House of Representatives
22 October 1974

29th Parliament · 1st Session



Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. F. Cope) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2613

QUESTION

SECOND AUSTRALASIAN PARLIAMENTARY SEMINAR

Mr SPEAKER:

– I desire to inform honourable members that we have present in the Gallery this morning delegates attending the Second Australasian Parliamentary Seminar arranged by the Australian and New Zealand branches of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. The delegates come from branches of the Association in the Pacific and South East Asian areas and in the Australian States and Territories. Seminar sessions were last week held in Perth and Adelaide. I am sure the House would wish me to extend to the delegates a very warm welcome to Canberra and to express the hope that the concluding stages of the seminar being held this week in Parliament House will be most successful.

Honourable members- Hear, hear!

page 2613

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Uranium

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That whereas uranium found in vast quantities in Australia is the raw material for the nuclear fission reaction.

And whereas presently assured reserves of uranium in Australia represent a potential production of over 540,000 kilograms of Plutonium 239 if utilised in Light Water Reactors overseas.

And whereas the Maximum Permissable Inhalation of Plutonium 239 is O.OOO00025 gram.

And whereas Plutonium 239 is one of the most dangerous substances human society has ever created, causing mutations an cancers.

And whereas there are no methods of safely and absolutely confining Plutonium from the biosphere for the requisite quarter of a million years.

And whereas Plutonium coming in contact with the air forms an aerosol cloud of micron-sized particles, its most dangerous form.

And whereas the export of uranium may return to us an import of Plutonium particles dispersed in the global environment via the circulation of the atmosophere

Ami whereas there are no sure safeguards against the military use of nuclear fission, and the nuclear proliferation represents a prime environmental threat to all forms of life on the only earth available to us.

And that it is therefore an act of self-preservation to demand a halt to all exports of uranium except for bio-medical uses.

Your petitioners humbly pray that the members, in the House assembled, will take the most urgent steps to ensure:

  1. That further mining and export of uranium from Australia except for bio-medical purposes be banned.
  2. That the Australian Atomic Energy Commission be transformed by the rewriting of its charter into an Australian Energy Commission to further the understanding of energy flows through our society and to promote national econmomic independence and self-sufficiency.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Hunt and Mr Kerin. Petitions received.

Marriage

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

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. That the whole principle of the Family Law Bill 1974 is aimed at destroying the entire concept of marriage as traditionally recognised in Australia, with its special obligations between husband and wife and between parents and children.
  2. That the bill fails to recognise or provide for the equal rights and responsibilities of both parties to a marriage, such as are provided for in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including the rights of parents to choose the type of education they desire for their children.
  3. That this bill appears to express the desires of only a minority of Australians.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should not admit into the law of this land the principle that marriage is only temporary and the family no longer the fundmental unit of society.

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

Taxation: Education Expenses

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 reduction of the allowable deduction of education expenses under Section 82J of the Income Tax Assessment Act from $400 to $150 is $50.00 below the 1956-57 figure.

That this reduction will impose hardships on many parents who have children attending school, whether non government or government; and particularly on parents with more than one child at school.

That this reduction will further restrict the freedom available to parents to make a choice of school for their children.

That some parents who have chosen to send their children to a non government school will have to withdraw their children and send them to government schools already overcrowded and under-staffed.

That the parents to benefit most relatively from educational income tax deductions, in the past and even more in the future, are the parents of children in government schools and this has a divisive effect in the Australian community.

That parents should be encouraged by the Australian government to exercise freedom of choice of the type of school they wish for their children. The proposed reduction means an additional financial penalty is imposed on parents who try to exercise this choice and discourages them from making an important financial contribution to Australian education over and above what they contribute through taxation.

That an alternative system, a tax rebate system, could be adopted as being more equitable for all parents with children at school.

To compensate for the losses that will follow from the proposed reduction and to help meet escalating educational costs faced by all families your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should take immediate steps to restore educational benefits to parents, at least at the 1973-74 level either by increasing taxation deductions or through taxation rebates.

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

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

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

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that:

  1. We are strongly opposed to any reduction in the present 24 month separation period requirement now to be fulfilled prior to the date of commencement of the hearing of an application for the dissolution of a marriage.
  2. We believe that evidence should be produced that genuine attempts have been made at reconciliation.
  3. We believe both parties are entitled to equitable distribution of family property and assets.
  4. We urge the inclusion, in this Bill or in other legislation, of positive steps to provide funds for Family Life Education in Schools, and in post school years, for Prep-‘ aration for Marriage programmes and for the decentralising of approved guidance facilities and for education in Marriage Courses for young marrieds.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will amend the proposed Family Law Bill in accordance with the point contained herein.

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

Petition received.

Human Rights Bill

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

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the Human Rights Bill

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

    1. 1 ) The Government could introduce regulations as to the time, place and manner in which people may manifest their religion and beliefs.
    2. The Bill excludes the recognition of the family as the natural and fundamental group unit of society, and its right to protection by society and the State,
    3. The Bill does not explicitly recognise the liberty of parents, and when applicable, legal guardians, to ensure the religious and moral education of their children.

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

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

Petition received.

Social Security

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.

The humble petition of certain citizens (electors of the Division of Hume), hereby respectfully showeth:

That citizens of this Division place great value on the sanctity of marriage, and are greatly concerned that under the proposed provisions of the Family Law Bill 1974, a woman who has performed her duties of wife, mother and homemaker in a praiseworthy manner, can nevertheless find herself placed in a most unjust and unfair position, even if an innocent party.

Your petitioners therefore humbly request that greater consideration by given to preventing such positions of injustice from occurring. by Mr Lusher.

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 five Australians more than the present scheme.

That the proposed scheme is discriminatory and a further erosion of the civil liberties of Australian citizens, particularly working wives and single persons.

That the proposed scheme is in fact a plan for nationalised medicine which will lead to gross waste and inefficiencies in medical services and will ultimately remove an individual’s right to choose his/her own doctor.

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

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

Petition received.

Southern Africa: Alleged Acts of Terrorism

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 whereas it was reported in ‘Newsweek’, August 26th, page 12, 1974, that the Australian Government agreed to send $223,000 for ‘humanitarian purposes’ to black guerrilla movements fighting Rhodesians, South Africans and Portuguese in southern Africa;

And whereas these guerrilla movements being members of ZAPU, ZANU, FRELIMO and FROLIZI and other kindred organisations have been guilty of ninety six documented acts of murder, abduction, mutilation, arson, cattle maiming and rape chiefly against other peaceful Africans between 22nd December, 1972 and 10th May, 1 974, in Rhodesia alone;

And abducted 295 people, chiefly school children, from the St Alberts Mission in Rhodesia as reported in the newsmedia;

And whereas these above mentioned and kindred organisations have been guilty of many other barbarous acts of brutality as reported in ‘The Silent War’ by Chris Vermaak and Reg Shaay, and the ‘Real Case for Rhodesia’ by Charlton Chesterton, both books widely read in Australia.

So therefore your petitioners most humbly pray that the Australian Government will cease to support by material and other means those organisations in southern Africa which are guilty of their various acts of terrorism, because such material and other assistance would give the impression of agreement of the Australian people and the Australian Government to the various acts of brutality which have been perpetuated by the organisations concerned.

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

Petition received.

Child Endowment

To the Honourable the Speaker and Member of the House of Representatives assembled

The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that:

Child Endowment received by families has declined relative to average earnings so that today it is about 20 per cent of its value in 1949.

The Interim Report of the Australian Government ‘s Commission Into Poverty recommended a substantial increase in Child Endowment as a way of alleviating poverty.

This report pointed out that increased Child Endowment deserved priority and would be advantageous to the community in the long run.

It specifically recommended increasing child endowment from 50 cents to $ 1 .50 for the first child; from $ 1 .00 to $2.00 for the second child; from $2.00 to $4.00 for the third child; from $2.25 to $7.00 for the fourth child; and to $8.00 for subsequent children.

Your petitioners humbly request that the Government increase Child Endowment in the September Budget.

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

Petition received.

page 2615

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

Mr Speaker, I inform the House that in the absence of the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, (Mr Frank Stewart), who is chairing the meeting of the Board of Directors of the Pacific Area Travel Association in Western Samoa and who will return on 25 October, and of the Minister for Services and Property, (Mr Fred Daly), who has broken an arm, the Special Minister of State, (Mr Lionel Bowen), will act as Minister for Services and Property, Leader of the House, and Minister for Tourism and Recreation.

page 2615

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2615

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr SNEDDEN:
BRUCE, VICTORIA

– I ask the Prime Minister whether he made these public statements yesterday:

We will never resort to the deliberate creation of mass unemployment as a means of checking inflation. One man needlessly unemployed is one man too many. Whenever action is needed you will get prompt, positive action.

Is the Prime Minister the only person left in Australia who does not know that the unemployment figure is now 159,000 on a seasonally adjusted basis and including school leavers? Is he aware that there are 40,000 more unemployed now than ever occurred under LiberalCountry Party governments? Does he agree with the statements by Mr Egerton that the true unemployed figure is 200,000? Mr Egerton is, after all, a significant trade union leader. Has the Minister for Labor and Immigration informed the Prime Minister that the Department of Labor and Immigration forecasts that there will be 280,000 unemployed? Did the Prime Minister say on 2 July that unemployment would not rise? In view of all these things, when will the Prime Minister institute action rather than using words which do not reflect the facts?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has taken steps to initiate a debate on the economy immediately after question time. The Leader of the Opposition himself can participate in that debate if he wishes. (Honourable members interjecting)-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I will take up some of honourable members’ question time. The House will come to order. There will be no further business until such time as it does.

page 2616

QUESTION

PSYCHIATRIC HOSTELS

Mr BERINSON:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the attention of the Minister for Health been drawn to a dispute between various psychiatric hostels and the Western Australian Minister for Health on an application for increase in the present State subsidy for such hostels of $ 1 per day per patient? As the possibility has been raised that as many as 700 or 800 residents of these hostels might be displaced, and as questions have also arisen as to the standards of the hostel system, particularly those sections of it which appear able to continue on the basis of the present subsidy, can the Minister say whether any inquiry into these hostels has been conducted by his Department in the context of its concern with mental health? Has consideration been given to the possibility of Commonwealth assistance to existing hostels or to the provision of alternative types of accommodation for the residents concerned? If such an inquiry has been made, can the Minister indicate its conclusions? If no such inquiry has been made, will be Minister consider instituting one as a matter of urgency?

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

– There are psychiatric hostels in trouble all round Australia. They have been for many years. The system of subsidies adopted by different States varies. Sometimes different kinds of subsidies are paid to the one organisation from different departments of State. I am not familiar with the case which the honourable member has cited. If the States are in trouble they know that we are interested in solving these problems for them. Considerable amounts of money have been made available to States, under the community health program, largely- in fact almost entirely- in accordance with the States’ own priorities, for many community health services, including health hostels. Also, record amounts of subsidy are available through the Department of Education for schools, in accordance with need, which also takes into account schools for the handicapped. No specific inquiry is being conducted by my Department into these kinds of institutions. However, the hospitals program for Australia envisages the setting of priorities by April next year for hospitals, nursing homes and health hostels in an integrated way. An amount of $28m has been set aside in this year’s Budget as a small beginning to the upgrading of accommodation in all of these institutions throughout Australia on the basis of needs and priorities.

page 2616

QUESTION

WAGES, SALARIES AND CONDITIONS OF PARLIAMENTARY STAFF

Mr ERWIN:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

– I direct a question to you, Mr Speaker. Wages, salaries and conditions of the staff of this Parliament are supposed to be under the direct jurisdiction of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. You are familiar with the fact that in practice the Public Service Board gives you guidance and warning of flow-ons in a number of the service areas. As this Parliament operates under the most unusual conditions and hours of service, would you, Mr Speaker, give consideration to the formulation of a Bill which would without doubt place wages, salaries and conditions of the staff of this Parliament in the area of a statutory authority?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I shall look into the matter and advise the honourable member as quickly as possible.

page 2616

QUESTION

VICTORIAN HOUSING COMMISSION RENTS

Mr GARRICK:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

-Is the Minister for Housing and Construction aware that after increases in age and invalid pensions last year the Victorian Housing Commission raised pensioners’ rents by $1.50 and that pensioners have now been notified that rents will be increased by $3 following recent pension increases of $5? Does the

Minister agree that the principle of assisting pensioners by increases is being exploited by the Victorian Housing Commission? What action, if any, can the Minister take to prevent this exploitation by the Victorian Liberal Government of this needy section of society?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Whether or not I agree with what is happening in Victoria in this matter is beside the point. The fact is that the setting of rentals for pensioners’ units is entirely the prerogative of the Victorian Government. It is fortunate, of course, that large scale funds are made available at 4 per cent; otherwise the increases in rents would be even higher. A rental rebate system is provided and the Victorian Government establishes an economic rent which is adequate in the aggregate to cover outgoings on units. There is a movement, of course, in respect of those cost factors and it becomes necessary for reviews to be made from time to time. I might say that on taking office I was able to trace the history of rental increases for Housing Commission homes and I noticed that the increases coincided with post-election periods. There was a tendency to increase rents paid by Housing Commission tenants, including pensioners, after an election had concluded. This resulted in substantial increases every 3 years. I have taken the view, and I have encouraged the States to share it, that there should be periodical reviews of rents, and now that is the position. But I emphasise that this matter is entirely the prerogative of the State Government.

page 2617

QUESTION

SECONDARY INDUSTRY: INVESTMENT ALLOWANCE

Mr McVEIGH:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Treasurer. Is it a fact that there is a serious capital shortage in secondary industry, resulting in the deferment of expansion programs in many of our essential industries? If so, is this due in some way to decisions of the Prices Justification Tribunal based on the incorrect assumption that in most major companies there exists a pool of resources to absorb some of the impact of cost increases? Will he consider the reintroduction of the investment allowance for manufacturing and primary industries as existed in the McMahon-Anthony Government for the purposes of creating capital investment and employment opportunities?

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA · ALP

-I agree that there is a serious deficiency in new investment in the Australian economy. As I tried to suggest at the weekend, in what is described as a mixed economy, and the Australian economy is that -

Mr Drummond:

– It is mixed up.

Mr CREAN:

– In some respects it can get mixed up if we do not face up to realities. Threequarters of the total activity in Australia is still in what is described as the private sector and approximately one-quarter is in the public sector. Unless there is new investment and the creation of new capacity in the private sector it is unlikely that we will be able to absorb into active employment all those people who will seek it, including those who are currently unemployed. The question, of why private fixed investment is dampened at the moment is, I think, one that requires serious examination. Candidly I do not think that we have very much to be proud about in this country as far as fixed capital investment over the last 10 or 1 5 years is concerned. We have had one of the lowest growth rates- that is, per capita improvement- of any of the Western countries, taking the last 1 0 or 1 5 years as an example.

Dr Edwards:

– It was worse last year.

Mr CREAN:

– Last year- to the end of June 1974- was one of the best years per capita for many years, but the decline was becoming evident in the March and June quarters of that year. I suggest that the investment allowance is not necessarily the answer to the problem. The problem has to do with what is called the real return on capital employed. I have been described over the weekend as a King Canute. I think that those who use that example forget the historically significant fact that King Canute did not believe that he could turn back the tide. He did what he did in order to draw the attention of his courtiers to the realities of the situation. I suggest that instead of attempting to score points in this House every time a particular index reacts unfavourably we ought to get down to examining the structural problems in the Australian economy.

page 2617

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

(Mr Whan proceeding to address a question to the Prime Minister) -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Prime Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, is not responsible for what the honourable member for Kooyong said in a television program. The question is out of order.

Mr WHAN:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES

- Mr Speaker, could I -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! If the honourable gentleman cares to re-phrase the question I will come back to him later.

page 2618

QUESTION

WAGE INDEXATION

Mr McMAHON:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister and is asked against the background of the unprecedented increases in inflationary pressures and growing unemployment. Will the honourable gentleman ensure that a Treasury Green Paper is tabled in this House to permit effective debate on the indexation of wages and incomes which must, if accepted by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, have a continuing and serious inflationary effect? Will he do so before consideration of the relevant log of claims before the Commission is concluded? I point out to the honourable gentleman that the convention of sub judice does not apply in this House to the conciliation and arbitration jurisdiction.

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– The Government some months ago made it plain to employee organisations that it supported the principle of indexation of wages and incomes.

Mr McMahon:

– It is so serious now that you have to think again and you know that. It will do a lot of good.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The right honourable gentleman is not in a court putting a case. He asked bis question; now he is getting the answer.

Mr WHITLAM:

-The government put this point of view in the last national wage case. The Government’s case was circulated. In giving the Commission’s decision, Mr Justice Moore announced that he would be calling a conference to discuss the whole issue. At the conference the Government again put the arguments in favour of indexation of wages and incomes. The Government is again arguing in favour of indexation in the national wage case that is imminent. It is very belated to suggest that the question should now be debated afresh. The Government’s attitude to this matter is quite clear; it has been clear for several months past and we believe that there is an excellent chance that indexation will be adopted. It will be a great step towards eliminating the excessive number and amount of wage claims. The excessive number and amount of wage claims have been largely due to the fact that employee organisations believe that they had to make such frequent and large claims in order to anticipate the increase in prices during the period for which they were claiming the increase. If employee organisations know that the increase in prices will be automatically taken into account every quarter in wages and incomes they will make fewer and smaller claims.

page 2618

QUESTION

POLITICAL ASYLUM

Mr WHAN:

– Is the Prime Minister aware of the allegation made during the weekend that Australia was refusing to grant political asylum to Eastern European diplomats as a part of a cynical political exercise to curry favour with Eastern European nations with the object of securing their vote for Australia’s nomination for the presidency of the United Nations General Assembly next year? If so, can the Prime Minister elaborate on this accusation?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I was astonished to see that such an allegation was made by the Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs. I make allowance for the fact that the honourable gentleman did not have his mind so much on external as on domestic affairs over the weekend. I congratulate him on having that internal success last Saturday. It is astonishing that a man who holds himself forth and is held forth as the spokesman of the Opposition on foreign affairs should be so irresponsible as to make this allegation and should be so ignorant of the processes of the United Nations. The fact is- I would have thought that all honourable members knew it; certainly a spokesman for a major party on foreign affairs should know it- that the President of the United Nations is selected by the automatic election of the nominee of a particular geographic group of United Nations members, each group taking its turn year by year. Australia belongs to the Western European and Others group together with the countries of Western Europe, Canada and New Zealand.

Dr Forbes:

– Did you refuse asylum or did you not?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Barker will cease interjecting.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I do not expect the same sense of responsibility from the honourable gentleman who interjected as I had expected from the spokesman on foreign affairs. My colleague, the Minister for Labor and Immigration, admitted that asylum was sought and refused for an Eastern European diplomat recently. It would have been utterly irresponsible to identify the diplomat or the country from which he came. One would have been asking for trouble for the man concerned.

Mr Peacock:

– We didn’t ask you to identify him. We did not want that to be done. We have never asked you to do that.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I am astonished at the way honourable members opposite will trifle with the liberties of people outside the House in order to make a domestic point. No government automatically accepts an application for diplomatic asylum. If an application for diplomatic asylum is refused, obviously the person who has made the application would be in some jeopardy in his own country. I am astonished and appalled that members of the Liberal Party and of the Country Party should seek to identify or to ascertain what country or what diplomat is concerned in this case.

Mr Sinclair:

– We do not.

Mr WHITLAM:

– The fact is that the next President of the United Nations- the President in -

Mr Peacock:

– I rise to take a point of order. I point out that I never at any stage sought the identity or the name of the person -

Mr WHITLAM:

– I never said that you did.

Mr Peacock:

– You have implied it and indeed I think you said that.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I did not.

Mr Peacock:

– I think you did.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable member for Kooyong will resume his seat. The honourable member is aware that that is not a point of order.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I did not suggest that the honourable member for Kooyong had sought the name of the diplomat concerned in the application or the country involved in that application for diplomatic asylum. I was answering an interjection by one of his colleagues. I believe the honourable member for Kooyong was not in the House when I commenced to answer this question.

Mr Peacock:

– I have been here all morning.

Mr WHITLAM:

– You were not in the front row.

Mr Peacock:

– Will you withdraw that?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The House will come to order.

Mr WHITLAM:

-The next President of the United Nations- the President in 1975- will be the nominee of the WEO group consisting of the countries of Western Europe, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. There will be no members of any other group who will have any say in the selection of the candidate. The extraordinary suggestion of the honourable member for Kooyong would be similar to his currying favour among members of the Labor Party to have himself elected as Leader of the Opposition after the next election.

page 2619

QUESTION

HOSPITALS

Mr LLOYD:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

-The Prime Minister will recall that he wrote to the Premiers of New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland on 27 September asking that hospitals presently being constructed or about to commence construction at Mount Gravatt, Campbelltown, Westmead and Sunshine be handed over to the Commonwealth Government. The 3 -week period for the Premiers to reply has elapsed. Has the Prime Minister received any replies; if so, what are they? As the Prime Minister obviously believes, by his Government’s action in engaging a consortium of architects to plan a standard hospital for the 4 sites, that the States will reject the request, where will these hospitals be constructed and when will construction commence? Will the Prime Minister accept the sensible compromise proposed by the Queensland Minister for Health that the Queensland money be used to reconstruct the Mater Hospital in Brisbane?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– Each of the Premiers has answered the letter I sent him. It would not be in accordance with usual practice for me to publish the letters. I shall be writing again to the Premiers. The suggestion arises from the fact that hospitals in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane are not located in sites which meet the needs of the present population. The State governments have failed conspicuously to plan or to erect hospitals where people are now living. It takes patients and their relatives, including parents of children, hours a day to visit the hospitals where they are at present located in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. The Government intends to see that the money it makes available for hospitals is made available where the people need hospital services.

page 2619

QUESTION

TARIFF CHANGES

Dr EDWARDS:

-My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is it a fact that while he is or was strongly committed to tariff changes in the present style of the Industries Assistance Commissionas witness his strong words at the recent Heavy Engineering Manufacturers Association dinner- the Deputy Prime Minister on the other hand, accordingly to reports in this morning’s ‘Financial Review’, supports an industry attempt to determine different, more appropriate criteria to be used by the IAC and to delay the current IAC review program until these things are achieved? Does the Prime Minister now agree with his Deputy or does he perhaps regard him as a ‘nervous Nellie’ on unemployment? In the interest of reducing uncertainty and as a contribution to restoring much shaken confidence in the business community, when can we look forward to a definitive statement of the Government’s view on this quite crucial matter?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I am surprised at this question coming from the honourable member for Berowra. I thought that, like me, he had strongly supported the concept of the expanded role of the Industries Assistance Commission as compared with the restricted and manipulated role of the old Tariff Board. The Government has established the Jackson Committee to advise on appropriate policies for development of manufacturing industry. The Committee will prepare a Green Paper which, like the Green Paper on primary industry, will be published promptly. The Associated Chambers of Manufactures of Australia and any other bodies are welcome to give their opinions in writing or by word of mouth to that Committee. I hope that they will do so. The greater, more authoritative and more represenative the views expressed to the Committee, the more valuable the Committee’s report will be to members of the Parliament and to members of the public. The Committee is expected to make its report towards the middle of next year. The Government has in no way varied the review of all tariffs by the IAC which the Leader of the Country Party asked the Tariff Board to carry out. Whether recommendations by the IAC are to be implemented has to be decided by the Parliament or, in the first place, by the Government.

page 2620

QUESTION

COMPANY LIQUIDITY

Mr ELLICOTT:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

-My question is directed to the Treasurer. Is it a fact that one of the most pressing problems presently facing companies is a gross lack of liquid funds? Is the legislation that requires 4-monthly payments of income tax by companies proving a constant drain on corporate liquidity? Has the Government considered suspending this legislation for the time being as a means of providing increased liquidity in the economy?

Mr CREAN:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable gentleman’s question is no. If he looks carefully he will find that the reason for the introduction of the payment of quarterly instalments was that companies- like the majority of people who pay tax on a pay as you earn basis- should pay their tax literally as it accrues rather than a year later after having had the use of the money that ought to be in tax coffers free of interest. I think it is indpendent of the question of general liquidity.

page 2620

QUESTION

TAXATION

Mr BERINSON:

-I direct my question to the Treasurer. In view of the fact that private company tax rates are now equal to public company rates and that the proposed capital gains and property income taxes will remove most tax minimisation benefits of private company structure, has consideration been given to equating also the treatment of private and public companies in respect of their ability to retain profits for investment in company development. If so, what conclusion has been reached? If not, will the Treasurer undertake such a study and advise the House of its results?

Mr CREAN:
ALP

– I would prefer that the honourable gentleman put that question on notice in order that I may give a considered reply to it. I think it would have been noted that in the 1973-74 Budget when we indicated the intention to bring the private company rate up to the public company rate we did make a variation in the formula for undistributed profits. I am prepared to have a look at the matter and I would suggest that I give a detailed written reply.

page 2620

QUESTION

PENSIONS

Mr CHIPP:
HOTHAM, VICTORIA

– I ask the Prime Minister a question concerning rates for pensioners. The Prime Minister would be aware of the Opposition’s claim that inflation running at the rate before that disclosed by the recent rise in the Consumer Price Index would be such that it would reduce the value of the pension to 19 per cent of average weekly earnings, when the Government has promised to increase the pension next autumn. This was disclosed in the speech on the Budget made by the Leader of the Opposition. I now ask the Prime Minister, as the Leader of the Government: Will he have some compassion for the pensioners? Will he take into account the astronomic rise in the cost of living as disclosed by the CPI figures? Will he realise that pensioners by next autumn will be in a hopeless financial position and will the Government do something now to alleviate their plight?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-The Government was elected on two undertakings concerning pensions. One was that there would be an adjustment in the rate of pension twice a year- in spring and autumn. The second was that the rate of the pension would be raised to one quarter of the average weekly male earning. When the Government came into office the pension was equivalent to one fifth of the average weekly male earning. The Government has just increased the pension by $5 a week, by far the largest increase in amount and percentage ever sponsored by any government in this country. The pension is now worth, in terms of purchasing power, including purchasing power as disclosed by the CPI yesterday, a much higher figure than it was when the Government came into office.

page 2621

QUESTION

REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT AND DEVELOPMENT SCHEME

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-The proposition put forward by the honourable member has fascinating possibilities, I think. It is not one, however, that has yet come to the attention of the RED Ministers. When a concrete proposition can be put to us we will give it our usual sympathetic consideration and, if we feel that it fits within the criteria that the RED Ministers have set for the RED scheme, we will of course give it favourable consideration.

page 2621

QUESTION

NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS: INDONESIA

Mr SNEDDEN:

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the Indonesian Embassy newsletter of 31 July 1974, No. 20 of 1974, and I quote from page 2. The heading reads ‘NuclearArmaments Plan means “Armament of Peace” *. This text follows:

Indonesia’s planned possession of nuclear armaments in 1985 was described in Djakarta on August 2 as ‘armament of peace’. The Foreign Minister, Mr Adam Malik, said the term might be new, but ‘armament of peace’ stood for nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Mr Malik was commenting on a statement by State Minister for Research Professor Soemitro, while in Australia recently, that Indonesia might possess nuclear armaments in 1985.

Is it a fact that while Indonesia has signed, it has not ratified, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? In view of the Labor Government’s ratification of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has the Prime Minister sought, during his visits to Indonesia and particularly during his recent talks with President Suharto, any guarantee from the Indonesian Government that it will ratify the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and, secondly, give a clear undertaking that it will not develop nuclear weapons? If he has not sought such a guarantee, will he immediately do so?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-When I was having discussions with President Suharto in Indonesia at the beginning of September, I naturally discussed the general question of armaments, including a nuclear armament and also the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. I of course did not seek any guarantees in such matters, but the President knows the Australian Government’s views on them. I have not previously had brought to my notice the Indonesian Embassy’s newsletter No. 20 of 1974, 31 July, and I have not had brought to my notice the statement which the right honourable gentleman quoted from Foreign Minister Adam Malik. If he wishes to pursue this matter I would ask him to put the question on notice.

page 2621

QUESTION

DOMESTIC AIRLINES: PARALLEL SCHEDULING

Mr RIORDAN:
PHILLIP, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Transport. Has any progress been made with respect to modifying the practice of domestic airlines having flights for the same destination leaving at the same time? Will the Minister expedite an alteration of this practice, thereby ensuring a wider choice of travel times for air travellers?

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

-Some months ago I indicated to honourable members that I was having discussions with the airlines in an endeavour to get them to break up their scheduling so that an aeroplane from each airline would not be taking off or landing at almost the same time. As late as last Friday week I had a meeting with Sir Reginald Ansett and Mr Pascoe, his airline’s General Manager in Melbourne and again raised the subject with them. Like the honourable member for Phillip, I am concerned at the parallel scheduling of airline flights and intend to continue to apply pressure to the airlines in an endeavour to get them to break up this parallel system which has been in existence for some considerable time. As a result of the pressure that has been put on the airlines over the last 20 months there has been some breakdown in the number of parallel scheduled flights and it is having an effect on them, but it is not going as well as I expected.

page 2621

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT AID TO AFRICAN LIBERATION MOVEMENTS

Mr CONNOLLY:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct my question to the Prime Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the Prime Minister advise the House of the principles which will apply to the granting by his Government of aid valued at $150,000 to African liberation movements, presumably through the Organisation of African Unity? Will the Government permit or encourage Australian aid to be given to African liberation organisations wishing to free countries such as Burundi or Uganda from their present governments, or will the aid be used exclusively for liberation movements in southern Africa? If it is to be offered only to liberation movements in southern Africa will he say why it is to be limited to that geographic area?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-The Government has adopted the practice, which several of the countries of Western Europe and Scandinavia have adopted for some years past, of making aid available this year to liberation movements in Africa. There is no specification of the areas of Africa to which the assistance will be made available. It will be made available through recognised international organisations including the Organisation of African Unity. It is well to remember that liberation movements have, in the last few months, taken over responsibilities in Guinea-Bissau and in Mozambique. Many of the liberation movements may well, in the course of the next few months or years, be participating in the government of their countries or constitute the government of their countries. They already have very considerable expenses of a humanitarian kind. Australia believes that they should not have to bear those costs unaided.

page 2622

QUESTION

LIQUID HYDROCARBONS

Mr THORBURN:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question to the Minister for Minerals and Energy. In view of recent speculation concerning Australia’s available energy resources, can the Minister give details of Australia’s present liquid hydrocarbon reserves?

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

– Yes. At the present time the liquid hydrocarbons available would be of the order of 1,900 million barrels. In addition to what is available in liquid hydrocarbons, that is to say, crude oil, we have- here I repeat my answer to a question last week- a matter of 1 5 years supply at the present rate of consumption.

page 2622

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have looked at the question asked by the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) on Thursday last in relation to an advertisement appearing in the ‘Australian Financial Review’ of the same day. As far as I can see, the matter is not one which concerns the Chair.

page 2622

TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE AUTHORITY AND TARIFF BOARD

Report on Items

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

– I present for the information of honourable members the report on footwear, dated 10 October 1974, of the Temporary Assistance Authority in accordance with section 30(2) of the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973, and the report of the Tariff Board on photographic and cinematographic apparatus, etcetera dated 4 May 1972.

page 2622

SERVICES TRUST FUNDS

Mr CREAN (Melbourne PortsTreasurer)Pursuant to section 34 of the Services Trust Funds Act, 1947-1950 1 present for the information of honourable members the annual report by the Trustees of the Services Canteens Trust Fund for the year 1973.

page 2622

DEFENCE REPORT 1974

Mr BARNARD:
Minister for Defence · Bass · ALP

-For the information of honourable members I present the Defence Report 1974.

page 2622

GRANTS COMMISSION

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Pursuant to section 25 of the Grants Commission Act, 1973 1 present for the information of honourable members the forty-first report 1974 by the Grants Commission on special assistance for States.

page 2622

URBAN AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

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

– I present for the information of honourable members the second annual report of the Department of Urban and Regional Development for the year ended 30 June 1974.

page 2622

COMMONWEALTH POLICE FORCE

Mr ENDERBY:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · Canberra · ALP

– Pursuant to section 1 1 of the Commonwealth Police Act 1957-1966 I present for the information of honourable members the annual report of the Commissioner of the Commonwealth Police Force for the year ended 30 June 1974.

page 2622

METRIC CONVERSION BOARD

Mr MORRISON:
Minister for Science · St George · ALP

– Pursuant to section 24 of the Metric Conversion Act 1970 I present for the information of honourable members the fourth report of the Metric Conversion Board for the year ended 30 June 1974.

page 2623

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY LEGAL AID COMMITTEE

Mr ENDERBY:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · Canberra · ALP

– Pursuant to section 23 of the Legal Aid Ordinance 1972 of the Australian Capital Territory I present for the information of honourable members the report of the Australian Capital Territory Legal Aid Committee for the period 1 March 1972 to 30 June 1972.

page 2623

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr McMAHON:
Lowe

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

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr McMAHON:

– Yes, I do, Mr Speaker. Last Thursday the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) asked a question about an advertisement appearing in the ‘Australian Financial Review’. You, Sir, have ruled that neither you nor this House has any jurisdiction to deal with the matter. My photograph was included in that advertisement. Some weeks before the Budget was presented I had written an article for ‘Rydges’ in which I set out what I would do if I were the Treasurer. ‘ The article was duly published. The frontispiece of the edition of ‘Rydges’ in which that article was carried, had my photograph on it. I point out to the House that I neither received nor asked for any remuneration for writing that article. I also point out that when I was a Minister of the Crown it was my invariable custom not to accept payment for writing such articles. If money was sent to me I passed it on to a charity. The charity would receive a government subsidy if I was quick enough to be able to identify the payment and to take the appropriate action. Exactly the same thing was done by my wife when she wrote any articles. I also wish it to be known that ‘Rydges’ did not ask me whether it could use the frontispiece with my photograph on it. I do not think there was anything improper or illegal about it, but I do think it might have been more courteous of ‘Rydges’ to have discussed the matter with me before using the photograph on the frontispiece of its magazine.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Dr KLUGMAN:

– Well -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I am asking the honourable member a question.

Dr KLUGMAN:

-Yes, I do. The personal explanation made by the right honourable member for Lowe (Mr McMahon) could be interpreted to mean that I had suggested that he received some payment for the article that he wrote. That certainly was not my proposition. My criticism was of the magazine ‘Rydges’. I did not for a minute think that the right honourable member for Lowe would accept payment for writing an article for the magazine. I am sorry if that implication in any way came across, because it certainly was not intended when I asked the question last Thursday.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is not making a personal explanation. He should have sought the indulgence of the Chair to make a statement. The honourable gentleman is not explaining where he has been misrepresented.

Mr PEACOCK:
Kooyong

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr PEACOCK:

-Yes, Mr Speaker. In the course of question time the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) answered a question referring to a television interview which I gave last Friday and which was shown on Sunday night on the program ‘Federal File’. He referred to my allegation contained therein that one of the reasons for Australia denying political asylum to persons from eastern European countries was that there was a desire on the part of the Government to curry favour with the representatives of those countries in the United Nations. The Prime Minister has sought, with a series of misrepresentations, to deny that. The first point of misrepresentation is the use of a quasi-technicality in which he alleges that the Western European and Others group is entitled to the presidency on rotation. That I do not dispute. But it is absurd to suggest that the nomination of that group does not need the overwhelming endorsement of other member states of the United Nations. It is absurd to suggest that the Western European and Others Group itself need not be convinced that the candidate it puts up is acceptable and that there is no doubt about his nomination.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I remind the honourable member for Kooyong that a personal explanation is an opportunity for an honourable member to explain where he has been misrepresented. I think the honourable member is debating the question. I ask him to come to the point of misrepresentation.

Mr PEACOCK:

-I come back to the point I was making, namely, that the Prime Minister said that the presidency of the United Nations General Assembly is automatic on rotation. Three countries in the Western European and Others group, including Australia are seeking the nomination. In any case, if it is automatic that Australia will get this nomination, why is the Prime Minister heralding the likely appointment to the extent that he is? Why is he making it such a big deal? I now refer to the second point of misrepresentation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! All personal explanations are made by the grace of the Chair. Personal explanations have been lengthening week after week into debates on issues. I will not continue to allow such personal explanations to be made, I now ask the honourable gentleman to show finally where he has been misrepresented and not to debate the question.

Mr PEACOCK:

-I now come to the second point of misrepresentation, Mr Speaker, having dealt with the first. The second point is that the Prime Minister stated that we had sought the identity of the diplomat himself or his country of origin. This I reject. I specifically said in the interview itself that I would not favour the diplomat being named or his country identified. What I wanted was an explanation of the Government’s refusal in this case, as in the case of Ermolenko, to say what the motive was, and we have not been given it. Indeed, in the Prime Minister’s own words that I used in that program- if I can finalise this point Mr Speaker- why call for the clarification of the issue of political asylum in the United Nations and then cloud it by your own actions here? The Prime Minister cannot say one thing in New York and do another thing in Canberra. His actions contradict his rhetoric. Thirdly, and on a more minor point -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the honourable gentleman finally to make out where he has been misrepresented. If he does not, I will have to ask him to resume his seat. He is now debating the question.

Mr PEACOCK:

-I am not. With respect, Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable member was debating what the Prime Minister had done in the United Nations. This has nothing to do with saying where he was misrepresented. He is debating the question. I will ask the honourable member to resume his seat unless he comes to the point of showing where he was misrepresented.

Mr PEACOCK:

– With the greatest of respect I do think on that point Sir- and I am entitled to speak to the ruling which you have just giventhat you have been a trifle unfair to me. I have identified 2 areas. I do not want to pursue those 2 areas any further.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I think that I have allowed the honourable member quite a lot of latitude. He is making 3 points where he has been misrepresented and each time he has made one of those 3 points he has debated the issue. I know of Speakers in other parliaments in Australia who curtail personal explanations to a minimum period of time. If the use of the time of this Parliament is to be abused every day by honourable members debating the subject matter when making a personal explanation, I intend to follow the same procedure. I now ask the honourable member to finalise his personal explanation as quickly as possible; otherwise I will ask him to resume his seat.

Mr PEACOCK:

-The final point, having dealt with the first 2 points of mispresentation, is the factual one of being in the House. The Prime Minister accused me of not being here when the question was first raised and when an answer was given. In fact I was here prior to the commencement of the proceedings. I was here prior to prayers being read and indeed that placed me in the chamber before the Prime Minister himself who entered after prayers.

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the Prime Minister claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr WHITLAM:

-Yes. I stated during question time that I was not asserting or insinuating that the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) had wanted to have the name of the applicant for asylum disclosed or to have his country identified. I made that quite plain at question time. Nevertheless there was an interjection and I responded to that interjection on that point. The sole subject of the question was the honourable gentleman’s allegation that the Foreign Minister (Senator Willesee) was taking an attitude towards Eastern European countries in order to be elected President of the United Nations General Assembly next year. The honourable gentleman did appear in a television program of which a transcript has been circulated. The transcript in this case has been brought to my attention. The honourable gentleman is reported as saying:

This is a deal between Immigration and Foreign Affairs, probably worked out between Senator Willesee, who is desperate to get elected to the presidency of the United Nations, and Mr Cameron who is Minister for Immigration.

He went on to say:

The Government is concerned to try and guarantee support for Senator Willesee in his bid for the Presidency in the United Nations.

When he was asked: ‘East European nations?’, he said: ‘That is right’. The simple fact is- the honourable gentleman should know it; he has been caught out in wanting to confuse people on this subject- that the presidency of the United Nations goes in turn to the nominee of various geographical groupings in the United Nations.

Mr Peacock:

– How many contenders are there in from the WEO?

Mr WHITLAM:

– There are 22 members of the WEO group, which is the group to which we belong, and the candidate -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Prime Minister is himself now debating the question. The Prime Minister must explain where he has been misrepresented.

Mr WHITLAM:

-Sir, the honourable gentleman stated things on television which were raised in a question asked of me and I answered that question. What the honourable gentleman said on television was inaccurate and misleading.

Mr Snedden:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We will give the Prime Minister leave to make a statement on this issue. We can then have a debate on it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-That is not a matter for the Chair to decide. It is also not a point of order.

Mr WHITLAM:

-My reply to the question which was put to me was relevant and factual. I did not in any respect misrepresent the honourable member for Kooyong. The candidate for the United Nations General Assembly presidency next year will be the candidate of the WEO group. No other geographical group will put up a candidate. No other geographical group will vote against the candidate of the WEO Whatever may be thought about members belonging to other groups, they will have no votes.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I call the honourable member for Warringah, who is the third honourable member to seek to make a personal explanation. Does the honourable member for Warringah claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr MacKELLAR:
Warringah

-Yes, I do, Mr Speaker. It is in relation to a matter which has been the subject of some debate- the allegations about seeking the identity of this European person.

Mr Whitlam:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Where does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I am waiting to find out.

Mr Whitlam:

– He identifies himself.

Mr MacKELLAR:

– I claim to have been misrepresented in that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), in a reply to a question directed to him by one of his supporters, said that members of the Liberal Party were seeking to find out the identity of the man

Mr SPEAKER:

– That is not a personal explanation. Unless the honourable gentleman’s name has been mentioned he is not allowed to make a personal explanation. He cannot make a personal explanation on behalf of an organisation or body. Unless his name in mentioned specifically he cannot make a personal explanation and is out of order in doing so.

Mr MacKELLAR:

-Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister, in the course of his answer, mentioned that a question had been asked of the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) last week. I was the person who asked that question. Therefore he identified me. My question to the Minister for Labor and Immigration specifically did not mention the name.

Mr Young:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Opposition members- He is out of his seat.

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr MacKELLAR:

– My question to the Minister for Labor and Immigration specifically did not mention the name or the country. I have written a letter to the Minister for Labor and Immigration seeking further information. That letter did not mention the name or the country. I mentioned in that letter that I would honour any restrictions the Minister for Labor and Immigration would put on my reading the file. I have had no response to that letter. I might add in passing, Mr Speaker, that the Prime Minister did not answer the allegations.

Mr SPEAKER:

-That has nothing to do with the making of a personal explanation. I suggest to the honourable member for Warringah that in making a personal explanation he should immediately explain where he has been misrepresented. He did not do that.

Mr MacKELLAR:

- Mr Speaker, I was endeavouring to do that when points of order were taken by the Prime Minister and other supporters of the Government.

Mr WHITLAM (Werriwa-Prime Minister) -Mr Speaker, the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) has misrepresented me.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Prime Minister wished to make a personal explanation.

Mr WHITLAM:

– It is true that the honourable gentleman was mentioned by his colleague, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), on the television program. It is also true that he asked the question of my colleague the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron). If I had wanted to refer to the honourable gentleman I would have pointed out that in his question he asked whether my colleague give the reasons why asylum was not granted. It is quite obvious that if one were to give the reasons one would have had to give some indication of the country and the character of the person concerned.

page 2626

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment:

Papua New Guinea Loan (International Bank) Bill 1974.

Papua New Guinea Loans Guarantee Bill 1974.

page 2626

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Commonwealth Banks Bill 1974.

Australian Tourist Commission Bill 1974.

Australian Shipping Commission Bill 1974.

States Grants Bill 1974.

Adelaide to Crystal Brook Railway Bill 1 974.

Tarcoola to Alice Springs Railway Bill 1974.

page 2626

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

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

The urgent need for a comprehensive series of economic initiatives to restore stability to the Australian economy.

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

Mr LYNCH:
Flinders

-This discussion of a matter of public importance has been initiated by the Opposition to highlight the urgent need for a comprehensive series of economic initiatives to restore stability to the Australian economy, to indicate constructively the package of measures which the Opposition believes should be introduced as a matter of urgency, and to provide the Government with an opportunity to give a clear lead to the Australian people and to spell out in detail its policy intentions in ensuring the restoration of the stability of the Australian economy.

If over the weekend the Treasurer (Mr Crean) has somewhat belatedly discovered the real cause of this country’s inflationary problems, I hope that he will for the first time during the course of the debate today on this matter of public importance put down the detail of what he intends to do about them. Australia today faces its most serious postwar economic crisis. All economic indicators give cause for the utmost concern- inflation, unemployment, industrial unrest, housing, interest rates investment and output. In spite of the accelerating economic crisis the Government is apparently prepared to proceed with its existing economic strategy- a strategy which has been shown beyond doubt to be misguided, ineffectual and dangerously inappropriate. The Government is clearly unable or unwilling to take those remedial actions which are now so desperately required. The seriousness of Australia’s economic situation cannot be overestimated. There is now a growing sense of dissatisfaction within all sections of the community. The gallup polls reflect it, the Northern Territory election results demonstrate it and the media now reports it. The ‘Age’, in today’s editorial headed ‘Escapism must end’, said:

In Australia the Government seems so far incapable of formulating, let alone implementing, measures to reduce inflation to more tolerable levels.

A front page article in today’s ‘Australian’ began in the following terms:

The Federal Government’s economic policies are collapsing around it as the economy lurches to worse inflation and worse unemployment.

The Economics Editor of the ‘Australian Financial Review’, a former economic adviser to the Government, in an article headlined ‘Retreat to Cloud Cuckoo Land ‘, said:

What has become increasingly clear is that the Government simply does not know what is happening in the economy and that it has no longer the strength to hew any reasonably clear cut policy line.

The ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ in its editorial today urged the Government to abandon ‘its present ad hoc responses and thrash out a new and coherent economic policy’. Both the media and the general public are unanimous in their belief that new and decisive action must be taken. But the Cabinet is apparently leaderless, divided and confused. The Australian public is being confronted with a series of utterly confusing policy statements and posturings by individual Ministers on every conceivable aspect of economic policy. The details of the Budget were comprehensively leaked; the decision to devalue was leaked; unemployment statistics are now leaked as a matter of monthly or fortnightly routine. The Whitlam-Crean mini-Budget was overturned by Caucus in July. The Crean Budget was overturned by Dr Cairns in September. Major elements of the Cairns Budget have been rejected or threatened with rejection by Caucus in recent weeks. Almost every Minister has a sixpoint economic plan-some have ten-point plans and others even have twelve-point plans. But nowhere does this Government have a clear, overall, coherent and comprehensive economic strategy which can combine together all members of the Cabinet in accordance with the long established precedent of Cabinet responsibility.

Mr Cameron, the Minister for Labor and Immigration, has written publicly to the Treasurer demanding a change in the course of economic policy; Mr Hayden believes that the Government is presiding over the destruction of the Australian economy; Dr Cairns, the Deputy Prime Minister, thinks that the fault lies with the system; the Treasurer, Mr Crean has now identified some economic problems but hopes that they will simply go away; and the Prime Minister has not expressed any view at all. His technique is to go away himself and leave the problems behind. The Prime Minister, carried away on the waves of his own dishonest propaganda, promised that inflation would be reduced to an annual rate of 8 per cent in one year. In July the Treasurer told this Parliament

The Government’s hopes that the rate of price increase was slacking have proved illusory.

Inflation, measured by the consumer price index, is now well in excess of 16 per cent. It has risen from 4.6 per cent to 16.3 per cent in less than 2 years. It is estimated by the Budget papers themselves to average 20 per cent during the course of this financial year.

The same series of false promises have also been made in regard to unemployment. The Prime Minister, in his 1972 policy speech, said:

Labor’s first priority will be to restore genuine full employment- Without qualification and without hedging.

In his May 1 974 policy speech he said: … in Australia alone, there is no unemployment; in Australia alone, unemployment and inflation do not march side by side.

In June the Treasurer was reported, in a story somewhat ironically headlined ‘Jobs for AllCrean’, as saying:

We can guarantee that there will be a job somewhere in the economy.

The Minister for Labor and Immigration boasted publicly in September, in a story headlined ‘All Better in a Year- Cameron’:

We can easily get out of the situation we are in at the momem. It will soon be forgotten. Time is a great healer, and I think we are well on the road to recovery.

The record of the Deputy Prime Minister of this nation is almost beyond belief. In July that honourable gentleman stated:’

Unemployment is insignificant and is carefully under control.

In August he reversed the position and then said:

Australia would probably have 150,000 or 200,000 people unemployed in the next 12 months.

In September, the next month, he confirmed the Government’s intention to create a pool of unemployment in these terms:

Action by the Government to slow inflation will produce unemployment.

Two days later, after contact had been made with the trade unions of the country, he recanted that statement and said:

Inflation could be attacked without resorting to unemployment.

So one could go on. The fact is that this nation is now ruled by a group of divided and desperate men apparently unable to agree to any responsible Cabinet approach to the serious nature of this country’s economic problems. They are not a Cabinet. They are a group of Ministers whose only common characteristic is their incapacity to work effectively together to solve this country’s growing problems.

At the outset of my speech I said that the Opposition had brought forward this debate to spell out the corrective policies we constructively believe should be implemented and to provide the Treasurer with an opportunity to state to this House what definite action the Government now proposes to take. We believe that a supplementary Budget should be brought down without further delay. I should take account of the following new policy initiatives: The first step towards economic stability in Australia must rest on fiscal restraint- a supplementary Budget. This cannot be a Budget designed for purposes of political popularity. The Budget must increase expenditure by 25 per cent, not by the proposed 32.4 per cent. This means the cancellation, deferment or winding back of many Government programs- programs which the Opposition has supported for their social desirability but questioned for their economic implications.

Mr Riordan:

– Which ones?

Mr LYNCH:

-There should, of course, be preference for programs in the fields of health, social welfare, education and urban improvement. I believe- if the honourable member who interjected would listen for a moment- that we, as Australians, simply have to face the unpalatable reality that the broad processes of social reform endorsed by all parties in this Parliament cannot proceed at a pace beyond our economy’s capacity to sustain them. This proposition was advanced by the Opposition during the May election campaign. Ironically enough, it was advanced by the Prime Minister during the June Premiers’ Conference. It was reiterated by the Treasurer in July. Apparently their earlier views are now to be forgotten.

The second important element of the supplementary Budget must be a further reduction in income taxes so that income tax receipts are reduced by a total of $ 1,000m during the course of this financial year. The simple and inescapable fact is that taxation is now a central component of the price pushing process in Australia. Unless the tax-induced proportion of incomes claims is neutralised, wage costs will continue to accelerate unabated. No government can claim that it has laid the basis for community restraint when it, in fact, proposes to increase taxation by 45 per cent in one year. If this Budget is allowed to stand, income tax receipts will have increased by 95 per cent in 2 years. This is unprecedented, unwarranted and extraordinarily damaging to the Australian economy. In an aggregate sense such a policy adds materially to cost-push inflation pressures. In the longer run it must lead to a decline in individual initiative, to a reduction in the community’s propensity to save and to a barrier to the very basis of private capital formation. In a very real sense excessive taxation not simply fuels inflation, it strikes at the essential fabric of a free enterprise economy. In the final analysis taxation is a transfer mechanism to bolster the role of the public sector and to diminish effectively the function of the private sector.

The third element must be a reduction in indirect taxation. The Government has twice increased the rates of indirect taxation, first in the 1973-74 Budget and second in the July miniBudget. These increases have added directly to the prices of a wide range of goods and services. They have, in fact, exacerbated the processes of cost-push inflation. The trend must be reversed by cuts of at least $100m in indirect tax receipts.

This is not only warranted on economic grounds; it is also socially equitable. The fourth element of what is now required must be a package of fiscal measures to stimulate savings, investment and productivity. The Opposition has consistently warned of the serious implications of the downturn in private sector investment. Real investment in Australian manufacturing industry has fallen below the level established in 1965. Real private gross fixed capital expenditure declined by an alarming 4.2 per cent in the July quarter. The situation is, in fact, far more serious than these figures suggest. In short, there is a crisis in Australia in capital mobilisation. The potential harm arising from this situation cannot be overstressed. Capital investment is, of course, the basic building block of the economy.

The Government must introduce a series of measures to stimulate investment. The stimulus must clearly be of sufficient measure to reverse the present trend and it must be accompanied by a firm resolve on the part of the Government to restore business confidence. The fifth element is to see a supplementary Budget introduced in the context of a further relaxation of monetary policy. As a minimum, the monetary package should include the abolition of the variable deposit requirement, the lifting of the present embargo on short-term overseas borrowings and a further reduction in statutory reserve deposits. The monetary package is essential if proper fiscal and monetary balance is to be achieved. The measures which ought to be brought forward should clearly outline the Government’s resolve to maintain external as well as internal balance and provide details of its program to achieve both incomes restraint and prices restraint.

Finally, these measures should be accompanied by a complete review by the Government of the activities of the Prices Justification Tribunal, the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, the Industries Assistance Commission, the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Prices and the Trade Practices Commission, all of whose decisions and activities affect business decisions. There is evidence that the activities of these bodies are at present unco-ordinated and confusing in the Australian economy, thereby resulting in inefficient decision-making and indirectly in the loss of jobs without at the same time reducing inflationary pressures. On behalf of the Opposition, in putting forward what I believe to be a constructive approach in this Parliament I call upon the Treasurer to use this discussion of a matter of public importance for a constructive purpose also and to indicate the detail of the action this Government now proposes to take to reduce inflation, to reduce unemployment and to put back into the private sector that sense of confidence which is so clearly lacking.

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

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

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– I would have appreciated the efforts of the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Lynch) a little more if he had devoted less time to the polemics at the beginning and made rather less indigestible the rag bag of propositions that he brought forward at the end of his speech. It seemed to me that he was indicating that he saw the economy at the moment as being in a state of declining activity and accelerating inflation. One of the solutions that he seemed to bring forward for that state was to cut down on Government activity and to reduce taxation and thereby, I would think, to increase purchasing power at the same time. Those proposals do not seem to me to add up to a sensible prescription.

I would appreciate it a little more if those on the Opposition side who suggest that Federal or Australian Government expenditure is excessive indicated the directions in which they think the excess lies. They seem to me at times simultaneously to be asking for expenditure in some directions to be increased. I do not think that they give sufficient attention to the anatomy of spending at the Government level in Australia. They do not seem to acknowledge how much the Australian Government is the collector of taxes, the fruits of which are distributed to the States for their activities. In the area of public works, for instance, far more is carried out at the State level than at the Federal level. I receive interminable requests from individual members as to why we are not giving more to the States or local authorities to enable them to carry on their public works programs.

What has to be acknowledged is that in any economy a sensible balance has to be struck between consumption on the one hand and investment on the other. There has to be an acknowledgment that there is a role for both the private sector and the public sector in the economy, as I endeavoured to indicate in answer to a question this morning. Approximately three-quarters of the money that is spent in the Australian economy is still spent in die private sector; only about one-quarter is spent in the public sector. Even though we at this level of government are responsible for collecting the majority of what is spent in the public sector, we are not the direct spenders. The direct spenders are the States. How does one arrive at a reasonable balance between these two? In the private sector, the greatest single source of demand is those who are employees. Sometimes the paradox exists that whilst wages in some respects can be looked upon as a cost of production they are also at the same time a source of consumer expenditure. There are many more rigidities in an economy than some people are prepared to allow for. We have taken a series of measures in recent times in the direction of injecting more credit into the economy. The honourable gentleman refers to releases from the statutory reserve deposits. There have been successive releases from the statutory reserve deposits down to the point where they are now something less than 5 per cent of the original accumulation -

Mr Lynch:

– What about telling us what you will do about the situation?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MartinOrder! I wish to make one comment at this stage. The Chair will be quite firm on this aspect. The matter under discussion is an important one. It deals with the economy. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition was heard in comparative silence. I intend to see that the same courtesy is extended to all other speakers on this matter.

Mr CREAN:

-The question of inflation-I have said this more than once before in this place- is not only a question of prices but of prices and incomes. One would think it was at times when one hears the quarterly bleatings about the consumer price index. Multiplying the quarterly index figures by four is a very happy game for those who indulge in it, but it offers no very sensible solution to the problem.

Over the weekend I endeavoured to suggest that there has to be some accommodation between those who are responsible for fixing prices and those who are responsible for seeking wage increases. If honourable members liked, we could have a sort of chicken and egg argument on the basis that wage earners seek increases in their wages because prices have already gone up and those who are responsible for setting prices then say that they must put their prices up because the wages that they must pay have increased. The figures up to end the end of June 1974- that is the last date at which figures for a full year are available- show that during that year prices as measured by the consumer price index rose by about 14.3 per cent. In the same period, average weekely earnings overall increased by 25 per cent, but average weekly earnings in respect of the female component of the work force increased by as much as 35 per cent. This reflects the working through in the economy of the principle of equal pay for equal work. I do not think anybody objects to the adoption of that as a principle.

It ought to be evident that there are some wage earners in the community whose incomes have increased faster than have prices. As a corollary, the likelihood is that there are some wage earners whose share did not increase. There are people in other sectors of the economy who obviously were not able to recoup their incomes fast enough to allow for the effects of inflation. Occasionally we have to stop and examine the elements in the social equation. I suggest that the share of some wage earners- perhaps because they are in certain sorts of strategic sections in the economy where those who pay the wages are still capable of increasing the prices- rose faster and some prices rose faster than did the average. Some further down the scale did not do as well. Surely a man who is in employment is in a far better position than a person who is unemployed. I endeavoured at the weekend to ask the trade union movement whether it should be considering whether maybe some people are out of work because those who are in work are being paid more now than will enable industry marginally to take on another man.

Mr Kelly:

– Why did the Treasurer not -

Mr CREAN:

– I think there are some difficulties in doing so, as the honourable gentleman ought to appreciate. The members of his Party, after all, are the apostles of what is called the free market system. The free market system implies competition and freedom to set prices in a competitive market. We in the Labor movement believe in the right of trade unions to seek higher wages through proper bargaining processes. I am saying that it is easier for some price groups to pass on prices and easier for some sections of the trade union movement to get higher wages than it is for other elements in the economy. I instance the situation of Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd. After all, nobody need underline the significance of that undertaking as a great and the only steel producing unit in the Australian economy. Yet, in terms of its operations, it can get more money in the short term money market for any surplus funds it has than it gets as a return on capital employed. If honourable gentlemen opposite would suggest some self-denying ordinance by which everybody would take a lesser return as interest on their savings we might get somewhere. We have had the spectacle recently of -

Mr Hunt:

– The parliamentary salary rises.

Mr CREAN:

– We refused to accept those. That is a moral contribution rather than an acknowledgment of the real problems. In the mixed economy, as we have it, it is undoubtedly true that we will not get real growth- that is, an increase in per capita production- unless there is a significant increase in what is called fixed private capital investment. As I said earlier this morning, that has been a sluggard for Australia during the last 10 or 15 years.

It is easy, of course, when in opposition, to attribute the current ills to those who are now in government. I simply draw the analogy that the problems are much the same in the United States of America, which has a different sort of government from ours. The problems are similar in the United Kingdom which has oscillated between the 2 governments twice in the last 4 years. So, who is responsible? Members of the Opposition think that just because we happen to be in power all the fault is ours and none of the responsibility lies with them, and they come along with these sorts of airy fairy motions and make all the suggestions that we should now do what they did not do in the their 20 years of unimpeded occupation of the treasury bench, with nobody in that funny place upstairs to knock back what they wanted to do. Rather than talk about a supplementary Budget I would appreciate the cooperation of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to get the present Budget through. At least that would enable us to get on with some expenditures that we cannot legally encompass until after 1 December because we have Supply at this stage only to the end of November.

I had to take some unprecedented action to help the wool industry by finding another $150m. I do not find the honourable gentlemen on the front bench opposite querying that sort of Government expenditure. My colleague the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Les Johnson) has arranged for a further $75m to be spent in conjunction with the States on housing. Again I do not think there can be any objection to that as an initiative. Occasionally at least when initiatives have been taken we ought to be given credit. But equally, I think, given the nature of the economy through which we work, there are lags in the application of policy between the taking of an initiative and getting the results. That would be just as true if members opposite were in government. We have this sort of petty scoring by the raising of these types of matters. I refuse to make any more comments now on the cost of living. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, on the other hand, has difficulty in refraining from taking every opportunity, but I do not think it gets us any closer to an abatement of inflation. Unless we recognise that it is a question of wage earners and price makers getting together in some sort of sensible debate as to how far we can move in either direction I do not think urgency motions of this kind will add any light to the situation. I think it is about the fourth time now that in one form or another I have had to answer this sort of thing.

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

During the course of the last 2 years we on this side of the House have sat patiently and have been prepared to listen to the analysis that has been presented by the Treasurer (Mr Crean) to try to restore something of the confidence that he and his colleagues have destroyed in the economy. It is of interest that this morning, whilst we on our side are listening, so few of the Treasurer’s own colleagues are present. Perhaps this is one of the principal causes of what is happening in the management of the economy. For neither in the Parliament nor, I suggest, in the Cabinet, is the advice that is being tendered by the Treasury being recognised, considered or certainly accepted. I think it is important to have a look at the general rundown of the economy and not just peculiarly to try to take economic points and suggest that things are bad and getting worse. I am afraid we on this side of the House find it necessary to do so because the statistics that some of the Minister’s colleagues are presenting are so distorted that they hide much of the unfortunate erosion of profitability and confidence that should and did exist in this community.

Many matters could have been introduced by the Opposition but the Treasurer has criticised us for again discussing the economy. It is important that the Treasurer and his colleagues realise that we have an interest in the economy. We are concerned that they have no interest. While the economic lecture that was just presented might be admirable in the cloisters of a university, the Treasurer is no longer addressing an audience of students. He is addressing a group of concerned parliamentarians. He in fact is the principal financial adviser to the Government of Australia at a time when every statistician and every concerned Australian is talking about the degree to which changes have taken place. Honourable members should not think, for one moment, that the changes that have taken place have taken just a haphazard course. Indeed if one likes to go back to the election of the Government on 2 December 1972 one can see a successive number of policy decisions, philosophic, economic and social, all of which have contributed directly to the circumstances in which we find ourselves today. I think that the first thing we would hope in presenting this, the first on a general matter of public importance on the economy- following it as we must with a number of specifics in areas where we see things needing to be done- is that even at this belated hour we might be able to persuade the Government that there are alternate policies, philosophies and economic programs that can correct the rather grievous plight the community is now facing. It is only too easy at the moment to find editorials that comment on the circumstances of concern to the community. Today’s ‘Age ‘, for example, says:

The twin dangers of inflationary and recessionary pressures are corroding the economies and social structures of most other Western industrialised nations as well.

That of course is part of the Treasurer’s defence today. The editorial continues:

But the rate of inflation here exceeds that of the average for fellow-OECD members, all of whom have been hit infinitely more severely by the Arabs’ extortionate oil price rises.

Yet we have been insulated from them. It continues:

It is high time Australia stopped wringing its hands and got to grips with alarming indications that unrestrained demands and conflicting interests are subverting the economic and social well-being of the country.

In the brief time I have available it is impossible for me to do as I should like to do, which is to present both an analysis of what is happening and an adequate presentation of some alternatives. The purpose of this positive expression of the matter of public importance, so ably moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch), was to ensure that we did not look at the proposition in peculiarly a negative way. Let me just run through briefly some of the statistics of what is happening. Poverty of purpose has brought poverty to Australia and displaced prosperity in 23 months. The inflation rate, on the multiplier of 21.6 per cent or on the 5.4 per cent in the current quarter, reflects the way in which the whole economy has run out of hand. It was of interest to hear the Treasurer say that we ought perhaps to impose some self-denying ordinance to ensure that there could be a reduction in demand in the community. I wonder whether he has yet realised that primary producers themselves today are receiving very markedly lower returns, in the beef industry the lowest for some 30 years, and this is happening not by selfrestraint but significantly because of action or lack of action by the Government of which the Treasurer is a member. Unemployment is increasing by 1,000 lost jobs a day, the worst level since the depression. By the end of the year, with school leavers, unemployment will be at a totally unacceptable level.

Housing approvals are falling at the fastest rate since Labor was in power during the war-, and we are not at war. Statistics to be released this week will confirm that trend. In August, approvals for private housing were $155m compared with $246m in August last year. Approvals for government housing were down $2m to $ 16m in August, while for non-residential buildings approvals in August were $133m compared with $152m in August 1973. Yet last week in the House we had the Minister for Housing and Construction saying that things were all right in the housing industry; but towards the end of his answer he said: ‘But there are patches ‘. So we see that the cost of building a home is rising by more than $1,000 a month and funds available for housing loans are at very low levels. Interest rates are the highest since Federation. The statistics of the New South Wales Corporate Affairs Commission show that a record number of companies are being wound up. Companies are being wound up at a greater rate than in the 1 96 1 credit squeeze. In rural Australia wool prices are at one of their lowest levels ever; beef prices are the lowest for 30 years. Our grain shipping program is behind because of political strikes. The dairy industry is experiencing a record loss of farmers and the per capita income of persons in the dairy industry is at almost a record low. Rural industry overall is facing a production cost problem of approximately 30 per cent per annum. Indeed, inflation is worse in rural areas than in the city. Withdrawal of Government assistance measures has aggravated these problems and if the Treasurer trunks that this is not so he need only go to the State of Tasmania or have a look at the record in the Northern Territory on Saturday to see what people in these remote and isolated parts of Australia think of the implications for them of the measures that are taken in the centralised administration of which he is a part. The cost of inward and outward freight on basic items is pushing up the cost of comsumer goods. These cost rises are being aggravated by the Government’s failure with respect to Tasmania and the Northern Territory in maintaining some form of reasonable petrol price scheme. There are places in Australia today where standard gasoline is already selling at $1.10 a gallon. The price of fuel is going up significantly as a result of positive initiatives taken by the Government.

There are 2 things that we see as being necessary and in the time available I want to advert to them very briefly. First of all, the Government needs to reverse many of those aggressive programs which have denied incentive and destroyed confidence. It is not peculiarly a matter of what we did or what governments do, of course, that sets the tone, the pattern of individuals’ behaviour in the economic spectrum but it is true that with very little confidence in the value of money and hence in the value of savings the people have a propensity to spend. It is possible, by a positive government encouraging savings, encouraging people not to spend, that there can be a reversal in the present high level of consumer demand. In taxation, in the field of Government expenditure, in fiscal policy there are positive steps which this Government can take. It is surely not beyond the wit of government to come even at this belated stage to some arrangements with the States to minimise the very severe impact of the regressive taxes that they find themselves called upon to bear. It is surely not impossible to find a means by which the degree of commitment in the public sector, at the State level as well as at the Commonwealth level, can be contained. It is certainly not impossible for a positive industrial program to be introduced to bring again some responsibility into the whole field of wage negotiations. Even the belated statement by the Treasurer at the weekend indicates that he too realises that this is one sector which has got completely out of hand in the hands of this Government. For those in country areas, with the deterioration of services in the Post Office -

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

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

– I think the number of honourable members who were absent from the House this morning indicates the view of the 120-odd members of this House that nothing was going to come from the Opposition in this debate, and the speeches by the 2 Deputy Leaders have indicated that nothing has come. At the present time there are 8 members of the Liberal Party here, there are 2 members of the Country Party here -

Mr Hunt:

– How many Labor men?

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-A lot fewer Labor men beacuse the Labor men were even more convinced than the Opposition’s lot that they would hear nothing worth hearing and they did not come in at all. I think what has been shown by the sparse attendance -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The comments I made earlier still apply. The Deputy Prime Minister is entitled to be heard in silence.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I have never seen a fewer number of members in this House when an urgency motion has been moved in the 19 years that I have been present. The Deputy Leader of the Country Party (Mr Sinclair), who has just finished speaking, says there are alternative policies which can correct the state of the enonomy Nothing has been put forward this morning that differs in principle from what has been done by the Government. Nothing has been suggested that does not in itself be inflationary. Nothing has been suggested by the 2 speakers for the Opposition that, if put into operation, would not harm considerably significant sections of the community that have been protected by the Government during 2 years of inflation. The speeches were a series of platitudes. One illustration of that was given by the Deputy Leader of the Country Party. Poverty of purpose, he said, has led to poverty of people. Average weekly earnings covering the great majority of the people in this country have always been 3 per cent or 4 per cent ahead of the cost of living. Pensioners have benefited from increased pensions during the term of the Government which exceed any increases in the history of Australia. When those statistics are collected together it is obvious that well over 90 per cent of the people in Australia today, despite inflation, are better off than they were 12 months ago, better off than they were 2 years ago, better off than they were 5 years ago.

It is true that in the country those who grow meat, who had enormous increases in their incomes last year and the year before, and those people who grow wool, who similarly had enormous increases in their incomes last year and the year before, are not so well off this year. They are not so well off because of world conditions, because of conditions that operate throughout the world and which have little to do with what this Government or any other government can do. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) came in this morning with a great story of industrial indicators giving grave cause for concern. There is not a citizen in this country who is not concerned at the moment. Industrial strategy, he said, was ineffective. He said that there is dissatisfaction in the country. He quoted the Melbourne ‘Age’ as calling for a policy aiming to reduce inflation. The Melbourne ‘Age’, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden), the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Australian Country Party have said nothing that indicates that they know of any policy which would be more effective in reducing inflation than the policy of the Government.

Even in quoting simple figures just a moment ago the Deputy Leader of the Country Party said that Australia had a higher rate of inflation than the European Economic Community countries. I want to correct that statement. I shall quote some figures about the state of inflation around the world. In Japan it is 25.4 per cent; France, 14.5 .per cent; Italy, 20.4 per cent; United Kingdom, 16.9 per cent; Belgium, 14.6 percent; Ireland, 17 per cent; Denmark, 16 per cent; Greece, 28.4 per cent; Iceland, 41.4 per cent; Portugal, 25.8 per cent; Spain, 15.3 per cent; Turkey, 25.3 per cent. The rate for the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries as a whole is 14.6 per cent. Australia, up to the year ended August 1974, had a rate of inflation of 14.4 per cent- almost exactly the same as the average for the OECD countries.

What then is the alternative? The alternative is that the Opposition proposes a reduction of Government expenditure. At whose expense would that reduction take place? No indication has been given anywhere of where it may occur. But there would be a reduction of government expenditure in areas which it has been the purpose of the Government to maintain throughout because we have a responsibility to ensure that people who depend upon social services do not lose through inflation, that people who expect a better education for their children should not have that set back during an inflationary period, that people who want to see development of a better health service in this community should not have that set back because of an inflationary period. In all those fields the total amount of public expenditure to provide those essential services has been kept up with, and in some cases ahead of, inflation. No, these are the areas where the Opposition would begin to deal with inflation. These are the people who would have to carry the cost of the inflation if the Opposition were the government.

Neither speaker from the Opposition who preceded me had much to say about wages. If the Opposition were the government, wage earners, too, would be carrying the cost of this inflation. The result would not be, as I have just indicated from the statistics, that average weekly earnings have continuously through the period maintained a level at least 3 or 4 per cent ahead of the cost of living. That would not be the case. If the Opposition were the government there would have been a concerted attempt to impose a wage freeze throughout the community. In times of inflation we know very well that the unions would not have accepted that and the level of industrial disputes, which is always high in a period of inflation, would be doubled if the Opposition were the Government. The penal powers would be back in action. Trade union leaders would be in gaol and industry would be stalled. The only thing the Opposition would do to deal with inflation would be to try to break the power of the organised workers and that would be the purpose of the Opposition who rightly enough consider that more should be done to deal with inflation. We all consider that more should be done.

The Deputy Leader of the Australian Country Party said a few minutes ago that the Government has no interest in trying to deal with inflation and unemployment. No person has a right to make a statement of that kind. He knows himself it is completely untrue. He knows that on the side of the Government are people who are as much concerned, to say the least, as anyone on the Opposition side that inflation should be dealt with and that unemployment should be prevented. We have not heard anything from the Opposition during the course of this debate that would assist the Government or the nation to deal with this problem.

We have already implemented a policy which, according to Professor Swan of the Australian National University in expressing his opinion only a few weeks ago, has reduced the rate of inflation by at least 10 per cent over what it would have been. We came into Government with inflation already fully operating in this nation. We dealt with it by increasing the supply of goods and services which in Professor Swan’s opinion decreased the rate of inflation by 10 per cent. I want to put in simple language the contrast between the Government and the Opposition. The Government will govern this country so that the cost of inflation does not fall upon the workers or upon those who benefit from social services. But if the Opposition were the Government that is where the cost of inflation would be borne.

We will ensure that the positive action that is necessary to be taken to take up unemployment and to prevent unemployment from spreading will be a top priority. The prevention of unemployment would not be a top priority with the Opposition. It considers other matters more important than the employment and welfare of the community of Australia. If the record of the Government is taken in world context, not only is our inflation no worse that the average of comparable countries and in some cases better, but also the rate of unemployment in Australia is still one of the lowest in the world. It is hardly possible to find one or two countries in the world where the rate of unemployment is lower than ours.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) agreed to:

That the business of the day be called on.

page 2634

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL 1974

Bill presented by Dr J. F. Cairns, and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Customs Tariff Bill (1974) now before the House proposes amendments to the Customs Tariff 1966-1973. The Bill, which operates on and from 1 July 1974, introduces complete new Schedules to the Customs Tariff. The new Schedules contain tariff changes arising from the 25 per cent tariff reduction introduced on 19 July 1973 and the adoption by the Government of recommendations made in reports by the Tariff Board, Special Advisory Authority and the Industries Assistance Commission. At the time the various Tariff proposals implementing these changes were introduced, the nature of the changes was explained at some length. To facilitate honourable members’ research for the ensuing debate, I ask leave to incorporate in Hansard details of earlier relevant speeches and their whereabouts in Hansard.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin:

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

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-I thank the House. A comprehensive summary of the changes and the duty rates together with a summary of the clauses to the Bill are being circulated to honourable members. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Adermann) adjourned.

page 2635

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL (No. 2) 1974

Bill presented by Dr J. F. Cairns, and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill to amend the Customs Tariff 1966-1973 comprises 4 schedules. The First and Third Schedules contain tariff changes arising from decisions by the Government on recommendations made in reports by the Tariff Board and the

Industries Assistance Commission. The Second and Fourth Schedules provide for the increases in customs duties on potable spirits and manufactured tobacco products which formed part of the Government’s budgetary program. The increases in the latter Schedules relate to imported goods and are complementary to similar increases made in excise duties on locally produced goods. . At the time the various tariff proposals implementing these changes were introduced, the nature of the changes was explained at some length. To facilitate honourable members’ research for the ensuing debate, I ask leave to incorporate in Hansard details of earlier relevant speeches and there whereabouts in Hansard.

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

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

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-A detailed summary of the changes and the duty rates together with a summary of the clauses to the Bill are being circulated to honourable members. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Adermann) adjourned.

page 2636

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL (No. 2) 1974

Bill presented by Dr J. F. Cairns, and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill is supplementary to the Customs Tariff Bill 1974 which I have just introduced: The commencement date for the amendments to Customs Tariff 1966-1973 as provided for in the Customs Tariff Bill 1974 is 1 July, although the amendments were in operation for some time prior to that date. Collections of duty in accordance with those amendments were previously validated up to 30 June 1974, with the exception of amendments contained in Customs Tariff Proposals Nos. 6 and 7. It is therefore necessary now to formally validate collection of duty under Proposals Nos. 6 and 7 during their period of operation before the commencement of Customs Tariff Bill 1974.

Accordingly, the Customs Tariff Validation Bill (No. 2) 1974 is introduced to validate collections of duty under Proposals Nos. 6 and 7 until 30 June 1974. 1 commend the Bill.

Dr Edwards:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, unfortunately I was not in the House when the Minister for Overseas Trade -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Luchetti)Order! I presume that the honourable member will move the adjournment of the debate.

Dr Edwards:

– Yes. But with your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am anxious to ask the Minister a question.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member may proceed.

Dr Edwards:

– Thank you very much. I take it that at a subsequent stage in the sitting there will be an opportunity to debate the various customs tariff measures that have been introduced recently. I take it that this Bill relates to a quite specific proposal. I am not aware whether some of the earlier measures which have been introduced have a wider compass. The usual procedure of the House, as I recall it, is that towards the end of the session we have an opportunity in relation to the various validation proposals to debate the wider issues which are implicit in these matters. Will the Minister confirm that there will be an opportunity for a debate of that nature on another occasion?

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-As I said in my second reading speech, the Bill now before the House relates to 2 matters arising from the Government’s budgetary proposals- one to have effect beyond 30 June and one up to 30 June. As in the case of each of the other Bills I have introduced this morning, this Bill is at the second reading stage. They will go on to the notice paper and then the House will have an opportunity to debate them at the second reading stage within whatever time is the will of the House.

Debate (on motion by Dr Edwards) adjourned.

page 2637

CUSTOMS BILL (No. 2) 1974

Bill presented by Dr J. F. Cairns, and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

This Bill provides for the amendment of the Customs Act in 3 respects: Rules of origin for goods from New Zealand; rules of origin for goods from developing countries and valuation provisions for imported goods. The rules of origin for goods from New Zealand are being changed by agreement between the 2 countries. The present legislation provides for 3 alternative qualifying criteria for goods partly manufactured in New Zealand: (i) not less than one-half of the factory cost is represented by New Zealand and/or Australian labour and materials; (ii) for goods of a class or kind not manufactured in Australia, not less than one-quarter of the factory cost is represented by New Zealand and/or Australian labour and materials; and (iii) not less than three-quarters of the factory cost is represented by New Zealand and/or Australian and/or United Kingdom labour and materials.

The amendment relates to the second and third criteria. The second will be replaced by a criterion which would allow the Minister to determine the New Zealand and /or Australian proportion of the factory cost to be a figure above or below the one-half provided in criterion (i), as he deems appropriate. The third criterion is to be deleted since it is clearly no longer in our interests that goods should qualify for New Zealand preference by reason of their United Kingdom content. Parallel legislation will be introduced by the New Zealand Government, providing the same rules for Australian goods entering New Zealand. This portion of the Bill is specified to come into operation on a date to be fixed by proclamation. The present intention is that the new rules of origin will come into effect in each country on 1 July 1975.

The amendments to the rules of origin in relation to goods from developing countries are merely textual changes to align the wording of the Customs Act to that of the Customs Tariff. The amendment to section 154 is designed to remedy a deficiency revealed by a recent High Court decision. The section specifies the method of valuing imported goods as the basis of ad valorem customs duties. It provides that the value for duty shall be the higher of the current domestic value in the country of export or the actual money price paid by the Australian importer.The provision for the use of the current domestic value serves as a protection against under-valuation where the money price paid is influenced by association or by some special arrangement between the buyer and the seller. It is defined as the amount for which the seller of the goods to the purchaser in Australia is selling or would be prepared to sell for cash, at the date of exportation of those goods, the same quantity of identically similar goods to any and every purchaser in the country of export for consumption in that country. It has always been believed that the wording of this section allowed the construction of a current domestic value in all cases where the goods are the subject of a sale. The effect of the judgment is to restrict severely the number of cases in which the current domestic value may be constructed where the seller of the goods to Australia is not selling identically similar goods to any and every purchaser in the country of export. The purpose of this amendment is to allow the continued administration of the provision in the way intended when it was introduced in 1922. Honourable members may recall that I announced last month that the Australian customs valuation system was being reviewed. This amendment to section 154 will not affect the review; it is designed merely to allow the Department to continue to administer the present valuation system effectively while the review is proceeding. A summary of the clauses to the Bill is being circulated to honourable members. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Adermann) adjourned.

page 2637

EXCISE TARIFF BILL 1974

Bill presented by Dr J. F. Cairns, and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The Bill now before the House amends the Excise Tariff 1921-1973 in accordance with Excise Tariff Proposals No. 1 (1974) which I tabled on 23 July last and Excise Tariff Proposals No. 2 ( 1974) tabled on 17 September 1974. The changes contained in Excise Tariff Proposals No. 1 (1974) gave effect to measures which increased the excise duties on potable spirits and manufactured tobacco products, and operated on and after 8 o’clock in the evening on 23 July 1974. The changes proposed in Excise Tariff Proposals No. 2 (1974) operated on and after 8 o’clock in the evening on 1 7 September 1974 and increased the excise duties on brandy as a further stage in removing the duty differential between brandy and other potable spirits. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Adermann) adjourned.

page 2638

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1974-75

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 17 October.

Second Schedule.

Department of the Treasury

Proposed expenditure, $132,627,000.

Advance to the Treasurer

Proposed expenditure, $75,000,000.

Mr HYDE:
Moore

-The Minister for Overseas Trade and Deputy Prime Minister (Dr J. F. Cairns) said on the television program ‘This Day Tonight’ on 21 August 1974 that he wished to change the system. The Treasurer (Mr Crean) in his Budget Speech said that the present slack conditions provided ‘the first real opportunity to transfer resources to the public sector’. In my more charitable moments I think that perhaps the Government got the country into its present economic position by accident; at other times, in the light of those 2 statements, I wonder. The Deputy Prime Minister, in his recent speech during the debate on a matter of public importance, spoke of the Government having reduced inflation by 10 per cent. One is led to wonder to what the 10 per cent is related. Is it related to the worst possible situation that could exist- if the Government made every mistake that it possibly could- or is it related to some deliberately created situation in which inflation runs at the highest possible level. Inflation is a very efficient means of transferring resources to the public sector. It is this efficiency that I wish to discuss.

I wish to discuss the effect of inflation upon progressive taxation. We have had inflation with us for a long time, but in the 19 years to 1972-73 personal taxation increased by only 0.48 per cent per annum. In the last 2 years, the years in which the Labor Government has been in office, taxation has been increased by 2.35 per cent per annum. Circumstances have changed considerably as the rate of inflation has skyrocketed. Let us look at the effect of inflation upon income tax scales. Let us take the case of a family consisting of a husband, a wife and 2 children, on a mere $100 a week wage and whose income just keeps pace with inflation. The tax payable on their income in 1973-74 would have been $862.68.

The tax payable in 1974-75, if we have a 20 per cent inflation rate, the rate predicted in the Budget, and the taxpayer receives a 20 per cent rise in his income half way through the year, would amount to $371 -odd in the first 6 months, and $552.80 in the second 6 months, a total of $924 or an increase of $6 1 .32. That would be the position under the new tax scales. The Government has the effrontery to call that a tax reduction.

Let us look at a hypothetical situation with no so-called tax reduction but the old tax scales and inflation running at 5 per cent, which is higher than the rate under the previous Government. In the first 6 months the man to whom I referred would pay $431.34 tax, and in the second 6 months $474.63, a total of $905.97. These figures assume that the wage earner receives his 5 per cent wage rise half way through the year. In other words, he would pay $18 less in tax if we had moderate inflation and the old tax scales.

Dr Gun:

– Do you say that prices go up at the same rate as wages?

Mr HYDE:

– I am saying that wages rise at the same rate as prices, yes. If an additional 2 per cent is allowed the same conclusion can be reached. Let us look at the effect of inflation on capital taxes. Let us consider a 3,000 acre property worth $50 an acre and stock and plant worth $50,000, that is, a $200,000 business. I am talking about a modest farming property that returns a very modest income. If the Budget forecast of a 22 per cent inflation rate is accurate, then in 5 years time in money terms at that time that property will be worth $540,540. That is a staggering increase in money terms but that is just to hold its present real value. In other words, it could be swapped for the same amount of goods and services as it can now. Since rural business seems to be a little out of favour at the moment, let us say that a property appreciates at only 15 per cent per annum. I think a rural producer would be very fortunate to stay a mere 7 per cent behind inflation rates the way he is faring in the economy at the moment. He has a real loss over that time of some 28 per cent. Yet if the owner of that property dies his estate will have to find in taxes at the date of his death $2 13,000 or 53 per cent of the then value of the property. This will be made up as follows: The proposed capital gains tax- $67,427, or 16.7 per cent of the then value; State probate duty taken from the Western Australian scales- $83,712, which is incidentally $16,857 less to the State than if there had been no capital gains tax imposed beforehand; and Federal estate duty of $62,800. After allowing for a $35,000 matrimonial home- I am now talking in 1974 money values- the value of which has been inflated as was the case with property by IS per cent in a mere 5 years, the total taxes due will amount to S3 per cent of the value of that property. Inflation and its effect upon the progressive tax scales has resulted in a massive and very efficient transfer of resources to the public sector. I suspect that the Government knows exactly what it is doing and that we have not reached this position by accident.

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

-In speaking to the Treasury estimates I want to examine critically the role of Treasury in the formulation of the Government’s budgetary strategy. It is no secret- indeed it has been discussed in the Press ad nauseam- that the Treasury wanted the Government to adopt a restrictive Budget, one which would have had a substantial domestic surplus as a means of controlling inflation. The adoption of such a Budget strategy by the Government would, however, have meant that the Government would have been consciously opting for an increase in unemployment, that is a further increase over and above any increase in unemployment that was already developing following the ending of the economic boom. It is also no secret that the Government rejected that Treasury Budget strategy. Instead of adopting the restrictions on the Budget urged by the Treasury the Government adopted a mildly expansionary Budget, one that was in approximate domestic balance and one that has what is known as a balanced budget multiplier effect which I do not have time to explain but which basically has mild expansionary results. I should add that, as the Treasurer (Mr Crean) has mentioned in the previous debate, the Budget has since been made more expansionary by subsequent action.

The Treasury approach is based on sound- at least they were sound- Keynesian principles, that is, if we reduce purchasing power we reduce demand and therefore we make it more difficult for employers to raise prices, we make employers resist union demands more and we create unemployment and a bad environment for unions to seek further wage increases. In this way we reduce the rate of increase in prices and costs. Previous Liberal-Country Party governments adopted this strategy several times in the 23-year period in which they were in office, but most notably in 1951, 1960 and 1971. The former Government increased income tax so severely in the 195 1 Budget when there was a very substantial degree of inflation that income tax revenue went up by over 100 per cent in one year. The former Government also took very severe action in 1960 and 1971. The results of this action were that the previous Government admittedly reduced inflation after 1951 and after 1960. Inflation was reduced virtually to zero in the early 1960s but the cost was a very substantial increase in unemployment. The former Government also reduced the rate of inflation in 1971. By 1972 the rate had cooled down somewhat, again at the expense of a substantial increase in unemployment.

I should add that the rate of inflation was still relatively high in 1972. Indeed it was well above the average for Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries in that year. This is the orthodox approach to restraining inflation. It has been generally adopted not only by Liberal-Country Party governments in the period that they were in office in this country but also by most western countries during that period and most of them are following this approach now. Most of these countries are increasing unemployment as a means of stopping inflation or reducing the rate of inflation. Some of them also have an added incentive to do so because of their balance of payments difficulties following the tremendous increase in oil prices. This approach is being increasingly questioned by academic economists. One would only have to read the newspapers in the last few days to see that various economists in Australia have questioned this orthodox approach of controlling inflation.

The Government rejected this Treasury approach for a number of reasons, most importantly I would suggest because it went utterly against the principles of the Labor Party to consciously and deliberately adopt an economic policy which would have resulted in a substantial increase in unemployment over and above that which may have been in train at the time. When we increase unemployment, the people who are unemployed are the people who can least afford it. Generally those who lose their jobs are the lower paid workers. It is these people who are always made to suffer for the general benefit of restraining the rate of increase in inflation. So on those basic grounds of principle this approach was rejected. But it was rejected for other technical reasons.

There is no established trade-off. There is just simply no automatic base by which we can say that if we increase unemployment by x per cent we will reduce the rate of inflation by y per cent. There is nothing like that. We can look back at economic history and see the kind of action that was taken and the results of inflation. But the circumstances differ in each economic cycle and there is simply no mathematically precise trade-off or anything like it because of the differing circumstances. Indeed, the tendency has been for the trade-off to increase. In other words we have more and more unemployment to get the equivalent effect on inflation. This has been noticed in other countries as well as in this country. There are various theories as to why this is so. Some relate to the peculiarities of the labour market- the changing nature of the labour market Others are explained by political factors, the political argument being that business and unions are becoming increasingly aware of the fact that governments simply cannot maintain restrictive policies for too long because they have to face elections and as a result they are prepared to ride out the rough times.

Companies increase prices when demand is slackening and unions seek wage increases when there is growing unemployment, all this because they know that the situation cannot go on for too long. So the trade-off has to be bigger and bigger in terms of unemployment to get a given reaction in terms of inflation. Of course, the result is that if we are to adopt this path we need to be a government which never faces an election or at least faces elections very infrequently or possibly a government which is prepared to make unemployment more bearable. I suppose in this context it is worth mentioning France which has recently agreed with the unions in that country to raise unemployment benefits to 90 per cent of a worker’s wage. This can easily be seen in terms of a policy of making unemployment more bearable because that country sees increased unemployment as the only answer to rising inflation.

So there are good reasons for rejecting the Treasury approach. But I suggest we should look at what would have happened if we had adopted that approach. Unemployment is increasing now because of action which has been taken to offset the recent economic boom. This action had to be taken and no one objected to it. We could not let the boom go its full length because if we had we would have had a disaster on our hands. We have now taken substantial action to restore full employment. I mention some of the actions. The Budget itself is expansionary and has been made more expansionary by subsequent action. Devaluation will certainly help employment. We have eased the credit squeeze. We have imposed quotas on knitwear and footwear. We have introduced a retraining scheme. We have also introduced a regional employment development scheme. All of these measures are substantial factors which are working towards a return to full employment. They will take time to have effect and they will not act overnight but in the not too distant future they will have a substantial effect in restoring us to a state of full employment. If we had accepted Treasury strategy there would have been a much bigger rise in unemployment than will in fact eventuate.

The attitude of the Opposition to this is interesting. The Opposition’s apparent position is that it too rejects the Treasury approach- at least it says it does- but this certainly does not accord with its past behaviour as I have already explained. On the basis of the Opposition’s past behaviour one could expect it to knuckle under to the Treasury very quickly, at least insofar as it thought it politically expedient to do so.

The position of the Treasury in all of this is interesting. The Treasury is said by some people in the Press to be out to destroy the Government. I for one totally reject that. I do not think that the Treasury is out to destroy the Government. I think that the Treasury is putting forward what it sees as being the most appropriate means of defeating inflation in this country, even though that might not accord with the basic value judgments of the Government. It has the right to do that, although I certainly do not agree with the action which the Treasury has recommended. I do not know of anyone on this side of the chamber who really thinks that the Treasury is out to destroy the Government. I think that most, if not all, of my colleagues think much the same as I do, that is that the Treasury is doing what it thinks is best but we do not happen to agree with it. I do say, however, that the Treasury’s value judgments are not mine. I do not think that they are the value judgments of anyone else on this side of the House either. If the Treasury wants to be restored to its previous position of preeminence in the business of advising the Government on economic strategy, it needs to adopt the value judgments of the Government, however unpalatable that may be to the Treasury. If it wants to have its position restored it has not just to put forward adamantly the kinds of proposals which it thinks are right, rejecting the Government’s value judgments; it has to accept those value judgments and put forward policies which will enable us to make the best fist of running the economy, of restoring full employment and of restraining inflation within those bounds.

Sitting suspended from 1.2 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-During these Estimates debates there is not time to engage in a political controversy across the chamber, but one thing should be said- there is no particular courage on the part of a member of the Government to set up a stalking horse as to the cause of difficulty in the economy at present. I will deal with this aspect in a moment. I have been appalled and offended by the alacrity with which a number of honourable members set up the Treasurer (Mr Crean) and the Department of the Treasury as the stalking horse in this respect, use them as the whipping boy and credit them as being responsible for all the faults in the Australian economy. This is unjust and unfair and it has been done continually with respect to people who are in many ways defenceless. I have known the Treasurer for a long time and it is not within his nature to indulge in this kind of activity which should be desisted from by men of principle and men of character. I leave it at that.

I refer to those parts of the Estimates which are the province of the Treasurer and especially to the office of the Commonwealth Statistician which is to be removed from his jurisdiction. I do not support that proposition. I do not look on it with unalloyed support, but there it is. In the 8 minutes remaining to me I shall refer to the latest release of data from the Commonwealth Statistician and to the consumer price index. It has been stated by a number of people that the real rate of inflation in Australia today is 25 per cent. According to the Statistician, the real rate of inflation, if one does the simple multiplication by four, would be about 20 per cent. I do not want to go into the techniques of calculating it but I put the proposition that of its nature the consumer price index in a socialist economy becomes increasingly irrelevant as a reflection of real changes of costs to Australian homes and Australian households. I have been led to this conclusion because rates of inflation calculated according to the consumer index have differed increasingly from rates of inflation which can be interpreted from quarterly national income account figures with all the uncertainties that there are, so I have asked myself this question: Why has this increasing discrepancy occurred? I think it has occurred for one simple reason. The consumer index is an index which covers market prices of goods which are bought in shops and in the normal places of buying those goods. A socialist economy intervenes in the determination of those prices by a variety of measures and market price measures have become increasingly relevant to reflect real rates of inflation. Therefore I make the principle-I think it can be substantiatedthat the consumer price index as a measure of inflation becomes increasingly irrelevant in an interventionist social economy and one ought to be aware of that situation. It is for that reason that I suggest that the rate of inflation in Australia today is something like 25 per cent.

I would suggest that the index makes errors and will make increasing errors on at least 5 counts in the market price of goods. I will indicate them. For example, when there is an alteration in the rate of taxation deductions for education this raises the real price of goods such as fares for children, the cost of goods, the cost of apparel, clothing and uniforms. It raises the real cost of those items to those homes in which those items have to be bought, yet the price which is measured by the Statistician in compiling the index is not altered. I believe that to this extent over coming months while the cost of the reduction in the education allowance will to many families represent an extra $100 a year that increases in burden will not be measured according to the technique presently employed. I put this point to the Committee so that it might consider what should be done.

I put to the Committee another one or two propositions which are appropriate. It is a fact that the consumer index is only a capital city index. It fails to measure many areas of the Australian community. To many areas of the Australian community- the non-metropolitan areas of Australia- costs have been deliberately loaded. When in 3 States- Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania -the consumer index is utilised to measure the rate of inflation, that index can understate the rates very gravely with respect to those 3 States. Another point I find inexplicable in the latest details released by the Statistician concerns the cost of PostmasterGeneral’s Department charges- postal and telephone charges. For 2 years now the costs of those items in the index have remained unchanged, yet there is no person in this chamber who could say that even before the present Budget there had not been a real increase in costs of a variety of items for which the Postmaster-General’s Department has been responsible. However, since 1972 the index points have remained unaltered for those items. This is no reflection on the Statistician but it does indicate that when there are marked interferences in prices, where there are direct or indirect taxation interferences in the actual costs to households or when selected items are increased in cost, grave distortions can occur in the compilation of the index and in that compilation so far as it reflects the cost to Australian homes and Australian households.

I mention one further point which is worth bearing in mind. I believe that new measures have to be adopted if the Government’s compulsory health insurance scheme is brought into operation in the attempt to substitute a compulsory health tax for a voluntary health payment. When one looks at the residual items that will have to be met by particular consumers it should be remembered that a compulsory tax of this nature is not measured by the index whereas a voluntary payment, and especially that part of the voluntary payment which is unfunded, has to be calculated by the Statistician in the compilation of the index. This all adds to the point that I believe that the Minister who still has some influence in these areas ought to redouble his efforts to see that a proper and correct household expenditure survey is conducted. I know he has had this in mind for some time but this factor is becoming increasingly important and we need to know where we are in an increasingly socialist economy. The costs to householders in that part of the economy fail to be measured by the precise measures which are currently utilised. The consumer index, of its nature and without any reflection on the operations of the Statistician, has to be in error in respect of these matters.

I make one passing comment which may be political. I have been amazed that in the campaign for wage indexation the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, who is not a strong man but merely responds to the forces behind him, has not referred to and made a major campaign of the failure of the consumer index, on which indexation is proposed to be based, to reflect the real cost for the wage and salary earners he purports to represent. I hope these matters will be looked at. I hope the Treasurer will look at them because the nature of the Australian economy today gives rise to a situation where people do not know precisely the areas in which they are travelling, do not know the path of costs which they are traversing and have had put upon them- if only they knew this- a consumer price index misleading error as to the costs which they have to meet in looking after Australian homes and Australian households. Certainly this applies to all people in this country who depend upon wages and salaries.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-Where the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) was not being political his speech on this most important subject was very thoughtful. I draw his attention and the attention of the House to the fact that only last Friday morning the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Prices of which I am Chairman and which, as the honourable member would know, is an all-Party committee made up of members of the Senate and members of the House of Representatives, had representatives from the Australian Bureau of Statistics before it for 4 hours. We covered the very ground which was the main subject of his speech. Our hearing was in camera. It is my intention, provided that there is nothing of a confidential nature in what was brought before the Committee, to seek the support of my colleague to make available to every member of the Parliament copies of the transcript of our meeting. I hope that the honourable member for Lilley will take advantage of that transcript so that he can be better informed on these matters just as I was better informed.

There are many weaknesses in the compilation of the consumer price index. He has drawn attention to some of them. But I would require somebody of his background and training to be constructive in applying himself to this problem to which there are no easy solutions. As he has pointed out, the consumer price index is becoming more and more important. Its importance will intensify if wage indexation is to become a feature of Australian wage determination policy.

I draw his attention also to the fact that the household expenditure survey which he has suggested is in the course of being carried out, thanks to the actions of the Treasurer (Mr Crean). Until last Friday morning, I had been extremely disappointed that this household expenditure survey had not been commenced many years previously by the Government of which he was a member. I had accepted that this was due to a lack of intestinal fortitude on the part of earlier Treasurers. Let me greet the honourable member in the same spirit as for most of his speech he greeted us by saying that that was not the reason. The reason why this survey had not been undertaken earlier was a lack of people with the necessary training in the community in this area. So, I will not be endeavouring to make political points by saying that this has not been done; I will merely be saying that our Australian Labor Party Government Treasurer has taken the necessary decisions for this household expenditure survey to be done. I hope that, arising from this action, in future the consumer price index will be far improved. I look forward to the honourable member for Lilley being constructive about it rather than, if I may say so, destructive as he was in his speech and in putting forward ideas.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– That would be so. I thought I was very gentle.

Mr HURFORD:

– I am sure that the honourable member will be constructive in future. May I draw attention to the fact that we are enjoying a measure of open government in Australia. I believe that it is right and proper that the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) should raise the matter of the conflicts of ideas that are taking place relating to economic policy in Australia. I must confess that I did not hear the whole of the honourable member’s speech. I raise this matter only because that part of his speech which related to areas where he differed from Treasury advice was commented on by the honourable member for Lilley in his opening remarks. He used such phrases as ‘stalking horse ‘ and being ‘unjust and unfair’. I believe that the honourable member for Lilley is being unfair in this matter. I think that he ought to adopt up to date attitudes in this matter and point out to the community, as I am now pointing out, that there is a need for people of different experiences- not just officers of the Treasury whose whole life is here in Canberra- to apply themselves to these problems.

I am mentioning this subject in order to advocate that there should be some more formal organisation giving economic advice in this community. We in the Australian Labor Party have as part of our policy indicative planning. I believe that that ought to be done by a body formally set up. As I understand it, the Priorities Review Staff is not constituted to carry out this work. I am hopeful that, as the policies of our Government develop, we will have a more formal body doing the long term economic planning. This will be a body in which people from the community, whether they be economists from private enterprise, from a firm of management consultants such as the W. D. Scott organisation or economists from the academic field, would meet more formally with those senior officers in the Treasury who are involved in the general financial and economic policy division, planning the economic policies of our country.

I recently returned from a short trip to China. Although there was much that was nauseating that one learned in that country, there was much to be admired. One of the aspects that I admired very much was the mixing up of people in the community. We tend to get too compartmentalised. I often think of this when I hear talk of worker participation in management. Perhaps there should be more management participation on the work floor as well. This is particularly evident when one realises that a great deal of the formation of economic policy here in Australia is being done in Canberra where those who are carrying out that responsibility are rather divorced from the great centres of population- the Sydneys, Melbournes, Adelaides and Brisbanes of” this nation.

This is not the fault of the public servants themselves or of the staff of the Treasury. They are obliged to be here. Perhaps it is the fault of those politicians- more the fault of the previous Government- who in the past have not made the necessary arrangements to provide for more formal, and a greater number of, meetings between those who are qualified in the community to formulate policy on these subjects with those here in Canberra doing just that. I know that many of the senior officers of the Treasury will come back to me and say that they get out into the Melbournes and Sydneys as often as they possibly can. I believe that they do but in my view it is not often enough. This is because of the other important duties and great commitments which they must carry out in Canberra. So, we ought to be bringing people to them.

I am particularly interested in those who formulated the Adelaide plan, especially as I am the member for Adelaide. As often as possible, I try to be in touch with such people as Professor Eric Russell and Professor Geoff Harcourt of the University of Adelaide, Professor Keith Hancock of the Flinders University of South Australia and Mr Barry Hughes and others who have had a hand in formulating the Adelaide plan. I know that they would very much appreciate greater contacts with officers of the Treasury. It would be excellent if the Treasurer could set up the distribution of some of the valuable documents including policy documents and ideas documents which float around in the Public Service. They could be distributed to people such as those whom I have mentioned in the universities in Adelaide and, indeed, other universities and among employer groups and employee groups such as the Australian Council of Trade Unions, so that a greater cross-fertilisation of ideas could occur and so that the formulation of policy in this most important area of all will be the result of the work of a wider group of people than those who are at the moment advising in this area.

So, I do not accept in any way the criticism of the honourable member for Lilley about the Treasury being a stalking horse. I think it probably is our fault if the Treasury does not understand some of the attitudes and some of the hopes of those of us who are in the Government party. I think it would be even better if we set up the necessary structures so that there could be thus cross-fertilisation of ideas.

Mr HEWSON:
McMillan

-Whether the Treasurer (Mr Crean) acknowledges that we in opposition have a point of view about him is immaterial. The fact remains that the Treasury is the focal point of this country’s financial and economic survival. So the Treasurer, as the head of this important office, has to accept the criticism as well as the bouquets, if any,, that are levelled at the functions of the Department. That being so, I am not absolving the Government members from their responsibility in the policy making of the Treasury. Prior to the presentation of the Budget I predicted that because of the past actions of the Labor Government towards the rural community no sympathy would be meted out on this occasion. This was proved to be true. The Government’s rural policies and its method of implementation since the 1972 election have been disastrous.

It is all very well for the Minister for Overseas Trade (Dr J. F. Cairns) to tell the House this morning that we are still a long way better off than we were this time last year. I recall the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) saying, in my electorate last yean ‘You have never had it so good’. That shows that there was no sympathy at all towards those caught up in the present economic squeeze. The Government has offered no assistance to the beef industry and no assistance to the textile industry, except handouts to the employees which, after all, are probably 6 months notice of a death sentence. In all these debates I can assure the Committee that the Opposition will bring solidly home to the Government the policies of neglect and default that Labor is practising in relation to the rural community. The economic problems we will face in the coming year indicate not only poor economic management at home but also problems of restrictive trade internationally. Many of our trading partners are becoming more restrictive in terms of entry for exports of rural origin, partly because they are suffering downturns in economic growth. These downturns are in large part due to balance of payments problems and rising rural production levels in the importing countries.

The Treasury policies have alienated many Australians and created divisions within the community which should not exist and which should not be tolerated. The Treasurer, expressing the views of his persistent majority of left wingers, must be the most embarrassed man in this Parliament and perhaps the most embarrassed man in Australia today. His statement over the weekend was an about-face of his former assertions on Australian Labor Party policies. The Budget plans to socialise this country by handouts to appease. But what of the future when private enterprise and initative have been killed and when local councils have been driven up the wall crawling to this Government for assistance to keep up maintenance and services to a standard to which the community is entitled while we wait on the Grants Commission’s decision?

Business initiative has been killed by capital gains tax. This tax, combined with probate duties, will have the effect of diminishing the family estate within 3 successive deaths. How could an investor face the future with confidence? How can we return to full employment with the killer instinct of this Government? We hear about the right to strike being the only means open to the employee. I believe the right to strike carries with it, like all rights, certain duties and responsibilities. No person has the right to strike without considering the consequences of his actions. Such actions should take into consideration the influence of inflation because inflation lies at the heart of our economic troubles and our industrial strife. This is not to ignore the role of militant union leaders who more and more are coming out into the open in their efforts to foment strikes. But it must be remembered that these union leaders can exert the power they wield largely because of the unrest and dissatisfaction which inflation is causing among their members. Workers are battling to keep up with the rising cost of living, and in doing so they are themselves contributing to further increases in costs. The right to strike is one of the prized and protected rights of the Australian worker, but only when negotiations have failed and there are no other weapons open to the worker to pursue the justice he seeks. But when the worker’s foe- the victim of his offensivebecomes not simply his employer but the whole community this weapon and this right must be re-examined.

I remind the Treasurer of the important matter of the beef industry, which I raised in this Parliament last week. I ask him to consider seriously the request I made for carry-on finance for those facing bankruptcy whilst the Royal Commission covers all the matters causing problems for the industry’s economic production. I believe that a good case can now be made for the canning of good beef to supply a very needy market in countries without refrigeration. It would be a good way to reduce and relieve the problem of present refrigeration storage. Many countries would appreciate an opportunity to feed their starving population, and this Government could help to do it with canned beef. The Government should re-examine that proposition as one it can take over to the advantage of the meat producers. The Government should also give serious consideration to suspending the charges now imposed on the industry for export inspection services and for the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaigns. I believe the industry would be prepared to consider this matter again, perhaps in a different form, when the market situation returns to normal. But at present those charges are proving a very heavy burden for a seriously depressed industry to bear. It appears that the Government will be collecting far more from the industry this year than it needs to finance these operations, so I believe it would be reasonable for the Government to suspend the charges for the time being at least and to look at the whole question again later.

The contradictory policies of this Government make it difficult to assess how it proposes to steer the destiny of this country. All I know is that we are going downhill financially, physically and very soon mentally if the present policies produce the results we are now getting.

Another matter I wish to raise relates to the abolition of television licence fees. I ask the Treasurer. Why has the Government abolished television licence fees and imposed higher charges on telephone usage when both forms of revenue are handled by the same Department? Is it because the Government wants control of the media so that we cannot object to the programs that are being put on because we are not paying television licence fees and therefore have no rights? I think we ought to look at this matter very closely because it is taking away the right of the individual. My experience in this Parliament is that the right of the Parliament is to protect the right of the individual.

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

-A short while ago the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) was criticising the proposal for indexation of wages. Members of the Opposition are missing the real point involved here. Indexation will mean that the trade union movement will not need to apply to the court for awards based on the increase in the cost of living. In other words, because very often those people in the trade union movement do not know when their case will be heard by the court or because they do not know when they will obtain by way of negotiation with the employer their next award, very often they have to try to pre-empt increases in the cost of living. Of course, this is inflationary in itself, so far as cost-push inflation is concerned. It will mean that they will have these increases automatically guaranteed to them and they will need to apply for other aspects of wage fixation, such as by way of work value cases, productivity increases and so on. For this reason wage indexation, far from being inflationary as some members of the Opposition suggest, would undoubtedly have a deflationary effect. Opposition members do not seem to appreciate that this is the real intent behind the proposal. It has worked well in other countries, such as Belgium, and it is well and truly worth looking at in these days of rapidly rising prices. I hope I did not misunderstand the honourable member for Lilley.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– You did. I will correct you in a moment.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– I thought that the honourable member was criticising the proposal when I walked into the chamber. Certainly some of the honourable member’s colleagues have been doing so and I thought that he was following the general line. However, I wish to direct my remarks to the whole history of the corning to power of Labor governments right down through the years. Time and again Labor has come to power in times of crisis, and this occasion is no exception. The present Labor Government took over a situation of excess demand, as exampled by shortages of consumer goods such as white goods, building supplies and so on, and a spiralling money supply, as I will evidence in a moment, and therefore inflation.

I should like to direct the attention of honourable members to a very important graph which appeared in the 4 October issue of the ‘Australian Financial Review’, which is hardly a young radical newspaper. I would ask every honourable member of the Opposition to study this graph very carefully, because it depicts movements in the Australian money supply. It shows for the December quarter of 1972- Labor took office on 2 December 1972- that the spiral in excessive money supply was well and truly on.

From an increase of 2 per cent in the March quarter of 1 970 it had risen to an increase of 1 2 per cent in the December quarter of 1972. This increase was the result of the policies carried out over the previous 3 years when the Opposition, the then Government, was fearful of losing an election. Because of its fear it was introducing policies which economically were quite unsound and quite irresponsible. The result was that the money supply for the June quarter of 1973 increased to its maximum of 24 per cent. Once the new policies of this Government had made themselves felt, it then started to decrease. Anybody knows that one of the major causes of demand inflation is excess money supply. This graph, which was published on 4 October by the ‘Australian Financial Review’ which, as I said, is hardly a young radical newspaper, gives a very graphic example of what the position was when this Government took control in December 1 972. As the evidence shows, the spiral was well and truly on at that time. Honourable members should cast their memories back to that time. They will remember that excessive demand which resulted in shortages of building materials, white goods and so on was well and truly on. One found it almost impossible even to get nails or bricks.

Furthermore, the situation which this Government took over has been made all the worse by what can only be called the foolhardy management policies of some of the trading banks, and I refer particularly to the pundit of so-called high finance in Australia and of economic policy, the Bank of New South Wales. The 1 890 bank crash caused a major depression- not a recession- and this was brought about simply by excessive speculation in land which was financed by the banking system. Honourable members will recall that from this situation came the golden rule of all banks that they would not lend money for land speculation. This was the golden rule. Yet our trading banks went in for wide-scale and excessive lending to finance people engaging in excessive land speculation. At the same time they went for excessive financing of imports, and the result of this was that in no time their liquidity position became very dangerous indeed.

The banks then went on to the market because their reserves were falling below the traditional 18 per cent liquidity mark. They went on the short term money market, which is the most expensive market of the lot, to obtain finance to bridge what one can only call a liquidity gap. The result is evidenced by an article which appeared in the ‘National Times’ of 22 April, and which is headed ‘Times are tough- even the

Wales is offering 12 per cent’. Some of the banks were reputedly paying up to nearly 20 per cent. Of course, they then had to charge higher interest rates themselves, which were far beyond the increased interest rates determined by government policy. The same thing occurred with building societies. Because they were lending long, borrowing short, and borrowing even on demand, they also were forced into the situation of having to go on to the short-term money market and finally to charge interest rates well above those determined by Government policy.

I point these things out for the very reason that I think it is time a few people settled down to realise that Labor has had to take over such messy situations time and again in its history. Once again it has had to do so. One again it has had the courage to face up to the situation in the interests of Australia as a whole and to introduce policies to control what would have been, had the policies of the previous Government been allowed to continue, a completely chaotic situation.

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS (Lilley )-Mr Chairman, I wish to make a personal explanation.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Yes, innocently I claim to have been misrepresented. The honourable member for Chifley (Mr Armitage) was incorrect in attributing to me opposition to indexation within an arbitration system. I said that I was amazed that the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Mr Hawke, in his campaign concerning automatic cost of living adjustments based his claim upon the consumer price index which, of its nature, in a socialist economy increasingly has to understate the real costs of inflation to Australian households. The index which he has chosen to base his claims upon is an incorrect one and it is one which is increasingly understating the burden.

Mr ARMITAGE (Chifley)-Mr Chairman, I wish to make a personal explanation.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr ARMITAGE:

– Yes. As I said previously, as I walked into the chamber I heard the honourable member for Lilley speaking on the issue. I am delighted if he has, as quite obviously he has, seen the light whereas others of his colleagues have not. If I misquoted him, I am very sorry indeed.

Mr LYNCH:
Flinders

– If there is one thing that the speech by the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Armitage) has displayed it is his total ignorance of the real crisis which is facing Australia at present I go on record as saying, in response to his final comment, that if this Government in fact had the courage to face up to the serious and deteriorating position in Australia’s economic circumstances I have no doubt that the Government would not only deserve but demand the commendation of Australians of all political parties. It is the failure of this Government to face up to the situation which we see at present in the context of higher inflation, higher unemployment and a real crisis in capital mobilisation that has produced the current lack of confidence throughout the Australian economy.

This debate does not provide a real opportunity for detailed policy comment. Nevertheless, there are a number of specific matters which clearly demand reference in the brief time which is available to me. The failure of the Budget as an economic vehicle and its preparation essentially as a political document effectively demonstrated the total isolation of the Treasury from the economic decision-making process. The vacuum created by the removal of the Treasurer (Mr Crean) and his Department to the sidelines has been filled by a bewildering number of other Ministers, departments, new organisations, consultants, temporary advisers and even the Caucus- that determiner of the fate of Labor Prime Ministers. There is at this time no central Government agency to co-ordinate the economic advice being received by the Labor Administration. This Government is incapable of rational and effective economic administration. Quite apart from the wisdom of certain policy decisions which I have canvassed on occasions other than in this debate, the method of decision-making has given rise to uncertainty, confusion and at times a considerable degree of speculation. There is no consistency of policy-making and no logical overall strategy to form a framework within which individual policy decisions can be taken.

The 1974-75 Budget Speech and its accompanying documents were conspicuous for the absence of economic argument or, indeed economic analysis. For example, no reference was made to the central role of monetary policy. In this context it must be emphasised that the extraordinary imbalance created between fiscal and monetary policies during 1973 was the primary factor underlying the present rate of stagnation. Equally, there was no more than a passing reference to the problem of external imbalance. These, of course, are very serious omissions and are made even more critical by the failure to release an official White Paper on the economy in 1974. The most recent attempts to provide some form of economic analysis were undertaken by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) at the June Premiers Conference and the Treasurer in introducing his July mini-Budget. The analysis of both statements was based on the need for fiscal restraint and, for the first time, a partial appreciation of inflation as a cost-push rather than an exclusively demand-pull phenomenon. Both statements were drafted by the Federal Treasury. Both statements have been completely reversed in only a matter of months by the 1974-75 Federal Budget.

In addition to the Government’s refusal to provide the Parliament with either a comprehensive statement of its overall economic strategy or a White Paper, there are a number of other areas for concern. The question of foreign investment has been completely overlooked and ignored. The Government is still operating the Companies (Foreign Take-overs) Act which was enacted as interim legislation by the former Government in 1 972. It is somewhat ironical that at that time it was denigrated by the then Australian Labor Party Opposition as a complete outrage. The Liberal and Country Parties believe that this legislation should be upgraded as a matter of urgency. We advocate an independent authority and far wider legislative jurisdiction in the area of foreign take-overs. We also recognise the need for guidelines to set the behavioural patterns for the operations of overseas-owned corporations in Australia. These initiatives are essential if proper government control of overseas interests is to be maintained in Australia. But the Government has done nothing and provided to the Parliament no real explanation of its intentions. We are left to rely on Press reports which refer to log jams and the administrative confusion which of course surrounds this total area and in part has added to the real problem of lack of confidence in the business community.

In the same way the Government has avoided the question of internal private investment. There is now a very real crisis in capital mobilisation in Australia. The Opposition has consistently pointed out on many occasions that real investment in Australian manufacturing industry has fallen below the level established in 1965. The Treasury itself has reported that in the June quarter, real private gross fixed capital expenditure declined by 4.2 per cent, private investment in plant and equipment fell by 2.6 per cent and private investment in other building and construction fell by 7. 1 per cent. This is a reversal of the utmost seriousness. But, characteristically, the Treasurer, who is on the Government front bench in this chamber at present, is not prepared to make a statement to the House or, more importantly, to provide those remedies which so very clearly are required at present.

The Government’s commitment to publish the regular Treasury economic forecasts in the earlier halcyon days of open government apparently has been totally discarded. The Prime Minister made this commitment on an unequivocal basis in 1972. In response to subsequent questions, both by the Opposition and by the Press, he has procrastinated and deferred the matter for further consideration. My own views lead me to doubt the wisdom of publishing official shortterm economic forecasts. Clearly long-term forecasts, based on policy as well as economic factors, ought to be available. It is preferable for short-term forecasts to be published with the cooperation of the Government by independent bodies such as the Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research. Given the role of both private and corporate expectations in determining the level of economic activity, the publication of short-term economic forecasts could exacerbate the rapidity and extent of economic fluctuations and create problems in regard to stable economic management. But, as with most other aspects of this Government’s economic policy, no attitude whatsoever has been stated on this proposition by the Treasurer or by the Prime Minister.

The question of the functional distribution of the Treasury’s current responsibilities has been raised recently as a public issue. It is quite apparent that the economic advisers to the Prime Minister and to the Minister for Overseas Trade (Dr J. F. Cairns) believe that the Treasury should be totally reorganised. Public statements have been made calling for the restructuring of the Treasury into 3 separate divisions. There can be no doubt that these proposals arise from the dynamics of the present economic power plays within the Ministry and among its economic advisers. The pursuit of ascendancy and influence by the various sources of the Government’s economic advice is obvious enough. But I ask today, in the debate on these Estimates: What is the Treasurer’s view? Is the Government considering proposals to restructure the Treasury? Once again, opinions can be determined only on the basis of leaks and Press reports and not on the basis of statements to this Parliament.

I go on record as saying that a Liberal-Country Party government will examine the organisation of economic policy advice. Our Federal platform now contains a paragraph which states explicitly that we will establish a national economic council. In this regard I draw the attention of honourable members to paragraph 17.1 1 1 of the report of the Committee of Economic Enquiry presented in May 1965. Whatever can be said of the process by which the present Administration organises its economic advice, the results have, as a matter of public record, been totally disastrous.

Earlier today I called on the Treasurer during a debate on a matter of public importance to outline the Government’s program to curb inflation and mounting unemployment. He refused to do so in that debate. I hope that during the course of the examination of these estimates by the Treasurer he will respond to the specific matters which have been raised and which I believe are worthy of the consideration of this chamber.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Armitage) Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-One would have thought from the remarks being made by honourable members on the other side that they were the economic masters of this country, but if one looks at the manner in which they conducted the affairs of this country between 1949 and 1972 and at the social scars that have been left on the community one can see that not only are they not the masters but they are certainly not students of proper economics.

Before I get onto the remarks I wish to make in this discussion there is one feature on which I would like to comment and for which the Opposition Parties can be held wholly responsible and that is the complete political instability of the community since 2 December 1972. Ever since the Australian Labor Party was elected in 1972 the Opposition Parties have refused to acknowledge the right of the electorate to elect a Labor government. They continuously threatened new elections right through 1973, climaxing in an election in May 1974 when they were defeated and found themselves with a very slight majority, with the assistance of a couple of independents, in another place; they have continuously since May 1974 threatened elections. People wonder why industry does not have confidence and what sort of a future the unions, the work force and industry itself might have. The responsibility for political instability rests wholly and solely with the other side of the chamber. Honourable members opposite have to make up their minds. They have either to tell the community that they want an election or they are going to allow the people to elect a government for 3 years. If they do not do that then the instability which exists in the community is their responsibility. It is at their door. They have to answer for it.

Mr Sullivan:

– In Opposition?

Mr YOUNG:

– You are in Opposition here but I am now talking about the other place. In my Budget speech I defended the economic strategy of the Government. I pointed out that the Government had agreed on a strategy which was neutral in its fiscal impact. That is, it neither stimulated the economy to any marked degree nor was it designed to dampen down economic activity in any way. I still believe that this was the correct strategy. The Treasury strategy was widely publicised at the time the Budget was drawn up. In short, its budgetary strategy was devised to administer a short, sharp shock to inflationary expectations by a massive deflationary program. With unemployment increasing sharply at the moment, we can well gauge the impact a short, sharp shock produced by strong increases in taxation and severe cuts in Government spending would have had on the economy. The unemployment we are witnessing today is mainly the result of the exceptionally tight monetary policy that applied until very recently. This has shown once and for all that, whatever the merits of a tight monetary policy in cooling an overheated economy and dampening down boom conditions, it has no impact on curbing inflation. I think it is a justifiable criticism that the Government and the Treasury should have realised this earlier. I accept that the tight monetary policy was essential to cut back the volume of money in circulation which the previous Government had allowed to expand to disastrously inflationary levels.

It was also necessary to prick the dangerous speculative boom that had developed in land and housing. However, with the wisdom of hindsight I feel that the Treasury should have recommended that the monetary screws be eased off some weeks earlier than they were. If we had relaxed the credit squeeze in a selective way, particularly in the provision of credit for housing, after the elections on 18 May, I think the economy would be more stable than it is today. Having said that, I repeat that the Government was justified in imposing the squeeze. Now it has about-faced in the face of a sharp contraction in the labour market. Any unemployment is a matter of anguish to a Labor member elected as a representative of the trade union movement.

It is agonising to me that unemployment should be rising at the moment and that it will peak at quite a high figure in the new year. Even so, the level of unemployment that has been generated still falls far short of what would have happened if Treasury strategy had been applied. We are now facing up to a peak unemployment situation of around 200,000 people; if we had accepted the advice given by our official economic advisers we would be looking at unemployment of at least 500,000 people. This would have been the short, sharp shock required by Treasury to chop down inflation. We know now that even quite severe unemployment has no perceptible effect on inflation. If this strategy had been implemented, in February-March next year we would have been facing up to a huge army of unemployed with no certain effect on inflation. The Government deliberately came down on the side of humanity and rejected this drastic approach. I am confident that in the next few months the Government will be able to overcome the slackness in employment that is apparent at the moment. By acting to ease the credit squeeze, by adhering to a firm level of Government spending, and by selective measures to stimulate economic activity, I have no doubt that the Government can steer the economy back to full employment.

With a sticky market for employment, it is worth considering the impact of the Opposition’s policy of sharply cutting down Government spending. There is no doubt that a sharp cutback in Government programs in the Budget would have increased the numbers out of work quite substantially. I ask honourable members: If roads grants had been cut, if housing assistance to the States had been watered down, if sewerage spending had been reduced, if a host of other public works had been abandoned or deferred, what would have been the impact on employment? The maintenance of Government spending programs has cushioned the impact of the contraction in employment we are now witnessing. It sends a shiver up the spine to contemplate what would have been the result of cutting down on Government programs as sought by the Opposition. Such a policy would have been deflationary but not in the right sense. Its sole effect would have been to expand unemployment without in any way checking inflation.

I concede that there is some scope for stimulating the private sector. The credit squeeze has caught the speculator, the greedy and the inefficient. It has also had an impact in many cases on firms which are reputable, which are not highly geared and which are efficient. We need to act to restore a high level of activity in the private sector now that the credit squeeze has largely run its course. Many suggestions have been made to boost this elusive factor of business confidence. The most widely touted has been the restoration of some form of investment allowance. The arguments for and against this sort of aid to business have been canvassed exhaustively over the years. It is extremely doubtful whether these allowances have much effect on the level of business activity. Certainly they are next to useless in reflating the level of business activity after a downturn in the business cycle. Perhaps a wiser course would be some reduction in the level of company tax as an effective way of stimulating investment in the private sector. This need not apply indefinitely; it could be applied in a counter-cynical way to give some relief and incentive to firms feeling the pinch through the lack of credit apparent in recent months.

Turning to the consumer price index, I am sure that all members of the Parliament were shocked by the size of the increase for the September quarter announced yesterday. We had been lulled into a false sense of security by reassuring reports that the increase would be much the same as in the previous quarter. The actual increase represents an intolerable level of inflation and it is one that the Government has to bend every nerve and sinew to conquer. I feel that the time has come for strong Government action to force down directly the prices of items which make up the index. It was significant that the index showed some easing in the rate of increase in foodstuffs while the prices of household goods and the costs of services rose quite dramatically. I agree with a number of economists that the time has come for a very close look at the incidence of sales taxes and excise. The impact of these charges on the consumer price index is obvious; a certain way of getting the rate of inflation down, even marginally, would be to reassess indirect taxes. It might also be opportune to look at the prices of basic foodstuffs and see whether the time has come for some form of Government subsidy as an anti-inflationary measure. Admittedly there are huge problems in administering such a scheme because of the diversity of marketing methods. With all these problems it is timely that we start looking at the problems and potentials of some sort of cushioning of the impact of changes in the prices of essential foodstuffs on the consumer price index as the most widely accepted measure of inflation.

Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

-From among the claptrap just put up by the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young), who has just resumed his seat- an adviser to the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) before the last election and a Government supporter who I suppose must be listened to with a little more than passing interest- emerged one or two points with which I would be associated. He said that unemployment had been caused by the credit squeeze put on by the Government. That was a clear admission from his remarks. He said it was caused by the credit squeeze, which had since been lifted. That credit squeeze was brought on by this Government. Therefore the Government created unemployment. This is the Government that said that under no circumstances would it ever create unemployment.

In the 9 minutes I have left I want to refer to aspects relating to the Budget and the economy of this country. This debate provides an opportunity in particular to those honourable members who did not get an opportunity to speak on the Budget debate itself. In the few moments available one can direct attention not to detailed estimates but only to the major problems which are facing the country today- the great threat to the standard of living of every individual, unemployment which is rising tremendously, inflation which is leading to the inflation psychology under which prices and wages are racing with one another trying to get ahead in a competition in which all lose, and an employment situation in which all the announced retraining schemes and special assistance schemes such as the regional employment development scheme are only a drop in the bucket.

What we are seeing is a tremendous rise in the cost of living and a diminution in the financial and other security which people in this country have grown accustomed to having. The Government’s pOliCY is undermining the security not only of the country as a whole but of practically aU individuals in it. Some of my colleagues say that it is deliberate policy; it is meant to undermine. They say that because socialism or nationalisation is still the No. 1 objective of the Australian Labor Party it is the deliberate policy of the Government. Indeed, recent statements by the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) and the Minister for Overseas Trade (Dr J. F. Cairns) would rather support that view.

Others say that it is not a deliberate policy; it is merely that the Government is impractical and incompetent in government giving rise to this crisis situation. But, of course, from the point of view of the man in the street the result is the same. Honourable members will remember seeing not long ago during the election campaign those election pamphlets which the Prime Minister authorised saying: ‘Whitlam is the only man to reduce inflation by a third; Whitlam is the only man to reduce interest 3 per cent’. I take this first opportunity to say to the Parliament that those advertisements were false. The Prime Minister authorised them knowing they were false. They were deliberately false.

In considering the position of the economy, the Government’s assurances and the attitudes of the Prime Minister, let me summarise them in this way: The present inflation rate in Australia is the highest in living memory. Costs are increasing at a frightening rate, whether they are the costs to individuals or to production, which are paid by individuals in the end. Interest rates are at record levels, and we see in the Budget the mounting impact of taxation. The extent of that taxation is, I believe, yet dimly realised by the bulk of those who will have to pay it. I had the opportunity only 3 weeks ago of travelling for a few days overseas and talking with a number of economists and financiers, some from countries in Europe, some within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and others in New York and London. They were astonished to learn that the Government in the present circumstances of world economies and the Australian economy should have embarked on a Budget which would increase Government expenditure by 32 per cent when Australia had an inflation rate of 20 per cent- 20 per cent in a country where the effect of world oil price rises has been minute. The Government day after day compares our inflation rate with the inflation rate of comparable countries where the price of oil has increased threefold or fourfold compared with this time last year.

The Government has fed the fires of inflation in many ways and has given rise to the problems we face today. But I believe that at the base what it has done in the course of the last 5 years, including the period it was in Opposition, has been to raise the expectations of every group in our community to believe in an impossible situationto believe that the Labor Party could fulfil all aims quickly, and that to do that would be practical. The growth that has been attempted in this country has been much too fast. There has been an attempt to cure too many problems at once, and the result has been that everybody has had to pay the price of undermining. We are seeing it now. Huge sums are being spent with irresponsibility, quickly, with waste, carelessly and in a way which adds to everybody’s problems. I predict this will do far more damage than good.

We have seen private industry almost stop further investment. That seems to worry the honourable member for Perth (Mr Berinson) on the Government side. He asked a rather good question on the subject this morning. He did not get a good reply, but he asked a good question. The Treasurer (Mr Crean), who is sitting at the table, in the last few days alluded to the impracticality of the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd having to produce steel for a return of 1 per cent on its invested capital. That is an important matter. It is not a matter only for industry; it is a matter concerning the growth of the economy of this country. How much the economy grows will affect the standard of living of every person in Australia. We do not have the resources to meet all the raised expectations in this country. They have reached impossible levels.

So I say in summary that we have an economic crisis in this country and the root cause of it is the crisis of confidence the Government has caused. People ask: ‘Why should I save? Why should I invest? Why should I work hard? What is my future and the future of my family? What security will I have and what security will my family have?’ What are the true aims of this Government? Are the doctrinaire members of it in the ascendancy or not? They have naturally at this stage become fearful about the losses they may suffer. I believe they are fearful of the incompetence of some Ministers, the recklessness of some, the manoeuvring of some and perhaps above all the vanity of the Prime Minister.

In this chamber this morning a matter of public importance relating to the economy was debated and the Prime Minister did not deign to be here. It was a debate on the major problems facing this country today and he was not here. In fact he disdains anything to do with economics in spite of the fact that he has said that economic problems are the major problems facing the country today. The Treasurer was present during the debate and he tried as usual to scoff at every suggestion made. People said that the upward revaluation of the currency was too high and too quick. The Government denied this, but the currency has now been devalued by 12 per cent. When it was first suggested that there was a credit squeeze the Government said that there was no such thing. When it was said that inflation would be bad the Government said that it would be nothing of the kind. I remember the Treasurer saying during a debate in this House last year: ‘You must not say that such and such a percentage for the quarter is bad. You are making the mistake of multiplying it by four.’ Now that the year has passed we can see that that multiplication by four was a very modest calculation. We have an inflation rate much greater than predicted. When the Government was warned about unemployment and told that it would rise it said: ‘No, you are just alarmists’. When the Opposition said that the tariff reductions, in the way the Government was carrying them out, would cause hardship, the Government said: ‘Any people affected will be re-deployed. That is not unemployment; that is disemployment. We will fix all that up’.

I say that the time has come for the Treasurer and the Prime Minister to leave their positions. In the crisis we have the Deputy Prime Minister should become both Treasurer and Prime Minister in this country because, while I would seriously quarrel with his ideological purpose, there is no denying that he is more knowledgeable and attentive m economic and finance matters. Obviously with him is where most of the power lies in the Australian Labor Party today. By way of contrast the Prime Minister disdains any interest in the major problems facing Australia.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Armitage)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

– I assure the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland), who has just resumed his seat, that the Labor Party has never thought of replacing the Treasurer (Mr Crean). He holds a high and responsible position. He has the admiration of every member of the Labor Party. His sincerity and honesty as a man and as a Treasurer are unequalled in this Parliament. In private all members of the Opposition concede that. The Treasurer is handling a sordid mess left to the Labor Party by the Tories who are now in Opposition and who will remain in opposition for many years to come.

I want to make a brief submission to the Committee. I know that my colleague the honourable member for Phillip (Mr Riordan) has some important facts to raise in the short time remaining for this debate. This morning several telephone calls of consternation from people in the Hunter electorate and the adjoining electorates of Shortland and Newcastle were made to my home in Toronto. The people who called were concerned about the Government’s attitude towards the taxing of compensation payable to the unfortunate thalidomide victims by a German drug company which was warned of the malformation of children which could result from the use of the drug. This free enterprise drug company, which members of the Opposition so passionately favour, boost up and stick up for, produced and distributed this drug to mothers-to-be, despite the fact that it knew of the possible repercussions. Fortunately, not many children in Australia were victims of the hungry profit making of this German drug company.

After long consultation the thalidomide victims in Australia have been awarded compensation. I hope that the Treasurer can clear the air for my electors. I know that he can. The comment was made this morning, during an open line program on a commercial radio station, that our Government was acting in an unfair way in taxing the compensation awarded by the drug companies to the thalidomide victims. I know that the Treasurer will explain and clarify the Government’s attitude towards taxing the compensation that has been made available to these unfortunate children, born without arms and legs as a result of the hungriness of this international drug company. That is all I want to submit in this debate.

Mr McVEIGH:
Darling Downs

– Various statements made by Government supporters during this debate on the estimates for the Department of the Treasury indicate rather clearly 2 pertinent facts. One is that the present Government, particularly the Treasurer (Mr Crean), is completely incapable of halting the savage rate of inflation. The other is that we on this side of the chamber are rather sickened by the statements made by various Government supporters which have thrown the blame for the policy aims and objectives of the Government back to the Treasury advisers. To me it is unacceptable to cast the blame on dedicated public servants. Surely the role of public servants is merely to research and to offer advice. In the final analysis the decision must be made by the person who is chosen to be the Treasurer of our nation. It is pertinent, therefore, to point out that the blame for the high rate of inflation surely should be placed at the feet of the Treasurer.

The debate on these estimates has given positive proof that there has been no endeavour to cut down Government spending. In fact there has been a massive increase of 16 per cent in the allocation for the Treasury in the Budget. This indicates that the Labor Government is dedicated to a policy of reckless spending and complete irresponsibility in fiscal matters. I was astounded when various speakers from the Labor side talked about fiscal policy as decided by the Budget. Surely everyone in Australia, except perhaps members of the Caucus, knows that we did not have a Budget in the true sense of the word because the Budget introduced by the Treasurer has been subject to so many changes from within and from without. We submit that sound economic management and creation of confidence would give us as a nation the greatest benefit since the merino sheep. It would revitalise our trade, encourage overseas investment through participation and technical knowledge, stimulate employment and immensely strengthen Australia’s defence position. We seek a reprieve from the bottomless pit of economic madness back to the hills of economic sanity that prevailed prior to 2 December 1972. History will record that at that time the economy was sound and we were firmly established on the threshold of tremendous development in the fields of manufacturing and oil and natural gas fields which would have kept the economy of our nation invigorated for many years.

It is interesting to observe the level of our overseas official reserve assets since the present Government took office. In December 1972 they stood at an all time record of approximately $4,000m. But by August 1974, after a few short months of a Government dedicated to socialism and nationalisation, they had dropped to an alarming $3, 134m. The fall in August was $193m and the fall in the previous month was $223m. We submit that it is necessary to gear our thinking to the need for a viable private sector economy. The Government’s directives have been both maladjusted and misdirected. We have become bogged down in a mud heap of red tape which has desecrated and destroyed the national economy.

I was interested to hear the remarks of the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young), who for once spoke a little bit of sense. I was astonished at that. He suggested that we should look at a reduction of sales tax. I submit that that is an eminently desirable objective.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– We should look at the problems of income tax.

Mr McVEIGH:

– As my colleague the honourable member for Griffith, who always delights this chamber with his excellent interjections, says, we should look at the problems of income tax. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) and the Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony) have been to the forefront in advocating a decrease in personal tax. The people who sit opposite realise that to increase private enterprise and to give encouragement to that section to get on with the idea of developing our resources would be anathema to their aims and objectives. I submit that it is most essential to look at the proposition of reducing sales tax because this tax falls heavily on those who have to meet transport costs as it is levied at the point of sale. We subscribe to the proposition that it is absolutely essential to make concessions and allowances in regard to income tax. We support fully the aims and objectives of what has been commonly termed the Joh Bjelke-Petersen plan in the realm of income tax and sales tax reduction. If this plan were carried out it surely would lead to a situation in which the workers of this country would not be forever clamouring for increased wages and it also would encourage those engaged in private enterprise to work harder, knowing that they would receive some just reward for their labour. We must do everything possible to cheapen production costs; otherwise the rate of inflation will increase more savagely than the 22 per cent announced over the weekend.

There are 2 matters on which I wish to comment as far as the estimates for the Department of the Treasury are concerned. I refer first to the surcharge on investment. On behalf of the many aged people in the community who, through selfsacrifice and unrelenting application to toil, have been able to amass moderate savings, I deplore the policy of the Government to impose such a form of taxation. The implementation of that type of policy will encourage inertia and discourage people from working. We should be encouraging people to make some of the sacrifices that will have to be made if our nation is to be built up. If people who have shown initiative and energy are to bear an extra tax because they have shown such initiative and energy I submit that it will be a sorry day for the Australian nation. I hope that those people of all age groups who have been able to amass moderate savings will be saved from this most iniquitous tax that is now being thrust upon them.

The second matter on which I wish to comment is the capital gains tax in relation to which the Treasurer has intimated he will bring down legislation in this chamber early next year. It will be another murderous blow to and another savage assault on the private sector of the economy. In one fell swoop the Treasurer will destroy our future and annihilate one of our greatest strengths. He has already created a climate of uncertainty and a psychological situation which has as its basis a soul-destroying outlook. What incentive will there be to people to purchase a farm and spend many years on low wages in an uncertain climate developing it if through savage taxes- through the imposition of a capital gains tax and of death duties in the various Commonwealth and State fields- the equity of their heirs in what was a debt-free farm will be only approximately one-third of the total value? That is no way in which to encourage the people of Australia, be they engaged in small businesses, be they people who have their own corner shops or be they people who operate small taxi companies, hotels and motels, to get on with the job of playing a meaningful part in the development of Australia’s economic life. I believe that the capital gains tax is wrong in principle and that it will be disastrous in application. It will in effect destroy the soul of Australia. It will do nothing to overcome the very great shortages of materials and resources that are commonplace in the Australian scene today. There are many people who firmly believe -

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Armitage)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr RIORDAN:
Phillip

– I want to say at the very outset that the ill-conceived and poorly thought out attacks that have been made on the Treasurer (Mr Crean) have been falling on very deaf ears indeed on this side of the chamber. The Treasurer has the confidence of my colleagues and I on this side of the chamber, as well he should, and will continue to have our confidence, as he is entitled to expect. I have found the debate so far to be rather extraordinary. I rather gather that a new philosophy has been developed that is designed to correct inflation, that is, the philosophy of huff and puff. That is the sort of philosophy which is coming from the Opposition.

Not one single idea has so far been put forward and not one viable suggestion has so far come forward from the other side of the chamber as to how the problems of inflation and unemployment might be realistically attacked. Certainly we have had a stampede of words, almost meaningless in their jumbled state, flowing across the centre of this chamber from the Opposition and have heard statistical manipulation ad nauseam, but we have not heard a single solitary idea on how this problem besetting the Australian economy might be tackled. Certainly we have heard questions being asked about why we do not cut Government expenditure and why we do not increase expenditure on defence. Those incredible statements are being made and those who are making them do not even have the decency to blush. On the one hand they want to cut expenditure and on the other hand they want to increase expenditure. They want to cut taxation and spend more money. These are irresponsible people and really do not have the right to govern a country which has the sound future Australia has.

The last thing that members of the Opposition will accept is that a substantial and significant part of the inflation in Australia is caused by the greed of their rich and powerful friends in Australia who are the price makers- those who establish the prices of goods and services in the community. I do not expect honourable members opposite to admit that proposition easily, but I do want to say to them that there have been significant increases in the profits of almost every major company during the last year and those profits will continue to expand. True it is that those covered by the Prices Justification Tribunal are having their profit margins trimmed. True it is that there has been a disinclination to invest. True it is that there has been a decline in investment in Australia. Everybody on the other side of the chamber says that that is because the price is not high enough. I submit that there is another reason. The other reason is the price of money. It is a more attractive proposition to lend money than to invest it. That is the reason, or one of the fundamental reasons, why the amount of investment in equity capital is falling. It is more profitable for those who have ready cash to lend it on mortgage than to invest it as equity capital.

I dispute very strongly that this country is on the verge of ruin, as some honourable members opposite would have us believe. I say to members of the Opposition and, in particular, to those who write the columns of the daily Press and those who control the editorial policies of newspapers and other forms of the media in this community that they have a very heavy responsibility indeed. Wittingly or unwittingly they are undermining the confidence of the Australian people, the Australian investor, in the long term security of this country. They are doing a grave disservice when they do that. During the last depression, Franklin Roosevelt campaigned on the theme that the only thing to fear is fear itself. By convincing the people of the United States of America of the truth of that statement and by convincing the people of the world of the truth of that statement the world came out of the worst depression in its history. I put it to honourable gentlemen opposite and to those who control the media in Australia that, just as it is possible to pull a nation and a system of political economy out of a depression by convincing people that there is nothing to fear, it is equally possible to push an economy into a depression by convincing them that they have something to fear. To do that is all the more irresponsible when the basic premise on which it is done is completely false.

The Australian economy has problems, but there are problems throughout the Western democracies. Everybody can see that. Anybody who cannot see it is either a fool or a liar. There is no question about it. But to say that we are on the verge of doom and to say that we are, as it were, on the edge of the economic precipice is sheer and utter nonsense. It is the essence of hypocrisy. Those who seek to gain political mileage and personal advantage out of spreading such gloom and doom amongst the Australian community will find they have written a very sorry page indeed in history. I believe that this country has an enormously prosperous future. I have great confidence in it. So will anybody else who cares to look at the resources possessed by this country, recognising that they are resources which will be required by the rest of humanity, by people throughout the whole of the world. We have the capacity and the will to supply and develop those resources.

Mr Sullivan:

– Are you?

Mr RIORDAN:

– I am surprised that a person who looks as intelligent as the honourable member should ask such a stupid question. We have room for great confidence. I believe we will see inflation peak during the next quarter just as I believe it will peak throughout the world.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– You have been saying that for months.

Mr RIORDAN:

– I have not. I am saying it now. I believe it will peak this current quarter as it will peak throughout Western Europe and North America during the current quarter. Far from seeing massive unemployment during 1975 I say to those Australian employers who are irresponsible in disposing of skilled labour between now and the end of this year that they may regret it during 1975. Employers who have skilled labour on their staffs now would do very well to think twice about capriciously getting rid of their services. They should think twice because when they want them next year they may find that some other employer, who has had a little more concern for the welfare of such persons, may have them and their former employers may have to go without. I believe there will be some significant labour shortage in 1975.

Mr MacKellar:

– How will they pay them?

Mr RIORDAN:

– I will tell the honourable member something he may not know. About a decade ago General Motors-Holden’s Limited laid off 3,500 employees for a period of 3 weeks. At that time it amassed millions of dollars in undistributed profits and it could not carry 3,500 employees for 3 weeks. Yet the honourable member asks how employers will pay their employees. Those who dispose of skilled labour now will have no cause to complain to the Government next year when they cannot get labour as skilled as they want it. If they have such employees now they would be wise to hold them. My view and the view of many economists in Australia is that Australia will have an acute shortage of skilled labour next year. We will see the looks on the faces of the scare-mongers and prophets of doom next year as they stand in this Parliament and ask the Government to do something about the acute shortage of skilled labour and the excessive demand that is occurring once again in our economy. I congratulate the Treasurer on the job he has done. I certainly hope he is here for a long time in the future to guide the Government through the tricky road ahead.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I share the confidence of the honourable member for Phillip (Mr Riordan) in the potential of this country. I do not share his confidence about the immediate situation which has been created by this Government. Today our first emphasis naturally is on inflation- the worst on record and accelerating. Our attention might be drawn also to the slump. Unemployment is the worst since the Depression and is worsening. Indeed it is much worse than is shown in the figures because so many people who are eligible to register have not yet registered. I think they are doing a very foolish thing by delaying. Outside every agency of the Commonwealth Employment Service might be written ‘You U be cool in Whitlam ‘s pool’ because it is the policies of this Government which have created the unemployment which it said it would never tolerate. I do not say that unemployment has not helped to dampen down inflation and the cost spiral. It has, but I ‘do not countenance that kind of unemployment which this Government has created and is creating. It is no good saying to employers ‘You must keep your skilled labour’ when the bank manager says to them ‘I cannot lend you money to pay your wages because the Government has squeezed credit and prevented me doing so’.

NEAT, the national employment training scheme, and RED, the new regional employment development scheme, are only the dole with sugar coating on it. Not only do they mean lower wages and lower standards but also a waste of real resources because the works which are being done are not as economically good as the production which could have been obtained from these people had they been normally employed. NEAT and RED is a description of Red Riding Hood but it is not a good description of an economic policy- ‘You’ll be cool in

Whitlam ‘s pool’. How can a Government have done so much damage in so short a time? The troubles were not inherited. It is said that they are the troubles of a system. If it is the Government’s policy to make the system unworkable at least it is making a good job of that policy. The system worked all right when those opposite were not the Government.

I have said that the situation is worse than it looks because the Government has already used up a lot of its leeway and we are now in the middle of what I describe as ‘slumpflation’, a combination of inflation and slump which is the next step after the combination of stagnation and inflation which we call stagflation. We have passed through stagflation; we are now in the position of slumpflation.

In the past the Government has applied three types of measures against inflation- a credit squeeze, an import glut through appreciation of the currency and reduction of the tariffs and a profits squeeze through price limitation which has its good points but which has been carried to an undesirable excess as even the Treasurer (Mr Crean) mentioned today when he said that the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd could not be expected to expand its steel operations on the small profit margin which the prices limitation machinery had given it.

We have used up our leeway so what do we do now? I think the time has come to relax the credit squeeze and to do so fairly quickly because unless something is done it will be much worse. If there is any further outflow of foreign funds, whether by reason of our deficit on current account or other reason, the liquidity of the banking system must go down. If the seasonal deficit in the Federal Budget is reduced either by the payment of company taxation or otherwise, as the end of the financial year comes when Treasury bills are to be paid off by reason of that normal seasonal deficit coming to an end, there will be a further contraction of bank liquidity and a further squeeze.

Something has to be done about it now. It is no good saying that we will do it with the statutory reserve deposits. I think only 3 per cent of them are left and one per cent is worth only $1 10m so there is not much water left in that bucket and we cannot get much more out of it. Other things have to be done. There is the open market, whether it can be done through the normal purchase of Commonwealth bonds or through entering into the bill market, this can be done through the Reserve Bank. It is doing it, but is it doing it enough? Then there is the question of lender of last resort. The penal interest rate charged by the Reserve Bank in its capacity as lender of last resort has been too high. It should be relaxed so that bank credit can be made available through that channel.

Finally, there is the question of the Commonwealth Budget. There is something to be said now- and the position is different now from what it was two or three months ago because the climate has changed- for having an increased Commonwealth deficit for the sake of having that deficit and adding to the liquidity base of the whole banking structure. This is one of the ways of increasing liquidity. It is not the only way. But it is one of the methods which I think should be resorted to now.

I do not believe that the total of Commonwealth expenditure should now be cut. I think that we can be more discriminating in regard to expenditure and that we do not want to have the kinds of extravagance which we have had on matters of no consequence. There could be a better direction of expenditure. But at this moment I would not advocate the cutting of total Commonwealth expenditure and particularly I would not advocate a reduction in expenditure on social services; indeed in some respects I think that expenditure could well be increased.

More than that, I would advocate a reduction of taxation and charges in ways which would cut into real costs as quickly as possible. The indexation of taxation on incomes is obviously one way of doing this. It is one of the ways in which the inflationary pressures from the trade union movement could well be reduced. But I think we should be reducing charges which bear most directly upon costs. Sales tax has been mentioned, but even more there are such charges as transport costs which might well be subsidised through the States. Perhaps even some foodstuffs might be subsidised. We should take action which in any way will reduce costs of living

At present there is a case to be made out for having an increased Commonwealth deficit. That might well best come through reducing charges in a way which is specifically designed to reduce costs in the economy. As such we might be able to combine a reflationary policy to help unemployment, which is rising far too high, and, at the same time, keep costs down and lower the rate of inflation.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Armitage)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– In closing this debate, I thank the large number of honourable members who have participated in this discussion. The number has been greater than I have known in most times to have spoken on Treasury estimates. I do not intend to answer in detail the various speakers as the consideration of these estimates was used as an opportunity, I guess, for honourable members to air their views about the economy rather than to deal specifically with the estimates for the Treasury, which is what the debate is supposed to be about. However, I will take note of some of the suggestions that have been mentioned.

I certainly have received a diversity of suggestions. I was interested to hear that the last speaker is not one who favours a reduction of government expenditure. There are still others who do and as yet have not specified where. At least the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) was frank in his speech. He believed that we ought to have not a smaller but a larger deficit, and that for the reasons which he gave.

I wish to say something on one or two specific matters. The honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) referred to the structure of the consumer price index. This matter is no longer within my jurisdiction; it has been transferred to the administration of the Special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen). But I will take note of his suggestions that there are faults in the index. I think there are faults in the index and a great many faults in suggesting that whatever percentage of inflation that index reflects can necessarily be translated over the economy as a whole.

I believe that one thing which has to happen in most Western democratic industrialised systems is that those on low levels of income must have their standards raised relatively and that, unless there is an increase in the total size of the national income, if there is an increase going to those on lower levels, obviously there must be some sacrifice on the part of those at higher levels. To a great extent, the framing of the Budget took that factor into account.

The Budget paid more attention to lowering taxation specifically from the bottom upwards. It would seem to me that until we can get more confidence in the area of fixed private capital investment it will be difficult to get an increase in the total cake in Australia. I do not believe that is a problem peculiar to Australia. As I said this morning, similar observations have been made in the United States and the United Kingdom. Also, some doubt is being cast on the methods that we have of assessing via taxation what are true levels of profit in an inflationary era. This problem is not an easy one to which to obtain simple solutions. Sometimes I wish these matters were discussed here a little more objectively and a little less polemically than they are.

One matter to which I wish to draw attention is that raised by my colleague, the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James). It deals with the question of taxation on the compensation payments that have been made available for those unfortunate victims of thalidomide. Insofar as sums payable in compensation are in the form of lump sums, they are not subject to tax. It seems uncertain at this point whether some other forms of payment may be subject to tax unless the income tax law is altered. My colleague, the Minister for Health (Dr Everingham) has written to me in this matter. Sometimes those curious forms of popular democracy known as ‘talk-backs’ seem to suggest that they are the only ones who ever consider this matter. I assure honourable members on both sides of the Committee that we have had this subject under review. My colleague has written to me. We have to ascertain what the nature of the payments is.

Insofar as the law operates- it is not a law that I made; it is a law inherited- if it is necessary to make some change to it in order that these payments, if they are subject to taxation, will be exempted from taxation. I give an assurance that the matter will be looked at. I hope that all sections will co-operate in the passage of any necessary legislation. Insofar as compensation payments are made, I think it ought to be generally acknowledged that lump sum payments are not taxable but regular weekly payments are treated as income. That has been the historical treatment of those sorts of payments. The case under consideration perhaps is unusual as it represents a unique and unfortunate set of circumstances. I give the assurance that the matter will be looked at compassionately and that the strict letter of the law will not necessarily deter some flexibility in this matter. I thank honourable members for their participation in the debate.

Proposed expenditures agreed to.

Attorney-General’s Department

Proposed expenditure, $62,764,000.

Department of Customs and Excise

Proposed expenditure, $52,02 1 ,000.

Mr ELLICOTT:
Wentworth

-I depart from the Treasury estimates, which are a matter of grave concern to us all, to the quiet preserves of the law. Under Division 132 of the estimates $220,000 is to be set aside for an Australian ombudsman. Most of us, I think, will welcome the fact that this item appears in the estimates for the Attorney-General’s Department. It is now 43 years since Lord Hewitt wrote ‘The New Despotism’. In that year he pointed out to the people of the United Kingdom the problems that arise from a rampant bureaucracy. One does not require an ombudsman because one has an inefficient bureaucracy. One needs an ombudsman to protect the individual in his dealings with a bureaucracy whether it be efficient or not. In the course of his duties the ombudsman naturally will reveal inefficiencies. But an ombudsman is, I believe, an essential part of our democratic process today.

It is now 6 years since the Kerr Committee was appointed. That Committee reported to the Parliament in August 1971. One might be forgiven for being a little sceptical at the statement in the explanatory notes on the estimates that the Bill to establish an office of ombudsman will be introduced in the Budget session. I hope that the Government’s legislative program will be such that this intention will be carried out. Australia has nothing of which to be proud so far as its performance in this area is concerned. An ombudsman was appointed in New Zealand in 1962. Since then a parliamentary commissioner has been appointed in the United Kingdom. There has, of course, been developed in France and in the United States a sophisticated program and legislation on administrative law for many years. Honourable members will recall that the Kerr Committee suggested a number of matters. First of all, there was the suggestion that a general administrative review tribunal be established. Secondly, there was a suggestion that there be an office called a Counsel for Grievances. That office was not understood either by the Press or, if I may say so, by the members of this House at the time. The Counsel for Grievances was really another name for an ombudsman.

The third suggetion that the Kerr Committee made was that the procedures for review before the court of administrative descretions be brought up to date. We are still operating on the prerogative writ procedures that go back to the Middle Ages. It is not too much to suggest that we in this Parliament might bring them up to date soon. Only one aspect of the Kerr Committee report has been taken up. It was taken up by the previous Liberal-Country Party Government when it appointed the Bland Committee late in 1 97 1 . That Committee presented its report in January 1973, just after this Government came into office. Now, some 16 or 18 months later, we are promised an ombudsman. Perhaps it is not wrong to suggest that we may be too optimistic in thinking that the Bill will find its way into the House in the Budget session. The fact is, of course, that the suggestion of an ombudsman came from the previous Government. It was taken up by the present Government in its policy speech in 1972. Only now is something being done about it.

It is to be noted that in the interim Bland report of January 1973, reference is made to the question whether ministerial decisions should be subject to review. As honourable members will realise, some ministerial decisions relate to policy and others are of a purely administrative nature. The Committee pointed out the difference between the two and suggested that there might be some difficulty in determining what are policy discretions and what are administrative. The Attorney-General, of course, had that report and it appears that he gave some direction to the Committee. That direction was that ministerial discretions were not to be subject to review. At page 6, paragraph 33, of the final report of the Bland Committee of October1973 we read:

To be disposed of at once is scope for possible misunderstanding. On the one hand, as has been stated above, our Terms of Reference do not exclude consideration of discretionary powers related to matters of administration exercised by a Minister. On the other hand, in our Interim Report we were at pains to raise the question whether administrative decisions of Ministers should be examinable by the Ombudsman process. We have proceeded on the basis of your advice to our Chairman that the answer was- No.

I suggest to the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy), through the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Mr Enderby) who is at the table, that he give very careful reconsideration to this decision. Why is it that the administrative decisions of Ministers should be free from inquiry by the ombudsman who is to be appointed?

Appendix H of the final Bland Committee report of October 1973 sets out a large number of administrative discretions in a great variety of statutes which provide for no review. Many of those are discretions of Ministers. They refer to all sorts of Acts. Take, for instance, the Citizenship Act under which the Minister has the power to grant a certificate of Australian citizenship. He has a discretion as to whether to grant it. These are basic rights, one would think, that a person should have, and if they are refused there ought to be some right to have the matter reviewed. Apparently the Attorney-General has taken the view that this should not be subject to review. In the short time at my disposal I merely want to bring to the attention of” honourable members the fact that this is the situation. I hope that the

Attorney-General, when preparing this legislation, will give careful thought to whether, in his desire to protect human rights about which he speaks often, he will at least protect the citizen from the decisions of Ministers of the Crown which may be just as defective because Ministers rely on the advice and support of bureaucratic people in making their decisions. They may be in error. Of course, there are many cases before the courts in which Ministers have been held to be in error. There will be many such cases in the future, because to err is human and we all err.

The danger therefore is that this ombudsman that we are to have may turn out to be a squib. He may turn out to be a person who will not really protect the citizen at all. But what is going to happen in relation to other aspects of the Kerr report? Where is the general administrative review tribunal suggested by the Kerr Committee and which had also been recommended by the Bland Committee? Where are the up to date procedures that were going to provide that administrative review either to the expected Australian Superior Court or to the Australian Industrial Court? In these estimates I can find no trace of them. I suggest that these are areas of human rights which are of tremendous importance to people in our community. They are matters about which the Government could take positive steps, but it is not taking them. The Human Rights Bill, in my estimation, is not nearly as important as the administrative review procedures that could be introduced into Australia. We are lagging behind the rest of the world. We are deficient in our procedures and it is time that we brought them up to date and at least got to the same position as the people in New Zealand and in the United Kingdom are in. We are grossly defective in this area and I hope that in reviewing the legislation that he is to bring before the House the Attorney-General will give urgent consideration to these other aspects of administrative review.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-In rising to speak on the appropriation for the Attorney.General’s Department I should like to associate myself with most of the remarks made by the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Ellicott), who preceded me in the debate, on the question of the ombudsman and the other review machinery which is so necessary. I do not agree with his political statements, of course, in which he blames us, after 20 months in government, for not doing things that the government of honourable members opposite did not do for many years. At the same time, I do agree in principle with his remarks. If the unfortunate thing should happen that we become the Opposition again, I hope that that misfortune is tempered for the Australian people by the honourable member for Wentworth becoming the Attorney-General rather than Senator Greenwood who was a completely unfortunate choice for anybody who believes in civil liberties in this community.

I should like to address myself specifically to some of the questions arising, as far as the law is concerned, in the Australian legal aid offices. I may not have sufficient time to go into detail, so I will start by making a general point in relation to a matter that has been raised with me by some lawyers I know. It is concerned with the admission of lawyers to the legal aid offices. At present it is purely a career service. In other words, lawyers will opt to go into the Australian legal aid service and become lawyers permanently on a salary. I think that the AttorneyGeneral should consider the proposition that temporary appointments may be given to people who may be prepared to leave a much more lucrative law practice for 3 months or 6 months or a year and go into the legal aid offices on this temporary basis and thereby be able to offer the sort of experience that lawyers develop when they have been private practising lawyers. People who join the legal aid offices may not have such experience if they join on a career basis. The people who join on a temporary basis would be an addition to the career staff in the Department and it would make it possible to have in the service quite prominent, impressive, capable and experienced lawyers to handle some of the more important cases and the more difficult cases for which it would be too expensive to retain people on a fee for service basis.

Let me deal with one of the problems that has arisen in the legal aid service. I raised this matter earlier in the debate on the Appropriation Bill. It is concerned with a case in South Australia in which Mr Justice Sangster has held that as the lawyer concerned was not acting as a principal on behalf of the applicant in the sense of being entitled to receive or retain any fees for her attendance because she was being paid by the Australian Government she had no right of audience. The Judge ruled accordingly and gave that as his reason. I deplore that decision. The same sort of situation has arisen in an opposite sense in New South Wales. Honourable members who read the ‘National Times’ 2 weeks ago and read the current issue will have noted an article written by Mr Staples, barrister-at-law in Sydney, who made certain accusations against the justice system in New South Wales. There was a reply from Mr Maddison, who is Minister for Justice in

New South Wales, and there was a further reply from Mr Staples in this current issue. I join with the editorial comment of the ‘National Times’ when, speaking of Mr Maddison, it says:

For his first remarks, which were made in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly on October 10 were disturbing. At the outset Mr Maddison revealed the poverty of his case by spending a considerable time attacking the character of Mr Staples. Mr Maddison recalled Mr Staples had been a former member of the Communist Party -

That was back in 1 950- a disappointed Labor pre-selection candidate -

And worst of all- and was a member of the Council for Civil Liberties.

It is interesting to note here that this was taken by Mr Maddison to be a reply to a considerate case dealing with the administration of justice in the State of New South Wales. It may be relevant to state here, because I was on the Council for Civil Liberties in New South Wales since its inception until last year, that the New South Wales Government has seen fit to appoint at least 3 members of that Council- just quickly I shall recall them by name: Mr Justice Hope, Mr Justice Holland and Mr Justice Martin- to very high judicial offices in New South Wales. Yet Mr Maddison considers this to be a criticism. At the present time the membership of that Council comprises such people as Mr Clyde Packer, Liberal member of the State Legislative Council, and Richard Kroll, who is Director of the New South Wales Division of the Liberal Party’s Communications Centre. So it can hardly be said that that Council is prejudiced in any sort of political sense.

The point that I want to make deals with a case in which the court of appeal in New South Wales refused to hear an appeal from a prisoner who was seeking to test the legality of a glass and metal partition which was erected by prison authorities and which divided him and his counsel during discussions at the gaol. The Crown persuaded the court not to hear the case because the prisoner could not satisfy the court that he could meet the Crown’s costs. In his reply to Mr Staples, Mr Maddison makes the point that the legal advisers to the prisoner chose not to apply for legal aid but to use the good offices of the Council for Civil Liberties. He said that this was admitted by Mr Staples in his article, and that the outcome might have been different had legal aid been sought and granted. It is ridiculous for the State of New South Wales to put forward the proposition that if a person is represented by a Lawyer who does not charge any fee, as in the case of people who are represented by the Council for Civil Liberties, then that fact alone is sufficient for the court of appeal to argue that it should not hear the appeal because costs may be involved.

Let us assume that the person concerned had applied for legal aid. Then apparently the Court of Appeal would have heard the case. If the litigant had been unsuccessful, then what would have happened? Consolidated Revenue would have reimbursed the State of New South Wales. In addition to that Consolidated Revenue would have had to pay for the cost of the lawyers of the litigant. Under the other proposition there would have been no cost to the litigant. Surely Consolidated Revenue was actually advantaged and protected by the failure of the prisoner to apply for legal aid. Nothing had to be paid to his lawyers, otherwise the status remained as it was before. Yet the prisoner was shut out of court on the Crown’s argument that the Crown- that is, Consolidated Revenue- was threatened with an irreparable and unfair disadvantage. If that is the argument that is going to be accepted then, as Mr Staples put it, the world is surely standing on its head. I feel very strongly that there is too little criticism of lawyers and especially of judges in Australia.

I was pleased when Mr Justice Jacobs was appointed to the High Court during the last year, I think it was. He wrote an excellent article some years back- I could not put my hands on it today- in which he argued very strongly that the administration of the law and how the judges acted in their courts ought to be subject to criticism. He said that the sort of proposition which has been put forward, sometimes even in this Chamber, that some how or other judges should not be criticised was a medieval attitude which we should not accept and that it is important that people and parliamentarians- not just because they are protected by the privilege of Parliamentand other people should be able to criticise judges and their judgments just as happens in the United States of America.

It should be possible to have a discussion on the merits and the pros and cons of instances in which one judge in 2 different cases or 2 judges in the same case come to completely different opinions and even to go into the proposition of whether there is some reason why judges come to different opinions. I would very strongly ask the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Mr Enderby), who represents the Attorney-General in this chamber, to raise with the AttorneyGeneral the problem that has arisen in South Australia and which may arise in other States and ensure that lawyers, in trying to protect fee for service private enterprise law- in the way that doctors try to protect fee for service private medicine- do not prevent legal aid from being given to litigants.

Mr ADERMANN:
Fisher

-The debate on these estimates has had some happy notes. The honourable member for Phillip (Mr Riordan) assured us that next year there will be no inflation and no unemployment. Perhaps he is foreshadowing an election which will put things right again. I am happy to see the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) recognising the worth and the quality of the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Ellicott). I want to speak more particularly today for just a few minutes on the estimates for the Department of Customs and Excise, although the comments I want to make to some entries overlap both the Department of Customs and Excise and the AttorneyGeneral’s Department.

Since my appointment as the Opposition’s spokesman for Customs and Excise, which includes matters within the Attorney General’s Department relating to censorship and narcotics control as well as what we ordinarily recognise as the customs field, I have received assistance from the Attorney-General and Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Murphy). I want to place on record my appreciation of his courtesy and his co-operation and for giving me access to departments and to officers. Also, I would be remiss if I did not express my appreciation of the assistance of many people in those departments- the Comptroller-General of Customs, Mr Carmody, the collectors of customs in a number of places I have visited and officers of the AttorneyGeneral’s Department who administer health, quarantine and other aspects associated with customs. I have endeavoured to be active in my role. I have visited a number of centres and I intend to visit a lot more. I have discussed with officers and with the Minister and his representatives a great number of matters. The purpose of my visits has not been to be critical, although if criticism is warranted I will deliver that criticism. But I have tried also never to be critical without being constructive. I thought that during this debate it would be fitting if I put my appreciation on record because the help has been sincerely appreciated.

I do not want to take a lot of time in the debate because others want to speak who did not have an opportunity to speak in the second reading stage. I should like to talk about a lot of things. For instance, in the field of censorship I should like to pay a tribute to those who perform this rather vexing role. I believe I was very fortunate to have the opportunity to have discussions at quite some length with members of the Film Censorship Board and the Literary Censorship Board and to see them at work. I think we will never agree, any two of us, on these matters; this will be a field in which there will be great diversity of opinion. Although I did not always agree with the classification of the material being considered and although I did not agree with the guidelines that are laid down under which these officers must work- they are matters of policy; they are not matters of which these officials have any jurisdiction- I commend them for the very sincere way in which they try to apply that policy.

I should like to mention just 2 items in the estimates for the Department of Customs and Excise. Under Division 825 I was very pleased indeed to see a provision for patrol launches for the Department of Customs and Excise. In Darwin I had the opportunity to go on the customs launch. The officers there are doing a tremendous job. It is a big harbour and a very difficult area. I know that a launch of the type proposed in these estimates would be much better equipped and enable them to do much better the job that they have to do in a critical area such as Darwin.

I do not know whether one requirement is provided for in the capital works expenditure and I hope that this will be brought to the Minister’s attention. It also applies to Darwin. When I was there I was very impressed with the way the officials worked. Meeting the flights at Darwin airport were officers from customs, health, quarantine and the narcotics sections. Officers were looking at the possibility of foot and mouth disease and exotic diseases coming into Australia. Although perhaps I was not completely satisfied that everything that can be done is being done in every instance, I want in no way to criticise the efficiency of the officers. With the equipment and facilities with which they had to work they did . ^ the very best job possible. But it is difficult because of the facilities that they have there to do the job. They work in a very small area indeed. Fortunately when I was there and saw them examining a difficult flight that came in to Darwin from Bali it was a cool day. I know that some extensions and expansions are to be carried out in that area, but I should put in a word for the Customs people in Darwin because on a hot day- and Darwin can have such hot days, as my friend from the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) will tell us- it must be an awful atmosphere in which to work. It must interfere with efficiency. I think that that is an area that should be looked at critically and urgently to see whether the projected extensions there can be hastened and whether the facilities can be improved in that critical area.

The officers in this area have to be very alert indeed against the bringing in of narcotics. There is a direct flight to Darwin from Bali and we know that in Bali exotic diseases and foot and mouth disease are rampant. We know that it is very vital indeed that the officers do their job in this area. I do not need to tell anyone what would happen if foot and mouth disease were introduced into this country. It would be an absolute disaster, particularly if it got into the large areas of our States, such as northern Queensland, and in the Northern Territory. If the wild pigs and the native animals carried it around, we would never stop it. Therefore, it is a critical area and I think every facility that these officers can be given in such an area to perform their task should be provided.

I hope in the estimates we are considering, although it is not specifically spelt out, that the Government has in mind capital construction in Darwin and that it will be continued. Those 2 things relate particularly to Darwin. I should like my appreciation recorded and I should like the Minister representing the Attorney-General in this chamber to pass those points on and to convey my appreciation to those officers who have assisted me in the job that I am trying to do.

Mr GILES:
Angas

-My purpose in taking part in this debate this afternoon is to comment on the estimates for the Department of Customs and Excise involving a projected expenditure amounting to $52m and specifically to refer to an industry which is very important in my electorate- the wine and brandy producing industry. Upon being elected in December 1972 the Labor Government honoured a promise to withdraw the excise on wine. Honourable members will recollect that the original excise was SOc a gallon but after a good deal of heavy work by back bench members of the Government of the day- I think I can say that I was a prominent member of that team- we succeeded in having that amount halved. The present Government withdrew the remaining excise. There were promises on several occasions not to replace that excise with another tax or any other imposition. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) gave this undertaking to the Premier of South Australia and it is also on public record at a growers meeting held in Berri in the form of statements by Mr Grassby, a former member of this place.

Since that time the Government has gone back on its word both to the Premier of South

Australia and the industry. It has introduced an Act to repeal section 31a of the Taxation Act which concerns provisions for valuation of stock for income tax purposes. Contrary to nearly every business in the land, the industry was to be taxed on stock on hand and not at the point of sale, which is surely normal business practice. After many deputations, some of which were introduced by me to the Treasurer (Mr Crean), this is now to be phased in over a period of 5 years and not 3 years as originally envisaged. The Treasurer was good enough to give me in this place some time ago some credit for bringing this about. So in addition to normal taxation commitments the industry was put in a position of having to repay gigantic sums to the Treasury and some medium sized family companies, for instance, are in the position of having to find up to $ lm to meet this provision in addition to normal taxation and the huge increase in costs which have been brought about primarily by poor economic management by this Government.

The Government removed the excise advantage held by the brandy industry over other Australian produced spirits in spite of evidence which showed quite clearly that the sole output of small wine grape growers was the wine and brandy industry, which is in complete contradistinction, to, say, the growers of sugar to whom rum is a rather unimportant byproduct. In passing, one might also say that the production of gin, vodka and indeed beer is frankly not an awfully important matter for the wheat belt farmer of Australia. I maintain this was an error of judgment on the part of the Government and I believe, from memory, on the basis of a Tariff Board report that was brought in prior to that judgment. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard 2 tables. The first shows the clearance of Aus.tralian brandy for each month since August 1973 compared with clearances in the same months during the previous year. The second shows clearances of imported and Australian brandy for the past 5 years.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Berinson) -Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The documents read as follows)-

Clearance of Australian Brandy for each month since August 1973 compared to clearances for the same month in the previous year.

Mr GILES:

-I thank the chamber for that courtesy. It will be noted that the figures which I have had incorporated in Hansard apply up to but not including the mini-Budget excise increases. Nor do they indicate the results of those increases. The first table I have had incorporated shows quite clearly the percentage fall for the month of September 1972 compared with 1973 right through to May 1973 compared with May 1974. 1 think those figures speak for themselves. The second table deals with the percentage of imported brandy compared with total Australian sales. It shows that in February 1969 the percentage of imported brandy compared with Australian produced brandy was 1 1.72 per cent. That table shows that by February 1974 the percentage of imported brandy compared with Australian produced brandy had risen to 21.11 per cent. It is not my intention to labour that particular tariff report unduly or the consequential action that the Government took hi relation to this matter.

The Government has magnified this problem that I have just mentioned to honourable members. Since coming into office the Government has twice increased the duty on all spirits and this, of course, is in addition to removing the advantage previously enjoyed by the Australian brandy industry over other Australian spirit industries. I will quote Mr T. W. C. Angove of

Angove’s Pty Ltd, Renmark, whose wine members of this place enjoy from time to time in another spot. He said: … the degree of apparent malice in this imposition is only exceeded by the muddle of Government ineptitude.

He went on to say that the 94 per cent increase in brandy duty imposed in August last year had reduced brandy sales by 20 per cent. This figure is borne out by the tables that I have incorporated in Hansard. He said that this latest excise increase amounting to 42 per cent, plus sales tax of 15 per cent, gives a total increase of 178 per cent on the brandy industry in 13 months. He said that such savage treatment levelled at the brandy industry can only be construed as intended to cripple the industry severely, that is, the grape growers, the producers and distributors. I agree with his statement and furthermore I point out that the Government is now taking, on the basis of grapes used in the brandy industry, an amount of approximately $1,200 a tondepending on what area one is looking atalthough the grower gets $70 a ton as a result of a decision by the Prices Commissioner in South Australia. I think that to all fair-minded members this must amount to a scandalous situation. The Government has also been made well aware of the following problem: The difference in favour of Australian produced brandy over imported brandy is now 19c per litre alcohol whereas the difference in favour of Australian produced whisky over imported whisky is now 66c per litre alcohol. The industry, realising that this was an anomaly in the mathematics behind the Government action, requested that it should be equalised during the current Budget. Nothing was done. The Minister for Agriculture, Senator Wriedt, said on another occasion that obviously the Government must have another look at the whole incidence of taxation on the industry but nothing has happened.

On behalf of the industry I say that all sections of it, particularly the growers, are heartily fed up with this lack of action by the Government and its general attitude of half killing an industry and then saying: ‘What is wrong? Is there anything we can do to help?’ This attitude is all too prevalent when dealing with many Australian industries today. The Government has produced, through budgetary and general economic action, a situation that is intolerable to many fine Aus.tralian industries. It is time the Government realised its responsibilities instead of trying to duck shove the blithe platitudes which are meaningless to anyone who understands the problems facing the industry. I ask leave to incorporate in Hansard a further table.

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

The attention of the Government is respectfully drawn to the rate of Customs Duty and the Excise Duty applied to imported and Australian produced brandy:

Imported Brandy Customs Tariff Item 22.09.120-$6.19 per litre alcohol.

Australian produced Brandy Excise Tariff Item 2A- $6.00 per litre alcohol.

Difference in favour of Australian produced Brandy-$0.19 per litre alcohol.

As a comparison to this differential applying to brandy, the attention of the Government is drawn to the difference between Imported Whisky and Australian produced Whisky.

Imported Whisky Customs Tariff Item 22.09.220-$7.46 per litre alcohol.

Australian produced Whisky Excise Tariff Item 2E1 -$6.80 per litre alcohol,

Difference in favour of Australian produced Whisky- $0.66 per litre alcohol.

The rates of duty disclosed above show that Australian Whisky has a tariff advantage over imported Whisky amounting to66c per litre alcohol whereas Australian Brandy compared to Imported Brandy has an advantage of only 1 9c per litre alcohol.

Mr GILES:

– I thank honourable members. This table shows a complete breakdown of the customs and excise duty on imported and Australian produced brandy. It illustrates the point I have already made, that is, that there is a disadvantage suffered by the brandy industry compared with the whisky industry insofar as imported products are concerned.

I now seek in the brief time left to me in this debate to remind honourable members of the traditional use of brandy as a spirit for age pensioners and those in more necessitous circumstances. If honourable members could see the mail that I get on this subject they might not laugh so much.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr LAMB:
La Trobe

-I rise in this debate to bring to the attention of honourable members a rather serious matter. It is not a new matter; it is something that has been going on for some time. I refer to the smuggling of birds into and out of Australia. For some time there has been a great deal of organised smuggling of wildlife, especially birds, from Australia mainly to Asia and Europe, where there is a ready market, and more recently there has been smuggling of some foreign fauna and avifauna into Australia. Unfortunately, although we ban exports of certain birds from Australia, imports into Asia are not banned; so, by a quick boat trip or aeroplane trip concealed birds can be transported from Australia to Singapore or some other international destination and then imported into a further country.

Imports into this country bring 2 main dangers to Australia. Firstly, they could carry certain diseases which could infect our own natural and domestic animals and birds. Secondly, if they were predators they could displace our endemic species. One need only think of the European carp that have been introduced into waterways in this country, sometimes only a few kilometres from a fish hatchery, resulting in the destruction of the farming of fish. It is mainly the export of birds about which I want to talk. The main threat is to rare species. Consider, for instance, the only species of bird endemic to Victoria- the yellow helmeted honey eater, whose numbers are down to 300 breeding pairs which are to be found in a small area in Yellingbo on the inland side of the Dandenong Ranges. A concerted effort to trap these birds and sell them for high prices overseas could threaten that species.

But breaking the law is only half the story. The birds undergo great cruelty during their passage internationally. It is estimated that between 15 per cent and 60 per cent die in their transport. A small bird is concealed by perhaps being inserted into a stocking, tied up in a sausage shape and inserted in the lining of a coat. This is very effective in concealing the bird, but it is not very good for the bird. In some instances 80 per cent of the traffic load dies. This is a most cruel and barbaric practice. Even those birds that survive have been drugged and forced into cramped, confined spaces for the trip to market. In fact, many die even before reaching the point of export in this country. The alert officers of wildlife commissions and similar bodies which are trying to stamp out this practice sometimes intercept a load and the load is dumped because the smugglers wish to get away. Callous South Australian bird smugglers in 1972, only 2 years ago, fleeing from a wildlife service patrol, left 198 parrots to die in the desert. The birds, which could have fetched up to $40,000 on overseas black markets, were jammed in 7 tiny boxes and abandoned in a dry creek near Oodnadatta north of Adelaide. They all suffocated, died of thirst and hunger or were eaten by wild dogs.

It is not difficult to understand why the smuggling is increasing. It is a very profitable business. It has been estimated that perhaps in excess of $lm a year is earned by smugglers in this way. I shall give some examples of the prices that are being obtained overseas. In the United States of America a pink galah would sell for $100 to $200. In Singapore Port Lincoln parrots and

Twenty-eight parrots- which, as you probably know, Mr Deputy Chairman, are common in Western Australia- sell for $100 or more a pair. A true pair of golden shouldered parrots is worth up to an incredible $8,000 in London. It is unfortunate for parrots that they are very popular. They are popular because they bring higher prices and because they are very easy to keep. It is also unfortunate for these birds in which there is a traffic that bird collectors, like gem collectors and stamp collectors, pay big prices if the bird is rare. Just as a stamp collector feels proud to show off a one penny black or a Cape of Good Hope triangle, it is very big time for a bird collector to show off a rare species of bird.

The Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) has displayed a great interest in this problem for many years. He is doing what he can. But, with Australia’s coastline of 12,000 miles and the opportunities for light aircraft to fly off from many points in Australia and land on off-shore islands of perhaps Asia, it is very difficult to control this smuggling. It is very difficult to keep an eye on all unauthorised boats in the waters. It is extremely easy for someone travelling on domestic or international airlines to conceal birds in his personal clothing. Let me give two more examples. Deadly snakes, puff adders, have been posted, in of all things- the Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop) might be interested- jiffy bags. Another United States venomous snake, the water moccasin, has been found imported into this country in plastic lunchboxes. It is this incredibly easy way of transporting exotic and rare wildlife that makes it so difficult for the Attorney-General and his officers to stamp out the practice.

What are the solutions? I do not pretend to know the solutions. Perhaps it would be a good idea to bring in some form of legal export so that we can control and supervise the legitimate trade in birds and animals to avoid the cruelty and to remove the attraction of the high profits that come with illicit trading. This regulated export, of course, would have to be confined to those birds not under threat of extinction. It would have to comply with any international agreements to which Australia is a signatory. A good start might be the licensing and registration of bird breeders in Australia. These are all suggestions. We cannot solve all the problems. No department can solve them. Two forms of inquiry might be adopted. Perhaps an interdepartmental committee could review all the laws relating to the import and export of birds and small animals. I imagine that the departments involved in the inter-departmental committee would include, naturally, the Department of Customs and Excise, the Department of the Environment and Conservation and, because of the threat of imported diseases and parasites, the Department of Health. I also recommend to this Parliament that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation start an inquiry into the disgraceful and hazardous practice of trafficking in rare and endangered species of birds.

A similar inquiry has already begun overseas. The British Society for the Protection of Birds is conducting a 2-year study to discover the size of the incoming traffic in birds. An ornithologist with a 2-year contract with the Society to make the study was expected to have completed his work in September this year. He could have presented his report already. He has said that of Australia’s 250 species of parrots some 200 were regularly advertised in English magazines that circulated among bird fanciers and collectors. The rarer birds usually went to collectors who enjoyed the one-upmanship I mentioned of having something that their fellow collectors could not get. He found that for a pair of blue bonnet parrots the selling price quoted in ‘Cage and Aviary Birds’, a weekly journal, was $750, and for rosellas between $75 and $ 100.

I rose in this debate purely to bring this important matter, which arose once again in the newspapers over the weekend, to the attention of honourable members. I recommend that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation conduct such an inquiry as I have suggested.

Mr MACPHEE:
Balaclava

-I wish to speak on the estimates for the AttorneyGeneral’s Department and to make particular reference to the Australian Legal Aid Office. The Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) announced in a Press release dated 6 June 1974 that there had been established the Australian Legal Office whose stated purpose is: to provide legal advice and assistance to the socially deprived and people for whom the Australian Government has a special responsibility such as those on social services, Aborigines, ex-servicemen and migrants.

The actual function of the Office is set out in the Press statement. I quote again:

The Office will give legal advice free to anybody with an element of need. If legal representation is needed, the financial test will be whether the person is able to afford the cost of litigation.

This is a most commendable and most needed service in 5 States. So far as one can judge it is a service which has long been lacking in 5 States. Moreover the concept of having duty lawyers, which is also mentioned in the Press release, in the petty sessions jurisdiction is a most important , advance again at least in 5 States. But the sole source of our knowledge on this matter is the Press release and a series of Press releases thereafter from the Attorney-General. Although we have seen no legislation before this Parliament we have a Budget allocation of $12.4m for legal aid, including $2 for Aboriginal legal aid services. The total for the Australian Legal Aid Office is $8.8m of which $3.7m Will be paid by the Office to the private profession in legal aid matters. That is a large sum of money to be allocated without any semblance of legislation to justify it.

The first Press release of 6 June went on to state:

The Australian Legal Aid Office will provide a community legal aid service that will work in conjunction with the private legal profession and with other legal aid and community welfare organisations.

The new Director will liaise with existing legal aid organisations conducted by the States and the Law Societies to avoid duplication and to work out the best roles for the respective services.

It is important to note that most States have made an effort to provide legal aid services but the most extensive service has been provided by New South Wales. This service has existed since 1943 when the Legal Assistance Act of New South Wales was passed by the then Labor Government and it has since been extended by the current Liberal-Country Party Government. I had the privilege of working in the Public Solicitor’s Office for 8 years and I know the very valuable work which that Office performed for the very same socially deprived persons whom the Attorney-General is hoping to help by his proposals.

I know that the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Mr Enderby), who is at the table, would agree that the Office has provided most valuable work. The Public Solicitor’s Office in New South Wales currently has a staff of 70 officers, including 28 solicitors. It also has branches in Wollongong and Newcastle and until 6 August it has had responsibility for aU civil proceedings. From that date the Law Society of New South Wales has taken over responsibility for civil proceedings in the legal aid area and has extended the means test which was then applying to the Public Solicitor’s Office. The Public Solicitor’s Office now in conjunction with that move will extend into, and has since 6 August been intending to extend into, areas of petty sessions jurisdiction- that is, the very sort of area again which is proposed by the AttorneyGeneral for the Legal Aid Office.

What is important is that despite the extract from which I have read in the Press statement of 6 June there appears not to have been in the State of New South Wales consultation between the Attorney-General for the Commonwealth of Australia and the New South Wales Government in respect of its legal aid services. This is an important clash- and an important waste of money and duplication of services. The New South Wales jurisdiction, almost concurrent so it seems with proposals of the Federal AttorneyGeneral, has been extended so that the Public Solicitor can now act in petty sessions matters in a widened consent jurisdiction, widened by the New South Wales Crimes Act amendments. Also it Will extend to committal proceedings generally. This is a most welcome piece of law reform and a most welcome extended service by the New South Wales Government. But we still have the appearance of competition and lack of coordination between the Commonwealth and State Governments.

We understand that the Attorney-General intends to open an office in Newcastle. Indeed that office may have already been opened. The office is to have an opening complement of 4 solicitors with one more solicitor to come plus secretarial staff. The branch in Newcastle of the New South Wales Public Solicitor’s Office has been able to provide quite adequate service with one solicitor and secretarial staff aided of course by circuit counsel and solicitors from the Sydney office. We have then the spectacle of duplication by the Commonwealth Government when we could have had with co-operation between the 2 Governments an expansion of the existing services provided by the Public Solicitor’s Office.

In the past 12 months the Public Solicitor’s Office conducted over 15,000 interviews and it handled well over 500 divorce cases and other cases in connection with family law. An allocation was made to the Public Solicitor’s Office in the recent New South Wales Budget for 1974-75 of $536,903. Also in that Budget an allocation of $123,250 was made to the Public Defenders, of whom there are six. An allocation of $145,000 was made in respect of an item entitled ‘For the Defence of Impecunious Persons’. How much will the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth spend in New South Wales? What duplication will there be and what will be the waste of public moneys? Surely the Commonwealth Attorney-General should have concentrated in other country areas of New South Wales and in other States of Australia. He should certainly have worked in conjunction with the New South

Wales Government to extend the Public Solicitor’s Office.

I am very reliably informed that the addition of 20 professionals to the New South Wales Public Solicitor’s Office at a cost of approximately $200,000 would double the work load and the capacity of the Office and this would bring greater benefit to the very persons whom the Attorney-General is seeking to assist. The Office could widen the means test and extend services at far less cost to the Australian taxpayer and with far less ill will among the salaried staff. The Attorney-General has spoken of his Australian Legal Aid Office being the model of what a salaried staff can do in the legal profession. That model has been in New South Wales since 1943 and has proved all of the things which the Attorney-General says can be done by salaried staff.

I believe that we are entitled to an explanation. The community of Australia through this Parliament is entitled to an explanation for this apparent contradiction of the AttorneyGeneral’s own stated aims and the huge items of expenditure which we see in this Budget for the Legal Aid Office which is not even established by legislation and upon which there has been no debate in this Parliament. I do not begrudge the $ 12.5m per annum which is being spent on legal aid throughout Australia. But I believe that it would be better spent by not competing with New South Wales and that this matter should have been the subject of legislation by this Parliament.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Farrer

– I will not delay the Committee for very long. I wish to speak on the estimates for the Department of Customs and Excise. I am disappointed to see that the Minister for Overseas Trade (Dr J. F. Cairns) who represents the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Murphy) in this place is not here. I do not know whether or not he is back in the country yet. I hope that my remarks will be taken to the appropriate Minister because I want to complain about what I believe is one of the most irresponsible acts carried out by the present Government, and goodness knows that would be saying something. I refer to the decision to make a 25 per cent across-the-board tariff cut. Undoubtedly the chickens are now coming home to roost because of this decision.

I could not understand why this irresponsible action was taken. The Tariff Board has the responsibility of deciding what minimum amount of assistance is necessary to enable an economic and efficient industry to compete with imports.

The tariff is set at the very minimum. The Government has suddenly decided that the tariff should be cut by 25 per cent. The effect of such a decision has been quite disastrous in some cases. I say that it is irresponsible to take such action firstly because a number of people in a number of areas throughout Australia have lost their employment as a result of the making of such a decision and, secondly, because we lost a chance when we did so to get a quid pro quo. Everyone knows that there is an enormous amount of bargaining and negotiation internationally on tariffs. If we had intended to reduce some of our tariffs we could have persuaded many other countries to reduce their tariffs so as to enable us to export more easily to them. But that was not done. It was a grandiose bit of grandstanding. For a while we were told what a great move it was, how things were going to come into this country more cheaply and how that would affect the cost of living. But all that has happened, of course, is that the industries which had been to the Tariff Board and had been given the very minimum that was necessary to enable them to compete with imports have now found that they are unable to compete. Some of them have gone to the wall and some of them have partially gone to the wall.

I want to speak about the effect of this decision on my own area. I do not doubt that every honourable member in this chamber could bring forward similar examples. I live close to what has been termed a growth centre. The actions of the Government in making a 25 per cent tariff cut across the board have undermined every growth centre that there was ever likely to be in this country. Before Albury-Wodonga was selected as a growth centre it was thriving. It was going ahead at something like a 7 per cent rate of growth. It was getting funds from the State sphere to assist in encouraging industry to become established there. We had quite a major success in the setting up there of a plant by BorgWarner (Aust.) Ltd for the making of motor car gears. It was to supply most of Australia with motor car gears partly from that plant and partly from its Sydney plant. It looked like building up into one of the major inland industries in Australia. But what happened? The Government took 2 steps. Firstly, it cut tariffs by 25 per cent; secondly, it revalued the dollar. In no time a number of viable industries in Albury-Wodonga were no longer viable.

A few weeks ago Borg- Warner retrenched 72 people. Of course, it has also ceased recruiting. So in addition to the jobs of the 72 people who were actually sacked there would have been many more jobs available if it had still been a viable industry. Only last week Borg-Warner announced that a further 84 people would be dismissed from its Albury plant. So here we have a major country industry which is just running down. In fact, if the report of the Industries Assistance Commission is accepted by the Government, I have been led to believe that it could well be the end of Borg-Warner in Albury as an industry, certainly as a viable industry. Of course, its establishment is one of the major ways in which that growth centre was meant to be built up.

Other country areas have been affected by the Government’s decision to cut tariffs because it has led to vast imports of textiles and the textile industries throughout Australia are mostly located in country areas. A greater percentage of the manufacturing industry to be found in country areas is the textile industry. A number of textile industries in country areas have closed because of the tariff cuts. That is particularly so in Wangaratta. I have never heard a statement quite as irresponsible as the one made by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) that anyone who was out of employment at Wangaratta could go to the Albury- Wodonga growth centre and get employment. He is either not interested or has not cared to inform himself of the fact that there is major unemployment at Albury-Wodonga. One textile industry there told me that only 10 months ago it employed 200 people and that today it employs less than 100 people. Some of that has been brought about by actual retrenchments but most of it by not recruiting. That is another result of the decision to cut tariffs by 25 per cent across the board.

An inquiry should have been held before such a decision was taken. In fact, I believe there is some doubt as to the legality of cutting tariffs unless a full inquiry has been held. Another factory in Albury-Wodonga- one could go through them at great length- known as Twin Disc (Pacific) Pty Ltd, which was making axles and which was going to produce them locally, also has been affected. It had just tooled up to start when the announcements about the 25 per cent tariff cut and the revaluations of the dollar came. The firm said that it could not compete with imports and that it would cease to manufacture. It said that it would just be a distribution centre. So another valuable industry was lost to the area. There are many other country centres in which that has happened.

What happens to those people who are retrenched? I have heard mentioned that there is considerable unemployment because of the tariff cuts and various other economic actions by the Government. The stupid thing about it all is that there are now 3 categories of unemployed. There are apparently the people who will receive the same salary as they were receiving before they lost their jobs because of the Government’s decision to cut tariffs. If they receive the same salary for 6 months there will be no incentive for them to look for another job. I want to point to the inequity of one person getting his full wage because he lost his job as a result of the Government’s stupidity in relation to tariffs and of another person who lost his job because of the Government’s stupidity in economic affairs generally not getting his full wage but getting only the unemployment benefit. Then there is the third category of people who are retrained at something like $90 a week for a job which will not be in existence when they finish their training. What a stupid mess. Who will make the decision as to what a person will get when he becomes unemployed? Who will decide whether his unemployment is due to the Government’s stupidity on tariff affairs or the Government’s stupidity on economic affairs? For whatever reason they are out of work such people will get different rates of pay for being out of work. All I am saying is that that is the last way in which to encourage the development of a growth centre. In fact, we would have been much better off if before we had a growth centre we had had common sense economic management of the community. But nothing has been done by the Government to ensure that viable industry would be built up. One can go from a population of 30,000 at present to 300,000 at the end of the century in Albury-Wodonga only by attracting industry, but nothing has been done as yet to attract industry. There have been lots of planners in the area but that is about all. There have also been promises made, including the promise of the local call rate being applied to certain telephone calls, but we know that we are not going to get that. It was only an election gimmick.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– I wish to speak about the estimates for the AttorneyGeneral’s Department and the Department of Customs and Excise. My colleague the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Adermann), who is the shadow Minister for Customs and Excise, has recently been to the Northern Territory. While there he displayed a more than usual interest in the activities of the Department of Customs and Excise. I should say that he received very good treatment from the personnel of the Department, as I have always received. I note that he has said that the section of the Department of Customs and Excise in the Northern Territory is deficient in many of the facilities that are normally provided to sections of the Department in other parts of Australia.

Of course, the dreadful shadow hanging over the Northern Territory directly and Australia indirectly at the moment is the possible introduction of foot and mouth disease into Australia. We are always very conscious of this matter. I know- I have commended the Government previously on this matter- that the Government is drawing up a forward plan to try to meet the problem in the country from which it might come. I hope that it will be a success. The Government has sent a very good veterinary officer overseas. But I hope that the customs men in Darwin will not have to carry the absolute responsibility in relation to the combating of this dreadful disease. I commend the efforts of the shadow Minister and of the staff of the Department. The Northern Territory Police Force is now administered by the. Attorney-General’s Department. When this was first proposed I said that I did not consider it to be in the best interests of that Force. The recently elected majority Party in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly had as part of its policy -

Mr Nixon:

– It was a good election result.

Mr CALDER:

– Yes. It has not been finalised, but at the moment it seems pretty good.

Mr Nixon:

– How did the Labor Party go?

Mr CALDER:

-There are no Labor Party members in the Assembly probably because of the Labor Party’s policies in Canberra and because of the way its campaign was handled in the Northern Territory. I would hope that the administration of the Northern Territory Police Force would be returned to the Territory and that its administration should be one of the duties allotted to the new Assembly. I appreciate that some of the items of equipment the Northern Territory Police Force has secured since it has been under a Commowealth-wide set-up have been to its advantage. I believe the Commonwealth Police Force and the Northern Territory Police Force could work co-operatively in the field but the Northern Territory is 2,000 miles from Canberra and its was proven on Saturday last that people in Canberra do not know the situation in the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory Police Force is lacking one of its most important arms- the special branch which was closed down by the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Murphy) for no apparent reason. Some honourable members know the reasons but, be that as it may, that information gathering service is essential to the Northern Territory. It has not been replaced by any other service and in this area where there are problems arising from customs procedures and overseas visitors landing in foreign aircraft constant surveillance is necessary. I urge the Government to give strength to the actual investigating service.

I notice that the allocation to the Australian Legal Aid Office is to be increased by about $7. 8m this year. The expenditure on legal aid in the Northern Territory is increased by $40,000. One of my colleagues said that the provision for the Aboriginal legal aid service is also being considerably increased. I should like the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Mr Enderby), who is representing the Attorney-General in this debate, to answer some questions about the activities of the legal aid service in the Northern Territory. During the recent Legislative Assembly election campaign legal aid personnel were campaigning actively for the Labor Party. I should like to know why Government money is being spent in this way. In one instance a car was hired by a Labor Party candidate. The hire cost was $300. After he had been on an election tour for 7 days that car was towed 30 miles back into town. It has not been on the road since. About $400 worth of repairs must be made to it. This car was hired by the legal aid service and used by a Labor Party candidate. I should like to know why these things happen. They should not happen. It is absolutely and utterly wrong. The honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) told a whole lot of untruths about a person who at one time was chairman of a local branch of the Country Party. He spoke an awful lot of nonsense, but I am giving facts and figures about Government funds being used during an election campaign. Why did this happen? I expect the Attorney-General’s Department to investigate the use of these vehicles and of legal aid personnel for political purposes because it is utterly wrong.

The legal aid service in Central Australia seems to work hand in hand with the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress. A man by the name of Perkins seems to be tied up with both institutions. He is supposed to be secretary of the CAAC which at Government expense during this election campaign circulated letters on the notepaper of the Congress recommending to Aborigines that they did not support a certain candidate and suggesting that he was an ex-policeman who was known to treat Aborigines badly and belonged to a racist party. Another letter suggested that Aborigines should not support a certain candidate because he belonged to the racist CountryLiberal Party. He is entitled to think that but he is not entitled to use the notepaper of a government instrumentality to circulate such an opinion. This man acts in conjunction with the legal aid service. Had I not known that, I would have discovered it yesterday when I gave a lift to Aenoch Raberaba. He was on Todd Street and he said that he wanted to go to the legal aid service. I asked him who he wanted to see and he said ‘Neville Perkins’, so the Aborigines accept him as being associated with the legal aid service. I do not know whether he is, but I have outlined what has been happening.

At one time the Minister for Manufacturing Industry was Minister for the Northern Territory. I do not think he got around the Central Aus.tralian area very much but I should like him to explain to me, to the people of Central Australia and to the people of Australia generally why Government money was used to support Labor Party candidates during the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly elections. Although the final votes have not been counted, the way the count is going it seems as though that money may have been spent in vain. One could ask other questions about the way money is expended through government instrumentalities A lot of money is being spent through the legal aid service and other bodies but half the time the Aborigines are not getting any benefit. I am all for the Aborigines having a fair go but money is being wasted by part-coloureds from elsewhere.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Giles)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr ENDERBY:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · Canberra · ALP

– The honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) has been true to reputation, true to his well-known style.

Mr Nixon:

– Answer his questions.

Mr ENDERBY:

– I will try to do so. It is interesting that the honourable member should single out a service as fundamentally important and valuable as the legal aid scheme for poor people, destitute people and deprived people as having been abused. His own colleague, the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee), sang the praises of the legal aid service and emphasised the need to increase such service for people who need it. The honourable member for the Northern Territory chose to abuse it in a smear-like way.

Mr Calder:

– I just want the facts.

Mr ENDERBY:

– I have no knowledge of what the honourable member ranted about. I will certainly cause inquiries to be made but I am confident that the facts are not in any way like he represented them to be. The honourable member expressed regret that the special duties branch of the Northern Territory Police Force had been disbanded. That body was disbanded for a very good reason. It was a political police force. Its duties were political. Its duties were to study the political views of people in the Northern Territory, to vet people there, to put forward reports on them, to maintain dossiers on them, to receive advice and to pass it on to various agencies. That police force consisted of two or three people.

Shortly after coming to office, the present Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) ordered that that branch be disbanded- and properly so. Such a force is completely inconsistent with what Australians stand for. We do not believe in that sort of thing at all. It was set up and tolerated by the previous Government. We reject that sort of activity. The direction given by the AttorneyGeneral on it was that if there were overt breaches of the criminal law those breaches should be investigated in the normal way in which breaches are investigated and any case against a person should be brought to trial in the normal courts. So much for the special branch of the Northern Territory police, the closing down of which causes such great concern to the honourable member for the Northern Territory.

Another matter raised by the honourable member concerned the Northern Territory Police Force and the decision to make it responsible to the Australian Government AttorneyGeneral. The honourable member concedes that in the time since that change was made advantages have accrued. From his own lips fell the admission that the equipment and other facilities of that force have been improved. It has to be recognised that there is a basic conflict of interest in situations of this sort. It is my understanding that the scheme which is being prepared will give a large degree of autonomy in the administrative arrangements of the 2 Territory police systems as they exist. They become a part of an overall Australian police system but with a large degree of autonomy in respect of matters such as discipline. Individual members of that police force are given the advantages of a uniform system that is bigger and has better promotional opportunities, more flexibility and greater diversity of work, which will continue to improve the morale and efficiency of the service that that police force can provide to the Australian people.

I said to the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fairbairn) that I was not representing the Minister for Customs and Excise in respect of that portfolio in this debate. That is true. But the honourable member spoke about the 25 per cent cut in tariffs. Although he did not emphasise this aspect very much, he related that cut to the revaluations of last year, and that subject is of concern to my Department. So, I deem it proper to say a few words in reply.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– His remarks were very well said.

Mr ENDERBY:

– I would argue not. The honourable member talked of Government stupidity. He talked of it on several occasions, using that word. I do not wish to be offensive to him as he was offensive to the Government. But I ask him: What sort of stupidity was it on the part of the previous Government, of which he was a member, when in 1971-72 that Government allowed the money supply in this country to get completely out of control or completely out of hand so that increase in the supply of money circulating in Australia in the latter pan of 1972 and during 1973 was in excess of 30 per cent? That caused in the circumstances at that time in large measure the inflationary flood that hit Australia at the end of 1 972 and early in 1 973.

I am sure that he knows, if he reflects upon it, that the diagnosis universally adopted by people at that time- I emphasise that they were not the conditions that we have at the moment- flowed from the refusal of the Government of that day to revalue. He was a member of that Government. He will recall the debate which took place in this building behind closed doors for a week in December 1971 when the Party of which he is a member- the Liberal Party- tried desperately to revalue but was not allowed to revalue because of opposition by the Country Party to that action. That is the substance of the reports that went out; it may or may not be true. The fact remains that that revaluation did not take place.

Overseas funds poured into Australia. Nothing like a variable deposit scheme was introduced. In early 1973, with the Australian dollar very much undervalued, a great excess of liquidity situation existed in Australia, with too many dollars chasing too few goods. What else could the Australian Government have done? We acted firmly, resolutely and properly. I would hate to think of what would have happened in respect of inflation in Australia in 1973 if the Australian Government had not acted to revalue the Aus.tralian dollar and to introduce the 25 per cent cut in tariffs to encourage imports to Australia. I ask the honourable member for Farrer to reflect on that. If one is going to throw stones, one should reflect on the decisions of the previous Government which produced that situation- the honourable member nods in agreement- which was inherited by us.

Mr Fairbairn:

– The inflation rate was only 4 per cent.

MR ENDERBY:

-Yes, the former Government had an inflation rate of 4 per cent because it did not do years ago the things which should have been done. I remind the honourable member of the Budget introduced by his Government in 1972. That Government was fighting to survive. It faced a growing unemployment problem- not as great as we have now, it is true- and introduced a Budget providing for a deficit of $660m. That was gross financial and economic irresponsibility. The Government was fighting to survive in an election. I appreciate that fact. What sort of a time bomb did we pick up?

Let me continue by referring again to matters affecting the Attorney-General’s Department. It was with some pleasure that I heard the complimentary remarks which were paid to this Government by Opposition speakers, particularly the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee), in dealing with the estimates for the Attorney-General’s Department. I say, and I have believed this for some time, that of all the achievements of this Government- and they are many- the one that perhaps stands out highest is what we have managed to do and begun to do in forms of law reform. Let me single out a few of these achievements. Some are attempts. Some have failed. Many have succeeded.

For example, we recognise, as I think many honourable members opposite recognise, that the Constitution needed to be changed. It was desperately in need of reform. But it is very difficult to reform the Constitution. The previous Government never tried. We at least tried through referenda to gain additional authority in this area, but we were refused by the people. That refusal came in large measure because the Opposition opposed what we proposed. It confused the people and put fear into them even though basically it believes, as we all know it believes, that the Constitution is greatly in need of reform. When attempts are made to reform it, opposition to that reform always comes from members of the Opposition. When the Opposition Parties are in office they never do anything about such reform.

Let me deal with another small matter. Practising lawyers in this chamber will know how difficult it is for lawyers to find their law and how that difficulty is reflected in increased legal costs that they must charge their clients. This is particularly so when Australian Government law, Commonwealth law as it is sometimes called or Federal law, is involved. The statutes where the law largely is to be found are not consolidated No consolidation has occurred since 1957, nearly 20 years ago. The previous Government had 20 years in which to put the situation right and to consolidate the statutes into a single set of books from which lawyers and laymen could find the law. The former Government did nothing about that need. The work was too hard. But we have done it. The first two volumes are now out, and we have been in office for only 20 months. That is only a small matter.

Let me go on. The previous Government did nothing of consequence about legal aid. Now the Opposition praises us for the actions that we have taken. We had to do what we did and we were the first to set aside substantial funds for setting up an Australian Legal Aid Office. The former Government did not do that. Yet Opposition supporters now rise and say ‘You could have done it differently’, or something like that. But we did it. We recognised that a great need existed for legal services, whether those services be required to defend a person charged with a criminal offence, to assist a person to assert his legal rights in a civil cause, or to enable a person to defend himself against some charge brought against him by some other citizen. There is a great need to give people access to the courts because our courts are the bastion of Australian liberty. But this access is denied and traditionally has been denied to people with limited means. The position of the rich man is all right. But when it comes to the poor man wishing to go to court and to assert his legal rights nothing was done by the former Government to assist him. This Government has set up an Australian Legal Aid Office and has given large amounts of money to the private lawyers’ sector to enable them to provide this service. Also, we have subsidised State legal aid systems.

A total review of the Australian criminal law is being considered. That law has been in a mess for a very long while. Well known to honourable members is the controversial but important area of divorce law reform. Honourable members may wish to call it family law. This law has not been changed for many, many years- in fact, since Sir Garfield Barwick introduced the Matrimonial Causes Bill in 1 957, 1 think. It became out of date and honourable members opposite did nothing about it. The Family Law Bill has now been introduced in the Senate. In a democratic way it is being discussed by citizens around the country. Clergymen groups, non-clergymen groups, humanist groups, lawyers groups, nonlawyers groups, informed groups and others are discussing the Bill. This is an example of democracy working. In the near future we will get an updated, modern and rational set of divorce laws in this country with provision for custody of children and settlement of property disputes between spouses. Honourable members opposite did not introduce legislation covering this. They did not even try.

I remind honourable members of the restrictive trade practices legislation. For how many years were honourable members opposite put off by the pressure- and being a person subjected to it myself I know how strong it can be- of vested, powerful groups from giving this country a proper set of anti-restrictive trade practice laws? Honourable members opposite knew- we have heard it in their private discussions- that Australia suffered badly by not having any antirestrictive trade practice legislation. America has had it since the 1890s, and so has Canada, the United Kingdom and aU of Western Europe. We were left alone to have our people exploited by monopolies by restrictive trade practices, retail price fixing and aU manner of devices designed to exploit. Honourable members opposite did nothing about it. They fobbed, backed off, excused, explained and found it too hard. But really, behind it all, they yielded to the pressure put upon them by the people who benefited from the system, not the majority of persons who were suffering under it. Now Australia has, for the first time, an effective set of anti-restrictive trade practices legislation. It has been working for only a few months. We will see the benefit of it.

Who refused to enact any legislation to control the securities industry of this country, notwithstanding the abuses that we know prevail in it? Honourable members opposite did nothing. They knew about the abuses largely because, I suppose, they were associated with the people who perpetrated them. From where did the opposition come for a securities and exchange commission when the Senate committee began to reveal these abuses? There is nothing radical in such a commission. The Americans have had one for 30 or 40 years. From where does the opposition come when suggestions are made to put that industry right so that it serves the community and does not exploit it? It comes from honourable members opposite. From where does the advocacy for it come? It comes from our side. The Government wants to introduce reform. Who opposes it? The Liberal and Country Parties.

The Liberal and Country Parties believe in State rights to such an extent that they believe the States should be the only parts of Australia to have their own company laws so that those people who are inclined to exploit the system can take advantage of the fact that this country has 8 different sets of company laws- including the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. Who says that is the best of all systems? Occasionally unscrupulous people can exploit the situation. Who opposes our measures to try to have a uniform, single set of company laws for Australia? It is members of the Opposition. Yet, common sense and general acceptance tell us that a single set of laws of that sort for the whole of Australia is desirable. But members opposite, perhaps reflecting the views of the people who support them, oppose it. But progress is being made under this Government.

The honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Ellicott) touched on the question of an ombudsman. Yes, we have moved to create one. Honourable members opposite had 23 years in which to create one. The honourable member applauds what we are doing, and I thank him for the recommendation. He is critical of a couple of aspects. For example, he does not want the position to be a squib. I can assure him that it will not be a squib. We attach enormous importance to civil liberties. If honourable members care to take the time and look at our platform which is in a written, published form- we began publishing our platforms and policies long before the Liberal and Country Parties did- they will find pages dealing with the importance we attach to civil liberties and to human rights. Honourable members opposite never even dreamed of setting up an Australian ombudsman. Some Australian States have had an ombudsman for years. We are now setting up an ombudsman and it is hoped that the necessary legislation will be introduced in this parliamentary session, notwithstanding the enormous burden of work load of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel.

Of all the things that are said about this Government no one has ever said that it is not the hardest working and most industrious government that this country has ever had. When one thinks of the work load of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and what it manages to get through in a legislative program for the presentation of Bills to this House and to the Senate it is quite remarkable what Mr Charles

Comans and his men are able to achieve. We hope that the legislation dealing with the setting up of an ombudsman will be able to take its place in this current session. The honourable member for Wentworth also mentioned the question of the administrative review committee as it was recommended by the Bland Committee and also by the Kerr Committee. We are going to set up a committee along those lines but under a different name. The Attorney-General has already announced that a Bill to establish an administrative appeals tribunal is now being drafted and that the drafting is at an advanced stage. We hope to be able to introduce that legislation for discussion and consideration in this chamber this session before we rise for the Christmas break.

Many other points were raised. The honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) talked about the Sangster case in South Australia. I should like to place on record my general agreement with what the honourable member for Prospect said. He also said that there is an unfortunate tradition in Australia that lawyers and judges are not criticised. They almost seem to be above the forum. I see the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) also nods agreement from the Opposition benches. Speaking as a lawyer- not a practising lawyer these days- I agree there is a conservatism in the law, and that is very regrettable. There is a tendency not to air issues which should be aired in any democratic society. Mention was made of Mr Jim Staples, who is an old friend of mine. I think it is to his very great credit that he has managed to bring out into the open, through the media, some of those issues in New South Wales. The case of the refusal of the South Australian judge to allow a salaried lawyer the right to appear before the judge surely reflects an out of date point of view.

The law is riddled with restrictive trade practices. I mentioned the Trade Practices Bill, but the law is riddled with restrictive trade practices. For example in some parts of the country, and indeed in England, there is a law that limits the right of audience of a solicitor to appear in a superior court. That is a restrictive trade practice or agreement. It does not serve the public interest in many cases. There is the so-called 2 counsel rule that requires a litigant, if he wants the services of a Q.C., to have the services of a junior barrister as well. In many cases it is not necessary. It may be desirable in some cases, but as a requirement it works to the great disadvantage of many lawyers and many litigants. Yet the law is riddled with those sorts of situations.

The Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court was completed shortly after I came to Canberra in 1963. It is a nice, modern building designed by good architects, presumably. It looks pleasant from the outside. But what was incorporated in it? Cells. There is incorporated a dungeon down below in the bowels of the earth. That barbaric relic of feudalism- a dock- was also put in. This again is just a reflection of the conservatism of lawyers. In this day and age there is no reason why a person accused of a crime should not sit behind his lawyer in a civilised way, as accused people do in many other parts of the world, and not be confined to a dock, even though it is made of polished wood, as a symbol that he is tainted and should be sent off somewhere. The other aspect- of course, this is a measure of this Government’s determined efforts to reform the situation- is that we have a system of third party insurance. I practised for many years in the courts which dealt with such matters. I suppose I made a certain amount of money out of my profession in that way. I was well paid for doing that work. But there is something terribly wrong about a system which makes the right to be compensated in, say, a motor car accident depend upon a lottery, and that is just what it is. I will not go on for much longer.

Mr Nixon:

– Hear! Hear!

Mr ENDERBY:

-The honourable member does not like to hear the truth, because it hurts. In the Australian Capital Territory we have set up a conveyancing office which gives access to cheap conveyancing services to people who might otherwise have difficulty in affording such a service. I started my remarks by saying that of all the achievements of this Government perhaps its greatest has been in the area of law reform. I have listed some of our achievements in that area. There are many others that I could describe, such as the legal aid scheme and the others that I have mentioned.

Proposed expenditures agreed to.

Department of Transport

Proposed expenditure, $260, 1 1 4,000,

Mr NIXON:
Gippsland

-There are many items in the estimates for the Department of Transport which require discussion here but, unfortunately, with only 10 minutes allowed per speaker, it is not possible to ask the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) all of the questions that one would need to. The trouble is that question time in this House is becoming a farce. None of the Ministers answers questions properly. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) stands up- he is getting far too big for his boots- and plainly does not answer the questions asked of him.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

-Order! If the honourable gentleman wants to continue his remarks I suggest that he use the limited time he has in discussing these estimates.

Mr NIXON:

– The fact is that we cannot ascertain any information at all from the Prime Minister. He is still in the clouds in the sky somewhere travelling between one country and another. So because of the limited time available to us it is very difficult to seek all the answers to all the questions and all the problems in the transport field. Let me give an example of what I mean. The Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) a couple of weeks ago overrode a decision taken by the Government of New South Wales in relation to the construction of a freeway. In fact, his intervention has stupidly left the freeway 40 feet up in the air. This stage has been reached after the freeway has been under construction for a long period. The Minister for Transport, who is at the table, is party to this situation. He gives absolutely no reason for it, other than the emotive reason that it might be interfering with some people who are demonstrating down below. The simple fact is that information was given to the Minister long before this stage was reached, and the Minister’s Department had the information right through the construction of that freeway.

There are a dozen issues of that nature which require answers. I could refer to the Minister’s failure to honour a promise to the people at Walker’s shipyard in Maryborough. That constitutes just the straight breaking of a promise. These are all matters that ought to be explored in this Parliament, but plainly there is just not the time. Again the Minister has failed to do what he said he would do upon coming into office, and that is to introduce taxation incentives for shipping companies to enter overseas trade. The Minister has failed to assist the shipbuilding industry. We are now down to about one shipbuilder in the whole of Australia. AU of these things ought to be explored during the consideration of these estimates, but we are limited to an hour and a half in the consideration of this very important area.

I want to raise another matter which is of importance. I have given to the Minister a list of trade unions which I believe are under very strong communist domination. I seek leave to have the list incorporated in Hansard.

The CHAIRMAN:

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

page 2675

WATERSIDE WORKERS’ FEDERATION

N. Docker, Federal Industrial Officer, Communist Party of Australia, ‘ Current Affairs Bulletin ‘, September 1967

  1. Wallington, Federal Organiser (Retired but still influential), Communist Party of Australia, ‘Tribune’, 27 October 1971.
  2. Nelson, Sydney Secretary; Federal Vice-President (Retired), Socialist Party of Australia, ‘Tribune’, 8 October 1958.
  3. Bolger, Sydney Secretary, Socialist Party of Australia, ‘Sydney Morning Herald’, 12 July 1973.
  4. Maxwell, Sydney Vice-President, Communist Party of Australia, Communist candidate for the House of Representatives in 1961.
  5. Supple, Sydney Vigilante Officer, Socialist Party of Australia, ‘Sydney Morning Herald ‘, 1 2 July 1 973.

John Healy, WWF Federal Council Officer, Communist Party of Australia, ‘Sydney Morning Herald’, 12 July 1973.

  1. Divers, Vigilante Officer- Sydney Branch, Communist Party of Australia, ‘Sydney Morning Herald’, 12 July 1973.
  2. Munro, Sydney Vigilante Officer, Socialist Party of Australia, ‘Tribune’, 6 December 1964.
  3. Keating, Newcastle Official, Communist, ‘Tribune’, 15 July 1970.
  4. E. Bull, Victorian Secretary, Communist Party of Australia (Marxist-Leninist), ‘Tribune’, 13 August 1970.
  5. Clarke, Victorian Official, Communist, ‘Tribune’, 29 July 1970.
  6. Hillier, Victorian Official, Communist, ‘Tribune’, 29 July 1970.
  7. Lenane, Queensland Secretary, Communist Parry of Australia, ‘Tribune’, 3 March 1971.
  8. Stubbings, Queensland Treasurer, Communist Party of Australia, Queensland State Committee of Communist Party of Australia, ‘Tribune ‘, 5 June 1 972.
  9. Horn, Queensland Vigilante Officer, Communist, Queensland Premier’s List, 4 August 1 970.
  10. McAlpine, Secretary Brisbane Port Committee, Communist, Queensland Premier’s List, 4 August 1 970.
  11. Kellaway, Queensland Trades and Labor Council Delegate, Communist Party of Australia, Queensland Premier’s List, 4 August 1970.
  12. W. Timms, Queensland Official, Communist Party of Australia, elected to State Committee of the Queensland Branch in 1970, Queensland State Committee press release, 1970.
  13. Mitchell, South Australia Trades and Labour Council delegate, South Australian President of Socialist Party of Australia, 1973, Letterhead of the SPA (South Australia Branch).

Ron Connolly, Port Adelaide Councillor WWF, Socialist Party of Australia, ‘Spa’, June 1973, page 6, column 5.

  1. M. Fitzgerald, Rank and File Executive, Communist Party of Australia, Queensland Premier’s List, 4 August 1970.
  2. D. Symon, South Australian Official, Socialist Party of Australia, General Secretary SPA ‘Spa’, June 1972.
  3. McCool, Victorian Organiser, Communist Party of Australia, Authorise Communist ‘ Wharfie ‘,1973.
  4. Ellston, Sydney Branch Official, Communist Party of Australia, ‘Tribune ‘,27 October 1 97 1 .
  5. Murray, Secretary- Port Kembla Branch, Communist Party of Australia, ‘Tribune ‘,27 October 1971.
  6. Black, Federal Councillar, Socialist Parry of Australia, ‘Sydney Morning Herald’, 12 July 1973.
  7. Parker, Federal Councillor, Sydney Maritime Branch, Communist Party of Australia, ‘Tribune ‘,27 October 1 97 1 .
  8. McFarlane, Sydney Organiser, Socialist Party of Australia, Delegate to the Georgi Dimitrov school in Bulgaria to study Socialism, ‘Spa’, November 1973.
  9. McAlear, Wollongong Trades and Labour Council Delegate, Communist Party of Australia, ‘Tribune’, 27 October 1971.
  10. Gill, Brisbane Port Committee, Communist Party of Australia, Contributed to ‘Tribute’, 1 1 July 1972, discussion on WWF conditions.
  11. MacPherson, Queensland Official, Communist, Authorises Communist newsheet- ‘ Wharfie ‘, 1 969.
  12. Luxton, South Australian Official, Communist.
  13. Manning, Darwin Secretary, Communist, Contributed to ‘Discussion’ at 21st National Congress of the CPA’Tribune’, 1967.
  14. Watson, Secretary, port Kembla Branch, Communist Party of Australia, ‘Tribune’, 27 October 197 1 .

page 2675

SEAMEN’S UNION OF AUSTRALIA

E. V. Elliott, Federal Secretary, Socialist Party of Australia, ‘ Tribune % 26 April 1961

  1. Geraghty, Assistant Federal Secretary, Socialist Party of Australia, ‘Socialist’, June 1974.

Pat Sweetenson, Assistant Secretary, Sydney, Socialist Party of Australia, ‘Spa’, July 1972.

Les Kelton, Sydney Official, Socialist Party of Australia, Central Committee Member, 1973, ‘Spa’, April 1973.

  1. Brennan, Newcastle Secretary and Federal President, Socialist Party of Australia, ‘Tribune ‘, 30 January 1 962.
  2. Wood, Queensland Official, Socialist Party of Australia, President of the Brisbane Maritime Branch, ‘Spa’, August 1972.
  3. Wilkie, Sydney Branch Official, Communist Party of Australia, ‘Tribune’, 27 October 197 1 .
  4. R. Higham, Port Kembla Branch Official, Socialist Party of Australia, Port Kembla Maritime Branch, Supports ‘Australian Socialist’, July 1972. ‘Spa’, 1972.

Roger Wilson, Assistant Secretary, Victoria, Communist Party of Australia, ‘Tribune’, 3 March 1971 and 27 October 1971.

page 2675

SHIPS PAINTERS AND DOCKERS UNION

Nick Origlass, Influential Member New South Wales, Trotskyist- Revolutionary Marxist Tendency of the Fourth International, ‘Sydney Morning Herald’, 28 July 1973.

page 2676

MARITIME WORKERS’ UNION OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Chris Wells, Newly elected Secretary of the Maritime Workers’ Union of Western Australia, Communist Party of Australia, ‘Tribune’, 1973, 17 years in Communist Party of Australia.

page 2676

TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION

page 2676

AUSTRALIAN RAILWAYS UNION

Yuri Joakimiois, South Australian activist, Communist Party of Australia, Senate candidate in 1974, ‘Tribune’, 16 April 1974.

Tony Mather, Treasurer, Central Queensland district, Socialist Party of Australia, Queensland State Committee, ‘Socialist’, August 1974.

page 2676

FEDERATED ENGINE DRIVERS AND FIREMENS ASSOCIATION

Mr NIXON:

– The fact is that during his term as Minister for Transport, the Minister has shown that he is very subservient to the communist dominated maritime unions, and it is well known that he cannot make a decision about the use of a foreign flag ship unless he rings up the Australian communists in the maritime unions and seeks their approval.

Mr Wentworth:

– That cannot be true.

Mr NIXON:

-It is true. We aU know that the communist controlled unions are providing the funds that elect the -

Mr Charles Jones:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Chairman. What the honourable member for Gippsland said then is not true. It is an absolute untruth. It follows that it is a lie. The facts are -

Mr Wentworth:

– I rise on a point of order.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I warn the honourable member for Mackellar

Mr Charles Jones:

– Just be tolerant with him; the moon is half in.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I ask the Minister to resume his seat. If the Minister finds the remarks offensive he can ask for their withdrawal.

Mr Charles Jones:

– I find the words offensive, and they are not true. Single voyage permits -

The CHAIRMAN:

-Order! The Minister cannot discuss the matter. He will resume his seat.

Mr Charles Jones:

– -Applications for single voyage permits are referred to the Australian Council of Trade Unions.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The Minister has asked for a withdrawal of the remarks of the honourable member for Gippsland that he was subservient to other persons.

Mr NIXON:

– No, I have served during the time it happened. Not a bit of it, no.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I think it is a reflection on the Minister.

Mr NIXON:

– I do not wish to reflect on the Minister, but it is true that consultation does take place between the Minister and the Minister’s office -

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I have asked for a withdrawal of those words. Perhaps the honourable member could substitute some others.

Mr NIXON:

-A11 right. I withdraw the reflection on the Minister, but I make the statement that it is true that consultation does take place between the Minister, or one of his friends, and the communist dominated unions as to whether these ships will go on the coast. It is also true -

Mr Charles Jones:

- Mr Chairman, that is not true.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The Minister will have to resume his seat. Whether or not it is true is not a subject which can be debated.

Mr NIXON:

– It is also true that the Communist Party -

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Chairman. I do not wish to waste the time of the shadow Minister for Transport, but what right do you have, as Chairman of this Committee, to direct the honourable member for Gippsland to withdraw those words, because when so many things which are said by honourable members on your left and which are offensive to one of your Ministers -

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! If the honourable gentleman is not satisfied with my rulings, the Standing Orders provide him with the remedy, but the honourable member will take that action at the time the rulings are given and not at some subsequent time. I call the honourable member for Gippsland.

Mr NIXON:

– Irrespective of whether the Minister claims it to be untrue, there is a system whereby approval is granted only after the unions have agreed. The Minister may well sit above that, but he is certainly aware of it. It is also true that the communist controlled unions are providing a lot of the funds which are used in the election campaigns of Labor members of this Parliament. I have used before the example of Eliot V. Elliott handing over a fat cheque to Senator Murphy in another place to be used for the election campaign of the Labor Party. There is no doubt at all that the communist unions are paying for the election of members of the Labor Party to this place, to government in this place. I think the Australian people need to know just the amount of influence that the communists are having on this Government’s transport policies. The Australian people certainly ought to know exactly what influence and control these people are having on the inordinate number of strikes occurring throughout the maritime unions and other unions. These strikes are not only of an industrial nature but also of a political nature. The strikes involving the maritime unions are legion, and the cost to the nation of these strikes is enormous. The simple truth is that many of these strikes are of a purely political nature. The people of Australia deserve to know about the influence that the communists are having both on the nation and on this Government.

I have mentioned the photograph taken of Eliot V. Elliott handing over a fat cheque. That is only the tip of the iceberg in relation to the volume of funds being provided in support of this Government from the communist controlled unions. One has only to look at the list that the Minister has agreed to have incorporated in Hansard to see the tremendous influence that the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia can have on the waterfront. The communists in the Waterside Workers Federation are exploiting their positions amongst the average decent waterside workers and manipulating them for their own base ends. The simple fact is that they have only one aim and that is the overthrow of democracy. Anybody in this country who thinks otherwise is living in a dream world. Therefore, it is important that the people of Australia know and read that list that the Minister for Transport has in his hand now. He might become a bit better informed himself by reading it. Those who have not read it should have a look at Hansard tomorrow.

There was a second point I wanted to raise, and that is in relation to Tasmania. There is no question that the Minister has failed the people of Tasmania dismally. It is no wonder that the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Davies), the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Duthie) and the other Tasmanian members have spoken in this chamber of late. I should like to quote one paragraph of a letter written to the Minister. It states:

We bitterly condemn the Labor Party for entertaining the original idea of placing further hardship -

That is the decision to increase freight rates to Tasmania- upon industry and people of this Island and most sincerely trust that episodes of this nature will not re-eventuate at some future date.

That was written by Mr L. A. James of the Devonport Trades and Labour Council. I repeat some of the words:

We bitterly condemn the Labor Party for entertaining the original idea of placing -

That letter was sent to me by the Devonport Trades and Labour Council so that it would be aired in this Parliament and that the people of Australia might know that the people involved in this Trades and Labour Council reject the philosophies of this Government. The Government goes to the people promising one thing but does not deliver the goods. It has failed the people of Tasmania most dismally in their hour of need.

There are S members from Tasmania in the House of Representatives who represent the Australian Labor Party and each of them has failed the people of Tasmania dismally. Tasmania today is in a more mendicant position than ever before in its history, brought about by the stupid economic policies of the Government.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

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

Mr King:

- Mr Chairman, I move:

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honourable member should know that the Standing Orders do not provide for extensions of time in these debates.

Mr King:

– In view of the Minister’s interuptions I think -

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! There is no provision in the Standing Orders for an extension of time to be granted. Therefore, the motion is out of order.

Progress reported.

page 2678

PILBARA AND BOWEN BASIN

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

– For the information of honourable members I present 2 reports entitled The Pilbara Study’ and ‘The Industrial Potential of the Bowen Basin Region of Queensland’. Due to the limited availability of the report on the Bowen Basin, I have arranged for reference copies to be placed in the Parliamentary Library.

Sitting suspended from 5.59 to 8 p.m.

page 2678

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1974-75

In Committee

Consideration resumed.

Mr CLAYTON:
Isaacs

-In supporting the estimates for the Department of Transport there are many points which I could raise, but I propose this evening to dwell on matters connected with urban transport. This is something which vitally affects my electorate which is in the outer suburbs of Melbourne. Over the years we have seen attempts by various governments to improve road facilities within the urban area. We have seen the development of freeway systems, but these have proved very ineffectual. The south-eastern freeway in Melbourne is a typical example of this. In peak hours or rush hours practically the whole length of the freeway is clogged up with a slow moving line of traffic. This is typical of the sort of thing which occurs in our urban areas. As we try to provide more and more road facilities we get more and more cars filling up the roads which we provide.

In the 10 years between 1961-62 and 1970-71 there was a 16 per cent drop away from public transport. These people are now using private transport. This is an absolute drop in the number of passenger journeys by public transport. When we consider the increases in the numbers of people in our urban areas, we are talking about a 35 per cent drop per capita in the trips made in any one year by public transport. This is a very unsatisfactory situation. It is useless to build more and more roads while people continue to use their cars, or to provide people with the means to use their cars while we leave our public transport systems in neglect.

Some 500 of Melbourne’s train carriages are 45 years old or older. Some of them were built in the last century. Is it any wonder, then, that when surveys of travellers in various modes of transport are done those who use public transport tend to talk in terms not of the benefits of a public transport system but of the disadvantages in using the car. They do not talk about the relaxation of sitting back in the train while they are driven to work. They do not talk about the speed of the public transport system. They talk in terms of not having to park the car, and not having to worry about maintenance on the car, and many talk about not being able to afford a car. The reason for it is simply that our public transport systems have been allowed to run down so much over the years that assets which our major cities possessed in the early days are no longer assets; they are almost a liability. People travel on them only if they have to. They are uncomfortable; they are noisy; they are slow.

A trip by train from Chelsea to the Flinders Street Station in the centre of Melbourne at best is scheduled to take 45 minutes. Many of such trips are scheduled to take 55 minutes and some even an hour. This is the scheduled time. Anybody who has travelled on public transport, particularly on our urban train systems, will know full well that the scheduled time is often 5 minutes, 10 minutes or even a quarter of an hour shorter than the actual time. On our roads the situation is little better. I have mentioned the south-eastern freeway; but for comparative purposes I point out that a road trip from Chelsea into the city or into the central business district of Melbourne will take 40 to 45 minutes even in off peak hours and in peak hours it can take an hour and a half.

Mr Cohen:
Mr CLAYTON:

-No, this is not walking, believe it or not This is by car. This comes from drivers who have timed the trip and who are not renowned for their slow driving speeds. Such a situation is disgraceful. It is high time that we did something about our urban public transport system. We have the basic network for very good urban public transport systems in both our rail system and our tram and bus system. But government bodies have completely neglected these systems and therefore people no longer use them.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Clem Jones burnt all our trams in Brisbane.

Mr CLAYTON:

-Perhaps that was a good thing. Perhaps that is what we should do in Melbourne. I am concerned with the facility which is provided for people in the outer urban areas to get into the centre of the city. Whatever people may say about the broadening out of the city and the decrease in the number of jobs in the centre of the city, this is a development which has not yet taken place. Even with decentralisation programs we are faced with large numbers of people wanting and needing to travel into the centre of our urban areas for work and business purposes.

I am pleased to say that this Government- not the Victorian State Government- has provided and is providing large sums of money for this purpose. At a meeting in Chelsea in May this year the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) promised that the Government would look favourably at a suggestion to provide a third rail line on the route through the bayside suburbs of Melbourne to speed up the journey which, as I have just mentioned, takes anything from 45 minutes upwards. An amount of $500,000 was put aside last financial year for this project, which is estimated to cost a total of $6.1m. More money has been promised in this financial year to the extent of $ 1.67m, and another $1.93m is planned for 1975-76. This will go towards providing twothirds of the cost of that third rail line. It is absolutely ridiculous that in this day and age a journey of 20 miles can take nearly an hour on a system of transport which has its own reserved right of way with no interference from cross traffic. This third rail line will assist in speeding up that journey for people living in the bayside suburbs. This is not the only thing the Government is doing to help the urban train passengers. Recently the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) opened the Australian urban passenger train display in Melbourne. This display is designed to provide fast, comfortable transport for the train user.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

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

Mr RUDDOCK:
Parramatta

-There is no doubt in the minds of most thinking Australians that transport is an important matter. It is a matter that affects us all in our daily lives and it is a matter on which we all appoint ourselves as experts in view of the fact that it bears upon our life in our electorates and in our travelling to and from this place. To my mind, notwithstanding the urgent need that we all see to meet the transport needs of our community, this Parliament is not the place where minor transport matters ought to be discussed, nor should it be the place where decisions about transport are in fact made. It diverts our attention from the important national matters that are facing this country and that are demanding our attention. It ignores the expertise that has been accumulated in the States, which have had the responsibility since Federation for dealing with matters relating to transport, and public transport in particular.

There is no doubt in my mind that the problems that the States have in meeting all the needs that are evident to us all results from the problems that the States have in raising sufficient funds to meet those needs. They relate to the methods we use and have adopted in the past in relation to the sharing of revenue raised by the Commonwealth.

Today the public of Australia would probably not be aware of the amount of time that honourable members, members like myself, spend in dealing with such trivial matters as the transport improvements and traffic engineering proposals that ought to be made, for instance, in the Parramatta area. I am not saying that such proposals are not important for Parramatta and are not important for the people who live in the electorate. Undoubtedly they are, and the reason I have raised them with the Minister is that now funds are being made available through the Commonwealth Government for traffic improvements. As the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) said recently in a letter to me, over 3 years New South Wales is to receive $7. 9m for traffic engineering and road safety improvements. Somebody might say: ‘Is this not marvellous? This is the money that is being made available for traffic improvements in New South Wales, and you ought to compliment the Government on having made this decision’.

It may be a compliment that moneys were made available for this purpose, but in my view it is not a compliment to the system- a system which means that members like myself are invited to make proposals. I have done so, and I have no doubt that all other honourable members, having been invited to make suggestions and being as familiar as they ought to be with their own localities, have made suggestions. But in my submission these matters ought to be left in the hands of a State government and in the hands of State members, people who represent smaller electorates than we do and who are readily able to make the submissions. I believe there ought to be a clear division of responsibility and not a duplication of responsibility. We are now expected to become experts in every possible area.

I asked the Commonwealth Parliamentary Library Statistical Service to provide some figures. They may be invalid in terms of direct comparison but I think the point can be made from them. I asked the Library to extract material in relation to the financial results of government railways. I do not know whether the Minister would be prepared to allow me to incorporate them in Hansard. The figures show the results for each of the railways up to the year 1971- 72 and for Victoria and Queensland up to 1972- 73. They indicate that New South Wales had a deficit of $32m, Victoria $54m, Queensland $30m, South Australia $25m, Western Australia $12m, Tasmania $7m, and amazingly enough the Commonwealth Railways in the year 1972-73 $3m and more recently in 1973- 74, from the reports tabled by the Minister in this Parliament, $6.9m. I seek leave for the table to be incorporated.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Is leave granted?

Mr Charles Jones:

– What is the table aU about?

Mr RUDDOCK:

-It is a table showing the losses in all government railways.

Mr Charles Jones:

– I give leave, but in future the honourable member should ask earlier so I can have a look at it. That is the usual practice.

Mr RUDDOCK:

– If I have erred in relation to the practice, I apologise.

The CHAIRMAN:

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

Mr RUDDOCK:

-I thank the Committee. The inference I make from these figures is that notwithstanding the expertise that the Commonwealth allegedly has that enables it to assume responsibilities in this area it has, as has every other railway, suffered a loss in relation to the instrumentality that it is required to operate.

The Minister has invited me, along with other honourable members, to observe fairly shortly a railway carriage that has been built as a result of the Australian urban passenger train project. Presumably it is a train carriage that Will be suitable to be adopted by aU railways, and no doubt that is the reason for the project. Yet in a statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) on 14 June it was indicated- this matter was debated when other Bills were before the Parliamentthat $30.5m was to be allocated to the New South Wales Government for new electric double deck cars for the suburban system. I wonder how perfect this Australian urban passenger train project is to be if we are to allocate that amount- undoubtedly it is needed for improvements to passenger train carriages in New South Wales or for producing a design that is the exact antithesis, if I may put it that way- a double deck carriage as against a single deck carriage for the New South Wales service. It seems to me to be a sham. It seems to me that if we are making available that amount of money to the New South Wales Government for that purpose, in contradiction to the analysis we are making ourselves, we ought to leave the New South Wales Government to build its own carriages and make its own designs, as so obviously the $30.5m grant intended.

I want to go on to a number of other matters. An expert on passenger train matters would probably have noted, as the Nielsen study noted, that there is an urgent need for the quadruplication of the main northern railway passenger line in Sydney from Strathfield to Hornsby. It is a need that has been evident for a long period of time. The Nielsen study indicated that that project ought to have had a greater priority than the proposals for quadruplication of the line between Granville and Penrith. I am not too much of a cynic, but I wonder why those priorities were changed at the expense of the quadruplication of the northern railway line, one which is serving the growth area of Gosford-Wyong, as against any growth area that I am aware of west of Sydney other than an area of natural growth. I wonder why the quadruplication of the northern line was relegated and the moneys that are to be made available are to be made available for the alternative project. I have raised the matter with the Minister.

Mr Cohen:

– Ask the State Government.

Mr RUDDOCK:

-It was not the doing of the State Government. The State Government’s recommendation was clearly in favour of the northern project. I am not suggesting why the changes were made but I have my own thoughts as to why that might have been the case.

I want to raise particularly the proposal in the estimates that we have before us for an expenditure of $3.5m on a Parramatta railway project. I am not critical of this project. I believe that the project itself is quite justified. There is an urgent need to be met and undoubtedly if the State government had the funds it would be meeting that need. But in more recent correspondence with the Minister I have been seeking to clarify these proposals and to ascertain what effect they will have on my electorate and on my constituents. It has become quite apparent that we have 2 conflicting sets of proposals. I wrote to the Minister about these proposals and he informed me that his proposals were in line with those of the Nielsen report. Yet we see in the expenditure before us that he persists with the statement that we will see a railway line between Carlingford and Epping. People who know the area will realise that this proposal certainly is not feasible. If one studies the Nielsen report one can see that this line is not recommended but that the report recommends a railway between Carlingford and Beecroft.

The CHAIRMAN:

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

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

-It never ceases to amaze me that after 23 years of doing nothing the Liberal-Country Party coalition now has a group of spokesmen who are prepared to sound off on every initiative the Government has taken. I do not think the people of Australia would really take the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr Ruddock) terribly seriously. After all, we have spent I think $ 1 30m in the past 2 years on urban transport which is one of the many initiatives that we have taken in an area which the previous Government regarded as -

Mr Armitage:

-lt should have been done many many years before.

Mr COHEN:

– The honourable member for Chifley is quite right. This is an area which the previous Government ignored for nigh on 23 years.

Tonight I want to talk about some aspects of road transport that give rise to quite a considerable amount of controversy in today’s society. In particular I want to talk about urban expressways. In the report of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Road Safety entitled ‘Roads and Their Environment’, which I tabled in the House on 10 April 1974, we were concerned that the debate about expressways between the road builders and the ……..-…- , for want of a better name, may overshadow the very great benefits of expressways, particularly as regards traffic flow and road safety. We were fortunate in having 2 excellent witnesses before the Committee who we believe put forward some very exciting concepts that could considerably improve the traffic flow on our major urban expressways and highways and provide a compromise solution between the pro-expressway and anti-expressway factions and at the same time save lives. The 2 witnesses to whom I refer were Mr Christopher Jay, who is one of the leading writers for the ‘Australian Financial Review’, and Mr Ernest Marty of Non-stop Urban Traffic Systems.

Mr Jay in his evidence referred to the fact that cities were built primarily on networks, whether it be water, telecommunication or road networks. What he said was that the road system at the moment was totally inefficient and that it caused congestion, delay, pollution and accidents and, of course, this was something that we had to remedy in the best way we could. He said that commercial interests clustered along the arterial routes causing this congestion and the problem at the moment is poor design of arterial routes themselves. I want to quote from the report and some of the comments made by Mr Jay which were summed up in our report. We said: 143. Town planners, preoccupied with traffic movement, aim to discourage commercial development from arterial routes because they are activity generators. This is a partial solution as it only moves the problem elsewhere. Traffic generated by off-highway business will still travel along the arterial, leaving the problem of distributing traffic each side of the arterial. Moreover, through traffic is still affected by conflicts of slowing, turning and cross traffic and public transport. 144. Facilities could still be established along the large arterial roads if an unobstructed line of movement is provided. This would require two lanes of travel in each direction to allow for overtaking unobstructed by traffic slowing down to turn left or right, or cross traffic. However, this is not possible with the present design of street networks crossing at the same level, because cross or turning traffic will prevent the continuous movement of traffic and also causes accidents. 145. Arterial highways are not just means of moving through traffic, but should also provide access to facilities as well as fast movement for through vehicles. The problem then is how to have a safe, rapid point to point movement along a highway while providing access to activities located at intermediate points along its length. Separation can be provided horizontally by ring routes, freeways, roundabouts, and intersections; by time through co-ordinated traffic lights; or vertically. Mr Jay favoured vertical separation through underpasses or elevated roadways. 146. Freeway engineers have transplanted the design philosophy developed for inter-city freeways running across country to the quite different conditions of the city without allowing for new design criteria requirements. The requirements of high speed design do not apply to city areas because the average trip distance is considerably shorter and time saving due to high speed is not very great. The major improvement factor required is the elimination of constant stopping and starting. The mathematics of time saving through different speeds is illustrated by the following table prepared by Mr Jay:

I seek leave to have this table incorporated in Hansard.

The CHAIRMAN:

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

Mr COHEN:

-This table shows that by increasing the average speed from 5 miles per hour to 30 miles per hour or from 8 kilometres per hour to 48 kilometres per hour on a 5-mile trip one would save about 15 minutes. The interesting point then is: What does one save by making that traffic travel at, say, 80 miles per hour? There is an enormous cost associated with getting a very expensive freeway that will carry traffic at 70 to 80 miles per hour. Even if this is done one would only make a saving on that same trip of 6.2 minutes. Therefore if we can provide traffic flow which will allow traffic to go at about 30 miles per hour, any further improvement on that speed will make very very little overall saving in terms of time, money, congestion and so on.

The Committee on Road Safety, with the help of Mr Marty, has placed a display in Kings Hall this evening which Ministers and honourable members no doubt have seen. It has been provided by Non-stop Urban Traffic Systems. Our report went on to state: 148. Mr Marty of Non-stop Urban Traffic Systems demonstrated the principles of a new system of interchanges invented by Mr Arturo Olivero Cedeno of Mexico, which divides traffic vertically through a system of tunnels and allows multi-directional traffic to flow continuously. This system is much cheaper and less space consuming than conventional clover leaf design interchanges. The Olivero system would be applicable to inner city areas as well as outer suburbs and rural areas. It could be applied on existing streets, replace the urban freeway at considerably lower cost of construction and property resumption and carry a large volume of continuous traffic at higher average speeds.

We need to get the State governments and the Australian Government to have a look at this system. One of our recommendations which one of my colleagues will be dealing with later is that we should try one of these as a pilot project. We have had Non-stop Urban Traffic Systems provide us with a rough estimate of what it would cost to construct a non-stop urban traffic system and then put one of these systems into, say, the Manly- Warringah artery. As honourable members know there is considerable debate in our society at the moment about the disruption to community life and the tearing down of buildings and houses associated with expressways. I support anything that will eliminate the sort of stoppages and confrontations that we saw at Ultimo recently. Naturally these confrontations will continue wherever one decides to put these sorts of expressways.

It has been said that each of these minor roads is sufficiently close to a suggested interchange point to enable drivers to enter the artery at interchanges without the undue delay or hardship brought about by having to travel the extra distance. The costings are very rough and are merely an approximate indication. We have costed the Manly-Warringah artery at about $10m. I think that the estimated cost of the proposed expressway in that area runs over the $100m mark. We also have suggested that the airport artery- that is, from the Cahill Expressway through finally to Dacey Avenue- would cost another $10m. Those who have to travel it, as I do every time I come to Canberra, know what a monster of a trip it is coming off the Cahill

Expressway through Taylor Square. We believe that that can be done for approximately $10m. Another one, that is, the north-west artery- subject to the completion of the north-west distributor to link up with Victoria Road at White Bay-we have costed at about $3,750,000.

What we are saying, in effect- I invite people from both sides of this chamber and of this Par.liament to go and have a look at this system, which could involve the expenditure of $20m or $30m- is that we believe that it would be worth while if a cost-benefit analysis and perhaps a pilot study were conducted to see whether we can utilise this system in place of the very costly and very socially disruptive expressways which are being built in New South Wales and throughout the major metropolitan areas of Australia. I commend the project to the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) and to the Government. I believe that it may be one of the answers that we are seeking to the sorts of problems with which we are faced at the moment in relation to the urban expressway systems.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

-Order! The honourable gentleman ‘s time has expired.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I was interested to hear the remarks of the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen). In regard to the expressways he was talking about, I think people are inclined to forget that the Sydney area requires expressways in order to divert traffic around the central business district. The Warringah Expressway is to be paid for by the toll from the Sydney Harbour Bridge, which at present represents a discriminatory impost upon the people who live north of Sydney Harbour, particularly the people who live in my electorate. So, because they are paying for it, they have a special call on the money and a special call on the construction of the relevant expressway. I am always a little distressed by the doctrinaire approach of the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) in this regard. He does not seem to realise that the principles he is talking about in relation to expressways are all right as general principles but they do not apply to the particular position of Sydney, where the most easterly crossing of the Harbour must remain the Sydney Harbour Bridge and that, by its very nature, is related to the central business district of Sydney. So, there is a special reason for bringing this traffic around the central business district of Sydney, partly by the Western Distributor and partly by the construction of additions to the Cahill Expressway.

But let me go further than that. It is my view that, although construction of the Warringah

Expressway is justified and although it is to be paid for by the special contributions made by those who live north of the Harbour, the provision of rail services to Dee Why and the northern area is even more justified. I have been looking in detail at the cost of providing such services. I do not think that the railway line should go over the Sydney Harbour Bridge. I say that for two reasons: Firstly, the two remaining railway tracks over the Sydney Harbour Bridge are already somewhat congested and will be required for the servicing of additional traffic on the North Shore line and perhaps for the servicing of additional traffic in the Mosman and Cremorne area; secondly, the direct route to the northern beach suburbs does not seem to me to be properly over the Sydney Harbour Bridge. My view is that we should have a direct railway line as far as Dee Why but not north of Dee Why because I do not think that the concentration of population north of Dee Why would justify a continuation of such a railway line. Rather I think that we should keep the railway line from Dee Why in a tunnel all the way and that it should pass underneath Middle Harbour and underneath Sydney Harbour. Perhaps it could cross Sydney Harbour at a subterranean level not very far from where the present Bridge crosses.

I have gone into the cost of doing this. Some time ago I received a quote that tunnels could be constructed, apart from the disposal of the spoil which should not cost anything because the spoil itself is valuable, at $lm per tunnel mile of railway for a single line. There are good reasons for constructing not double tunnels but single tunnels. Firstly, single tunnels are better because they are more adapted to the new tunnelling modes, which require a circular tunnel. Secondly, because the ground is more competent, to use an engineer’s phrase, in the smaller diameter tunnel it will maintain itself better than in a larger diameter tunnel. Thirdly, the ventilation problems are less with a single tunnel than with a double tunnel because as the train nearly fills the tunnel it carries air with it and provides automatic ventilation.

I have been looking at the railway lines in existence in Sydney. Honourable members may or may not know that there is a disused railway tunnel which runs underground through St James Station and nearly to the Conservatorium It was originally planned by Bradfield and constructed a long time ago. He believed that it should loop underneath Sydney and come out underneath at Wynyard Station, I suggest that this disused tunnel should be linked to a new railway line, which should run underneath Sydney Harbour and underneath Middle Harbour to as far as Dee Why. That can be done very economically because the stations themselves can be built into the topography and can be only a very short distance from the surface, although the majority of the line could be kept in the sandstone and could be built, as I have suggested, very cheaply.

I would think that the cost estimate that I was given some time ago, of $lm per single tunnel mile, should now be escalated, by reason of the inflation that has occurred, to somewhere in the neighbourhood of Sl.Sm per single tunnel mile. That is exclusive, of course, of the cost of rolling stock and stations. But there should not be many stations, and the rolling stock would have to be provided anyway. There are good positions for all the stations and good positions for a terminal and for a bus interchange. It seems to me that the economical thing to do is to go under Sydney Harbour and Middle Harbour and to keep in the sandstone, which is horizontally bedded and very suitable for railway tunnels. There are only the 2 small crossings- they are quite short crossingsin which the metal tubes would have to be provided, as has been done by quite conventional construction methods, for example, in New York in the crossing of the rivers on either side of Manhattan Island. It seems to me that this is the proper solution for the traffic difficulties of my electorate and for the northern suburbs of Sydney. If this were done, the remainder of the traffic difficulties for the northern suburbs, the North Shore line and the Mosman-Cremorne area would fall into place because they could be serviced by existing facilities.

As honourable members probably know, the sandstone on which Sydney is built is horizontally bedded. It is very suitable for this tunnelling method and there are only quite small gaps where one crosses Middle Harbour and Sydney Harbour. These mud-filled gaps were excavated by the streams at the time of the Ice Age low, probably 15,000 to 30,000 years ago, and they are comparatively narrow. The whole of the engineering problems concerned with this are quite minor. If this were done we could have an interchange station.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable gentleman ‘s time has expired.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I am sorry, I should have liked to develop this further and I hoped I might have an opportunity to do so. I have outlined to the Committee the kind of thing that should be done.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member must resume his seat.

Mr McKenzie:
Diamond Valley · ALP

-I rise to speak on the estimates of the Department of Transport and to talk primarily about road safety and the need for improved road safety in our community. First, I would like to point out to the Committee the amount of money that is being spent on road transport in Australia as provided for in this current Budget. The amount provided is $342.4m, an increase of $25.6m on last year. For road safety and other services, we also find a considerable increase in expenditure. During last year money was provided in my electorate of Diamond Valley for the duplication of the railway track between Macleod and Greensborough. If we are to make rail transport more attractive for the general community we will have to do more and more of these works. If we want public transport to compete with the motor car, and the motor car has many advantages, as a community we are going to have to provide better facilities. In my first speech in this place I spoke of road safety and said:

If this country were involved in hostilities with another country which caused the tens of thousands of deaths and injuries which road accidents cause in Australia every year, then no effort would be spared, no cost would be too great to see that such death and injury were brought to an end. That is the sort of effort we must make. If it means a complete rethink about the type of individual and public transport system that we will need in the future, then that is what we must do. New concepts which will provide fast, safe, and efficient transport and at the same time preserve our resources and our environment must be thought out and adopted.

Last Saturday I attended a meeting with the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Mr Enderby) and representatives of people who work in the aircraft industry. They are concerned that the aircraft industry does not have enough work. These people work at the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation and the Government Aircraft Factory in Melbourne. Both these concerns have a great deal of productive capacity which is not being used and I suggest to both the Minister for Manufacturing Industry and the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) that the new generation of public transport vehicles which we need can be provided by the expertise which has been built up in these organisations over a large number of years. It would be a great shame if we allowed these organisations to run down. I point out to the Minister for Transport that the De Havilland organisation in Sydney now supplements the income it would otherwise get from building aircraft by building jet-powered boats and other sorts of aluminium hulled craft. I am sure that if sufficient planning and thought were given to it we could use institutions such as the

Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation and the Government Aircraft Factories to produce buses and trams and, in fact, a rapid transport system which I hope we will see in Australia before too long. Together with the measures that were outlined by the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) with respect to urban rapid transport, this will also meet some of the difficulties which the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) mentioned a little while ago.

I stress some of the things that can be done by improving minor road safety and traffic engineering expenditure. The Standing Committee on Road Safety, formerly the Select Committee on Road Safety, was told that 40 per cent of accidents occur at night, that these cause 55 per cent of road deaths and that the number of miles travelled by the vehicles is 25 per cent or less, so it can be seen there is a great disproportion between the miles travelled and the number of deaths caused. I am sure this has a great deal to do with the fact that, whether people have been drinking or not- no one supposes that alcohol is not a problem in this field- it is much easier for the driver to control his vehicle and he is much more aware of the situation when he can see the kerb, the curves in the road, posts, and whether he is on one side of the road or the other. The Committee was told that on some roads in the United States of America where extensive surveys were carried out, the number of serious accidents was reduced by 78 per cent merely by the simple expedient of marking those roads with reflectorised lines and other sorts of raised prismatic reflectors. One particular example comes to mind and that is in West Milford in New Jersey where a test result showed that the simple expedient of road marking cut down accidents by 44 per cent while other controlled roads in the area which were not similarly marked had an 18 per cent increase . The facts and figures speak for themselves. It was also estimated that for every $ 1 which was spent on these improvements $5 to $7 were saved.

The same general situation applies to street lighting. I have been through some country towns in Victoria, and no doubt other honourable members from other areas have had the same experience, where it was extremely difficult to see the way. Many of the areas of our urban municipalities are not sufficiently well lit. In these estimates the Government has provided $7.7m this year for minor road safety and traffic engineering improvements. Last year the figure was $3m. I hope that this Government very shortly will introduce legislation to set up a national road safety authority, which is long overdue. Of course I realise that everyone wants to see his pet piece of legislation brought into operation. Sometimes the very same people who are pushing for some piece of legislation say that the Government is introducing too much legislation and that it ought to slow down. But I am afraid that that is the nature of the human being. The things that are nearest and dearest to him are the things he wants to see happen almost immediately.

Recently, there has been a great deal of publicity in the local Press about the Hume Highway and the disgraceful condition into which it has fallen as the result of flooding and the lack of proper repair work. These factors have resulted in its becoming very dangerous indeed. Apart from improving the pavement of that highway, one of the problems is that the Hume Highway for a great many stretches of its distance is a 2-lane rural road. Statistics show that a disproportionate number of serious road accidents and deaths occur on 2-lane rural roads.

The House of Representatives Select Committee on Road Safety received evidence from people who were interested in this matter. They advocated that concrete safety barriers could prove very helpful in reducing the number and severity of road accidents. These barriers prevent vehicles running off the road. They also prevent vehicles which are travelling in opposite directions colliding. If honourable members care to examine the statistics of accidents on the Hume Highway I am sure that they will find that most of the serious accidents involving deaths result from one of these 2 causes. We could stop the accidents resulting in these deaths by the expenditure of a sum which I calculate to be $50m to put these barriers along the highway. The flow of traffic would be increased. Provision would need to be made for passing lanes at fairly short intervals to enable faster moving vehicles to pass slower traffic. I am sure that this could be done. The cost of completely duplicating the Hume Highway, which is a long term program would be between $500m and $600m.

No one likes freeways. But a number of people want them because they cannot see any reasonable alternative. I believe that the Second Interim Report of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Road Safety which was tabled recently poses reasonable alternatives, particularly those which were outlined earlier by the honourable member for Robertson. We can, if we take the correct action, considerably reduce the number of road accidents in Australia. I believe that it is the responsibility of this Parliament to take that action.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock)Order! The honourable gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr MILLAR:
Wide Bay

– I find that circumstances dictate that I should address myself to the debate on the estimates for the Department of Transport. No doubt, Mr Deputy Chairman, as a new member I could be excused for inquiring as to what my predecessor may have said in similar circumstances on the previous Budget. On making such inquiry I learned that my predecessor, worthy gentleman that he is, possessed qualities not previously realised. I learned that he had the powers of prophesy. I quote to the Committee his remarks in that previous debate. He said:

I believe that the Minister -

He was referring to the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) has placed the ship building industry in a position where it knows where it is going. He has given some comfort of continuity of employment to those people who have given a lifetime to the industry, particularly in decentralised areas such as Maryborough.

The Maryborough shipyard is closed. The silence of the yard mocks the words of the Minister and the aspirations of those who worked there. I put it to the Committee that my predecessor knew exactly where the shipyard was going.

Does his prophesy extend to the area of local government? Notwithstanding the blandishments of a plausible argument advanced by the Minister that local authorities would be better off than ever before, local authorities now find after the euphoria of special Commonwealth grants has passed and the honeymoon is over that they are in a situation of dire stress. Local authorities which looked for better from this Government which promised better things now find themselves gripped by the disaster of increasing unemployment. The funds which they could reasonably have expected to receive have dried up and . the funds allocated for rural local roads which most vitally concern local authorities because they may be described as the lifeblood of local authorities have been slashed from 31 per cent to 14 per cent of total grants. Allocations for rural arterial roads have similarly been reduced from 16 per cent to 10 per cent. Was my predecessor prophetic indeed? Do the local authorities know where they are going? Quite clearly their fate is determined in the gentle ministrations of the Minister for Transport.

He has moved into the area of general aviation and aviation as a means of regular public transport. He has perhaps with some reasonable justification amalgamated the Department of

Civil Aviation into the overall transport area. Some argument may be advanced for this action. But he has demonstrated in the process an antipathy- one almost could be excused for saying approaching psychopathic distaste- for all men who have the temerity to leave Mother Earth. He suggests that all these activities can be reduced to the mundane and that all the magic and the challenge that have made Australia one of the premier aviation nations of this earth, that have produced an international flagline with a record of 28 years service without a fatality, that have put in the annals of aviation history the names of some of Australia’s famous men can now be forgotten. This industry has been established on the free initiative and ability of men seizing the challenge to rise from Mother Earth and produce an industry of whose record Australia can be proud.

The Minister seems determined, by increasing air navigation charges, by endeavouring to have local government authorities assume responsibility for airport facilities and by shedding responsibility on the part of the Federal Government as far as may be done, to rob this premier industry of Australia of some of the status which it has rightly enjoyed. The officers of the Department of CiVil Aviation who have by application and diligence attained a standard of efficiency second to none find themselves frustrated and confused as to the future of their Department. Those who are involved in the practicalities of running the aviation industry likewise find themselves confused as to the future of their industry. It would appear that, if the Minister has his way, all the services that meet the travelling requirements of this vast nation shall one by one fall by the wayside. A total refusal to accept the fact that some of the more remote areas of this nation have an entitlement to some special consideration, that they cannot be dismissed as being of little consequence and that we can simply assess their commitments and their charges on the basis of urban rural transport is something with which the Minister seems to be completely obsessed.

I find that the Minister in his obsession is completely engaged with the challenge of meeting the mechanics of transportation. Matters of road safety seem to be a continuing exercise in futility We seem continually to provide excuses for the wayward motorist. The number of traffic fatalities escalates year by year. Man in his obdurate mentality believes that he can rationalise these things. He embarks on grandiose plans to educate the driver, completely oblivious to the fact that the secret of the solution to the problem lies within man himself. You cannot change the attitude of a man who believes that traffic restrictions and safety devices apply only to the other driver and never to himself. This is a basic facet of human nature that seems to be ignored. We incur great expense and considerable involvement in trying to reduce road fatalities, when in truth the matter lies with the individual. While we humbug with penalties for drunken driving and while we humbug with penalties for stepping outside the law in respect of traffic safety requirements we only delay the solution to the problem and see so many people so tragically involved in the grim statistics of traffic fatalities.

These traffic fatalities are not vague, shadowy figures that are kept in reserve to build up traffic fatality statistics. Traffic fatality statistics are honourable members’ families and mine. They are the innocent, broken bodies of our wives and children. While we stand aside and allow these great excesses and abuses of our social and moral code to be permitted we seek no relief whatsoever in this grim carnage. I say to the Minister that the time has fast arrived when we have to do some fundamental thinking. We cannot concern ourselves entirely with the stark economics of whether a proposition balances the balance sheet. This country of ours, vast as it is and so demanding in its peculiar and special requirements, requires a more extensive and more expansive approach to our particular problems. I earnestly urge the Minister to exercise a little more sympathy in his approach to these particular problems of decentralisation so that the people who have played a very substantial part in making this country as great as it is may benefit from some of the facilities to which our urban brothers have greater access.

The record of Maryborough and our shipyards I trust will prevail upon the Minister to address himself to our particular problems with a little more sympathy and effectiveness than has been demonstrated in the past. We stand ready and eager to forgive him his remissness in this problem if he can show that his concern is a real and vital thing and it will have the effect of bringing some bounty to this area which is so sadly distressed.

Mr LAMB:
La Trobe

-Much has been said tonight about the confrontations between residents and road authorities and the confrontations between trade unions and road authorities. We have heard of the celebrated bans that have been placed on the construction in Sydney of the North- Western expressway. All of us have heard of the people called eccentrics by some and courageous men of principle by others who have stood in front of bulldozers. Every person in this chamber has heard of the confrontations between the road construction authorities and the people affected, whether they be residents of the areas through which the freeways are passing or people concerned for the environment that a freeway may disrupt or mar.

I wonder why few of us in this chamber have questioned how these confrontations occur. I believe that it is because there is not enough openness in decision making. There is not enough frankness by road making authorities as to what they are doing and what they intend to do. There is not enough frankness in informing the public why the road making authorities have come to a certain decision. There is not enough explanation to the public. We must remember that members of the public are the ones who will be served by these roads. They are the ones to be affected and surely they should understand what is happening. If they had things explained to them and if they knew the mechanics of the decision making and the reasons behind it there would be a lessening of confrontations. There is certainly not enough consultation between road making authorities and the public. It could be simply a natural response by conscientious citizens to what I might term blind bloody-mindedness.

If people believe there is a responsibility vacuum, that a particular road making authority is pressing regardless of the consequences, responsible people will fill that vacuum. Knowing that roads are for people the people want a say in the type of roads to be constructed, where they will be, how they will be constructed and who will be affected. The idea of resident action groups and trade unions filling responsibility vacuums is not new. Sometimes it is nothing more than a protest and so we had the many Vietnam moratoriumsthe protests when a government, through its bloody-mindedness and its refusal to recognise the change in public opinion, had to put up with and was confronted with protests.

So it is that in Ringwood in the electorate of my colleague, the honourable member for Cas.sey (Mr Mathews), 1,200 to 1,500 people attended a meeting on Sunday to protest about a freeway. Although the freeway may have been wanted it was decided, out of 4 alternative routes, to put it through a 2-year-old residential estate. Honourable members can imagine the distress felt by so many who had been there only 2 years and were still paying off their houses when they found that a bloody-minded government was going irresponsibly to put a freeway through their homes and their estate. In my electorate of La Trobe, which is adjacent to the electorate of the honourable member for Casey, there has been the establishment of the DLF which, in explanation to honourable members, is the Dandenongs Liberation Front. It is of unknown numbers but it is comprised of men of calibre- men who are determined to stand in front of a bulldozer and who are determined that roads will not be widened beyond the needs of tourist traffic and residential demand to bite into some of the most beautiful scenery within easy driving distance of the metropolis of Melbourne. These men will not stand by and see the Dandenong Ranges ruined.

How can consultation and openness in decision making be brought about? I believe it can be brought about by a government preparing public environmental impact statements. In developing an environmental impact statement the policy, the plans, the development and the intentions could be explained to the public and criticisms invited. That is the time to feel and test the mood of the public. It should not be tested in any confrontation when it is too late. After criticisms have been invited, duly treated, processed and answered then, and only then, should decisions be made by the road authorities. I believe that members of the Opposition think that we should take a leaf from their State counterparts in New South Wales and Victoria and say that impact statements are to be secret, they are not to be explained until after decisions have been made and, if possible, after the project has been completed. This invites confrontation and protestation. I believe therefore that if governments are going to leave empty the responsibility vacuum they are encouraging residents to fill it.

An environmental impact statement on road making would include a study of the advantages and disadvantages of freeways. The advantages are probably more obvious to the motorist than to the resident who has had his home taken over or passed through by a freeway or affected by increasing noise. First of all freeways increase quickly and more speedily the mobility of the motorist. There are fewer accidents on freeways per passenger mile than on any other form of road. There is less pollution. The vehicles travel at a more economical speed, have more perfect combustion of the gases and less discharge of pollution into the atmosphere. Freeways are ideal for re-routing traffic round metropolises and towns rather than through them. These are the obvious advantages. But the disadvantages, because they are of a more intangible kind, are perhaps less obvious. Freeways divide communities. How often have we seen one community divided because of a very large wide multi-lane freeway through the middle. Freeways disrupt private lives. People are forced to shift to another area, another part of the metropolis. They would not have had to do so if roads had been upgraded rather than freeways thrust through the towns.

Freeways create bottlenecks. Too often we find that not enough emphasis has been given to the totality of the planning of freeways and after a vehicle has disgorged from the freeway there is a bottleneck in narrow streets. As I have mentioned, they tend to destroy beautiful areas such as the Yarra Bend Park in Kew where three or four freeways have gone through as the Eastern Freeway to disrupt some rather beautiful parkland. It is true enough that we are promised that this area will be regrassed and beautiful trees planted, but it seems ridiculous to me that we should have to uproot and destroy a wide acreage of parkland to put in a new park which will never replace what nature took many years to perfect.

Freeways and roads cannot be seen in isolation. They must be seen as part of an overall urban plan, which we must see against the total transport system- the alternative modes of transport available to passengers, to the public, such as railways, other forms of fixed rail transport, private and public buses and so on. We also must realise that we are not designing roads for a certain capacity at a particular point in time. We must realise that if we widen a tourist road to take heavier traffic than the residents or the tourists demand, this will encourage -more traffic and more residents, and therefore place greater strains on the road. We must never forget the safety angle in our road planning. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the recommendations contained in the House of Representatives Select Committee on Road Safety report entitled ‘Roads and their Environment’ in which these very points are raised.

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

page 2688

QUESTION

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends that:

Town Planning

  1. The Australian Government should encourage State Planning Authorities and local government by technical assistance and, if necessary, by financial assistance to adopt safer and more efficient land use principles. Incentives should be introduced to encourage developers and local councils to adopt safer community designs. (Para. 59 (a))
  2. A specialist section should be created in the Road Safety and Standards Authority (RSSA) to advise State Planning Authorities and local government on the safety aspects of development proposals. (Para. 59 (b))
  3. The RSSA should- formulate safety standards for land use, town planning and road design; and seek ways of creating greater public acceptance of the desirability of and necessity for planning and building communities in which the vehicle and pedestrian are separated; for example, by the greater use of Radburn design principles, cluster housing estates. (Para. 59(c))

Roadside

  1. The Australian Government should- help finance a program for widening shoulders of rural highways, the removal of obstacles and the planting of native shrubs or erection or growing of suitable barriers; implement a program to replace the current unsatisfactory guide post with a lightweight frangible post according to standards set by the RSSA implement a program to extend the use of reflective paints and road marker discs of uniform colour and standard; help finance a program for undergrounding power supplies etc especially in new developments and of moving poles in other areas. (Para. 78 ( a))
  2. The RSSA should, in conjunction with other relevant authorities- examine the feasibility of a program for shifting poles back from the kerbside; research the benefits of using frangible poles at dangerous locations; determine and set standards for quality, colour etc. for road marking paint, raised plastic discs and other traffic aids. (Para. 78 (b))
  3. The Postmaster-General ‘s Department, wherever possible, should underground its services and should introduce such a program in older areas especially along major arterials carrying high speed traffic. (Para. 78(c))

Traffic Management

  1. The RSSA should devote increasing attention to promoting improved and more uniform traffic codes and traffic management. In particular, all signs should have a uniform meaning, their shape and detail uniform with consideration being given to making their symbolism more graphic and they should be positioned at distances which would allow motorists the necessary reaction time. (Para. 83)
  2. The RSSA determine what types of traffic lights are the most effective in accident reduction, establish standards in terms of luminescence, colour, sequence of action etc. (Para. 88(a))
  3. The RSSA in conjunction with other relevant authorities, seek ways of having types of traffic lights standardised throughout Australia and having them co-ordinated wherever possible. (Para. 88 (b))
  4. The Australian Government, through the RSSA, should arrange for pilot projects in each of the capital cities to test the effectiveness of concrete safety barriers at suitable locations. (Para. 91)
  5. 1 . The greater use of clearways. (Para. 94)
  6. The Australian Government should encourage the creation of pedestrian malls and precincts throughout Australia by providing financial incentives. (Para. 101 (a))
  7. The RSSA should conduct a program aimed at creating a greater community consciousness of the benefits of pedestrian malls and, through its advisory role with local councils, should encourage them to introduce pedestrian malls wherever possible. (Para. 101 (b))

Transport System

  1. Wherever arterial roads close to the inner city are being considered, limited access ring roads should be encouraged by upgrading existing arterial or sub-arterial routes. (Para. 110(a))
  2. The concept of freeways radiating from inner city areas should be critically assessed by the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads (CBR) and the RSSA which should compare the benefit-cost advantages of urban freeways with low cost improvements to existing arterials, with a view to having a larger proportion of Australian Government funds allocated to upgrading existing main roads in urbanised areas. (Para. 110(b))
  3. The Australian Government should investigate sources of additional resources and resources re-allocation to enable the system of interstate highways and other urgent works to be completed as soon as possible. (Para. 115(a))
  4. The Australian Government should allocate more finance to enable bitumenisation of rural arterials which are at present surfaced with gravel or soil and to assist councils in maintaining such roads. (Para. 115 (b))
  5. The Australian Government should consider increasing fuel tax to replace annual charges and to encourage more careful usage of the private vehicle and greater usage of public transport. This would require that suitable financial and administrative arrangements be made with the States. (Para. 115(c))

Spot Improvements

  1. The RSSA consider ways of extending the scope of black spot improvements by expanding the supply of special equipment, expertise, especially engineers, and other resources necessary to meet the full warranted program of $154m recommended by the CBR together with any additional programmes disclosed by further surveys. (Para. 128(a))
  2. The CBR examine ways of transferring resources from high cost, longer term, lower safety yielding projects, such as urban freeways, towards spot improvements. (Para. 128(b))
    1. Further surveys be carried out by the relevant authorities with whatever assistance is required and possible of being provided by the RSSA and the CBR. (Para. 128(c))
  3. Additional grants should then be considered by the Australian Government for black spot surveys and for financing the required work. (Para. 128 (d))

Street Lighting

  1. The RSSA should investigate ways of extending improved lighting in urban areas, and the benefit and costs of extending improved lighting into rural areas. (Para. 1 39)

New Approaches to Road Design

  1. The Australian Government through the RSSA should arrange for the financing of pilot schemes in each capital city, to implement the designs and principles advanced by Mr Jay and Non-stop Urban Traffic Systems, involving interchanges and vertical grade separation. (Para. 151)

Road Safety Education at Tertiary Level

  1. The Australian Universities Commission and the Australian Commission on Advanced Education investigate the shortage of trained safety engineers in Australia with a view to encouraging new safety or safety-oriented units or courses at tertiary level. ( Para. 1 5 5 )

Alternatives to the Motor Vehicle

  1. The Australian Government should- continue and extend its efforts to have public transport improved; stimulate research and development towards improving public transport technology being applied in Australia. (Para. 164 (a))
  2. The Department of Transport should investigate other ways of encouraging motorists to transfer to public transport. (Para. 164(b))
  3. The RSSA together with other relevant authorities, should- investigate the safety aspects of permitting cyclists to use footpaths and other legislative changes which may be necessary to remove the cyclist from exposure; and examine ways of making more facilities available for pedal cyclists to encourage less car usage and create a safer environment for cyclists, especially children. (Para. 168)
Mr LAMB:

– Thank you, Mr Deputy Chairman. Obviously, with so many demands, a national approach must be taken. That is why this national Government must accept the responsibility and why it will no longer stand by and see confrontation fill the responsibility vacuum. This Government will place to the advantage of the States $26m in this Budget for their purposes and ours to perfect the expertise that needs to be put into a wholesale transport system. This is not centralism but a national approach which must be adopted to overcome the backlog of work and to fill the vacuum of responsibility which has been part of our scene for far too long.

Mr GRAHAM:
North Sydney

– I wish to speak only briefly on the estimates for the Department of Transport in order to make the comment that I hold the view that the Minister for Transport (Mr Jones), who is now the head of this great empire which has been achieved by the amalgamation of the former Department of Shipping and Transport and the Department of Civil Aviation, has now grouped all transport matters under the following series of headings: Surface Transport Group, Air Transport Group, Commonwealth Bureau of Roads, Shipbuilding Division, and Commonwealth Railways. I submit that we will discover that too much expertise is demanded of this great empire and that the day will come when we will find it nesessary to revert to those areas of authority which will be able to control in a departmental sense the particular areas of transport within Australia to which I have referred.

I want to spend at least six or seven minutes tonight in saying some thing about the situation in relation to aviation. As the Minister knows, and as the Parliament knows, Australia has a very proud record in civil aviation. Qantas Airways Ltd is our national carrier and Qantas enjoys a reputation around the world which will stand comparison with the reputations of the finest of the international carriers of all other countries operating on the great civil aviation networks around the globe. Inside Australia we have the dual aviation system which has been operating for quite a number of years now. Ansett Airlines of Australia and Trans-Australia Airlines maintain the services on the internal trunk routes. These companies have remained viable in an extremely marginal industry. What is not clearly understood by so many people is that the business of running aeroplanes to make money is indeed a very marginal business. I can speak from personal experience in relation to this problem.

I can assure honourable members that it is only on the rarest of occasions and in a particular environment even the biggest of companies are able to make high profits. I would point out that in recent weeks we have seen the United States Government authorities being told that great companies such as Pan American World Airways and Trans World Airlines Pty Ltd- that sort of international organisations- are in need of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of support in order for them to be sustained through a period of liquidity problems and a period of technical developmental problems. As Australia ‘s civil aviation industry grows to greater significance we will see the same sort of problems arise.

I particularly wanted tonight to say something about the effect of the recent whole wide range of taxation increases upon the general aviation situation. When speaking of general aviation I refer to the small aircraft operations, the charter companies, the aero clubs and those training organisations which teach young Australians to fly. I want to say something about the general concept which I know was in existence during the days of the Liberal Party-Country Party governments. I can remember the then Treasurer, the right honourable member for Lowe (Mr McMahon), saying once that out of the aviation industry gen.erally more and more funds had to emerge to compensate for the hundreds of millions of dollars that were being poured into the industry by the Commonwealth Government. Whilst at first glance this appears to be a valid contention, I wish to make it quite clear that in Australia the situation will be created where the smaller companies, the general aviation companies, will not be able to exist. We have had a number of third level companies that have been operating on what are called third level licences. They are companies that are unable to continue in operation because of financial problems that have arisen for them. It is an extremely difficult situation and it is related to the significance to the Australian Government, from whichever side of the political spectrum it may come, of decentralisation within Australia

I have said before in this House, and I will say again, that we are not able to sustain a general range of small companies operating small aircraft if it is demanded of them that their program reaches over the length and breadth of the country without financial subsidy being provided by the Commonwealth Government. I can assure honourable members that the expenses, the costs, of light aircraft today are so vast that groups of people who would normally operate them between large country towns need substantial financial backing in order to be able to do this on an economically viable pattern. If I may say so, we have produced in Australia a magnificent small aircraft which is called the Nomad.

Mr Enderby:

– Hear, hear!

Mr GRAHAM:

– This aircraft has done a great deal towards sustaining within Australia people with the knowhow and the capacity to maintain the services of this aircraft within our country and people who will maintain the knowhow associated with an aviation manufacturing industry. But the point I would like to bring to the attention of my friend, the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Mr Enderby) who has just been endorsing what I have been saying, is that if the Nomad is to be made available within Australia for the smaller companies to operate, some way has to be found of reducing the cost of the aeroplane, because I can assure honourable members that the smallest companies, the third level companies, so many of which have become bankrupt in recent times, will not be able to afford the borrowings, the servicing of the borrowings and the investment in an aircraft which, as everyone knows, is in the price range of $300,000, including support equipment and so forth. The operation of such aircraft, with these costs involved, is a mammoth task. If one looks at companies such as Connair Pty Ltd, which operate throughout the centre of Australia and which do a very important job for people who live out in the distant area, one understands readily the reasons they need more and more financial support to be economically viable. There may come a time when they can look forward to being able to stand on their own feet to buy new equipment, but I can assure honourable members that within our country it is most unlikely that that situation will emerge for many years ahead. I conclude by saying that I believe that the Government, the Parliament, should come up with a recognition of the fact that this is one of those times when we cannot implement regular public transport services in country areas unless financial support is provided for the smaller companies. That means also that we have to provide subsidy support on fuel costs and aircraft costs for training organisations and for the small charter operations that try to survive around the country. I believe that it would be a sad thing for Australia if we were to find ourselves in the position that the light aircraft operator between country cities was to be put out of business simply because the whole operation had become far too expensive.

Mr WALLIS:
Grey

– I rise to support the estimates for the Department of Transport, which are in excess of $260m. We are seeing for the first time a more integrated approach to the whole problem of transport in Australia. I may be repeating a cliche, but we have a small population and a large country so the costs that are involved in transport are very important to the general economy of the nation. The Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) certainly has been an extremely busy Minister since he was appointed to his office. He has introduced a great deal of legislation that has gone a long way in setting the groundwork for giving Australia the system of transport which we so sorely need. Only last week we saw the introduction of 2 Bills to provide for the construction of new railway lines in South Australia- the Adelaide to Crystal Brook line and the Alice Springs to Tarcoola line. Both of them will be of great importance- the Tarcoola-Alice Springs line to the people of the Northern Territory and the northern part of South Australia and the Crystal Brook-Adelaide line to the general economy of South Australia in that it will link South Australia with the national railway grid.

In dealing with railways, I point out that quite recently the Minister introduced the States Grants (Urban Public Transport) Bill. As he said in his second reading speech, the urban public transport agreement provides for a further series of projects directed towards the upgrading of the urban public transport systems of the States.

Here again we are seeing new initiatives in the field, with the Commonwealth coming in to assist the States. In the estimates for the Department of Transport are allocations to South Australia. These allocations are of supreme importance. For example, quite recently the South Australian Government was placed in a position where it had to take over quite a number of bus services. Of course, this placed a great strain on its resources. The estimates provided an amount of $4.1 lm to purchase these private bus companies. Also, $2m is allocated for new depots, land and so forth, and $lm is allocated for rolling stock for the new Christie’s Downs railway line. This is an extension of the Adelaide metropolitan railway system. This project certainly will give South Australia a bit of a kick along.

In relation to the use of public transport in South Australia if I could digress for a moment, we have heard a lot said about people using pubUc transport less. It was quite interesting to read an article in the Adelaide ‘Advertiser’ today which reported Mr Scrafton, the DirectorGeneral of Public Transport in South Australia as commenting that people are coming back to public transport in South Australia. In fact he compared the figure of 41.6 million passenger journeys travelled last year with a total of 47.5 million this year. That indicates that there is an increase in the use of public transport in that State. We hope that with the new initiatives by this Government that trend back to public transport Will increase. The Government also has introduced the new roads legislation which certainly Will help the States in carrying out their roads program. One aspect that I feel is of extreme importance is the acceptance by the Commonwealth of responsibility for national roads. Previously the States have had to find money out of their allocation to provide the finance to construct and maintain national roads such as the Eyre Highway, the Stuart Highway and other main highways in Australia. But, with the national highways program, the amount that has been allocated by the Government to carry out this program should relieve the States of a considerable responsibility and allow these projects to proceed at a much faster rate.

I should like to make reference to a few matters in regard to the shipbuilding industry and shipping m general. A few remarks were passed here- by a former Minister for Shipping and Transport, the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon), and by the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron)- in relation to the closure of certain shipyards in

Australia. The honourable member for Griffith laid the blame for the closure of some shipyards on the Australian Government. He referred to Walkers Ltd. I understand that the Walkers shipyard was flooded on 2 occasions; it was found that it was situated in a completely unsuitable position; and because of this it had to cease operations. I understand that at the time of the company ceasing operations it had on order millions of dollars worth of work with which it could have proceeded. In the case of Evans Deakin Industries Ltd, although that firm was in trouble and I think it still has problems with the finishing of the ‘Robert Miller’, this Government did assist the firm with the order for the submersible drilling rig. So I do not think it can be said that this Government did not try to assist these companies.

Another matter that was raised was the closure of the Birkenhead shipyard in Adelaide run by the Adelaide Ship Construction company. Well before this Government came to power that company had made the decision to close. I remember going with a deputation of trade union officials to see the Minister at that time. The then Minister quoted figures and explained that this firm had been in a position to tender for quite a number of jobs that were on offer at that time- in fact 39 ships- but the Adelaide Ship Construction company did not tender for any of them although it could have tendered for 18 of them. Included in these tenders was one for a ship that subsequently was built at Whyalla- a 4,000 tonner that could have been built by the Adelaide Ship Construction company. It was being built by one of the shareholders in the Adelaide Ship Construction company, but the firm decided not to take it away from Whyalla. It left it in Whyalla and as a result the yard closed down. I do not think it can be truly said that we have not supported the shipbuilding industry. On 2 December 1972 there were 39 vessels on order or under construction and on 14 October 1974 there were 68 vessels. This is a big increase. The honourable member for Griffith stated a few weeks ago that many of these ships were trawlers, but he did not say at the time just how many of the 39 ships on order at 2 December 1972 were trawlers.

Our major shipyards are the State Dockyard in Newcastle and the Whyalla shipyard. Of course, the Whyalla shipyards are in a very good position at present. They have orders that wm take them up to 1978. They have orders for 2 bulk carriers of 43,000 tons, a roll-on-roll-off bulk carrier, a 12,600 tonner, 2 trans-Tasman rollonrolloff vessels of 12,700 tons and 2 unit load carriers of 4, 100 tons. The State Dockyard at Newcastle has on order a tanker of 24,000 tons, one other tanker of 24,000 tons, a vehicle deck container vessel of 6,700 tons dead weight and a bulk carrier of 25,000 tons. So I do not think that by any stretch of the imagination it can be said that this Government does not support the shipbuilding industry. It is proved by these figures that this is not so. This Government has 2 particular interests in shipbuilding. One is to see a viable Australian shipbuilding industry carry on and the other is to ensure that Australia breaks into the overseas trade. We are a shipping nation. Most of our goods are carried in other than Australian-owned ships. There are 2 factors: Firstly, we have to have the ability to build the ships and, secondly, we have to have Australian manned, owned and, if possible, built ships to carry our goods overseas.

A few weeks ago the Minister for Transport introduced the Australian Shipping Commission Bill. That legislation shows what this Government has done to put not only the shipbuilding industry on its feet but also Australian shipping in general- To give honourable members some indication of the position, in 1956 the Australian National Line had 42 ships with a tonnage of 250,000. It now has 31 ships amounting to 651,000 tons which is nearly three times its original tonnage. The second reading debate on that Bill discloses what this Government has done to put Australia on the overseas trade route. We have been told about the ships that we have purchased and the ships that we have on order. We know of the ships that carry some of our bulk trade and the ships which carry a much bigger proportion of our overseas trade. I am sure that nobody can say that this Government has not played its part in ensuring that Australia has a full and viable shipbuilding and shipping line.

Mr LYNCH:
Flinders

-The most glaring deficiency in this Government ‘s transport policy is, I believe, its total failure to consider the conditions existing in Tasmania- the State which at this time is in the most need. Despite the present concentration in Tasmania of Labor politicians- temporary aberrations by the body politic in that State, if I may say so- Labor’s attitude to the particularly acute transport problems faced by the island State is one of complete and total neglect. Why is it that not one Tasmanian member has in fact spoken on these estimates for the Department of Transport? Why is it that not one Tasmanian member saw fit to enter the list of speakers in the Treasury estimates debate? Mr Street-They are not game.

Mr LYNCH:

– Of course they are not game. They are not game to represent in that State the policies of this Government because they recognise the tremendous adversities which the Labor Party’s central policies in Canberra have created for Tasmania.

Mr Street:

– There is not one of them in the chamber.

Mr LYNCH:

-Not one of them in the chamber, as my colleague the honourable member for Corangamite reminds me. I wonder where the honourable member for Bass, the honourable Lance Barnard, the former Deputy Prime Minister now fallen from grace, is. Where is the honourable member for Denison, Mr Coates? Where is the honourable member for Braddon, Mr Davies, the honourable member for Wilmot, Mr Duthie, and the honourable member for Franklin, Mr Sherry? Why is it that they are not in the chamber during the debate on these estimates which of course have such compelling significance for Tasmanians. If this point is heard as I am sure it will be, by those many hundreds of thousands listening to this debate in the State of Tasmania, they will have great cause to wonder why not one of their lower House representatives has seen fit to enter the debate on the subject of transport which is of very great and compelling concern for that State.

At this stage I refer to a letter which was written to my colleague the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon), a former Minister for Transport and the present shadow Minister for Transport and a member who, of course, pays great attention to the problems of the State of Tasmania. I understand that this is of so great concern to him at the present time that tomorrow morning he will be visiting Tasmania as a guest of the Tasmanian Road Transport Association. The letter which is dated 29 September comes from Mr L. A. James, the Secretary of the Devonport Trades and Labour Council.

It reads:

Dear Mr Nixon,

On behalf of my Council I enclose copy of letter as forwarded to the Federal Minister for Transport (Mr Jones) with the wish that the Opposition give utmost consideration and co-operation to the plight experienced by this Island through being separated by a stretch of water from the mainland of Australia.

Delegates desire the Liberal Party -

And the Country Party-

To keep this matter under constant surveillance and be ever ready to advance us aid in this matter.

Of course, as a matter of record, Mr Chairman, you personally know that we will do just that. It is interesting to quote the letter from the Secretary of the Devonport Trades and Labour Council in which he says:

We bitterly condemn the Labor Party for entertaining the original idea of placing further hardship upon industry and people of this island and most sincerely trust that episodes of this nature will not re-eventuate at some future date.

Tasmanians are at extreme disadvantage compared to the populace of the rest of Australia because, unlike them, we mainly depend upon ship carriage of those commodities vitally essential for the enjoying of a reasonable way of life and so therefore we request the Federal Government to continue advancing us concessions in this mode of transport.

I say in this chamber tonight that if Mr James, the Secretary of the Devonport Trades and Labour Council, was compelled to send a copy of that letter to my colleague, the shadow Minister for Transport, he was, of course, reflecting the great concern experienced throughout Tasmania over the inequitable and adverse economic policies of the present Labor Administration. Again I ask for the benefit of those many listeners in Tasmania why in this chamber tonight are there only 3 Labor members apart from the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) who is sitting at the table? Why is the honourable member for Bass not present? Why in fact is the honourable member for Denison not present? Why is the honourable member for Braddon not present? Where is the honourable member for Wilmot? Why is the honourable member for Franklin not present? Is it that they remain unconcerned about the problems facing Tasmania or if they are concerned are these the nervous Nellies in terms of their representational role as depicted recently by the Prime Minister, referring, I believe, to the former Deputy Prime Minister of this country, the honourable member for Bass? We on this side view this as a very serious proposition.

A Bureau of Transport Economics assessment of Tasmania’s interstate transport problems released in March last year pointed to the fundamental transport problems that that State suffered through having no land links with other States. It estimated that compared with hypothetical road links between Tasmania and Melbourne the State was subject to a national transport cost disadvantage ranging between $1 and $5 a ton for most classes of goods. It considered that the disadvantage may be as high as $25 a ton in the case of very low density cargoes. The fact is that in representation of these points which are of some significance to Tasmania the members who represent that State in the lower House in this Parliament have been recreat in their duties. I would have thought that it would have been a matter of high principle for them to come into the debate on the estimates for the Department of Transport and put the views of the many Tasmanians who today are so greatly disadvataged because of the policies of this central administration. Despite the findings of the Bureau of Transport Economics to which I have just adverted, the Government recently announced an increase in the freight rates to be charged by the Australian National Line. These rates are to increase by 25 per cent or between $2.40 and $2.80 a ton. Such a decision would obviously have had a very severe impact on cost structures throughout Tasmania. Following strong protestations from the State- I would not be sure what the individual members thought about the problem- the Prime Minister was, of course, forced to promise a reassessment of the proposed freight increases in relation to Tasmania. But nevertheless the initial decision to increase these freight rates was taken without any reference to the Nimmo Commission although the Prime Minister in his April policy speech had this to say:

We are particularly aware of the burden being placed on the Tasmanian economy and on Tasmanians by their reliance on sea transport. We have appointed Mr J. F. Nimmo, a member of the Grants Commission, as a Royal Commissioner to inquire into the impact of freight rates on the Tasmanian economy.

Time does not permit me tonight really to expose the situation in Tasmania or in fact to expose the manner in which the Tasmanian Labor members on the lower House have been recalcitrant in not entering the list of speakers on the Transport estimates. I say to the Minister that perhaps he might think that he can speak for Tasmania. If he does he has another think coming because the people of that State recognise the extent to which the central administration in Canberra is determined to extinguish the very lifestyle of so many Tasmanians. I simply take a not insignificant point in this Parliament tonight that not one member of the Tasmanian delegation representing the Australian Labor Party in 5 seats has been prepared to take up the cause of Tasmania, but the Opposition certainly will.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-Empty vessels make most sound. Never has there been more evidence of that saying being a truism than the speech of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch). He is like a gramophone, and so is the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden), on the question of Tasmanian freight rates. Every Labor member of the House of Representatives from Tasmania in the last few weeks has spoken in this Parliament. In fact they have done more than just speak: They have achived results in the lowering of freight rates. They have reported to the people of their constituencies and they have reported to this Parliament. I am referring to the honourable members for Braddon (Mr Davies), Wilmot (Mr Duthie), Bass (Mr Barnard), Franklin (Mr Sherry) and Denison (Mr Coates). They are working hard in the Parliament for these constituents right now. They have gone to the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and they have achieved reductions in freight rates for those they represent. As the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) will show when he speaks shortly, the increases in freight rates which were the result of policies of the present Opposition were far more serious for the people of Tasmania than the recent increases after the reductions which have recently been implemented because of the actions of the Tasmanian Labor members of the House of Representatives.

Tonight I will apply my remarks mainly to the subject of civil aviation, but before I do so I want to set the scene. Everywhere in the Western world the government hi office in under attack and on the defensive because of inflation. That is clear. Until there is an election that happens. The people are able to see in an election that the opposition has no answers, just as the Opposition in the Australian Parliament has no answers, on the matter of increased freight rates. People are able to see in an election that the opposition is worse than the incumbent government, with all the problems that there are to overcome. This has happened in Canada, where Mr Trudeau was returned. It has happened in the United Kingdom, where Mr Wilson was returned. It happened as recently as last May when Mr Whitlam was returned as Prime Minister of this country. It will happen again when he is pitted against the Leader of the Opposition. When the Opposition’s empty and ridiculous promises are seen to be as rotten as they are it will happen again. So let the Opposition take its little bit of pleasure right now. The pendulum will swing as it does in politics.

There is another reason why the policies of the Opposition will be seen to be what they are. That reason will become obvious on a comparison of the specific policies of the Government and the Opposition on transport. Transport is only one of the many areas where this is so, where the Government’s policy can be seen to be fair and equitable and a breath of fresh air after the stagnation and lack of ideas of 23 years of LiberalCountry Party government. The previous Government spent money in a piecemeal fashion. What was done was done in an uncoordinated fashion. No idea of national policies could be seen from what was coming forth from the Liberal and Country Parties. They had no idea of national needs. The States were merely handed moneys. I repeat that there was no coordination in what was done with those moneys. The railways were starved, freeways abounded whether they were necessary or not, and highways like the Hume Highway were absolutely starved of funds and neglected. Civil aviation was one of the lucky areas, and I repeat that it is on civil aviation that I want to focus attention during the time I have left.

The Australian Labor Government has set out to bring order where there has been disorder and planning where there has been ad hockery. Our aim is for a truly national, rational co-ordinated system and the careful husbanding of funds to get the best benefit for each $1 of taxpayers’ funds spent on civil aviation. Australia is a vast country and increases in our overall standard of living are limited by the cost of transport. But that in my view does not mean that taxpayers have to meet that cost. For the most part the user should be the one who covers the cost, particularly in the area of civil aviation. Otherwise poorer people are merely subsidising the standard of living of those of us who travel by air. Let us look at our air navigation charges. In 1973-74 the cost of providing, operating and maintaining our navigation facilities amounted to $140m. The revenue received from the users of those facilities and services was $75m- a deficit of $65m. The Australian taxpayer was asked to pay more than $6 for each passenger who travelled on an Australian airline. The Australian Labor Government has sought to raise the charges to make the user pay. I think this is a policy which can be defended very easily. The deficit should be brought down shortly from the $65m I mentioned earlier to $63m in the estimates which we are now discussing.

This brings me to the main reason why I have risen in this debate. I ask the Minister for Transport to use all his powers of persuasion and aU the powers he may have to lean on Ansett Airlines of Australia and Trans- Australia Airlines to seek the conversion of our 2-class domestic airline system to a one-class system. Needless to say he will have to lean on both the airlines if this is to be done. Let me be quite frank. I am sickened by the fact that whether one travels Ansett or TAA nearly everyone sitting in front of the curtain, that is travelling first class, is being paid for out of public funds or to a lesser extent out of shareholders’ funds. Nearly everyone behind the curtain travelling tourist class is paying for himself. It just is not good enough in my view. If there is one thing which the present economic crisis which the Western world is suffering should teach us it is that we have to improve the productivity to bring about an improvement in our standard of living. We have to concentrate on greater efficiency. Part and parcel with this, we have to make public funds go further. Here is one way of doing so.

Let us all go tourist class. It will mean more people travelling in each aircraft. Relatively, it should bring down the cost of travel and save us the nasty action of making members of the Opposition as well as public servants go tourist class instead of first class. We would all have to do so because there would be only one class and no choice. Although I say so myself, this suggestion will hurt no group in the community more than members of the Australian Parliament. There can be few as a group who travel more often or further distances than we do. Our lives are enormously busy. Very few of our constituents have any idea of the demands made upon us- the way we are obliged to rush around this country. It is an enormous load off our minds to have firstclass travel, just as it is to have transport to and from the airports. It is also very much more convenient for us and our families to get up at 6 o’clock instead of 5.30 in the morning to get a 7 a.m. flight. But surely the personal inconvenience of the 187 members of both Houses must be secondary to the national interest. I believe that it is in the national interest to have one class domestic airlines.

Surely the tourist section does not have to be as cramped as it is at present. Six abreast is too tight for people of even my size. I feel certain that a little more room can be given if there is not so much traffic up and down the aisles. On the longer flights to and from Perth everyone gets a tray anyway. Soon we would wonder why we ever had an elitist 2-class system. The internal airlines are all one class in New Zealand, and they are very good. The internal airlines in many other countries are also. One I visited recently is China. It has a one-class system, which is excellent in a country such as that. I have mentioned just 2 countries.

I hope that the Minister will use his powers of persuasion and at least let the airlines look at this suggestion. There is no reason why we should just go along with the elitist policies of the Opposition just because they are policies which applied in the recent past. Our 2 -airline system is here to stay, but too much of the taxpayers’ funds is being used in sudsidising it. I support the actions of the Government in making sure that the user rather than the taxpayer pays for this system to a greater extent. But we also should look at suggestions such as the one I have made for one class domestic airline travel in order to bring down the cost of air travel.

Mr LUSHER:
Hume

-The honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) offers empty words in an unconvincing attempt to defend the Tasmanian members who have refused to participate in this debate on the estimates for the Department of Transport. There is only one way that honourable members and the people of Tasmania will be convinced, and that is by the actions of the members from Tasmania- not by any hollow words from other members on their side of the chamber.

Mr Calder:

– From South Australia.

Mr LUSHER:

-Particularly members from South Australia

Mr Kerin:

– Particularly the Country Party.

Mr LUSHER:

-No, I do not want to bring that into it. This chamber and the people of Australia are entitled to know about the condition of country roads, particularly the roads in my electorate which are traversed not only by commercial vehicles but also by tourists who travel between Sydney and Melbourne, Melbourne and Canberra and Sydney and Canberra.

I am here tonight to make a very brief plea to the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) for some sort of reality to be displayed in meeting the problems which are being faced by the people who use these roads. I am very pleased to be able to compliment the Minister on being able to take some action so soon after he assumed responsibility for the Hume Highway. Agreement has been reached on a program put forward by the Department of Main Roads and the New South Wales Government in conjunction with the Minister’s Department to spend $2.5m on repairs to the Hume Highway between Camden and Albury. I probably have more of the Hume Highway in my electorate than any other member has in his electorate. Therefore it is perhaps appropriate that approximately $1.4m will be spent on patching up the Hume Highway in my electorate. The people of the electorate of Hume and other people who use the Hume Highway are grateful to the Minister for this assistance.

But there are several other major roads in my electorate which are in need of significant assistance. Although these roads are not the responsibility of the Commonwealth, the Government has been able to hand out money to the States under tied section 96 grants and therefore it would be able, if it felt so disposed, to advance money through the States for the specific purpose of maintaining these roads. I ask the Minister Can there be anything that is more important than keeping commerce and people moving throughout the southern portion of the great State of New South Wales? The Olympic Highway runs through Cowra, Young, Cootamundra and Junee to Wagga. The Barton Highway, which everyone knows is an absolute disgrace, runs between Canberra and Yass. The Midwestern Highway runs between Blayney, Cowra and Grenfell. The Henry Lawson Way, which runs from Young to Grenfell, is a disgrace to the name of that great Australian. Significant diversions are now being made from the Hume Highway on to these other main roads which were not built to carry the type of traffic which they are carrying now. There is not a decent mile of public road in the electorate of Hume.

A grazier from Wallendbeen, which is the dead centre of Hume, was reported in the media the other day as having said that his property had received 70 inches of rain in the 12 months ended this September. That is more than an inch of rain a week. I would like to be told how we can expect local government to maintain roads after rainfall such as that. There have been 3 major floods on the Murrumbidgee this year. Recently the river reached a level in the high twenties and earlier it reached 33 feet. That flood nearly wiped out towns such as Wagga.

Finally I make a plea in the area of civil aviation. I will curtail my remarks because of the limited time which we have available to us. I refer to the air service between Temora and Sydney. This service needs a non-directional beacon. We have been informed that channels are not and will not be made available for the use of a non-directional beacon to enable aircraft to land at Temora at night. I have advised the Minister that there is a channel which is not being used and which could easily be transferred to the Temora aerodrome. I make that plea on behalf of Temora, and I make the overall plea on behalf of the citizens of Hume and the trade and commerce people who are dependent on the Hume Highway and the other major roads in southern New South Wales which supply Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne with so much of their basic commodities.

Mr MacKELLAR:
Warringah

– Before speaking to the estimates for the Department of Transport I must make some reference to the speech, such as it was, made by the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford). I was diverted by the honourable member’s remarks and therefore I would just put 2 suggestions to him. Firstly, when he reads a speech that someone else has written I ask him please to make sure that he does not use words with which his is not familiar because he did stumble over some of the words which he read tonight. Secondly, would he please make sure that the examples he uses are accurate? The honourable member mentioned that while he was in China he noticed that there was no discrimination between first class and second class airline passengers. I also have been to China. When I was there I observed very closely the discrimination that existed between first class and second class passengers, so much so that I made reference to it to the Chinese who were accompanying the Australian delegation on that occasion. There is certainly a very clear demarcation between the equals and the not so equals in China.

I rise tonight to talk about the question of converting existing roads to what would be the equivalent of an expressway system. This has been raised already by supporters of the Government and adverted to by member of the Opposition. I would like to say in preface to my remarks that we as members of Parliament should be very clear that, whether we like it or not, cars are here to stay and it is no use either Ministers of the Crown or others talking about converting the transport of people by cars to the transport of people by public transport. People have become used to the individual form of transport that is afforded by cars. In fact, cars have become the public transport of the modern era. When I was in America a couple of years ago a professor of urban transport said to me that the motor car was the last bastion that the individual American had. He was talking about a man who was smitten by his boss, worried by his family situation and beset by the problems of the urban environment. The only way that he could get away from this situation was to get into his car, wind up the windows, turn on the air conditioner, put the cassette into the player and there be in his own little environment. The professor said that this man was not going to give this up very lightly. Although this is an extreme example, I think it is true that people are used to travelling by private vehicle- that is, the motor car. Therefore we must look at the problem of individual transport and not try to shove it to one side by saying that we will cope with all these problems by providing updated public transport.

I honestly do not think that, particularly in an increasingly affluent society, we will be able to get people out of private transport into public transport. Therefore we must look at ways of improving the flow and facility of private transport, which means at this stage providing better methods of easing traffic flow. I live in the electorate of Warringah which has been mentioned tonight. I know the problems of those who travel from the peninsula area, stretching from the Spit to Barrenjoey, through the Mosman area in order to get to town. I understand the very real problems and opinions of people on the Mosman side who find that their suburban streets are choked with cars during the morning and afternoon peak times, and also the problems of those who travel through that area to get to the city. Therefore I was very interested in the submission brought forward tonight by the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen). I refer to the Olivero system, which involves modification of the existing road system in such a way that a great expansion in the volume of traffic flow can be gained and the speed of the traffic flow can be greatly expanded.

I believe that this system, which is already working in some areas of the world, offers not only an attractive but also what seems to be a workable and above all a cheap and rapid method of overcoming some of the particular problems which cities such as Sydney face at the present time. I refer specifically to the area which I represent- the Spit Road, Military Road and Sydney Road area. I have been told that this system could be introduced into the area at a cost of approximately $10m- I have not done the costing myself- and that if it were introduced the present road system could be expanded without necessitating any resumption of land or any demolition of existing buildings, particularly those housing dwellers. I have been told that by using the existing roads there could be a system which would allow 4 times the present rate of transport to flow through this area without interrupting the very pleasant living standards of those people who live on subsidiary roads in the Mosman-Beauty Point area.

I have undertaken not to speak for very long in the debate tonight on the estimates for the Department of Transport, but I would ask the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) to give the suggestion concerning the Olivero system very close attention for the points which I will now again enumerate. I have been told that it would not involve any resumption of land, that it would require no demolition of existing urban dwellings, that it would involve use of the existing roads and the traffic flow could be maintained while the alterations were taking place. It would certainly provide for freeway volume traffic, which would result in 4 times the present rate of traffic being able to flow through the area at 2.5 times the present speed. The cost, which is a very relevant factor to be taken into account when one is considering these sorts of propositions, would be, on the estimates I have been given and I have seen no figures to refute them, a very small proportion of the cost of constructing a comparable freeway system in the area which would achieve the same results. I ask the Minister to give this proposition very close attention.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Transport · Newcastle · ALP

– I thank the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) for his contribution to the debate. Like him I have had a look at the display in King’s Hall. I have also had a paper given to me on it. The honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) insisted during the dinner adjournment that I should go and inspect the display. I did so. I will be having a further look at it to see what practical application the scheme would have.

I wish to deal first of all with the remarks of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch), who came into this chamber ranting and raving like a wounded bull about what the Liberal and Country Parties are going to do for Tasmania. Firstly let me get one thing clear. When the Australian Shipping Commission Bill, which is vital to Tasmania, was being debated in the House last week the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was conspicuous by his absence and the honourable members from Tasmania were conspicuous by their participation in the debate on the Bill. That was the time to be in this chamber. That was the time when the honourable members from Tasmania were present. That was the time when they put the Tasmanian point of view. They not only put it then but they also had been putting it to me in no uncertain terms for several weeks before the Bill was introduced into this chamber. But on no occasion did I have any Liberal or Country Party senator from Tasmania bother to come and talk to me about it or put a point of view on it on behalf of Tasmania. So the manner in which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition came into this chamber and contributed to this debate shows just what a typical humbug he is. That is all he is when he comes into this chamber and talks in that manner.

Let us have a look at what the Government has done for Tasmania. That is what counts, not what the Opposition is going to do. The previous Liberal-Country Party Government was always going to do something. As I have said on numerous occasions the spokesman for the LiberalCountry Party on this matter was a …..—, He was always ,-I……’ do something but he never got around to it and he is not going to get the chance to become a . -‘–Il , again. As to what the present Government has done for Tasmania, the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) stated quite clearly during the 1972 election campaign that there was a problem of freight rates as far as Tasmania was concerned. We did something about it. In the first Budget we presented to this Parliament we set aside $lm to subsidise the ‘Empress of Australia ‘ so as to bring it into at least a viable position. The previous Liberal-Country Party Government was in office for 23 years. What did it do about the ‘Empress of Australia’ during the years in which it is was losing money and looked a stone living certainty to be taken off the run? It did nothing. We did. That is the difference between the Liberal and Country Parties and us. We did something; they did not.

We have appointed the Nimmo Commission to investigate what is the most practical method of assisting Tasmania to overcome its freight problems. We are not going to pull something out of the air, which was the practice of the previous Liberal-Country Party Government. We want to do things in the right way, the most effective way. There is only one way in which to do them and that is the way in which we are going about doing them. Let us have a look at the subject of freight rate increases. Certainly we increased freight rates by 25 per cent for Aus.tralian National Line runs around the coast. We did it everywhere. But when one has a look at the facts and figures on this matter one will see that we were completely justified in doing so. When one comes to consider the Nimmo Commission’s report and when one comes to deal with Tasmania one should never forget one important thing, that is, that earlier this year, as a result of various cost increases which they had incurred, the port authorities on the north coast of Tasmania decided to increase port charges. We put the proposition to them that they should hold their increases in port charges until after the Nimmo Commission had reported. They were not prepared to be in it. Apparently it is not good enough for the port authorities to have to hang on to increases in port charges but it is good enough for us to have to hang on and not do anything until the Nimmo Commission presents it report.

Let us have a look at the real facts. In doing so I am not going back years and years; I am dealing with the last 2 years in which the LiberalCountry Party Government was in office and the first 2 years in which we have been in office and am comparing the freight rate changes in that period. I will again quote the figures for the benefit of honourable members. In August 1970 there was a 12.5 per cent increase in all Tasmanian trade freight rates. In July 1971 there was a 12.5 per cent increase in Sydney to Tasmania freight rates and an 8 per cent increase in Melbourne to Sydney freight rates. In August 1972 there was an increase in the freight rate for dense cargo between Sydney and Tasmania of 12 per cent and between Melbourne and Tasmania of 25 per cent; there was a 20 per cent surcharge imposed on hazardous cargo; and there was a 17 per cent newsprint increase, removal of a 22 per cent concession on heavy cargo and removal of an 18 per cent concession on industrial machinery. Those freight rate increases were put through by the Liberal-Country Party Government in the last 2 years in which it was in office, that is, between August 1970 and December 1972. Yet we had the humbug of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition coming into this chamber and putting over the point of view he did about what the Liberal and Country Parties are going to do as far as Tasmania is concerned. They did plenty for Tasmania when they were in office. If honourable members examine those freight rate increases they will see just what are the facts.

Mr Nixon:

– What did you do to the air subsidy?

Mr CHARLES JONES:

-It is perfectly true that we have withdrawn the air subsidy; but the government of which the honourable member for Gippsland was a member commenced to do the same. In 1960 the previous Government decided to phase out air subsidies. It was doing it and we kept on doing what it was doing. Is that a crime? It is interesting to have regard to some of the subsidies that were paid. For every $1 revenue there was a subsidy of $8.50. This is what the honourable member for Gippsland is talking about. Does he want to perpetuate that sort or subsidy? It is absolutely ridiculous that that sort of system should apply. We removed the air freight subsidy to Tasmania the same as we did everywhere else. I repeat- the previous Government was doing it and we continued what it was doing. They are the facts. Today we approved a new carrier on the King IslandLaunceston, Flinders Island-Launceston trade. As one who has had a considerable experience with light aircraft I can vouch that such services do an excellent job. The Newcastle-Sydney operator provides a first class service. A service will be provided to the people of those 2 islands off Tasmania. So much for what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had to say. His speech was pathetic both in the manner of its delivery and in its content. What he said was simply political humbug.

I deal now with the honourable member for Gippsland, the Opposition spokesman on transport. He endeavoured to raise the old Menzies bogey about communism. He gave it another gallop tonight. He said that the Minister for Transport always confers with the communist trade unions to see whether they will give him permission to issue a single voyage permit. I took a point of order at the time and said that this was not true. I have in my possession a photo copy of a single voyage permit which I issued tonight after that part of the debate. The honourable member for Gippsland knows its contents because he signed similar permits on previous occasions when he was Minister. He has a stack of the permits I have signed recently because I gave him and the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser) copies of them. He knows that what he said was not true. It makes me boil when people make statements that they know are not true and which are deliberate untruths. On all single voyage permits are 3 notations. The first is a recommendation that the Minister approve the issue of the permit. The second notation is that the Australian Council of Trade Unions has been notified of the application. Is the honourable member for Gippsland suggesting that Harold Souter and Bob Hawke are communists? Why does he not go outside the Parliament and say this? People would laugh at him if he did so. Harold Souter is the man who always advises on approvals; he does not ask for them. He advises the unions of my decision. That is the situation that exists.

In respect of shipping and shipbuilding I have been accused of doing nothing. Let us examine the position. The honourable member for Gippsland can sit and smile but when I became Minister there were in excess of 700 unemployed maritime workers in Australia. Today there is none. That is the difference between the previous Government and the Labor Party Government. What have we done with the Japanese trade? We have increased our participation in it from 17.2 per cent to 30 per cent. In the wool trade we have increased our participation from 23 per cent to 28.3 per cent. With regard to shipping, when the honourable member for Gippsland was Minister he approved of the Australian National Line building in Japan a second generation ship for the eastern sea road service. He approved the building of one ship; I gave approval for the building of a ship shortly after I became Minister. Since then we have placed firm orders for two 121,000 ton bulk ships and two 140,000 ton bulk ships so that the Australian National Line -

Mr Nixon:

– Who is building them?

Mr CHARLES JONES:

-I will tell the honourable member. I will deal with the lot in a moment. Australia will at last start to have an interest and involvement in the iron ore trade. During the years the Liberal-Country Party Government was in office it did not have one ship operating in the overseas trade for the carriage of bulk cargoes. Today we are on the way to overcoming that problem. What is more, we have understandings with the Japanese importers as to what the position will be. We recently placed an order for a 29,000 deadweight ton ship to be included in the ACT-ANL trade. We are in the process of buying the ‘Matthew Flinders’ from the Flinders Shipping Co. With that vessel and the ‘Australian Enterprise’ we will be able to go into a new trade in Asia between Korea, Hong Kong the Philippines and Australia. We recently purchased the ‘Baron Cawdor’, a bulk ship especially fitted, for the Christmas Island trade. The previous Government was prepared to let this trade become the province of overseas shipping companies but we have ensured an Australian involvement in that trade. All told, in the short period we have been in office, $23Sm has been spent on new ships for Australian involvement in overseas shipping. Is that peanuts? Is that some insignificant amount of money? The Government has been on the job and it is continuing to get on with the job of providing employment in an expansion of Australia’s overseas shipping industry.

I deal now with the question of shipbuilding. Let us consider the situation when the honourable member for Gippsland was Minister for Shipping and Transport. In the 12 months ended 2 December 1972 there were 39 ships on order or under construction. During th. last 12 months -in our term of office- 68 ships have been on order or under construction. If honourable members examine the information which has been made available to them they will find that the Whyalla shipyards have orders which will keep them operational well into 1977 and even later if need be. The State Dockyard is in a similar position and its last order is due for delivery in 1977. I will deal explicitly with Evans Deakin & Co.

Pty Ltd in a moment because if ever there has been a deal of humbug with any shipping company it is with Evans Deakin. If ever a shipyard got a go from a government, it was Evans Deakin. It got a go from this Government. I must say that during the term of the honourable member for Gippsland as Minister he endeavoured to keep Evans Deakin going, but one cannot keep something going if it will not have a go itself. If ever a place is badly managed, Evans Deakin is it. It is the worst managed shipyard that this country has ever had the misfortune to have. The manner in which it conducts its affairs is poor. It has antagonised unions and, incidentally, the unions have not been unco-operative. The way Evans Deakin has antagonised unions into unnecessary stoppages is an absolute and utter disgrace.

The question of Adelaide Ship Construction was raised, but let us be clear about the situation. That shipyard was in the process of being closed when we became the Government The owners of that shipyard had placed an order for a 4,000 ton vessel with the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd. It had a third interest in that ship. If one is the owner of a shipyard why does one place an order with another shipyard? The answer is clear. That company decided, while the honourable member for Gippsland was Minister, to close down on the completion of the work it had under construction. It made the decision, went on with it and closed the yard. Let me deal now with Walkers Limited. The honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar) mentioned this matter.

Mr Garland:

– How long is he going to talk?

Mr CHARLES JONES:

-For as long as I want.

Mr Garland:

– He could talk under wet cement.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

-That is right. This Government made firm offers to Walkers shipyard and also to the Queensland Government. On 24 April the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) wrote to Mr Bjelke-Petersen the Premier of Queensland. I do not propose to read that letter but he made an offer of a 3-way arrangement with Walkers shipyard. He made a proposal for an arrangement with Walkers, the Queensland Government and the Australian Government. If that was not satisfactory to Walkers he suggested an arrangement with the Queensland Government and the Australian Government or an arrangement with Walkers and the Australian Government, whichever way they wanted to play it. Let us consider the real facts of this matter. On 14 May the Queensland Premier wrote to the Prime Minister. I emphasise the date- 14

May. I want to show the Committee what a humbug and a hypocrite the Premier of Queensland is.

On 15 May, he met the representatives of the union at Walkers and promised them that he would give consideration to the proposition. Yet, on 14 May in his letter to the Prime Minister he had written to him saying that his Government was not prepared to be in the proposal. When we met Dr Hughes from Walkers, he said quite frankly that Walkers was not prepared to be in the proposition and that that would be his recommendation to the board of directors. Yes, we did make the statement that we were prepared to go it alone. On that afternoon when the proposition was put to Dr Hughes and to the Chairman of the Walkers board indicating that we were prepared to take the shipyard over and carry out the building of the 3 ships which Walkers was to do- 2 heavy landing craft for the Army and a navigation ship for the Department of Transport to a value of $8.25m- we found that Walkers was not prepared to be a party to our proposal. Although we were prepared to go on with it, Walkers was not prepared to lease us the shipyard or to co-operate with us in any way whatsoever.

It was not until all operations had finished that the attitude changed. AU of Walkers labour had left that company. It had sold part of the shipyard. Suddenly Walkers was prepared to lease the shipyard to us. At this stage there was no industry there. Everyone who is fair dinkum and honest will know that there was no industry in that city. There was nothing to transfer. That is aU there is to that situation.

Mr Sinclair:

– But that is not what would have happened if -

Mr CHARLES JONES:

-Don ‘t you come into this one because there is a nice Utile Press cutting here on you. I turn to the Evans Deakin company. Let us have a look at the facts of the matter. When the manager of Evans Deakin reported the decision on 10 October to withdraw from shipbuilding, according to Press reports the decision was well received by the shareholders. That means that they were happy to get out of the industry. This was notwithstanding the fact that that company, as a list that I have here will show, could have tendered for the construction of a number of vessels. I ask for leave to incorporate this document in Hansard. I have already spoken to the honourable member for Gippsland about it.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

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

Mr CHARLES JONES:

-I thank the Committee. This list sets out 22 vessels for which Evans Deakin could have tendered.

Mr Garland:

– Do not read it

Mr CHARLES JONES:

-It is a perfectly juicy one. I would highly recommend to the honourable member for Curtin that he might read Hansard tomorrow and just see the ships for which Evans Deakin could have tendered. The honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron), who is trying to interject at the moment, should also read it to see what the real position is. The vessels are set out in this list. They are not fishing boats. The tenders relate to large ships for which Evans Deakin could have tendered. It did not.

There is not one fishing boat among the ships listed in that document. Each of those ships was suited to the type of work that Evans Deakin was carrying out. In addition to those 22 large ships for which it could have tendered but did not, it could also have tendered, if it wished to do so, for 100 fishing vessels, 21 tugs of various sizes and 13 rig supply ships. Evans Deakin elected not to tender in respect of those vessels. This illustrates one of the reasons why Evans Deakin is in the position in which it finds itself today. It is an inefficient badly administered shipyard.

Let us look now at the vessels for which Evans Deakin tendered but was not the lowest tenderer. I ask for leave to incorporate this list.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Is leave granted?

Mr Nixon:

– Yes.

The CHAIRMAN:

– There being no objection, leave is granted.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Wait a minute. We need only one person to say no. As long as -

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– But I am pointing out -

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order!

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– He is not being honest.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I warn the honourable member for Griffith that if he does not obey the Chair, he will not be here to say anything.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– That would be unfortunate.

The CHAIRMAN:

-The honourable gentle.man did not say ‘no’ when I asked: ‘Is leave granted?’, I said: ‘Leave is granted’. I am not here to give him a lesson in the Standing Orders.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Will you get the Minister to tell us about the tenders that were torn open and the State dockyard given a chance -

Mr CHARLES JONES:

-Yes, I will do that.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I warn the honourable member for Griffith that if he makes one more remark I will name him.

Mr Calder:

– Why don’t you give him a fair go?

The CHAIRMAN:

– I am giving him a fair go.

Mr Calder:

– You are not.

The CHAIRMAN:

– If the honourable member for McMillan does not get back to his seat I will name him.

Mr Nixon:

– Could I suggest that the Chairman take himself in hand. He is not quite with it.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I suggest that the honourable gentleman might sit down. The document will be incorporated. (The document read as follows)-

Mr CHARLES JONES:

-If the honourable member who objects to the incorporation of the list, I will read it to him with the greatest of pleasure. The list shows vessels for which Evans Deakin tendered but was not the lowest tenderer. The list includes a self-propelled drilling rig for the Odeco organisation. Next is a drilling vessel for the Santa Fe company which it ultimately received because of the actions taken by this Government and by the Minister for Overseas Trade (Dr J. F. Cairns) and me as the 2 Ministers responsible. Then there was a Ro/Ro bulk ship for the Bulkships organisation, a Seacoaster vessel for the Australian National Line, two 44,000 d.w.t. bulk ore carriers for Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd, a 70,000 d.w.t. bulk ore carrier for the ANL, two 25,000 d.w.t. bulk ore carriers for the ANL and a pipe laying barge again for Santa Fe. That document sets out the facts. Evans Deakin could have secured those contracts but it was not the lowest tenderer. That is why it finds itself in the position in which it is today.

In considering the real facts of the matter, I turn now to the late delivery of vessels by Evans Deakin. The ./,r Swanson’ was delivered some 22 months after the actual contract delivery date. The ‘Townsville Trader’ was delivered 9 months after the contract delivery date. The ‘Esso Gippsland’ was delivered 4 months after the contract delivery date was amended to grant an extension to the delivery time. The ‘Robert Miller’ is 19 months behind the contract delivery date and still has not been delivered. That is an absolute and utter disgrace. The ‘Sydney Trader’ was delivered 1 1 months after the contract delivery date. The actual delivery date of the ‘Brisbane Trader’ was 12 months after the contract delivery date. Honourable members need only to look at the facts to see the inefficiencies that exist at Evans Deakin.

The question of the State dockyards and the construction of the two 25,000 ton bulk ships has been raised. If honourable gentlemen examine the facts on this matter- and because of the lateness of the hour, I do not have time to go through them- they will find that when the prices were compared the Newcastle dockyards had submitted the lowest tender. I gave the Newcastle dockyards no preferential treatment whatsoever despite the claim made to that effect made by the honourable member on a number of occasions in this place. The dockyards obtained the work. It did so because it was the lowest tenderer. That is the fact of the matter. I would be delighted to table the information for the honourable member. It clearly establishes that fact beyond doubt. If he wants to look at the figures, I will make them available to him.

Let me very quickly deal with some criticism of air navigation charges. Some honourable members have raised this matter quite sincerely. This Government has decided on a policy of recovering 80 per cent of costs of civil aviation over the next 5 years. In 1973-74 expenditure on aviation was $140m and government revenue was $75m. The deficit that resulted was $65m. Let me illustrate what that represents. Those figures mean that every person who boarded a plane in Australia whether for a domestic or overseas flight was subsidised to the tune of the first $6 of that person’s fare by the Australian taxpayer. Working on the figures of TransAustralia Airlines which show a revenue of $ 150m, I point out that air navigation charges represent only 4 per cent of that total. (Quorum formed)

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Progress reported.

page 2703

ADJOURNMENT

Uranium Policy- Public LibrariesUnited Nations- Beef Industry

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! It being 10.30 p.m., in accordance with the order of the House of 1 1 July I propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr VINER:
Stirling

– I want to return tonight to the debate on uranium policy. The debate on that policy will not end with the

Renouf affair, even though the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) may desire that that be a forgotten affair. Nor will the debate end with the 22nd annual report of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission which has just been released. Nor will it end with the supposed answer by the Minister to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development examiners report on science and technology in Australia The reason why it will not so end is that the Minister still has not produced a policy which deliberately and coherently establishes a basis for national decisions on the use of and trade in this premium energy source.

I do not intend to debate the details of uranium policy in this adjournment debate because it is not the occasion to do so. However I wish to refer to the Renouf affair because it illuminates the narrowness of the Minister’s approach to his portfolio. Also a proper and responsible approach to Australia’s role as a supplier of this premium energy resource to the western world is sadly needed from the Australian Government. I raise the matter now because I was fortunate enough to be in Washington, New York and Ottawa three to four weeks before the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) was in the same places. I do not claim to have spoken to the same people in high places as the Prime Minister, but I spoke to a good cross-section of officers of the United States and Canadian Governments and to leading men in the nuclear and uranium industry in the United States in particular. The clear, unmistakable message which I received from within both government and industry was, firstly, that Australia was missing the boat in the world uranium trade and, secondly, that the economic nationalism of the Minister for Minerals and Energy was against the foreign policy interests of Australia. These two things were clear and unmistakable. Nothing that has come out of the Renouf affair so far has done anything to remove the views that I found prevalent in those 2 countries.

It was obvious from the earliest Press reports of the Prime Minister’s visit overseas that something was on. I refer, firstly, to the report in the ‘Australian Financial Review’ of 1 October by Robert Haupt in New York under the heading ‘ Whitlam ‘s burden- Connor’. Observations were made that the Prime Minister would state, in his address to the United Nations General Assembly, that Australia believed above all in the inter-dependence between supplier and consumer nations in the fields of resources, and that Mr Whitlam would be replying to President Ford. Mr Haupt went on to observe how Mr

Whitlam ‘s position would be immediately undermined at home and abroad. He observed that it would be undermined at home by the lack of policy on energy resources. Mr Haupt referred also to a senior Department of Foreign Affairs official at a briefing in New York. When questioned about the resources issue, the official said: ‘You know we have to be very careful if we go into Mr Connor’s province’. That was on 1 October. Clearly something was brewing. We knew that something had brewed and something very strong had been brewed when the reports came out of the briefing by Mr Renouf of journalists in Suva on 9 October.

Mr Haupt reported from Fiji that it was now clear that Mr Whitlam had finally been convinced of the need to end the hegemony of Mr Connor and Sir Lenox Hewitt over resource policy; Mr Whitlam had been receiving advice, which was gaining in strength in recent months, that Australia needed both to clarify its attitudeboth domestically and internationally- to resource questions and to open up the decision making structure on resource policy. In the ‘West Australian’ of 10 October, datelined Suva, it was observed that informants said that Mr Whitlam had accepted advice that the present boom prices for minerals might not last for ever and that Australia should go ahead and exploit its resources.

What was being advised to Mr Whitlam was, firstly, that world market trends made it imperative that if Australia was to take advantage of a unique sellers’ market developing in uranium it should act immediately to enter that market and should not delay the entry and, secondly, that if Australian foreign policy was to fit into the desired foreign policy of the Western world for a sharing of the uranium resource Australia had to play its part as a supplier of that resource to the developed countries of the Western world, more particularly when Australia had, by any standards, at least 25 per cent of the known world reserves of uranium. In the face of all that, it is quite clear that the Prime Minister was prepared to sacrifice not only a senior public servant but also a man who had been his friend over many years. The Prime Minister was prepared to sacrifice that officer on the altar of the minerals policy of the Minister for Minerals and Energy. It made it abundantly clear that the Minister dominates the Government in this area of policy. He dominates the Government at a time when it is urgent for the Government itself, and not the Minister, to take an overall and close look at Australia’s policy in this vital field. In order to establish that the Prime Minister’s advice, which he received in both the United States of America and Canada, was accurate one has only to have recourse to any reputable assessment of the supply and demand pattern in uranium use in the decade of the 1980s and beyond. Every reputable assessment of that pattern shows that the combination of the nuclear reactors to be commenced in the decade of the 1980s and in particular the number of uranium enrichment plants required in the Western world to satisfy enriched uranium demand has compelled the international uranium industry to reassess that demand in the 1980s. Quite clearly now the crossover point between supply and demand is roughly in the period of 1982 to 1984. One cannot be precise about this, of course, but clearly in the mid-1980s supply will have overcome demand.

Therefore, once the projected demand for enriched uranium is appreciated, looking at it from a conservative view and looking at the more accelerated nuclear growth patterns for that decade, it is quite clear that by 1990 the Western world will require between six and nine new enrichment plants. That means that the Western world will need one such plant every year or every year and a half, depending upon the degree of optimism one has. The important point is that we are talking about not one new plant or 2 new plants, but six to nine such new plants to go into operation in the decade of the 1980s. That means an investment of something between $9 billion and $20 billion at current values. An immense amount of money is required; an immense amount of investment will need to be marshalled in order to supply the free world with its enriched uranium needs. That means that now is the time for Australia to make its firm policy decision on how it is to enter the international market for uranium either in yellowcake form or enriched form. It means that Australia now must make its decision to allow the producers direct access to those world markets.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-I rise tonight to add my voice yet again in support of the Government’s policy in relation to areas of need in Australia for the provision of public libraries. When I talk of my own electorate or my own State, I am sure that many of the standards I quote and many of the instances I give can be related to many areas in Australia. including capital cities and other disadvantaged areas similar to my own. I am an unbending supporter of the Government’s policy of looking after those most in need. In relation to my own area, instead of my speaking for 10 minutes we could have 10 minutes silence because Port Adelaide is a totally disadvantaged area which has no public library facilities at all, apart from the Port Adelaide Institute, which has a long and very interesting history of community involvement going aU the way back to 1851. Its services are now inadequate in spite of much hard work that is done by the people who run the Institute. Whilst there has been talk of an inquiry being conducted into the services that are required in libraries throughout Australia, it seems to me that in the disadvantaged areas, such as mine, there is no need for such an inquiry. There must surely be in Australia a modern library which can be used for the installation of such services in disadvantaged areas.

The present Adelaide metropolitan situation shows a definite tendency for those areas which already have home enriched environments also to have public libraries. The information rich get richer and the information poor get poorer. This situation must be countered, and we suggest here an extension of the Karmel philosophy of compensatory action for the disadvantaged. All those honourable members in this House who have visited schools have now seen the results of the Karmel Committee. The Karmel philosophy is, in some instances, giving to schools for the first time- I am sure this is so in country areas and it is certainly so in disadvantaged areas- facilities which have not been seen in those schools before. I am talking not only of books but also of the whole spectrum of faculties which bring about individual self-development through a whole range of resource materials in print, audio and visual formats. But their expectations are doomed to frustration unless urgent action is taken now. The Government must commit itself to some financial action, as the present method of financing public library services is grossly inadequate. Even in South Australian areas that have public libraries, many years of insufficient finance have stunted resources, the services and the personnel. Only eight out of the 32 public libraries in South Australia are staffed by qualified librarians. A new method of financing will increase the existing amount to at least the sums expended on education libraries.

A campaign has been launched in my own area by a group of people trying to round up support through all the service organisations, through radio stations, through letters to the editor, through the local Press, and even in the football budget on the day on which Port Adelaide was defeated, to bring about some support for the establishment of a library in our area. We even went to the extent of inviting people from our area to the South Australian Institute of Technology Levels Library to have a look at what a library is and what it means to the community. Three hundred people took advantage of the invitation. The 2 people in charge of implementing this idea, from the local Community Welfare Consultative Council- Gerry Govier and Arthur Mortimer- were able to entertain these 300 people from Port Adelaide, who came from an area which, as I said, has no library, to have a look at the most up-to-date facilities that can be provided for the public.

Mr Sullivan:

– Now all the books are coloured in.

Mr YOUNG:

– If the honourable member does not want libraries in the country areas he does not have to speak. They organised the Levels Library demonstration to show Port Adelaide people what a library could mean to them and their families, apart from dispensing books. There was everything for everyone going on simultaneously in different parts of the library. There were films, pop records, opera, model railways, a library of toys, displays of art and ethnic cultures, jazz groups, talks on local history and counselling by a citizens advice bureau. It is the type of service which must be provided if the public library is not to suffer the same fate as the institutes of South Australia. It will require some regionalisation of the library services. The South Australian Library Association rcommends approximately 9 regions in the metropolitan area of Adelaide. However, whether the job is done by regional authorities comprising a grouping of local authorities, as is recommended by the Association, or whether the boundaries are drawn up in statistical, Commonwealth electoral or even football boundaries does not matter as long as historic and social communities such as Port Adelaide, are not cut up. Areas such as Taperoo, West Lakes and Woodville, as well as the centre in the Port, will also need things like bookmobiles. But the experts who are called in to have a look at what faculties are required in these disadvantaged areas throughout Australia should be able to lend their expertise to what is required by the people and by the schools. We need qualified community minded librarians who will form the hub of a whole range of services to be provided to migrant groups, community study groups, the house-bound, the institutionalised, the aged, orphans and the hospitalised, both young and old backward readers from socially and economically disadvantaged homes, service clubs, business and the rest of the community. These areas need these faculties quite desperately because, as I said earlier those honourable members who visit schools will have seen that for the first time schools are being given these library services. It is like teaching children to swim and then taking away the beaches when they are adults. If we do not give good public library faculties to the children to whom we are now giving services via the Karmel report, then of course there will be a great deal missing from their lives after they leave school. I should like to add my voice to the campaign that is going on in these disadvantaged areas for the establishment of fully equipped public libraries

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– The United Nations is a most important institution. I think it is in many ways desirable that we should have Australians elected to positions of influence in that organisation. I am just a little worried sometimes as to whether we might not be paying too high a price for that very commendable objective. I am not referring to the possibility of the elevation of Senator Willesee to the position of President of the United Nations. As honourable members will very well remember, the election to the presidency of that body will be arranged by the bloc of the Western European and Other nations, and what we do inside that bloc to promote Senator Willesee does not very much prejudice the Australian interests in other respects. I am referring to a possible election which might not be confined to that bloc, and that is the possible election of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. In that regard I am wondering whether Australian policy may not be prejudiced in other ways by the desire to get the present Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) elected to that exalted office.

Mr King:

– It would be a good idea. We support that.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-No, I am being serious about this. Election to that office is determined not by the Western European and Other nations bloc; it is determined by the United Nations as a whole. One knows that on the United Nations as a whole the communist nations and some of the African nations have the numbers. They have, in crude terms, the voting faculties.

I am just wondering- perhaps the Government can give me the information about thiswhether Australian policy may not be deflected in a pro-communist way for the purpose of facilitating the chances of the present Prime Minister to be elected as Secretary of the United Nations. I refer to such things as the Ermolenko affair, which was very hard to understand; to the recognition of the incorporation of the Baltic States, de jure, into the Soviet Union, which was almost impossible to understand; to discriminatory help given to certain organisations in Africa which are called liberation movements but which are actually rather communist inclined; to the incident, which I cannot, of course, go into much further because of the security aspects, of the refusal of asylum to a diplomat from the Eastern European communist bloc in Australia only recently. I wonder whether these incidents add up to an attempt to further the prospects of the present Prime Minister in a possible election of Secretary of the United Nations. I think it is desirable, of course, that we should have an Australian in that post. There are many people who would even think it desirable that the Prime Minister should leave his present post. But these things are trivial compared to the deflection of Australian policy in the communist interest. I refer most specifically to the way in which we seem to be denying to refugees from the Soviet bloc the asylum to which they are properly entitled here in the Australian community. I raise these questions; no doubt the Government will have some answer.

Mr LUSHER:
Hume

– I rise tonight to make some mention of the problems that are being experienced at the moment in the beef industry. In doing this I want to support and compliment my colleague the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Hewson) who has repeatedly raised these problems in this place and also my own leader, the Leader of the Aus.tralian Country Party, Mr Anthony, who has undertaken initiatives today in speaking to representatives of the beef industry m trying to find a solution. But I specifically rise tonight because of a letter I received this morning. I think most honourable members are aware that there are serious problems being experienced in this industry at the moment.

Mr Fisher:

– It is a disaster.

Mr LUSHER:

– The honourable member for Mallee said that it is a disaster and he could not be closer to the truth. It is an absolute disaster. The figures that I will give here this evening will make so much clearer the extent of the problem that is being faced by beef producers. On Wednesday last a sale was held at Adelong in my electorate. Some 420 head of good quality grass fed cattle were yarded. Only 390 were sold and those at distressingly low prices. There was no shortage of buyers. In fact they came from Sydney, Blayney, Unanderra, Goulburn, Canberra, Melbourne and other parts of Victoria as well as from district retailers and local slaughter houses. So there was no lack of support from the buying public. For the benefit of honourable members I shall now give some of the prices that were obtained at that sale. The 390 head that were sold attained an overall average of $59.95 and the following is the break up: 105 cows and heifers were sold from $6.50 to $55, for an average of $43.51. I ask honourable members: Just how can a producer be expected to bring a calf to the stage where it is a cow, receive $55 for it and be able to make a living, let alone to do it for $6.50? This is the greatest crisis that has ever been experienced in this industry. At the sale 190 vealers and yearlings were sold from $25.50 to $72.50, to average $55.95, and 15 bulls were sold from $60 to $168, averaging $125.80. In addition 80 steers and bullocks were sold. These bullocks were from Vh to 4 years old, each having an estimated dressed weight of 800 lb, and they sold from $95 to a top of $ 102.50.

The point that I am making is that the beef industry at the moment is experiencing prices which in the last couple of weeks have been at a 30-year low. Last week I think we had sufficient evidence before us to agree that prices have gone below those levels. I want to emphasise in this House that 30 years ago these prices, although low, may have been acceptable in money terms; today they are not. They cannot possibly be. Inflation is running at such an incredible rate and the costs to the producer are increasing at such an incredible rate that these prices- an average for 390 head of top quality cattle of only $60- are just not on. They cannot possibly be on if this industry is to survive.

In Australia- I can speak particularly for my area in Hume- the vast majority of cattle producers have maintained on their properties the entire calf drop from last year. They have calved again and it is only because these producers are able, because of the particularly good season, to hold on to their stock that these calves from the last drop have been able to be held at all. I ask the House: What will happen when the feed dries up? What will happen when the bushfire season starts? What will happen when producers are forced to offload stock, because they cannot hold it indefinitely? If prices are not going to rise in the next month or so this vast number of young cattle will be forced on to the market.

In my area, if not in others, we are also in a position where the abattoirs work on quotas. They cannot just say: ‘Right, we are going to slaughter all the cattle you can give us. ‘ They are able to slaughter only a certain number each day. If this number of cattle comes to the market in a rush they will not be able to be slaughtered. There is no way abattoirs could handle them. This would create significant problems. It is very difficult to believe that, in this year of 1 974, when the Australian dollar has just been devalued and we are producing beef for something under a 30-year record low price, our meat cannot be sold somewhere on this hungry globe that we occupy. Somewhere there has to be somebody who is prepared to buy Australian beef at the prices that we are producing it for now. I think it is high time that instructions were given to trade commissioners to get out to get on the job and to do some selling.

Mr Sullivan:

– And get off the cocktail circuit.

Mr LUSHER:

– Absolutely. They should get off the cocktail circuit. With all due respect to our trade commissioners, they should get out and sell some beef. The Government should be able to offer to the world, through its trade commissioner service, Australian beef of certain quality at certain prices. I am confident that Aus.tralian producers would be prepared to start offloading on the basis that new markets would be opening up. I thank the House for the opportunity of raising this matter tonight.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 2709

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Department of Manufacturing Industry: Research Grants (Question No. 91)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, upon notice:

  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.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) The Australian Government provides funds on an annual basis to the Industrial Research and Development Grants Board for the provision of grants to Australian manufacturing and mining companies which have incurred research and development expenditure which is eligible for grants in terms of the Industrial Research and Development Grants Act 1967-73. Details of grants provided by the Board are outlined in its published annual reports.

National Fitness Programs (Question No. 269)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

  1. Can he say what (a) physical education and (b) national fitness programs have been undertaken with (i) Australian Government (ii) State Government and (iii) local government financial support.
  2. If so, what is the extent of the financial support in each case in terms of (a) buildings, (b) equipment and (c) staff expenditure.
Mr Stewart:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation · LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

It is not possible to prepare a comprehensive reply to this very broad question because each State Government provides for physical education and national fitness in its own way and comparable figures are not available. However, some general information on programs is provided herewith. 1 (a) Physical Education Programs

Australian Government

My Department is not directly involved in providing physical education programs. Where these exist in the Australian Capital and Northern Territories they are included in school curricula. As such they are the responsibility of the Department of Education.

State Governments

State Governments are responsible for physical education curricula in both primary and secondary schools through Physical Education Branches of State Education Departments. While programs vary from State to State, the general aim is to develop skills and to foster interest and competence in physical activities.

Local Government

It has not been possible to ascertain the nature and extent of physical education programs conducted by local authorities. 1(b) National Fitness Programs

Australian Government

My Department does not normally become involved in conducting national fitness programs on a national basis. Its main approach in the past has been through the Commonwealth Council for National Fitness which, under the National Fitness Act 1941, advises the Minister concerned on disbursement of moneys in the National Fitness Fund. The bulk of these, funds is usually passed to State National Fitness Councils who conduct a variety of fitness programs.

In the A.C.T., however, fitness and recreation programs are presently provided by the A.C.T. National Fitness Advisory Committee through the A.C.T. Health Services Branch of the Department of Health.

During 1974 the Australian Government co-ordinated the national ‘Fitness Australia’ campaign recommended by the Commonwealth Council for National Fitness.

State Governments

The State Governments through their National Fitness Councils and/or Departments of Sport and Recreation are responsible for the conduct of a wide range of national fitness programs. Most States conduct programs in swimming and play centres during vacations, organise a wide range of sports coaching activities, and offer facilities for camping. These programs are outlined in more detail in the annual report of the Commonwealth Council for National Fitness.

Local Government

Local governments co-operate with State Governments in the conduct of many national fitness activities especially during school vacations when play centres, swimming classes and sports coaching courses are held. Local Councils also provide recreation facilities but the responsibility for programs usually lies with the numerous voluntary organisations which use the facilities.

Financial Support

It has not been possible to ascertain precise, comparable figures which would show the financial support given by the Australian Government, the State Governments and Local Governments for buildings, equipment and staff for the conduct of physical education and national fitness programs. However, in 1973-74, the Australian Government provided $lm to assist with the promotion of national fitness in Australia, an increase of $400,000 over the grant provided in 1972- 73. Details of the distribution of these funds are included in the Report of National Fitness activities for

1973- 74.

Inter-departmental Committees (Question No. 286)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did the Department of the Army 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.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

-The answer to the right honourable member ‘s question is as follows:

  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. I was kept properly informed of all important developments.

Inter-departmental Committees (Question No. 287)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did the Department of Air maintain a record of interdepartmental committees in which it participated.
  2. If not, then how as he aware of all the interdepartmental consultations in which that Department was involved through inter-departmental committees.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  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. I was kept property informed of all important developments.

Inter-departmental Committees (Question No. 288)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Defence, 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 Barnard:
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.

Inter-departmental Committees (Question No. 289)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. 1) Did the Department of the Navy 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.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  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. I was kept properly informed of all important developments.

Inter-departmental Committees (Question No. 292)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for the Northern Territory, 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 interdepartmental committees.
  3. Will he ensure that such a list is in future available to him.
Dr Patterson:
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 (Hansard, 27 September 1973, pages 1714-1715) 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.

National Sports Council (Question No. 455)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) When will he name the composition of the National Sports Council.
  2. When will it begin to function.
Mr Stewart:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The composition of the Australian Sports Council was announced on Friday, 23 July 1974. Members of the Council are:

Mr David McKenzie (New South Wales), President of the Australian Fencing Federation, executive member of the Australian Olympic Federation (Chairman).

Mr Jim Barry (Victoria), President of the Australian Amateur Gymnastic Union.

Professor John Bloomfield (Western Australia), Professor of Physical Education, University of Western Australia, former surf champion.

Mr Herb Elliott (Victoria), Olympic athletic champion.

Mrs Wendy Ey, nee Hayes (South Australia), lecturer in Physical Education, Commonwealth Games athlete.

Mr Geoff Frier (Tasmania), State Supervisor of Physical Education, former state representative in swimming, lifesaving and basketball and senior league footballer.

Miss Eunice Gill (Victoria), Senior Lecturer, Department of Physical Education, University of Melbourne, past President, coach manager State and national levels for netball.

Mi Syd Grange (New South Wales), Vice Chairman of the Australian Olympic Council, Secretary /Treasurer of the Australian Amateur Swimming Union.

Mr Norman May (New South Wales), ABC sporting commentator, former surf champion.

Mr Howard Mutton (South Australia), Inspector of Physical Education, former South Australian cricket representative, State coach of South Australia amateur football league.

The Hon. Lindsay North, MLC (New South Wales), Councillor of the New South Wales Lawn Tennis Association.

Mr Julius Patching (Victoria), former General Manager of two Olympic teams and now Secretary of the Australian Olympic Federation.

Mrs Ruby Robinson (Queensland), President of the Australian Women’s Hockey Association, former State representative in basketball and baseball.

Mr Michael Wenden (New South Wales), Olympic swimming champion.

The Secretary, Department of Tourism and Recreation (ex-officio).

  1. The first meeting of the Council was held in Sydney on 29 August 1974.

Australian Assistance Plan (Question No. 554)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

Under the Australian Assistance Plan is it intended that each region established within each State for the purpose of the Plan will receive $2 per head of population per year.

Mr Hayden:
Minister for Social Security · OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

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

Presently, for pilot projects, the capitation rate is $2 per head of population for the denned region.

Department of the Northern Territory: Management Consultant Firms (Question No. 801)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice:

  1. For what purpose has the Department used management consultant firms in the last 12 months.
  2. Which firms have been used.
  3. ) What was the total cost.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

  1. None.
  2. and (3) Not applicable.

Department of Tourism and Recreation: Management Consultant Firms (Question No. 816)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, 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. What was the total cost.
Mr Stewart:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) PA Management Consultants Pty Ltd to identify the role that tourism may have in the growth of the Albury-Wodonga complex.

PA Management Consultants Pty Ltd and Planning Workshop Pty Ltd to prepare a report on patterns of dispersal of community recreation facilities in a new town situation.

  1. ) Approximately $8 1 ,000.

Sport: Australian Government Subsidisation (Question No. 831)

Mr Fairbairn:

asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Does the Government subsidise lessons in golf.
  2. If so, how much is allocated in the present Budget for these lessons.
  3. Is any means test applied to the applicants.
  4. Does the Government also subsidise lessons in squash.
  5. Are lessons given at taxpayers’ expense in any other sports.
  6. Are these lessons, for people who are sometimes well able to pay for them, regarded as having a higher priority than measures aimed at alleviating poverty or other social security measures.
Mr Stewart:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) to (6) The Government recognises the need for more Australians to become involved in physical recreation and has provided funds to the State National Fitness Councils to conduct suitable programs. These include courses to introduce people to new sports, and I understand that golf and squash lessons are given in some States.

In 1974-75, $535,000 will be made available to State National Fitness Councils to assist with their operational costs. Some of these funds will be spent on sports teaching courses. However, because of the variety of courses, the fees charged and the different approaches to funding the courses in each State, it is not possible to say how much the Australian Government spends on teaching individual sports. However, the responsibility for funding these courses is shared between the Australian and State Governments.

No means test is applied to participants in these courses and in most cases fees are charged with a view to meeting most of the course costs.

No special priority is given to these courses over social security measures. They form part of the total contribution to national well-being.

Department of Manufacturing Industry: Research and Development Staff (Question No. 882)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, 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 work.
  5. Who decides the nature of the programs or projects included in this research and development work.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. 1) to (5) As from 1 July 1974 administrative control of the Research and Development Division of the Department of Manufacturing Industry, including the Weapons Research Establishment, the Central Studies Establishment, the Defence Standards Laboratories and the Aeronautical Research Laboratories, was transferred to the Department of Defence pending legislation relating to the reorganisation of the Defence Force. Answers to the right honourable member’s question as they concern the Research and Development Division were provided by the Minister for Defence in response to Question No. 869 on 24 September 1974 (Hansard p. 1764).

The Department of Manufacturing Industry will continue to operate the Government Aircraft Factories and the Munitions group of factories. In doing so, the Department will be involved in developmental and investigatory (not research) work. Developmental work is undertaken on such as repair schemes for aircraft and testing procedures for explosives. Investigatory work is carried out into problems associated with the manufacture and use of products. The Department has a production development program covering specific main tasks. The scope of the program is dictated by needs and is approved by the Production Board, appointed pursuant to the Supply and Development Regulations, or other departmental competent authority. Also, it should be noted that production personnel became involved in projects of the Research and Development Division from the aspect of developing products so as to facilitate application of manufacturing techniques.

It has been the practice not to regard activities of the above nature as research and development as such and specific information on the numbers of officers involved and the costs are not readily available. The provision for main production development tasks in 1974-73 is $7. 339m (shown in Division 322) of which approximately SO per cent would relate to effort within the department, the two main activities being IKARA and TURANA, and the balance to effort in private industry where the main activity is BARRA.

The number of officers involved in developmental and investigatory work in the Department of Manufacturing Industry would be relatively small in comparison with the Research and Development Division.

Bureau of Agricultural Economics: Dried Vine Fruit Index (Question No. 1005)

Mr Giles:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Do the Bureau of Agricultural Economics statistics for dried vine fruit index allow an operator an allowance for his own labour and a small reward for management
  2. Do these calculations amount to owner/operator grapegrowers working for approximately $45 per week plus the small manager’s allowance.
  3. What is the attitude of the Minister to the operator’s allowance being shown as at least the basic wage per week, as applicable to the work-force elsewhere, if not the average wage for Australian workers.
  4. Can he say whether the River Arbitration Committee in South Australia awards $78.20 to an employee capable of working without supervision, and $68.10 per week to a totally unskilled and inexperienced worker.
  5. If so, does this indicate an apparent anomaly in comparison with the $45 awarded under the index to the owner/operator.
  6. Is the Bureau of Agricultural Economics index used by various industries, including the wine grape industry for surveys on cost of production, evidence to the Industries Assistance Commission, etc.
  7. Will the Minister have the above suggestions incorporated in such work of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics so that those sections of the Australian workforce who put in considerably more than 40 hours a week have a chance of equal living conditions compared to other sections of the Community.
  8. Whereas the operator’s labour is explicitly presented as mentioned above, will the Minister make available the basis on which the managerial allowance is calculated.
  9. Does the managerial allowance include interest on capital involved in a particular farming enterprise; if not, why not.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

  1. The base structure of the dried vine fruit index contains an allowance for the operator’s labour and management as a constant item. Since it is part of the constant items in the index it is not indexed forward each year as part of the calculations to assess movements in cash costs of production under the Dried Vine Fruits Stabilisation Scheme 1 97 1 -75.
  2. No, because as noted above these calculations are not carried out.
  3. In the base period of the index the operator’s labour reward is calculated on the basis of a leading hand’s rate as determined by the Dried Vine Fruit etc. Industry Award.
  4. The River Arbitration Committee, also called the Interstate Arbitration Committee, in South Australia is a committee of growers which carries out an advisory and consultative role in matters associated with wage determination in the industry. However, final decisions on award rates of pay are made by the Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The relevant award for workers in the dried vine fruits industry is the Federal Dried Vine Fruits etc. Industry Award and the current minimum rate for adult males under that award is $68.10 per week. The figure of $78.20 quoted in the question as the award for an employee capable of working without supervision does not appear to be based on the above-mentioned award.
  5. Not applicable.
  6. The Bureau’s Dried Vine Fruit Index is designed to measure the annual changes which have occurred in cash costs (including family labour but not the operator’s labour) in the dried vine fruit industry. The results of the index are then used in the annual determination of dried vine fruit base prices as specified in the Dried Vine Fruit Stabilization Scheme 1971-75. However, the results are available to any individual or organisation who wishes to make use of them together with a full explanation of the method of calculation. Consequently, these documents are also available to the Industries Assistance Commission.
  7. Not applicable.
  8. The managerial allowance in the base period of the index was arrived at after consultations between industry and the Government. However, like operator’s labour it is included in the constant items in the index and is consequently not indexed forward in subsequent seasons.
  9. The managerial allowance does not contain interest on capital. Interest on operator’s equity is included in the constant items of the index as a separate figure, while interest actually paid is treated as an indexable item.

Caribou Jet Aircraft (Question No. 1064)

Mr Anthony:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. Is consideration being given to Australian participation in a Canadian proposal to develop a Caribou jet aircraft replacement called DHP-72.
  2. If so, when will a decision be made on Australian participation in this project.
  3. What would be the total cost of Australian participation in this project.
  4. What is the estimated service life of the Australian Caribou fleet.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. The future options available for tactical airlift capability including short range transport aircraft, are under examination. The Canadian proposal for Australian participation in the development of their jet aircraft called DHP-72 will be considered in this context.
  2. and (3) The timing of decisions and the total cost of Australian participation will depend on the outcome of this examination.
  3. The life-of-type of RAAF aircraft is subject to periodic review; Caribou first entered service with the RAAF in 1 964 and on the basis of current assessment the aircraft is not expected to reach its life-of-type before 1983.

Rural Policy: Green Paper (Question No. 1075)

Mr Anthony:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, upon notice:

Will the Minister up-date Appendix Table A2.10 of the Green Paper up to and including estimate’s for 1 974-73.

Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

The data provided in Appendix Table A2. 10 of the Green Paper were all obtained from publications of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. More recent information in respect of gross value of rural production and index of volume of rural production appear in the Bureau’s quarterly publication titled ‘Trends in Australian Rural Production and Exports’, the last issue of which was released in September this year. The December 1974 issue is expected to take account of expected changes in gross value of rural production in 1974-75 resulting from the recent devaluation of the Australian dollar.

The 1974-75 data on farm income and farm costs have not yet been published officially by the Bureau. As in other years, it is expected to release this information early in the new year.

Rural Policy: Green Paper (Question No. 1076)

Mr Anthony:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, upon notice:

Of the Commonwealth intervention measures relating to the rural sector listed in Table A2.13 in the Green Paper, what is the total 1 972-73 value of the measures applicable to

Group A, (b) Group B, (c) Group C, (d) Group D, (e) Group E, (0 Group F, (g) Group G, (h) Item 2 and (i) Item 3 which have been announced by the Government as having been withdrawn, or intended to be withdrawn.

Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

In the report on Rural Policy in Australia Table A2.13 presents a summary of Australian Government intervention measures related to the rural sector. The total within group values, in 1972-73, of the measures which have been announced by the Government as having been withdrawn or intended to be withdrawn are as follows: (a) Group A- nil,

Group B-nil, (c) Group C-nil, (d) Group D-nil, (e) Group E, $29.5m, (f) Group F, $56.7m, (g) Group G, $66.0m, (h) Item 2, $44.7m, (i) Item 3, $1 1.8m.

In interpreting these totals it needs to be noted that the value of the measures withdrawn are as at 1972-73 and not at the time of their actual withdrawal. In particular, since 1 972-73 there have been a number of changes in the overall mix and value of intervention measures affecting the rural sector.

Australia’s Coastline: Surveillance (Question No. 1096)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has a critical situation developed along the north and north west coasts with the increasing possibility of exotic diseases, drugs and illegal migrants entering Australia in this area.
  2. What steps is the Royal Australian Navy taking to increase coastal surveillance along this coast.
  3. Has the number of patrol boats available for this purpose been reduced from 20 to 10 because of gifts to other countries.
  4. Has consideration been given to purchasing more of these boats to provide a more adequate surveillance.
  5. Has consideration been given to the establishment of a Coast Guard Service either in the Navy or as a separate Service.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. The primary responsibility for enforcement of Fisheries, Customs, Quarantine and Immigration Laws lies with appropriate civil agencies of both the Australian and State Governments. Questions as to the gravity of the situation should be redirected.
  2. The bulk of the surveillance effort in support of law enforcement agencies is provided by the Defence Force.

Systematic Naval patrols of the north west as a routine matter were instituted in August 1973, at a frequency agreed with the Australian Government authorities responsible for fisheries protection. They replaced an ad hoc system of surveillance by ships on passage.

An additional Patrol Boat was ordered to Darwin earlier this year, increasing the strength there from 3 to 4, and near continuous patrols have been mounted in and around the King Sound area since mid-August. Surface patrols have, where possible, been co-ordinated with or supported by aerial reconnaissance.

  1. No.
  2. The composition of the Patrol Craft Force is reviewed periodically in the context of the development of the five year defence program.
  3. Information on this aspect can be obtained by reference to House of Representatives Hansard of 2 August 1974, (pp 1 103, 1 104) where the Prime Minister answered a similar question from Mr Snedden.

Australia’s Coastline: Surveillance by RAAF Aircraft (Question No. 1097)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. How much aerial surveillance of the north and north west coasts is being conducted by long range reconnaissance aircraft of the Royal Australian Air Force to prevent illegal entry of aeroplanes, fishermen, etc., which could allow exotic diseases, drugs, etc, into Australia.
  2. Has this surveillance been increased in the last few months.
  3. If not, is this due to shortage of fuel, of aircraft or lack of concern about the situation.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. Systematic aerial patrols of the north and north west coasts by RAAF long range maritime patrol aircraft were introduced in February this year. This was the direct result of consultations between myself and my colleague the Minister for Customs and Excise. Surveillance arrangements also provided for additional Services assistance to meet specific tasks at the request of the authorities responsible for law enforcement.
  2. and (3) From mid- July, the rate of aerial surveillance of the north west coast has been increased significantly. This effort is continuing and will be maintained while the need for it continues.

Department of Agriculture: Civil Defence Exercises (Question No. 1141)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, 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 18 months have exercises of this nature been conducted in the Department of Agriculture.
  2. Which officers and employees took part.
  3. How many officers and employees took part.
  4. What was the purpose of each of the exercises.
  5. Does the Minister accept that this is an area where the Australian Government can give a lead to other employers.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

  1. 21 March 1973, 2 April 1973, 10 April 1973, 23 May 1973, 6 August 1973, 12 March 1974, 15 May 1974.
  2. Staff in Regional Office, Brisbane.
  3. Safe and efficient evacuation of building.
  4. Yes.

Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea: Recognition (Question No. 1173)

Mr Peacock:

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

  1. Before the Australian Government announced recognition of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, did the Government of the Republic of Korea ask that the Aus.tralian Government attempt to persuade a number of other countries to recognise the Republic of Korea.
  2. If so, to which countries did the Government of the Republic of Korea refer in this context.
  3. To which of these countries did the Australian Government make approaches along the lines suggested by the Government of the Republic of Korea.
  4. What was the response in each case.
  5. Was the Government of the Republic of Korea informed of Australia’s approaches and the outcome in each before being informed by the Australian Goverment of the final decision to recognise the Democratic People ‘s Republic of Korea.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. The Government of the Republic of Korea told the Australian Government in January 1974 that it hoped Australia would not recognise the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea until at least some of the DPRK’s traditional friends recognised the ROK. The Australian Government advised the ROK that it was willing to speak to some of the DPRK’s traditional friends on this matter (the Prime Minister had already spoken to the Chinese Premier, in October 1973) but at the same time made it clear that our negotiation of diplomatic relations with the DPRK would not be contingent upon the outcome, since Australia was not prepared to give those countries what would have amounted to a veto over its Korean policies.
  2. Without specifying particular ones, the Government of the Republic of Korea referred to ‘Communist countries’.
  3. In October 1973 the Prime Minister spoke to the Chinese Premier of Australia’s hope that the associates of each Korean Government could have relations with both Korean Governments. In January and February 1974 the Australian Government approached a number of East European countries in the same terms.
  4. It would not be right to go into details of what were confidential discussions. But it can be said that early movement towards formal recognition of the ROK on the part of the traditional friends of the DPRK was not in prospect, although they sit with the ROK in a number of UN and other international bodies.
  5. The ROK was informed in general terms in February.

Indian Ocean: Growth of Forces (Question No. 1174)

Mr Peacock:

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

  1. Did the governments of the Soviet Union and the United States of America accept the Australian Government’s request in March 1974 that they consult with a view to agreeing to exercise initial restraint in the growth of forces in the Indian Ocean.
  2. If so, have they held consultations on this matter, and what was the outcome of these consultations.
  3. If they have not held these consultations, what has become of the Government’s proposal.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. The Governments of the United States and of the Soviet Union both agreed to consider the appeal we made to them in March 1 974 to enter into discussions on mutual restraint in the Indian Ocean. Since then, the Australian Government has reiterated to both Governments its concern about the need for mutual restraint in that area. In his address to the United Nations General Assembly on 30 September, the Prime Minister, speaking of the super-powers, said: ‘We are entitled to insist upon restraint in their deployment of forces overseas in areas such as the Indian Ocean. Australia is strongly opposed to the Indian Ocean becoming a ground for competition, much less confrontation between the great powers’.
  2. We recognise that it may be difficult for the USA and USSR to consider questions relating to the deployment of their forces in the Indian Ocean area in isolation from deployments and capabilities in other areas and from general issues of mutual balance and restraint. We would rather expect discussion of the Indian Ocean to form part of the continuing bilateral exchanges on arms control between the two Powers. We shall continue to urge them to pay particular attention to the Indian Ocean in these discussions and to keep the littoral states informed of progress.
  3. The Government’s initiative met with broad support from the other littoral states. The question of mutual restraint has also received considerable attention at this year’s sessions of the UN ad hoc Committee on the Indian Ocean. We would expect the matter to be further discussed during the current session of the UN General Assembly.

European Carp (Question No. 1214)

Mr Lloyd:

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

  1. 1 ) Has his Department conducted any research or supported any research by others into the control and eradication of European Carp.
  2. Have any requests been received from State Departments for assistance in the control of this fish.
Dr Cass:
Minister for the Environment and Conservation · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. No.
  2. No.

ANZUS Treaty (Question No. 1224)

Mr Snedden:

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

What actions have been taken by the Government to develop further the ANZUS Treaty as an instrument for (a) justice, (b) peace, (c) political advancement, (d) social advancement and (e) economic advancement in the Pacific area since 2 December 1972.

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

– The Foreign Minister has provided the following answer to the right honourable member’s question: (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e). One of the intentions of the contracting parties in concluding the ANZUS Treaty was, to quote from the Treaty’s preamble, ‘to strengthen the fabric of peace in the Pacific area’. In the 22 years since the Treaty came into force, it has been a major guarantee of peace in the Pacific area. It has produced a climate in the Pacific in which political, social and economic advancement (including ideals of justice and democracy) has been able to take place undisturbed and unhindered by pre-occupations with security problems.

Both in the ANZUS context and through other means the three ANZUS partners take great interest in the political, social and economic advancement of the Pacific region. For evidence of this in the ANZUS context, the right honourable member should refer to the communique dated 27 February, 1974, issued after the last ANZUS Council Meeting in Wellington, and to my own press statement of 28 February 1974 issued on my return from that meeting. Copies are available in the Parliamentary Library.

Peaceful Use of Outer Space (Question No. 1225)

Mr Snedden:

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

What actions have been taken by the Government to establish agreements to ensure the peaceful use of space for communications and scientific advance since 2 December 1972.

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

Australia is a member of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, and in this capacity participated in the following meetings since 2 December 1972.

The 12th and 13th sessions of the legal Sub-Committee, held from 26 March to 20 April 1973 and 6 to 3 1 May 1974 respectively.

The 10th and 1 1th sessions of the Scientific and Technical Sub-Committee held from 7 to 18 May 1973 and from 15 to 26 April 1974 which were both chaired by Professor J. H. Carver from Australia. The 4th and 5th session of the Working Group on Direct Broadcast Satellites held from 1 1 to 22 June 1973, and 1 1 to 22 March 1974 respectively. The 3rd session of the Working Group on Remote Sensing of the Earth by Satellites from 25 February to 5 March 1974.

The 16th and 17th sessions of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, held from 25 June to 2 July 1973 and 1 to 12 July 1974 respectively.

As a member of the Legal Sub-Committee, the Australian delegation participated in consideration of the Draft Treaty Relating to the Moon and the Draft Convention on Registration of Objects launched into Outer Space. The Australian delegation to the Working Group on Direct Broadcast Satellites played an active role in the consideration of draft principles governing direct television broadcasting by satellites.

Presence of Military Forces in Other Countries (Question No. 1226)

Mr Snedden:

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

  1. To which countries have representations been made by the Government to end the presence of military forces in countries other than those forces’ own countries since 2 December 1972.
  2. On what date and where did such representations take place.
  3. Who represented the Australian Government.
  4. What has been the outcome in each case.
  5. What further action is proposed.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. No representations have been made on the general issue of the stationing of military forces by States in other States. However.

    1. the Government is of the view that, as part of the movement towards reduction of armaments and the betterment of international relations, States having military forces stationed abroad should seek progressively to withdraw them, having regard to the realities of the situation in each particular case;
    2. the Government has acted in accordance with this view in regard to Australian military forces stationed overseas;
    3. in certain particular cases, the Government has made representations related to this general issue. For example, during his visit to Vientiane in February this year, the Prime Minister stressed to representatives of the Pathet Lao his concern that North Viet Nam should withdraw its forces from Laotian territory. The Government has also made specific representations in regard to the deployment of forces in the Indian Ocean area. In March 1974 Australian representatives in Washington and Moscow re- quested the Governments of the United States and te Soviet Union respectively to consult with each other with a view to reaching agreement on mutual restraint in the Indian Ocean. In this connection, I refer the right honourable member to the answer to question no. 1 174 (Hansard, p. 2696). 2, 3, 4 and 5. See 1 above.

Joint Research Programs (Question No. 1232)

Mr Snedden:

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

  1. Has agreement been reached with the Soviet Union for the conduct of joint research programs with Australia.
  2. If so, in what fields are these programs to be conducted.
  3. When was agreement reached, and by whom.
  4. What is the form of the agreement.
  5. When will these programs commence.
  6. Where will any joint research be conducted.
  7. Who will be involved in these programs.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. No, but an Australia/U.S.S.R. Science Co-operation Agreement has been initialled and it is expected to be signed later in the year.
  2. Details of possible joint research programs under the Agreement in the fields of radio astronomy, earth sciences, plant sciences, entomology and textile technology are at present being worked out.
  3. The Agreement was initialled in Canberra on 20 February 1974, by representatives of the State Committee for Science and Technology of the U.S.S.R. and of the Department of Foreign Affairs.
  4. The Agreement is cast in general form with provision for specific arrangements to be worked out by the relevant parties concerned in the different fields.
  5. See above.
  6. It is expected that research will be conducted both in U.S.S.R. and Australia.
  7. The scientific institutions involved have not yet been decided (see 2 above). The overall carriage of the Agreement will be in the hands of the State Committee for Science and Technology (U.S.S.R.) and the’ Department of Foreign Affairs (Australia).

Portuguese Timor (Question No. 1233)

Mr Snedden:

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

  1. 1 ) Has the Australian Government had any contacts with or held any discussions or consultations with the Portuguese Government or its representatives on the future of Portuguese Timor.
  2. If so, when and where were these held.
  3. ) What was the outcome.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has discussed Portuguese Timor with the Portuguese Foreign Minister in New York. In addition, in the course of their normal dealings with representatives of the Portuguese Government, officials of the Australian Government have also discussed Portuguese Timor.
  3. These discussions were confidential and in accordance with the normal diplomatic practice it would not be appropriate to reveal details. Broadly speaking they enabled us to state the Australian attitude towards Portuguese Timor and to learn the attitude of the Portuguese Government.

Cyprus: Contingent of Australian Police (Question No. 1235)

Mr Snedden:

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

  1. Has the United Nations asked or suggested since the recent hostilities in Cyprus that Australia send a larger contingent of police to Cyprus.
  2. ) If so what was the Government ‘s reaction.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. The Secretary-General of the United Nations requested on 23 July that all eight contributing countries to UNFICYP double their contingents to a total strength of 5,000, and subsequently made a request for an additional 20 Australian police. However in view of the current military situation, and in particular the lack of freedom of movement for UNFICYP in the Turkish controlled sector, contributing countries have been asked not to act on earlier requests for additional civilian police.
  2. The Australian Government made an offer of a military contingent of about 200 men for service with UNFICYP. This offer has not been taken up by the Secretary-General. The Australian Government would have had difficulty in meeting the request for additional police because of the shortage of men in State police forces and the secondment of some Australian police to Papua New Guinea.

Reported Statement by Prime Minister (Question No. 1344)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Was he referring to the Minister for Defence when he made his recent accusation that a number of his colleagues were peddling lies.
  2. If not, was he refering to the report prepared on the unemployment crisis in Launceston.
  3. If not, to which of his colleagues was he referring.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

I have nothing to add to my answers on 24 September and IS October 1974 (Hansard, pp. 1639-40, 1643, 1644 and 2282).

Department of Defence: Staff Movements (Question No. 348)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. How many (a) resignations from, (b) transfers from, and (c) promotions out of the Department of Defence were there during the period 2 December 1972 to 2 December 1973 at the following classifications: (i) Class 9, (ii) Class 10, (iii) Class 1 1, (iv) Level 1, (v) Level 2, and (vi) Level 3.
  2. How many unfilled vacancies are there in the Department of Defence at each of these classifications at present.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

– The information requested by the right honourable member is set out in the following table:

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 22 October 1974, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1974/19741022_reps_29_hor91/>.