 30 June 1974, 127 officers of the Department of Supply received such training.
  2. All of the officers were in the third division, and the majority were in the middle management ranges of the clerical/administrative and professional structures.
  3. 124 were in operational position, 3 were in financial/ accounting positions.

I also refer the right honourable member’s attention to the answer provided by the Prime Minister to Parliamentary Question No. 329 (Hansard, pages 626 and 627).

Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Legislation (Question No. 529)

Mr Bonnett:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. Did he state when introducing the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits legislation that the scheme was bound to have some defects and that he would be willing to look at any anomalies.
  2. If so, will the Government appoint a joint committee of members of Parliament to inquire into the anomalies and inequities that have resulted from the legislation and which affect some thousands of ex-servicemen.
Mr Barnard:
Minister for Defence · BASS, TASMANIA · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2)I explained at the time that as any anomalies arose I would be only too pleased to have them reviewed.

There are a number of matters raised by and on behalf of serving and retired members of the Forces thai are already under examination by the Defence Department in consultation with the Services and the DFR & DB Authority. Details of certain proposed changes designed to improve the scheme and its administration are expected to be presented to the Government for consideration in the near future.

Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund (Question No. 530)

Mr Bonnett:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the surplus amount of moneys obtained from the previous Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund.
  2. ) Will this amount be transferred to the present Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Fund.
  3. 3 ) If not, is it his intention to distribute the surplus among those service members who contributed to the DFRB Fund.
  4. If not. what does he intend to do with the surplus.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Until the Australian Government Actuary has completed his investigation it will not be known whether the assets of the DFRB Fund as at 30 September 1972 will be more or less than is fair and reasonable for meeting the future liabilities being assumed at that date by the Australian Government for existing pensioners and contributors.
  2. There is no DFRB Fund for the new scheme: all contributions are paid into Consolidated Revenue and benefits are payable from the same source.
  3. ) and (4) A report of the examination by the Australian Government Actuary will be made to the DFRB Board which, in turn, will submit a report to me for tabling in the Parliament. If surplus assets are disclosed the action taken will be a matter for a decision by the Government and appropriate legislation. ‘Defence Hardware’: Expenditure (Question No. 674)
Mr Garland:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What has been the percentage cost of Defence hardware to the total Defence expenditure during each of the last 10 years.
  2. Have there been any changes in categories or definitions used, or has there been any inclusions or exclusions of items during any of those years; if so, what were they, and how much in each case.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. I ) The term ‘Defence hardware’ has been taken to mean capital equipment items, excluding buildings, works and acquisitions. Total defence expenditure, expenditure on Defence hardware and expenditure on hardware as a proportion of total defence expenditure during each of the last ten years is then as follows:

The level of expenditure on items other than hardware has increased greatly during the period. In particular, the rise in manpower costs has been most marked. Expenditure on service and civilian pay and allowances and DFRDB has increased from $200m in 1963-64 to $854m in 1973-74. This expenditure now represents 60 per cent of total Defence expenditure. In the same period the per capita costs of service manpower have risen 255 per cent from $2582 to $9176; and total permanent force strengths have increased from 52,626 to 67,495.

Since December 1972, the Labor Government has approved plans to proceed with the construction and development of capital equiment with an estimated total cost of $800m. In addition, we have recently announced our firm commitment to purchase the following additional items of major equipment, at a total cost of approximately $330m:

Two Patrol Frigates

Eight Long-Range Maritime Patrol Aircraft 53 Medium Tanks 45 Fire Support Vehicles

  1. ) The following variations have occurred in category definitions during the past ten years:

    1. Before 1970 the former Department of Air included the value of spares for the first five years of an aircraft’s service life in capital equipment costs. Since that time only the first year’s spares have been included with the initial equipment purchase: the balance being regarded as maintenance costs.
    2. b ) During the years 1 968-69 to 1 970-7 1 . expenditure on the Antarctic Division of the then Department of Supply was included in total defence expenditure This variation has not caused r.ny significant changes in total amounts or r ventages.

Quarantine: Defence Personnel and Equipment (Question No. 685)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

What procedures are followed to prevent entry into Australia of plant and animal diseases by returning Defence personnel, vehicles, aeroplanes, vessels and equipment.

Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

Service personnel returning from abroad are subject to normal Customs and quarantine control. Strict measures are enforced, in association with civil officials and in accordance with civil procedures, to prevent the entry to Australia of plant and animal diseases when Service aircraft, ships, vehicles and associated equipments arrive from an overseas source. These include steam cleaning of vehicles and equipment and decontamination of aircraft.

Department of Northern Development: Research Grants (Question No. 80)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Northern Development, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Will he provide a list of all grants, to any organisation or individual, that are provided from moneys appropriated to his Department, or authorities under his control, to undertake research.
  2. To what bodies have such moneys been advanced, and what was or is the nature of the research being undertaken as a result of the grants in each of the last 3 years.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) No grants have been provided from moneys appropriated to the Department of Northern Development to organisations or individuals to undertake research. There are no authorities coming under my control as Minister for Northern Development.

Phosphate Fertilizers Bounty (Question No. 174)

Mr Lloyd:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) In view of the repeated statements that the Phosphate Fertilizers Bounty is to end because of the improvement in farmer prosperity, is it intended that the subsidy will be reintroduced upon any future fall in prices for farm products.
  2. If so, what criteria will be used to ascertain when it should be re-introduced.
  3. If not, will this be a breach of an implied promise in the announcement of the reason why the bounty is ending.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) At the time when the expiry of the Phosphate Fertilizers Bounty Act was announced the Australian Government indicated that it considered that the original aim of this subsidy had been met and it was no longer an appropriate charge to be carried by the taxpayer. The benefits of the phosphate bounty were found to accrue disproportionately with most benefit going to larger users in the more prosperous rural industries.

Any possible re-introduction of the bounty would be decided having regard to all the circumstances at the time.

  1. 2 ) and ( 3 ) See answer to ( 1 ) above.

Rural Reconstruction Scheme (Question No. 176)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What are the figures for the various categories of farm build-up and debt adjustment under the Rural Reconstruction Scheme, up to 1 July 1974, in respect of (a) the number of successful and unsuccessful applicants for these categories and (b) the average amount paid or loaned to the successful applicants in each State and for each sector of primary industry.
  2. What sum has been advanced to the States in each of the 6 month periods since the inception of the Scheme.
  3. What rates of interest are currently being charged for loans provided under the Scheme.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) (a) Applications approved to 1 July 1 974:

Farm build-up 2,008;

Debt reconstruction 3,8 1 7.

Applications rejected to 1 July 1974:

Farm build-up 1,603;

Debt reconstruction 3,560.

  1. Average assistance paid per approved case to 1 July 1974:

Statistics of average approvals for separate industry groupings are not available.

  1. The sums advanced to the States during each six month period are available only from 1 July 1972. Prior to this date, figures are available on an annual basis:
  1. 3 ) The interest rate charged on loans is a matter for determination by each State Authority. The Rural Reconstruction agreement provides, however, that loans for debt reconstruction shall be at such rates as will average not less than four per centum per annum over all loans made, and loans for farm build-up shall be made at not less than six and onequarter per centum per annum.

Marginal Dairy Farms Reconstruction Scheme (Question No. 179)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, upon notice:

  1. Will the Minister provide up to date details on the Marginal Dairy Farms Reconstruction Scheme.
  2. How many (a) successful and (b) unsuccessful applicants were there in each State in each year since the Scheme commenced.
  3. What was the average amount paid to successful applicants in each State in each year.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

– The Minister for Agriculture has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question.

The information sought is as follows:

  1. Over the Tour years of its existence (to 26 July 1974) the Marginal Dairy Farms Reconstruction Scheme committed $ 14.9m, predominantly for dairy farm amalgamation. There were 1 136 applications received under this voluntary scheme. Of these, 205 withdrew prior to consideration. Out of the remaining 93 1 a total of 576 proposals were approved.

The Government has now replaced this Scheme with the considerably broader and still voluntary Australian Dairy Adjustment Program, which will run to 30 June 1976. Assistance to the dairy industry beyond that date will be determined in the light of advice from the Industries Assistance Commission.

(2)

  1. On information supplied by States, the average amount paid to vendor marginal dairy farmers in each State each year- i.e. average approved purchase price ($)- was as follows:

When the land so made available is sold by State Authorities, the prices charged to the farmers who are being built-up will on average be less than the above amounts, due to allowable write-off of redundant assets.

Overseas Trade (Question No. 237)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Have instructions been given on behalf of the Government to any marketing authority or authorities that special grants, concessions or terms of sale or trade should be granted to some countries.
  2. If so, to what marketing authority or authorites have such instructions been given and in what terms.
  3. To what countries are the special grants, concessions or terms of trade to apply.
  4. Have any such special grants, concessions and terms been granted; if so, to whom.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

  1. I ) to (4) As announced by the Prime Minister on 1 1 September 1973 the Government decided to make special arrangements with the Australiam Wheat Board in relation to sales of wheat to developing countries in 1 973-74. The Prime Minister stated in this release that: ‘We agreed in principle to credit terms up to 12 months for developing countries. The difficulty in this year is, as you know, that we could sell all our wheat for cash. This, however, would disappoint, in fact it would break faith with a great number of developing countries which have been accustomed to receiving wheat on credit and some of them need wheat very badly this year because of local conditions, and we didn’t want to leave them in the lurch just because they had to get credit, as they always have, whereas other countries, this year were prepared to buy for cash. It was agreed that credit may be extended for periods in excess of 1 2 months in exceptional cases and the Government would, in such cases, bear the additional cost to the wheat industry’.

The Wheat Board was advised of the Government’s decisions and its co-operation was sought. Subsequently the Board concluded sales on credit terms to a number of developing countries.

With respect to the sale to the Arab Republic of Egypt, I should add that on 22 October 1973 the Wheat Board was instructed in writing to adhere to a negotiating position previously agreed to under which the Board had offered 1 million tonnes of wheat to Egypt on credit terms. This instruction was in response to a decision by the Board, taken after an offer of wheat on credit terms had been conveyed to Egypt, to seek to conclude the sale on a cash basis.

Department of Overseas Trade: Interdepartmental Committees (Question No. 271)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice:

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

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

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

No. All interdepartmental committees are made up of several Departments and those of which the Department of Overseas Trade is a member contain also other Departments.

If the right honourable gentleman wishes to have information about a particular committee on which my Department is represented, I will assist him as far as possible having regard to the Prime Minister’s answers to Question Nos 964 and 1057 (Hansard 27 September 1973, page 1714 and 24 October 1973, page 2665).

Department of Agriculture: Interdepartmental Committees (Question No. 290)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Does the Department of Agriculture maintain a record of interdepartmental committees in which it participates.
  2. If not, then how is the Minister aware of all the interdepartmental consultations in which his Department is involved through interdepartmental committees.
  3. Will the Minister ensure that such a list is in future available to him.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. and (3) See (1) above

Fishing: Resource Surveys (Question No. 352)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, upon notice:

What resource surveys of the fishing potential in Australia are to commence in 1 974.

Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

This year, the Australian Department of Agriculture has been or will be involved in the following projects which include a fisheries resource survey component:

1 ) An investigation into the feasibility of establishing a gill net fishery for tuna and other species off the east coast of Tasmania.

An assessment of the extent of the squid resources off the South Australian coast with the view to establishing a commercial fishery.

An investigation into the possibility of establishing a fishery for squid off the Tasmanian coast.

4 ) An investigation into the feasibility of catching snoek in Bass Strait at times when these fish cannot be caught by the existing fishing methods.

5 ) An assessment of the pelagic fish stocks off the south eastern coast of Australia using the aerial spotting technique.

An investigation into the feasibility of establishing an otter trawl fishery off the coasts of South Australia and Tasmania.

An investigation into the feasibility of developing two boat mid-water and bottom trawling technique for fish in Bass Strait.

Fishing: Resource Surveys (Question No. 353)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, upon notice:

What resource surveys of the fishing potential in Australia have been commenced since 2 December, 1 972.

Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

Since 2 December 1972 the Australian Department of Agriculture has been involved in the following projects which include a fisheries resource survey component:

1 ) An assessment of the pelagic fisheries resources off the South-east Coast of Australia using the purse seine method.

An investigation into the feasibility of establishing a purse seine fishery for tuna off the coast of Western Australia.

) An assessment of single boat mid-water trawling and its potential for catching unexploited pelagic and semi-pelagic fish off the New South Wales coast.

An investigation into the feasibility of establishing a drop line fishery for deep sea trevalla in the Bass Strait area.

5 ) An investigation into the possibility of establishing a deepwater crab fishery along the edge of the continental shelf off the Victorian coast

An assessment of the squid resource off the Victorian coast with a view to establishing a commercial fishery.

An assessment of the prawn resources in the eastern area of the Great Australian Bight.

An investigation into the feasibility of establishing an otter trawl fishery off the Victorian coast.

An assessment of the potential for fish trapping off the coast of Victoria.

Dairy Industry: Progeny Testing Scheme (Question No. 461)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has the Government considered providing financial assistance to the nationally important progeny testing scheme to produce superior sires for the dairy industry.
  2. Does the Government agree that this would be a most efficient and equitable way of assisting the industry and increasing productivity.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

  1. The importance and interdependence of services towards overall herd improvement such as progeny testing, sire survey, herd recording, and artificial insemination have been and continue to be recognised by the Government.

These services are provided by State organisations with financial support from the Australian and State Governments in addition to fees paid by producers using such services.

  1. For 1974-73, the Australian Government is providing $279,544 for sire surveys and herd recording, as part of the assistance to States under the Australian Extension Services Grant.

Proposals have been made seeking funds for progeny testing and herd improvement activities, from the monies authorised for the Australian Dairy Adjustment Program. Within the $28m made available for 1974-1976 under that Program, the Government saw an essential need to give first priority to direct assistance to farmers.

The question of what forms of assistance might be accorded to the dairy industry beyond 30 June 1976 is currently the subject of a reference to the Industries Assistance Commission. Organisations interested in progeny testing and like activities for the improvement of dairy herds could if they wish put their views to the Commission.

Brucellosis Eradication (Question No. 503)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, upon notice:

  1. In what States or sections of States is a test and slaughter program at present being conducted for the eradication of bovine brucellosis.
  2. 2 ) When is it anticipated that the remaining States or sections of States will begin a test and slaughter program for this disease.
  3. Is compensation paid in any State upon the notification of this disease.
  4. When will compensation be paid in all States to encourage eradication.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Test and compulsory slaughter is being carried out in Western Australia and Tasmania only.
  2. ) This is a matter for the States.
  3. No compensation is paid except in Western Australia and Tasmania.
  4. The question of payment of compensation for eradication of brucellosis is a matter for the States but the honourable member will be aware the subject of compensation is currently being examined by the Industries Assistance Commission which has been requested to report by 31 March 1975.

Grain Infestation (Question No. 686)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Are vessels loading grain inspected by Department of Agriculture inspectors for insect and rodent infestation.
  2. What liaison exists between Department of Agriculture inspectors and Department of Health quarantine inspectors on (a) inspection and (b) vermin eradication methods.
  3. Is baiting with sodium fluoracetate (1080) of grain ships acceptable to the Department of Agriculture and the Australian Wheat Board.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Vessels are not permitted to load wheat, oats, barley and grain sorghum for export until the cargo spaces and designated ships stores and galley areas have been inspected and found free of insects and sources of contamination.

Inspections of grain loading vessels are carried out on behalf of my Department under the authority of the Exports (Grain) Regulations. At most ports the inspectors are State Departmental officers. At Melbourne, Geelong, Portland, Darwin and Fremantle the inspectors are Australian Department of Health quarantine inspectors.

Quarantine inspection of vessels as to rodent infestation and other matters extends to other vessels as well as those loading grain.

  1. ) See (1 ) as to the ports designated therein. At ports where officers of State Departments carry out ship inspections under the Exports (Grain) Regulations there is continuing liaison with Department of Health quarantine inspectors on matters of mutual concern. Decisions on methods of vermin eradication, however, are a responsibility of the Department of Health.
  2. I am advised by my colleague, the Minister for Health, that his Department recognises alternative methods of rodent control in different situations and degrees of infestation; and that in doing so it is in accord with World Health Organisation guidelines. Baiting and trapping are among the recognised methods. Sodium fluoracetate ( 1080) is accepted as an effective poison.

The Marketing of Australian Wool: Report (Question No. 726)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) When will the appendices to the Report ‘The Marketing of Australian Wool’, issued by the Australian Wool Corporation, be available.
  2. Will financial projections of the recommended marketing scheme contained in that Report be included in the appendices.
  3. If not, when will financial projections be available.
  4. Why has there been delay in releasing the appendices and financial projections.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The Australian Wool Corporation has advised that the appendices to the Corporation’s Report on Australian wool marketing will be available in the week commencing 12 August 1974.
  2. Yes.
  3. Not applicable.
  4. The appendices comprising some 130 printed pages cover five topics central to the movement of the Australian wool clip from sheep’s back to consumer. They include a substantial amount of technical and mathematical data, some of which required extensive further analysis and review. This, together with subsequent editorial requirements, has taken several months to complete.

Department of Agriculture: Management Consultant Firms (Question No. 799)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) For what purpose has the Department of Agriculture used management consultant firms in the last 1 2 months.
  2. ) Which firms have been used.
  3. What was the total cost.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) To carry out a review of the management, structure and organisation of the International Wool Secretariat on behalf of the Governments of Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.
  2. McKinsey and Company Inc., London.
  3. Cost to Australia $56,769.

Department of Overseas Trade: Research Staff (Question No. 861)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many officers or employees of his Department or of authorities under his control are employed on research and development work.
  2. Where are they employed.
  3. What is the nature of the work being undertaken.
  4. What is the total expenditure per annum in maintaining this research and development program.
  5. Who decides the nature of the programs or projects included in this research and development work.
Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. ) to ( 5 ) No officer of the Department of Overseas Trade or the authorities under my control is engaged on work which would be described normally as ‘research and development’. However a number of officers of the Department and the authorities, of various classification levels, engage regularly in research, in analysing developments in world trade and developing new or revised policy proposals or procedures.

Wheat Storage: Commonwealth Funds (Question No. 970)

Mr Hyde:
MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, upon notice:

What Commonwealth moneys have been spent on wheat storage in each State, and in which years were the funds committed.

Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

There has been no allocation from consolidated revenue funds for wheat storage on a non-recoupable basis. The provision and management of wheat storage facilities have always been recognised as the responsibility and prerogative of the State in which the wheat is grown.

However, in 1955 a special loan to the Australian Wheat Board of up to $7m, repayable over 20 years, was authorised under the provisions of the Loan (Emergency Wheat Storage) Act, to enable the Board to erect emergency storages. Borrowings against this loan, of $6.4m, have now been repaid.

In 1969-70 the previous Government approved borrowings by the Australian Wheat Board from the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank to erect emergency storages to accommodate the greatly expanded supplies held by the Board as a result of the 1968-69 record crop. These borrowings, amounting to $23.6m, have since been repaid to the Bank.

Dr Le Vinson: Australian Visit (Question No. 971)

Mr McLeay:

asked the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Can he say what are the academic qualifications of Dr Levinson who recently visited Australia.
  2. What is his present occupation, and where is he employed.
  3. Did the Australian Government make any financial contribution to the cost of his visit; if so, what are the details.
Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. Dr Levinson has higher degrees in economics and industrial sociology from the Universities of Toronto and Paris. He has also lectured in economics and labour studies at Toronto University.
  2. Dr Levinsion is currently Secretary-General of the International Federation of Chemical and General Workers’ Unions in Geneva.
  3. Yes. His return air fares and hotel expenses in Australia were met by the Australian Government, at an approximate cost of $2,900.

International Federation of Primary Producers (Question No. 1014)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, upon notice:

  1. ) Has the Minister received any requests from primary producer organisations for assistance to attend meetings of the International Federation of Agricultural Producers in Jamaica in October 1975.
  2. If so, what has been decided.
  3. 3 ) If not, will the Minister indicate whether he would give favourable consideration to such requests.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

– The Minister for Agriculture has provided the following answer to the question asked by the honourable member

  1. Yes.
  2. and (3) It has been decided that no assistance will be given. The governments of developed countries do not, as a general rule, contribute to the cost of participation by primary producer organisations in the activities of nongovernmental bodies. Such assistance is usually eschewed by farmer organisations so as to preserve their independence and avoid any suggestion of governmental influence on their attitudes. In addition, Australia already contributes to the finances of international agencies such as FAO and ILO, whose participation in the meetings of IFAP is of very material assistance to the effectiveness and success of the meetings. The Australian Government thus already assists the IFAP in an indirect way.

Commonwealth Meat Inspectors: Salaries (Question No. 1090)

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that Commonwealth meat inspectors, grade 1, receive a salary of $7,804 per annum and that grade 1 meat inspectors employed by the Governments of Queensland and New South Wales receive $9,377 and $8,346 per annum respectively.
  2. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the dissatisfaction that exists within the ranks of Commonwealth meat inspectors because of the existent differences.
  3. If the position is as stated, what action is being taken to bridge the gap.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The present salary range for a meat inspector, grade 1 , employed in the Australian Public Service is-

Minimum $6,429.

Maximum $7,804.

The salary range for the equivalent of a meat inspector, grade 1 , employed by the Government of Queensland isMinimum $7,346.

Maximum $8,383. and by the Government of New South Wales is-

Minimum $6,632.

Maximum $8,346.

  1. Yes.
  2. The Public Service Board has offered salary increases to meat inspectors employed in the Australian Public Service which, if accepted will bring the salary range of a meat inspector, grade 1, to-

Minimum $7,300.

Maximum $8,630.

Cattle: Exports (Question No. 172)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many cattle were exported in each of the years 1972 and 1973 and during 1974 to date.
  2. What breed and sex were they.
  3. To what countries were they exported.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 3 October 1974, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1974/19741003_reps_29_hor90/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant