House of Representatives
13 November 1974

29th Parliament · 1st Session

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

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

page 3421

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Family Law Bill

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

  1. 1 ) That we have examined the Family Law Bill and substantially support the provisions therein.
  2. That the Family Law Bill takes into account the changing roles of women in modern society.
  3. That the amendment to the bill recommended by the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee will ensure that the rights of women who play the traditional role in society will be protected, as will the interest of children.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Family Law Bill be debated and passed as soon as possible.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lynch, Mr Bourchier, Mr Jarman, Mr Lamb, Mr Mathews and Mr Oldmeadow.

Petitions received.

Metric System

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 plan to obliterate the traditional weights and measures of this country is causing and will cause widespread inconvenience, confusion, expense and distress.

That there is no certainty that any significant benefits or indeed any benefits at all will follow the use of the new weights and measures.

That the traditional weights and measures are eminently satisfactory.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That the Metric Conversion Act be repealed, and that the Government take urgent steps to cause the traditional and familiar units to be restored in those areas where the greatest inconveniences and distress are occurring, that is to say, in meteorology, in road distances, in sport, in the building and allied trades, in the printing trade, and in retail trade.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lynch, Mr Jarman, Mr Lloyd and Mr Willis.

Petitions received.

Colleges of Advanced Education: Academic Staff

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

Petition of the undersigned electors, members of the Academic Staff of Torrens College of Advanced Education. showeth:

That whereas the academic staff of Colleges of Advanced Education have suffered a marked loss of relativity with the teaching profession in South Australia over the past eighteen months.

Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will ensure the immediate granting of an interim salary award to restore this lost relativity and take into account the rate of inflation which has further eroded the real value of salaries.

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

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 we strongly oppose the Human Rights Bill, as set forth (1973)

Your petitioners humbly pray, that the Government will reject this Bill in its entirety.

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

Petition received.

Aid for Sahelian Region of Africa

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

That up to ten million people are said by the UN Secretary-General, Mr Kurt Waldheim, to face death by starvation in the Sahelian region of Africa and that as a result of this drought, many nomads are being forced to give up their traditional way oflife, and

That the resources of the Government of this region are inadequate to cope with either the immediate or long-term needs of these people.

We your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House urge that the Australian Government grant both immediate emergency aid to the value of at least ten million dollars and continue to assist in the long-term agricultural and social development of this region.

And that it take a leading part in initiatives to set up a World Food Fund and World Fertilizer Fund at the World Food Conference this November.

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

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 they support the Family Law Bill 1974 which provides for.

  1. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage as the sole ground for divorce based on one years separation.
  2. Maintenance to be based on the needs of all the parties in a failed marriage with effective automatic permanent entitlement to an ex-wife to be abolished.
  3. Emphasis to be placed on rehabilitation and retraining of estranged wives to enable them to be independent.
  4. Custody to be awarded in disputed cases on the basis of a qualified panel recommendation and to only take into account the material, moral and psychological well being of children involved, not the possessive demands of their parents, and
  5. Costs of matrimonial proceedings to be divided equally.

Your petitioners humbly pray that the House will pass the Family Law Bill without delay.

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

Petition received.

Petroleum Products: Taxes and Excise

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:

  1. 1 ) That the need for the Government of New South Wales to raise additional revenue by way of the Business Franchise Licences Petroleum Act will impose an unwarranted additional burden on New South Wales residents
  2. That the Premier of New South Wales has given a solemn undertaking that his Government will withdraw its harsh Petrol Tax immediately he can be assured of an equivalent additional revenue from Commonwealth Funds raised from New South Wales residents
  3. That such additional revenue can be provided by the Australian Government if it returns to the New South Wales Government all moneys raised by way of taxes and excise on petroleum products consumed in New South Wales.
  4. That the New South Wales Government has available to it sufficient skilled personnel and equipment to undertake a continuing intensive programme of highway construction but is unable to fully use these resources through a lack of adequate funds.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government will forthwith do all things necessary to return to the States of the Commonwealth all moneys raised by way of taxes and excise on petroleum products.

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

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 libeny 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.

Australian Life Style

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. 1 ) That your petitioners in matters relating to cultural and educational subversion desire to bring to your remembrance that the basis of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, and our British heritage under the Monarchal system of law and government, is the Christian ethic as revealed in Holy Scripture and exemplified in the preamble to the Constitution, where the blessing of Almighty God is invoked upon all Governmental decisions.

  2. That there is an obligation resting upon the Government, under the present very commendable laws and regulations, viz:-

    1. Regulation 4A of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations
    2. Regulation 13 of the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations
    3. Sections 16, 99-101, 118, 119 and 122 of the Broadcasting and Television Act of 1 942- 1971, and
    4. Broadcasting and Television Programme Standards determined by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. to ensure that all cultural and educational media unite to uphold the Christian belief in God and in His code of moral behaviour (which is our heritage under the Constitution).
  3. That your petitioners oppose the current discrediting of the Christian ethic and the conditioning of people to an alien way of life that is characterized by violence and the degradation of human sexuality- which ideology is being spread through the cultural media, the schools and the universities.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray, that the members in Parliament assembled will do all in their power to-

  1. engender greater respect for the nuclear family and to frustrate the present trend towards its fragmentation as the basic unit of society, and
  2. ensure that the children and youth of this country, who will be the leaders and citizens of tomorrow, shall be led in paths of loyalty to the Crown, of service to others, and of righteousness and integrity of character, based on the Word of God- for ‘righteousness exalts a nation.’ (Prov. 14.34) God save the Queen and the Commonwealth of Australia.

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

Petition received.

Baltic States

To the honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

That whereas the Australian Government has taken the decision to recognize de jure the forceful incorporation of the Baltic States: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania into the Soviet Union without consulting the people most concerned viz. the Australian citizens of Baltic descent;

And whereas the occupation of the named Baltic States by the Soviet Union was and is illegal under international law as accepted by the United Nations to wit that no territorial acquisition by the use of force shall be recognized as legal;

Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take the most urgent steps:

  1. to revoke the decision of the Australian Government to recognize de jure the incorporation of the Baltic States into the Soviet Union;
  2. to place the question of the unlawful occupation of the Baltic States by the Soviet Union before the United Nations.

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

Petition received.

Education

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

  1. Your petitioners believe in the principle that every Australian child, irrespective of the school he attends, is entitled to economic support for his basic educational needs from the funds placed at the disposal of the Australian Government through taxation. Further, they believe that this economic support should be in the form of per pupil grants which are directly related to the cost of educating an Australian child in a government school.
  2. Your petitioners believe that in addition to this basic per pupil grant additional assistance should be provided in cases of educational disadvantage, but they believe that the appropriate instruments for reducing economic inequalities are taxation and social welfare systems which deal with individuals and families and not with schools.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that, as an interim measure, the Government will immediately increase the current grants being made to children in non-government schools to at least SO per cent of the cost of educating children in government schools, thus enabling the nongovernment schools to continue to exist and fulfil their function of educating Australian children.

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

Petition received.

Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology

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

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

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

That the S.R.C. formulated a definitive plan that is an acceptable constructive and reasonable amendment to the present planning schedule at the Institute.

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

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

Petition received.

Universal Health Scheme

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

page 3423

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 3423

QUESTION

ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES

Mr GRAHAM:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Mr Speaker, I should like to address a question to you. My question is the result of an answer given yesterday by the Leader of the House which attracted some mirth and some interest in the House. I ask: For the benefit of the Leader of the House can you, Mr

Speaker, confirm that in relation to redistributions of boundaries and alterations of electorates, north is not south as east is not west and that Party submissions should recognise that never the twain shall meet? Do you agree that the distinguished members for Sydney and North Sydney should keep the harbour between them, in particular, Fort Denison?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I should be pleased to shake hands with the honourable member right across the bridge.

page 3424

QUESTION

TAXATION REDUCTIONS

Mr COLLARD:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Prime Minister: Is it a fact that the Government’s policy to reduce income tax by $ 1 ,200m this year is of the greatest benefit to wage and salary earners in the lower and middle income groups generally? Can the Prime Minister say what increases in wages and salaries would be required to give employees the same benefit in increasing their living standards as they will now receive from the income tax reductions?

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

– A person with, say a taxable income of $100 a week- that is a taxable income after allowing deductions for dependents and medical expenses and so on- will receive an increased income from these taxation concessions for which he would otherwise have had to receive an increase of 8 per cent in his wages. A family man with a taxable income of $150 a week will receive a similar boost to his income, for which he would otherwise have had to have an increase of 5% per cent in his wages. It will be noticed that these proposals in the tax field have been- as have other Government proposals in the tax field- of the greatest benefit to low and middle income earners. This has been the case-

Mr Cohen:

– Different from what the Liberals did.

Mr WHITLAM:

– The Liberals have never suggested any such graduated tax remissions or concessions. The Liberals-

Mr McMahon:

– I rise to order. There are too many lies being told in this House.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr WHITLAM:

- Mr Speaker, I am astonished at the conduct of my predecessor in office.

Mr McMahon:

– Not as astonished as I am at the Prime Minister.

Mr WHITLAM:

-The right honourable member for Lowe is one of the most well behaved Liberal members in this Parliament. He always has been.

Mr McMahon:

– And the Prime Minister is one of the very few people who can make me realise how we are degrading this House.

Mr WHITLAM:

-Under the right honourable gentleman’s policies, any tax concessions were of the greatest benefit to the people who had the greatest incomes. Under our proposals the greatest benefits go to those who need the benefits most. They go to those on lower and middle incomes. That is what is happening to the mortgage interest deductions. It is what happened with the $350m of deductions announced 2 months ago and it is what is happening with the $650m which I announced last night.

page 3424

QUESTION

TARIFF REDUCTIONS

Mr WENTWORTH:
MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES

-My question is directed to the Prime Minister and relates to the policy of tariff slashing. Does the Prime Minister recall on 24 September the taped ‘AM’ broadcast- I have the exact quote here- in which he supported the concept that tariff slashing was to be commended even though it meant a certain amount of unemployment and characterised as ‘nervous Nellies’ those people who were frightened of a certain amount of unemployment? I ask: Since he reversed so many of his policies last night, does he now number himself among the ‘nervous Nellies’?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-The honourable gentleman does not accurately represent anything I have said.

Mr Wentworth:

– It is on the tape.

Mr WHITLAM:

-The honourable gentleman could not listen to it, apparently.

Mr Snedden:

– Now then Richard.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I believe the right honourable gentleman interjected: ‘Now then Richard’. Last year the right honourable gentleman was one of those who wanted it to be believed that the former President of the United States was a paragon of virtue and that it was to my disadvantage for it to be thought that he might not receive me. Now that the former President has been replaced and disgraced I am not going to join in the hue and cry against him. The former President internationally did some fine things which my Government supported and which its predecessor did not. But the honourable gentleman who asked this question should know that ‘’ when I took over as Prime Minister the taping system I inherited was dismantled.

page 3425

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT OF SCHOOL LEAVERS

Mr ARMITAGE:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Prime Minister elaborate on the reference he made to staff ceilings and staff recruitment in the Australian Public Service in last night’s great economic statement and, in particular, will he say what arrangements the Government is making to provide additional openings for school leavers?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-In my great statement to the House last night, to which I am glad to say the honourable gentleman who asked this question gave his unquestioned support, I pointed out that the wide-ranging program of Government expenditure to introduce social and economic reforms in Australia has been achieved without excessive increases in the number of public servants. I can inform the honourable member that the staff ceiling control on the Australian Public Service which was announced in my statement to the Premiers Conference on 7 June will be retained so that the healthy influence on departmental efficiency of the disciplines of internal priority review and staff re-deployment will be maintained. The Government proposes, however, an extension of the trainee intake to the Public Service by up to 450 so that additional appropriate opportunities are made available for vocational training, and it proposes an additional intake of 1,000 youth and school leaver recruits to base grade office categories so as to maintain an intake more consistent with that of recent years.

These special intakes will lift the staff growth ceiling of the Public Service above the previously announced figure. My Government has taken certain completely new initiatives which benefit the Australian people and which also require some necessary modification of the Public Service staff ceiling. I give an important example: The Government’s national employment and training scheme does require the recruitment of a relatively small number of officers to the Department of Labor and Immigration to help implement the scheme. This is an area which was virtually ignored by the previous government, despite general recognition in all comparable economies of the need for training and retraining of the work force in response to that technological change.

page 3425

QUESTION

PARLIAMENTARY SITTINGS

Mr SINCLAIR:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Knowing that the Leader of the House is as concerned as we are on this side of the House at the extent to which we will be given an adequate opportunity to debate legislation throughout the remainder of the sittings, will he assure the House that there will be an adequate opportunity for debate on the measures that he proposes and will he give us some indication of the proposed schedule of sittings for the balance of this year?

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

– I thank the honourable member for asking this question because it is on a matter of importance to all members of the Parliament. At the outset I say that a document setting out a possible pattern of sitting days, which was issued on 28 August 1974, showed sittings of the House until the end of November. It is clear now that the legislative program decided upon cannot be completed in the remaining 9 days of this sitting as set out in that document. I therefore propose that the House should meet for another week after the end of November and on Mondays, 25 November and 2 December. In the last week the House will meet on Monday, 2 December, and go through until the program is completed sitting on Friday 6 December if necessary. Such a pattern, set out in what I will indicate to honourable members now, will allow a maximum of 1 5 sitting days from now until 6 December.

The the House will meet on 12, 13 and 14; 19, 20 and 21; 25, 26, 27 and 28 November, and on 2, 3, 4, 5 and possibly 6 December. I should like to mention to honourable members that this program has been designed for the benefit, I hope, of all honourable members because if our program is to be completed and if honourable members are to have time in their electorates before Christmas, the 2 four-day sitting weeks must occur. There are approximately 80 Bills still to be debated, and I hope to be able to give the honourable member for New England, who arranges the business of the House on the Opposition side, details of those Bills in the near future. I hope that the arrangements that I have outlined will meet with the approval of all honourable members as they are designed to meet the convenience not only of Parliament but also of individual members. The arrangements will allow honourable members maximum time in their electorates and full debate in this Parliament on the various issues, as well as give the Senate time to debate the issues after this House has terminated its business.

page 3425

QUESTION

TASMANIAN AIRPORTS

Mr DAVIES:
BRADDON, TASMANIA

-Has the Minister for Transport seen the reported statement of the Executive Vice-President of the Australian Federation of Air Pilots, Mr Bruce Crofts, that the closure of either the Devonport airport or the Wynyard airport by the Australian Government is inevitable? Will the Minister given an assurance that these important airports will remain open and thus ease the public disquiet and controversy which Mr Crofts’ prediction has aroused.

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

-I appreciate the question asked by the honourable member. It may be of interest to other honourable members to know that I have already agreed to representations from Tasmanian members of this Parliament and senators that I should meet them to discuss this question and other matters that have been raised. I will be seeing them tomorrow at 2 o ‘clock. As regards the statement by Mr Crofts of the Australian Federation of Air Pilots, I can understand his attitude because of the criticism by Mr Cameron and me of the recent astronomical increases that were granted to pilots so that they are now really, to use Clyde’s expression, in the ‘ fat cat ‘ category.

To return to the matter under discussion, when we became the Government we decided that we would not continue to subsidise civil aviation heavily in the manner in which it had been subsidised by the former Government. Last year, for example, civil aviation was subsidised to the extent of $65m, and in the previous year by $67m. In order to obtain an 80 per cent recovery of the cost of civil aviation, we introduced certain measures such as, for example, increasing air navigation charges from 10 per cent to IS per cent. Even at IS per cent those charges represent only 4 per cent of the airlines’ total operating costs.

At the same time as we did that we agreed to representations from the industry that we should hear its views on what can and should be done. As a result of the industry asking us to consider its views on how costs could be reduced, we set up a committee and asked the industry as a whole- the airlines, the general aviation section, the aero clubs- to put forward ideas to the committee. These groups have put forward their ideas to the committee, which is examining them. At this point I have received no report from the committee or any recommendations whatsoever. However, when the report is received it will be considered by the Cabinet and the Cabinet will then decide what portions of the industry’s recommendations should be accepted or rejected. That is the situation.

page 3426

QUESTION

TAX REDUCTIONS

Mr STALEY:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I ask: Does the Prime Minister recognise that persons on lower or middle incomes will in fact pay more tax this income year than last year because all economic indicators, including the Budget- the official Budgetmake it clear that average income earners will receive salary increases of at least 25 per cent this year? In particular, is he aware of the fact that his family man who has been on $ 100 a week will not have a tax saving this year but will in fact pay $51.64 more in tax on the modest assumption that his income will rise by 25 per cent?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I am not aware of any such facts as the honourable gentleman describes them. I demonstrated last night that the increase in incomes in Australia, particularly in wages, and for women still more than men, had been very much greater than the increase in prices. The net result of the decisions I announced last night on behalf of the Government is that incomes will be worth very much more than was previously the case. The whole idea of the concessions last night was to break the vicious circle of wages chasing prices and prices chasing wages.

Suggestions have been made previously by the honourable gentleman and, I suppose, by some of his colleagues that there should be decreases in taxes, but there was never any suggestion that those would be graduated in favour of the lower or middle income earners. There was never any suggestion that they should be put as part of the argument before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to break this wage-price spiral. For 23 years previous governments had never put a positive proposal to the Arbitration Commission. One would have thought that the arguments put over those 23 years by various employee organisations- white collar and blue collar- would have had some merit which occasionally would justify some support by the Australian Government, but our predecessors never saw fit to back any of the employee organisation applications. My Government has seen fit to do so.

We believe that by the indexation of incomes we will halt the anticipatory extravagant claims for wages and, furthermore, by the additional matter which we announced last night there will in fact be a very real restraint on such claims. Those are proposals which have never been put before. They are well worth putting before the Arbitration Commission. I believe that they will succeed there.

page 3426

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr LAMB:
LA TROBE, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Labor and Immigration. Can the

Minister inform the House whether the unemployment figures now prepared by the Australian Bureau of Statistics refer to applications for employment or registrations of unemployment? What differences do any new calculations reflect upon the actual level of unemployment and what effect will the fiscal proposals outlined by the Prime Minister in this House last night have on those levels of unemployment?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The Commonwealth Employment Service records the number of people who register as seeking employment. They can conceivably be people who have lost a second job- that is, a second part time job- and who are seeking to get back again a second part time job or a part time job. The figures do not represent the number of people who are actually unemployed but the number of people who are seeking employment. However, there has been a downturn in the overall level of employment. But it is important to know that the registrations are for people seeking employment rather than for people saying that they are unemployed. The fiscal policies announced by the Prime Minister last night and the monetary policies announced by the Treasurer at the weekend, will, once the necessary time lag that always occurs when such action is taken has elapsed, give quite an enormous fillip to the level of employment. The policies will increase industrial activity and industrial expansion. One can say with absolute certainty that when the time lag has expired Australia once again will be in the same very buoyant position that it was in right throughout the whole of last year until the world economic situation, over which, of course, we had no control, caused ripples on our shores.

Honourable members will remember my saying in December of last year that if the economic downturn- the cyclical downturn- in Western economies, which was then being confidently predicted by all of the economic experts around the world, in fact eventuated and if the energy crisis remained unresolved there was no way that the ripples of inflation and unemployment which would follow in the wake of these events in the Western economies would not lap our shores as well. This has, of course, happened. All over the world there is an upswing in the rate of inflation and throughout the Western world in countries with industrial economies comparable to ours there has been a sharp upswing in the number of unemployed. Even in West Germany where the level of inflation was very low, we find that it has increased. The rate of unemployment in West Germany was only 0.8 per cent and it has now increased to well over 2 per cent. It has nearly trebled in less than 12 months. Only yesterday in the United States it was announced that in the motor car industry 88,000 men had been retrenched on in previous 24 hours. In West Germany there have been very heavy retrenchments in the motor car industry. The same thing is happening in France and in Italy. The same thing is happening in the United Kingdom. Even in Spain where there is no problem of tariff reductions or tariff increases and where the wages are relatively very low some of the motor car multinational companies have had to close down their Spanish subsidiaries. The fact of the matter is that the motor car industry all over the world is over-stretched. It is able to produce motor cars quicker than it can find customers. We are no exception to the rule, nor are Japan or the United States of America.

page 3427

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT OFFICES IN SYDNEY

Mr RUDDOCK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct a question to the Prime Minister, not in his role as acting Treasurer. To give him a respite from questions on the economy, this question relates to the western suburbs urban mirage. I refer to the announcement recently made by the Minister for Services and Property that the Government had taken a further lease of office space for 500 employees of the Taxation Office in Macarthur House, following the lease of 7 floors of IAC House, Parramatta. The Prime Minister will recall that the previous Liberal-Country Party Government initiated action to purchase the site at Parramatta known as Meggets. This was some 2 years ago. Nothing has happened on that site since. The Prime Minister will be aware that any private developer could not wait for this length of time without the development of such a large site having regard to the very expensive holding charges. He will also be aware that his colleague, the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, announced in September 1973 certain plans -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Will the honourable member ask his question?

Mr RUDDOCK:

– Yes. Is there any truth in the suggestion that differences between each of the Ministers on the approach to be taken to this development is delaying consideration and approval by Cabinet of development plans for this important site?

Mr UREN:
Minister for Urban and Regional Development · REID, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Let me answer first the question about differences between Ministers. No, there are no differences between Ministers. Mr Daly and I are united in relation to the development of the Parramatta site for a Commonwealth centre.

We have to examine the reasons why the Australian Government decided to acquire the site at Parramatta. The policy of the previous Government was to build on a site at Wooloomooloo. This would have over-centralised the area of Sydney by putting a further 15,000 Commonwealth public servants there. It would have created further chaos because of the overcentralisation of Sydney. The Whitlam Government has set about developing Sydney in a rational way by decentralising office accommodation for Commonwealth public servants. Approximately 5,000 Commonwealth public servants will be located in Parramatta. That centre will be developed on a multi-purpose basis with retail and cultural facilities as well.

Mr Ruddock:

– When?

Mr UREN:

– The plans are under way. We are working on them now. When the Government is ready to make its plans clear it will give full details to the people. But it has taken time to draw up these plans. As far as we are concerned this is only one step in providing offices for public servants out of the central business district of Sydney. Other plans are being drawn up for the Liverpool, Campbelltown and Holsworthy area. For the benefit of the honourable member I say that this is being done in complete co-operation with the New South Wales Government through the State Planning Authority, as it was then, and now the Department of Environment and Planning. We are also working in co-operation with the Hamer Government in Victoria to provide Public Service office space out of the central business district of Melbourne, firstly at Ringwood. We are making further studies of other corridors in Melbourne.

page 3428

QUESTION

HOBART AIRPORT

Mr SHERRY:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– The Minister for Housing and Construction will be aware that the Australian Government is to upgrade the Hobart Airport. I ask the Minister: Has a contract been awarded for this work? If such a contract has been awarded, who has secured it and what is the anticipated completion date of this work?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I am pleased to announce that the terminal at the Hobart Airport, which has been regarded as inadequate for many years, is now about to be replaced. In fact, I have made an announcement today to the effect that a contract has been let to the extent of $1,036,000. This work is to go on very soon. The contract will be completed by the end of 1975. There will be no interruption to terminal operations. The terminal will be twice as large as the existing one. There will be separate facilities for both airlines, including entrance lobbies, counters, lounges, baggage collection facilities, bus terminals and the like. The contract has been awarded to a reputable Hobart company, Arthur B. Moore Pty Ltd.

page 3428

QUESTION

NATIONAL HIGHWAYS

Mr LUSHER:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister for Transport yet determined which highways in New South Wales will be designated as national highways? Will he inform me whether the Barton Highway and the Federal Highway have been or will be classified as part of a national highway? When can we expect the transfer of responsibility to take place so that the Federal Government can get on with the job of bringing the Barton Highway, which is so basic to my electorate, to the national capital and to the movement of trade, commerce and tourism in general, up to an acceptable standard?

Mr CHARLES JONES:
ALP

-An announcement will be made this week declaring what are the national highways for New South Wales. As far as the program is concerned, I have already written to each State Minister for Transport or Minister for Roads, as the case may be, asking them to give me programs by the middle of November which will be put into operation as from 1 January.

page 3428

QUESTION

WAGE INDEXATION

Mr NICHOLLS:
BONYTHON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is the Government’s policy in favour of the reintroduction of the automatic cost of living adjustment an essential part of its anti-inflationary strategy? Is it a fact that the Government’s positive submissions to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission are in marked contrast with the attitudes of previous Australian governments?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-The Australian Government is now making positive submissions to the Arbitration Commission on this matter in contrast, as I pointed out in answer to an earlier question, to the attitude of previous governments. The attitude of previous governments continues now that the surviving members are in Opposition. It is remarkable that the LiberalCountry Party State governments are intervening in proceedings before the Arbitration Commission to impede wage indexation. That is, despite all the discussion we had with them on this matter at the Premiers Conferences, they have now come out to oppose it in the Arbitration Commission.

Of course, in this Parliament the Liberal and Country Party members cannot make up their minds. They know that wage indexation is just and that its introduction is probable but they are caught in the dilemma of opposing the inevitable or the desirable together with their State colleagues or of accepting a desirable reform. There is no doubt that wage indexation together with the reduction of income tax payable by middle and lower income people will be the most positive method to break the wage-price spiral which has hitherto been devised. It is significant, of course, that honourable members opposite have been caught completely flat footed by these proposals.

Mr Anthony:

– It will be changed in 12 months like everything else.

Mr WHITLAM:

– The right honourable gentleman who interjects never found any merit in any submissions by any employee organisation to the Arbitration Commission. I will be glad to see whether he will oppose indexation now that the Australian Government is supporting it and is putting submissions to the Commission to tie in tax reductions with wage indexation. There is no doubt whatever what employers will think about this because employers will now have the confidence and the incentive to keep and to put men and women on their payrolls.

page 3429

QUESTION

BUDGET DEFICIT

Mr SNEDDEN:

– My question is addressed to the Treasurer, that is, to Mr Crean. Following the supplementary fiscal measures announced by the Prime Minister last night and the fact that the aggregates detailed in the Budget Papers are now so massively out of date, will the Treasurer provide the House with the Government’s present estimates in detail for both the deficit and the domestic deficit? Is it a fact that, together with other measures announced since the Budget, the budgeted deficit for 1974-75 is now in the region of $ 1,700m? For the half year January to June will the deficit be running at an annual rate of well over $2,000m and probably of the order of $2,500m, because the bulk of the expenditure announced last night is to occur in the half year January to June? Does the honourable gentleman agree that a deficit of these proportions is totally opposite to the proper way to deal with an inflationary situation?

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA · ALP

– I do not think that it is very difficult, taking into account the measures that were announced last night, matching them with the figures which are in the Budget and knowing that some changes have been made to that Budget even between the time of the presentation of that Budget and last night, to arrive at a figure as to what the deficit is likely to be for 1974-75. The right honourble gentleman rightly has distinguished between 2 sorts of deficit- the domestic deficit and, what is more popularly called, the deficit.

My colleague, the Minister for Northern Development and Minister for the Northern Territory, Dr Patterson, will introduce a measure this afternoon which will provide further assistance to the wool industry. I am sure that honourable members opposite will have no reluctance to give that further support to the wool industry. Together with the $150m that has already been given and the sum of approximately $200m that will be announced today, this will mean a $350m difference to the deficit, if one regards the figuring in itself as significant without making allowances for some contingencies. I would suggest that most of the $350m for the wool industry will be returned by the end of June 1975. I simply cite this as an example of how hazardous it is to try to make pronunciamentos now as to what the reality of the deficit is or is not in regard to the total economy.

The right honourable gentleman himself put a figure of $ 1,700m on it. I am suggesting that, if he adds the figure that he did not know, the result is more likely to be $ 1,850m and a domestic deficit of approximately $ 1,300m. But again, by June 1975 there can be one change, I am suggesting, that will make a difference to both of those deficits.

I think it is about time that we became mature enough in terms of the Australian economy not to be too bamboozled by the loose quoting of hundreds of millions of dollars. If the right honourable gentleman wants a forecast as to what I think the gross domestic product will be running at by 30 June 1 975, it will be of the order of $60,000m. Whether a domestic deficit of $ 1,300m projected now is adequate or inadequate in terms of the totality of the economy, I do not think any of us can judge. I believe that the measures which were announced last night were timely for the changes which have taken place since the original Budget was prepared.

page 3429

QUESTION

HOUSING LOANS

Mr COATES:
DENISON, TASMANIA

-Following the Prime Minister’s announcement last night that $ 1 50m will be made available immediately to savings banks for housing loans, can the Minister for Housing and Construction indicate how many homes this amount will prove? Will this sum be sufficient to stimulate employment in the building industry?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-If the $150m for housing purposes, which was announced by the

Prime Minister last night, was spent on the basis of $20,000 being advanced for each house, as honourable members will readily perceive the commencement of 7,500 houses would result. Of course, there could be a lesser amount than that involved, in which event there could be a larger number of loans. It seems to me that that would probably represent the needed input into the building industry to maximise its capacity and to bring it to a desirable state of buoyancy.

One must not think of this injection of an additional $150m in isolation from the other very significant initiatives already announced by the Treasurer in respect of the amendments to the savings banks regulations, which could have the effect of putting $250m out for these purposes in the short term. In addition to that, there is the range of initiatives being taken in the public sector, which include an extra $75m over and above the Budget announcement for public housing. There is also additional money for defence service homes purposes and an additional $8m for the Queensland Housing Commission. I think the net effect of this whole perspective -

Dr Forbes:

– The Treasurer is not impressed by large figures.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The honourable member needs more explaining to him than anybody else in the House. I should think it would do him well to listen. The total perspective for this would seem to me to indicate that builders and others associated with the building industry have very good cause for confidence. I know that the building societies must be encouraged to have received the imprimatur from the Government and they too are likely to have a significant degree of success in attracting investment into the permanent building society area. The allocation as announced by the Prime Minister will be expended on new homes, existing homes and extensions for homes. I am personally very pleased that he emphasised the need to include the consideration of housing advances for females as well as for males.

page 3430

PIPELINE AUTHORITY

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

-(Cunningham-Minister for Minerals and Energy)- Pursuant to section 45 of the Pipeline Authority Act 1973, I present the first annual report of the Pipeline Authority for the year ended 30 June 1974.

page 3430

PETROLEUM SEARCH SUBSIDY ACT

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

– Pursuant to section 12 of the Petroleum Search Subsidy Act 1959-1973 I present the 15th annual statement concerning the operation of the Act and the payment of subsidies during the year ended 30 June 1974.

page 3430

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr HOWARD:

– I do. Yesterday during question time, as recorded in Hansard at page 3286, in answer to a question I asked the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) said, inter alia:

I do not accept his analysis because I know it to be completely inaccurate and false in every way and consequently ultimately without basis.

That answer was given in response to a question I asked regarding the impact of the submissions made by the New South Wales Branch of the Australian Labor Party for redistribution purposes when read with the New South Wales results of the 1 8 May election for the House of Representatives. In my question I asked the Minister whether the impact of his Party’s submission would produce in New South Wales 29 ALP seats out of 45 and in percentage terms 64 per cent of the seats in New South Wales. I now name the seats that formed the basis of my question.

Mr Daly:

– I raise a point of order. The honourable member is not explaining where he has been misrepresented. He is proceeding to debate an answer that I gave in reply to his question. I suggest that he is outside the scope of saying precisely where he has been misrepresented and also that he is not entitled to debate my answer or anything connected with it. It is merely a matter of where he has been misrepresented.

Mr HOWARD:

-On the point of order, the Minister in his answer said that my analysis was completely inaccurate and false in every way. By naming the seats I am endeavouring to demonstrate that he has misrepresented me in saying that my analysis is false and inaccurate. I therefore name the seats. They are: Lowe, Parramatta, Mitchell, Hume and Gywdir with the possibility of another which I have not been able to completely check accurately. They amount to 5 seats. If you subtract from that the additional seat that is proposed in the Epping-Carlingford area you are left with a net loss of 4 seats. I now refer to the official statistical analysis furnished under the hand of the Chief Australian Electoral Officer.

Mr Daly:

– I rise on a point of order. The honourable member has not proved where he has been misrepresented. He is now proceeding to debate the answer to a question and I suggest that he should not do so.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The chair is not in a position to comment on this. Honourable members will have read where I intend to retire, so I am not personally interested in redistributions. If the honourable member would like to come to my suite after I leave the Chair in about 10 minutes time we could talk about this over a cup of tea. Would you like to do that?

Mr HOWARD:

-I would be delighted in any event to accept that invitation but -

Mr SPEAKER:

– I do not think we are getting anywhere.

Mr HOWARD:

– With respect, Sir, I do not agree with that. In completing my correction of the misrepresentation that was made by the Minister I refer to the official statistical analysis of the Chief Electoral officer dated 9 September 1974 which records that the Australian Labor Party polled 52.68 per cent of the primary vote in New South Wales. I asked the Minister whether it was a fact that his Party polled between 52 per cent and 53 per cent. I think 52.68 per cent is a fair mid-point.

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

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr DALY:

– Yes. The honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) referred to an answer which I gave to a question asked by him yesterday. The fact of the matter is that the honourable member has now produced some statistics and he has not said where he got them. For all I know he could have got them from out of his head. The honourable member has taken statistics that suit his own point of view and has then endeavoured to prove his case. Any person who assesses electoral results and applies them to one election only is on very weak ground. If one went back to two or three elections before the one the honourable member is talking about totally different results would be given.

Mr Howard:

– I rise to order. My question was related entirely to the 18 May election.

Mr DALY:

– That is correct, but the results can be totally different if they are taken, say, from the 1966 election.

Mr Sinclair:

– I rise to order. The argument being advanced by the Leader of the House shows the degree to which he is prepared to go. But I hardly see on what basis he is making his personal explanation.

Mr DALY:

– I am making it on the basis that I have been misrepresented. The point I am making is that the honourable member has misrepresented my answer in that he has taken only one set of statistics. If he goes back over other elections and averages the figures he will find that a totally different result is given. In this respect I point out that the statements made by the honourable member in this House yesterday are completely without foundation.

Mr McMAHON:
Lowe

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr McMAHON:

– Yes, I do, Sir.

Mr SPEAKER:

– When was this?

Mr McMAHON:

– This morning, Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister said that a tape recording device in the Prime Minister’s room had been used and that he gave instructions for it to be dismantled. I have spoken about this matter on so many occasions that it is almost dull and unworthy of comment except that it is wise to have the record put straight in this House. The simple fact is that when I became the Prime Minister there was such a tape recording device that went into the office of the Private Secretary to the Prime Minister. This device was not under the supervision or jurisdiction of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. It was for the use of the public relations officer if he thought it was desirable. It was never used by me. It was tested once and found to be completely ineffective. So I said: ‘Do not bother about it any more ‘.

I now want to say something about the timing of the dismantling. Some time before ceasing to be Prime Minister I gave instructions that the Prime Ministerial suit was to be reconstructed. I did not go into that suite during the election compaign as the office was being rebuilt and neither did Mr Whitlam. So I would say this injustice to him: He would not have been able to use it if he did so. Whether he said the recorder was not to be reconnected when he inherited the rather beautiful suite that I designed, in co-operation with others, is an entirely different matter. I think the House can rest assured of this. As one who detests listening devices of any kind- unless there is agreement between the parties that they ought to be used for temporary record purposesI must say that I would not use them, nor do I like them. I would not agree to them being used, and philosophically am opposed to them.

page 3432

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT: FOREIGN POLICIES

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

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

The failure of the Government to permit debate of its foreign policies in this Parliament and the need to have such debate on international issues of concern to the Australian people.

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 thenplaces)

Mr PEACOCK:
Kooyong

-Mr Speaker, this matter is before the House not as a partisan matter but as a plea to the Government to produce its policies in this chamber for the information of members of Parliament and, of course, the public. It will be recalled that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) yesterday gave notice of his intention to move a motion of want of confidence in the Treasurer (Mr Crean). The Government has refused to allow debate on that motion to proceed, placing the Treasurer in an impossible position. But we are going ahead with a debate on this matter of public importance in lieu of debate on that motion. The last time a major international affairs statement was delivered to this Parliament by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) was 24 May 1973. The man who held himself out as not merely the great reformer but also the great performer has not performed in this chamber in the area of international affairs. He has prevented urgency motions from coming on. He has allowed his party to gag the Estimates debates. The statement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) to the Senate upon return from his most recent visit to North America consisted of one and half pages simply advising where he had been and whom he had seen and did not contain discussions of policy matters in any depth. But there has been nothing from the Prime Minister himself.

It appears that the Government’s foreign policies have been just as damaging externally as it has admitted that its domestic policies have been internally; yet no explanation is given from time to time in this Parliament. We have even seen the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt), not the Minister for Foreign Affairs, not the Prime Minister, attending the World Food Conference in Rome. There the Government determined that it would give a certain amount of money to endeavour to meet the world food crisis, not on the basis of guide lines laid down in this Parliament or at the Conference itself, but simply because Canada had decided to give in excess of $30m. As most major newspapers reported, the Minister for Agriculture telephoned the Prime Minister and upped the amount that Australia would give because they did not wish to be seen in a poor light, not because they had any moral basis or any initiatives to put forward at all.

Recently the Chief Minister of Papua New Guinea was in this country. Only the weekend before last he visited Australia and had discussions with the Minister for Science (Mr Morrison), who is at the table, and with the Prime Minister. Not one word has been given to the Parliament about the date for independence, about what is transpiring in Papua New Guinea, about the continued transfer of administrative and legislative functions from Australia to that country, or about the post-independence relations between Papua New Guinea and Australia. There is no doubt that that country will achieve independence next year. We ought to be ensuring that the relations between the 2 countries are well worked out before independence. Yet we would not know whether discussions are being carried out on that basis. Nothing is being put to this Parliament; nothing is being put to the Australian people. That special relationship between Australia and Papua New Guinea, which we hope will continue in the post-independence scene, is not being guaranteed.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr PEACOCK:

-Prior to the suspension of the sitting for lunch I was giving the background to the discussion of the matter of public importance and then moving through various matters that were to be discussed. I was discussing the lack of information that had flowed from the Australian Government in relation to post-independence relations between Papua New Guinea and Australia and other factors leading up to the independence of Papua New Guinea. I do not want to dwell, in the short time that remains to me, on that matter. It is, though, one of the most singularly important matters and again an area in which we have not been informed sufficiently by this Government. While I have been talking about a small area, the area which I want to pass on to before moving to the basis of the strategic assessment contained in the Defence Report is a territory of Australia which is smaller in area than Papua New Guinea- the Cocos (Keeling) Islands.

The Territory is not within the ambit or control of the Minister for Science (Mr Morrison), who is at the table, but in the control of the Special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen). This matter is covered by the wording of the motion. Again we have received no information from the Government and no opportunity to debate the Territory’s future. Recently the Chief Minister of Papua New Guinea came to Australia. Mr John Clunies-Ross, of the Clunies-Ross estate, also visited Canberra some weeks back for talks with the Government. We have not been advised of the outcome of those talks. We ought to be advised. There is, of course, a discrepancy in the Government’s stand on the future of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. The Government, in the United Nations in December 1972, shortly after assuming office, voted for the independence of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Yet in 1973 the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) indicated that independence would not be granted to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. That was an entirely different approach. Subsequently a Committee of Twenty-four from the United Nations has been making an assessment of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and will be reporting in due course to the United Nations.

Reports in newspapers filed by New York correspondents indicate that aspersions may be cast on the way in which this Government has handled the administration of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. I remind the House that in 1972 I personally visited Cocos and reached agreement with Mr Clunies-Ross on a wide range of matters. I asked questions on notice about why these matters had not been pursued and followed up. I have been informed that the agreements reached between Mr Clunies-Ross and myself, which covered not only the acceptance of sovereignty but also related to the codification of the criminal law, education facilities, health matters and the like, have been lost by the Department. If that is the case I ask the Minister to advise this Parliament of the Government’s intentions for the future of that Territory and how on earth this Government can allow a situation to develop within the framework of its continued maladministration whereby agreements entered into between the previous Government and Mr Clunies-Ross are not in the control of this Government.

Our major complaint is that matters are not placed before the Parliament. There is a lack of information. I question, for example, the substance of the Government’s planning of its foreign policies and its defence policies. I refer to the alleged no- threat theory of the Government which ignores the instability in the region, particularly in Indo-China, and which ignores the instability and fragility in regard to detente itself. The Defence Report goes on even further and says: ‘If there were any threats we would all have plenty of warning’. That, apart from being an inept statement, is historically incorrect. It ignores the confrontation which caused the outbreak of World War I, the way in which the Korean war was started and indeed the Middle East conflicts of 1967 and 1973. The Prime Minister’s own words at the United Nations, using almost alarmist terms, destroy the no- threat theory of the Government. Yet the Government does not present itself in this Parliament to tell us whether in fact its assessments are different. I will quote some of the Prime Minister’s own words at the United Nations. He said:

A drift away from international order today

He also said:

A sense of events out of control

When referring to the world in which we live he said:

A nightmare world

He also said:

The courses of conflict multiply and-

The threat of war for the possession of resources

All this phraseology was used by the Prime Minister and yet this Government maintains that there is no threat to the security of this country for ten to fifteen years. We live, the Government alleges, in an idyllic and tranquil environment. Yet that is the antithesis of the phrases used by the Prime Minister when he addressed the United Nations.

Why have we not been told about the change in the Prime Minister’s attitude over economic nationalism, which was so ridiculed by the Prime Minister at the United Nations? Yet when he returned to Australia and to the Press he seemed to endorse the policies of the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor). What of the Treaty of Nara that was indicated after the visit? The only time that I can recall the Prime Minister making a statement to the Parliament on an overseas visit- and there have been plenty of them- was when he returned from a visit to Japan and China last year. It was not the occasion of the major international relations debate which took place in May of 1973. When he came back and indeed while he was in Japan he indicated that the Treaty of Nara was one of his and his Government’s greatest achievements. In reality the Treaty does not exist. The purpose of the

Prime Minister of Japan visiting Australia was, at that time when the Treaty of Nara was so conceived and so put, to sign it here. There is no treaty in existence. It may occasion yet another visit by the Prime Minister to sign a treaty next year, but there is no treaty in existence today.

I have already elsewhere cautioned the Government about treating Japan in an exclusive relationship in the sense that I believe it is wise for Australia to be entering into joint ventures over resources with a number of countries. Until the Deputy Prime Minister (Dr J. F. Cairns) visited the United States in the last week we have seen a scenario painted time and again that this country is not interested in entering into resources discussions with other countries unless they can simply reach an agreement to agree. For example, it was heralded before the Shah of Iran came here that so many worthwhile agreements would be reached between the Government and the Government of Iran. Again, only an agreement to agree was reached. So far as Japan is concerned the Treaty of Nara does not exist. So far as resources diplomacy is concerned we have changed tack so many times that no one knows in what direction we are heading or indeed whether we are prepared to enter into arrangements. The ‘Financial Review’ of this morning quotes the Deputy Prime Minister as saying:

We’ve been a bit slow in denning our position - and -

We need investments to get our economy going.

A couple of years ago it might have been strange for the Opposition spokesman on foreign policy to have raised questions on resources relations and economic matters in a foreign policy debate, but there is no way in which the foreign policy of this country can be conducted without having regard to international economic ramifications. Quite apart from the fact that the Government has been delinquent in putting views to the Parliament, it has been delinquent in recognising that as symptomatic of foreign policy today and in not recognising the need to say more than just that we live in an inter-dependent world. In fact, it must see that our trade policies are carried out in concert with our foreign policies so that there is a co-ordination of attitude by both departments. But we get no views on this by the Prime Minister or the Minister for Science who assists the Foreign Minister.

We are demanding further information on the Government’s foreign policy which, as I said this morning, has been just as damaging externally as its domestic policies have been internally. The Government still talks outside this Parliament of alleged zones of peace and neutrality as if they are immediately achievable. We challenge that view. We challenge the Government’s view on economic nationalism. We challenge its view on the inconsistent attitudes over the Baltic States and in regard to the Ermolenko affair. What of the visit of the Prime Minister to the Soviet Union that will take place in another month’s time? The Prime Minister, I understand, is visiting Europe. We do not know yet of the countries he is to visit, though it has been alleged he will ‘ not be going to France. That is interesting. Scared of the paranoid attitude of certain groups in the community, he not only shrinks from debating foreign policy in this House but also shrinks from discussing his difference face to face with the Government of France. When he goes to the Soviet Union what will he tell the Soviet Union? Will he ask for an amelioration of attitudes over the treatment of minorities within that community? What will his answer be to questions about the extraordinary statement he made when he was in China? The Soviet Union, with its conflict with China and the conflict over borders will be interested in the statement made by the Prime Minister when in China in which he said:

With no nation is our new aspiration symbolised more than it is with China, a power not only in our region but in the world.

How will he answer questions by the Soviet Government over that? Does anybody in this place feel that there is no other country in the world with which we share closer relations or with which our aspirations are symbolised more than they are with China? Of course not. But we cannot get a debate going on these subjects. All I can do is raise these matters seemingly in little more than headings in a 10 to IS minute discussion. We demand that the Government place before the nation through this Parliament its foreign policy which is falling apart at the seams. We demand that it inject a degree of consistency into an inconsistent foreign policy. We demand a statement by the Government in order that we can, on behalf of different groups in the community, whether they be the Baits or others, indicate different attitudes to the Government. It is not sufficient for the Government to deny us the opportunity on matters of public -

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr MORRISON:
Minister for Science · St George · ALP

– It is rather remarkable that the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) has raised a number of issues, each one of which- and I would be very happy to take him through the Hansard records of both the House of Representatives and of the Senate- has been discussed in this chamber or in the other place in the course of this year. The honourable gentleman of course will be aware that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) is a member of another place. I shall subsequently go through the details of the debates and the opportunities for debate that have been presented to the House of Representatives and to the Senate and which have not been taken up.

But I should like to make one observation. There has been some criticism of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) for not having made statements after his return from overseas visits. Of course there is not the same necessity for the Prime Minister to make statements after his return as there was in the case of former Liberal Party Prime Ministers. Having bungled their overseas visits through monumental ineptitude they raced back to Australia and took the opportunity to make statements in this House to rewrite the record so that they would appear in a much more favourable light. I am sure the honourable member for Kooyong, along with every other parliamentarian, every member of this House, can recall and in fact recoil from such statements as those made by Prime Minister Gorton when he was overseas- that memorable question: ‘Who is General Seato?’- and by Prime Minister McMahon who made a statement in Indonesia about relations with Malaysia? When he got to Singapore he was absolutely astonished that the world media was so quick that the statement was reported in Singapore before he got there. He spent the rest of the time he was in Singapore and Malaysia trying to dig himself out of the bog that he had put himself into. Each time the previous Liberal Prime Ministers had to come back and make what was not really a statement to this House but merely a re-writing of the record so that they would not appear to posterity, at least as far as the Hansard records of this House are concerned, as the monumental bunglers that they were.

In no case has the honourable member for Kooyong made any point of criticism of the statements that have been made overseas by the Prime Minister of Australia. The Prime Minister of Australia has gone to many countries, and there has been a necessity for him to go to many countries, in order to put the record straight about the changeover from a Liberal-Country Party foreign policy to the foreign policy that is carried out by this Government. It is a foreign policy that is consistent and sound and one that all Australians can be proud of. But the Opposition certainly has not shown any great interest in foreign policy debates.

The record of the Senate shows that in the course of this year there have been 12 opportunities for debate on this subject. In the Senate statements have been made or tabled, and in the Senate it is quite possible, if the Opposition is interested, to rise and debate the issues. On 5 March 1974 a communique on the ANZUS Council was tabled. There was no effort to debate what used to be the great subject for the Liberal Party-the ANZUS Council. On 20 March a statement by the Prime Minister was tabled. The debate was adjourned. There was no effort at all to bring that debate back on again. On 10 April the proposed joint Soviet- Australian space observation station was raised. There was a debate and the motion that the statement be noted was resolved in the affirmative. On 10 April the report on the Fifth South Pacific Forum was tabled. There was no effort, intention or desire to discuss what we regard, as a Government, as a very important area for Australia- the South Pacific. A statement on the visit of the Minister for Foreign Affairs to Latin America was tabled. Subsequently there was a tabling of the texts of treaties to which Australia is a party. There was no attempt to debate them. The Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty was raised. Again there was no attempt on the part of the Opposition to debate or to raise these matters.

The honourable member for Kooyong mentioned the Ermolenko affair. The debate on this went on and on and on in the Senate. Likewise there was a discussion of the statement about the Baltic States which went on and on in the Senate. But look at the points that the Opposition raises. Are these the real fundamental issues of Australia’s foreign policy- the Ermolenko affair which the Opposition built up into a great storm, the recognition of the Baltic States, in respect of which the policy and attitude of the previous Government was consistent, in terms of operation, with the decision that we made? There was no attempt to have a debate on the Law of the Sea Conference or on the Bauxite Agreement or on the report of the United Nations General Assembly under which heading any matter could be raised and discussed.

Likewise, in this House there have been 4 occasions- I must say the honourable member for Kooyong has participated on two of them- on which matters of this nature could be raised. The honourable member also mentioned the defence debates. There have been several debates in this House on defence. I was a little disappointed in the remarks my good and learned colleague made in relation to the Australian Government’s attitude towards food and the humanitarian aspects of a problem that I believe every member of this House should be gravely concerned about. He erroneously criticised us for our failure to spell out our policy towards food aid. In the short time I have been a member of this House I have found it curious that the Opposition, particularly the Australian Country Party, interest in humanitarian ideals is directly related to whether there is a surplus of Australian agricultural products.

When food markets are buoyant the Opposition conveniently forgets about the starving millions in this world. But if the honourable gentleman, who talked about the information that is available to this House, had directed his attention to Budget Paper No. 9, Australia’s External Aid 1974-75, which has been circulated to every member of this House and to every member of the Senate, he would have found out that this Government does not judge its humanitarian interest on the basis of whether there is a food surplus in Australia. It is a consistent policy that we have adopted to ensure that the Australian Government’s action is in response to need, not in response to whatever surpluses we may have. Obviously the honourable gentleman has not directed his attention to this document that is made available to Parliament, a document that is comprehended in the discussion of the matter of public importance that he has put forward. The document states:

Australia will provide 225,000 tonnes of wheat or flour equivalent as food aid under the International Wheat Agreement in 1974-7S. . . . Most of this food aid will go to developing countries in the Asian and Pacific regions, although a gift of 7,000 tonnes of wheat will be made to help overcome food shortages in drought affected countries in the Sahelian region of northern Africa.

In addition . . . Australia will make $40 million available towards the proposed United Nations Special Program to assist developing countries which have been seriously affected by the recent sharp increases in oil prices and other related international developments. Of this total, $20 million will be spent on additional food aid and associated freight costs, as well as on contributions to certain international agricultural research institutes which are striving to boost the production of foodstuffs in developing countries through the introduction of new techniques and improved seed varieties, etc. The uses to which the remaining $20 million will be put have yet to be determined.

I was rather disappointed in my honourable colleague criticising the Australian Government’s role in the World Food Conference which is now taking place. At that Food Conference

Australia made the most forthcoming statement that it has ever made in terms of assisting the underdeveloped countries in this world in a problem that we all recognise and appreciate. He seemed to make light of that Conference because Australia was represented at it by the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt). He seemed to be saying that the Minister for Foreign Affairs should have been there. The Minister for Foreign Affairs was at another meeting. But because this is a matter of concern related to food it was quite appropriate- in fact, in the Government’s viewpoint it was essential- that Australia should be represented by the Minister for Agriculture, and that we were. We are taking an important and positive role in that World Food Conference. Apart from the claim that is made in the terms of this matter of public importance, I have yet to hear a comment from the Liberal Party Opposition about the utilisation of food surpluses. Plenty of comments are made by members of the Australian Country Party about how to get rid of their food surpluses to the benefit of the Country Party representatives.

I will take up another point. My honourable colleague also referred to Papua New Guinea. Of all the members of the House and of all the members of the Senate not in government the honourable gentleman is one who would be only too well aware that in the course of this year the Papua New Guinea House of Assembly has been occupied- some may say preoccupied- with the report of the Constitutional Planning Committee which was set up by the honourable member. That Committee is now reporting on a home grown constitution. The debate on the Committee’s report in the House of Assembly is one for the people of Papua New Guinea and one for the House of Assembly to consider and make their own judgment upon. My action- I am sure that outside this debate the honourable member for Kooyong would agree with it- has been to resist making any statement that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as intervention of interference in the very proper role of the House of Assembly in establishing, developing and enacting its own constitution. This has been a difficult period, but it is a difficult period that we recognise. It is a period in which we have desisted from making any statement that could seem to be or could be seen to be an interference in the affairs of Papua New Guinea.

The honourable member will also be aware that we have had a series of debates on enabling legislation relating to Papua New Guinea that I have brought into this House. I have been most appreciative of the understanding displayed by the honourable member for Kooyong in these debates. So I think it is absurd for him now to say that he has not had an opportunity of discussing these matters. He has had an opportunity of debate on a series of Bills on Papua New Guinea which were discussed this year and last year. He also knows very well that discussions are continuing with the Papua New Guinea Government on the arrangements for devolution of powers arrangements for independence at a time which both Australia and Papua New Guinea decide upon and also for post-independence arrangements. I stress this point once more: Any action by us to make a statement that is relevant to the discussion by the House of Assembly, which is an autonomous body, could be seen and could be interpreted as an intervention in its affairs.

One of the other propositions put to the public by the honourable member for Kooyong relates to the Australian Government’s attitude to South Africa. During the debate on the Estimates the honourable member for Kooyong raised this matter. In that debate, in response to the honourable member for Kooyong, I put forward very clearly the attitude and the reasons for the attitude of the Australian Government towards South Africa in the United Nations context. I believe that that attitude has paid dividends in its results. I am sure that honourable members will have seen the statement made by Mr Vorster, the Prime Minister of South Africa, following the action by Australia in the United Nations under Article 6 of the United Nations Charter to support the expulsion of South Africa from the United Nations because of its consistent and persistent breaking of the spirit of the United Nations. Mr Vorster made a plea for the world to give him 6 months to produce changes in the international standing of the Republic of South Africa. This followed from a deliberate decision of the Australian Government made in the light of the persistent violations by South Africa of the United Nations Charter.

If the Opposition had been the government, it would not have had- I use the word advisedlythe guts to make such a proposition. I am not saying this is so of the honourable member for Kooyong, but he knows as well as I do that there are many members sitting behind him who are pro-South African and pro-Rhodesian. We made our view known and we made a statement in the United Nations condemning South Africa for persistent violations. Now we are starting to see the results of that action that we had the fortitude to take. We as a Government which believes in the basic freedoms of all people cannot continue to maintain within the United Nations a country that violates every one of those freedoms. This is the strength of our foreign policy. For the first time Australia is making its own voice heard.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Mr CONNOLLY:
Bradfield

-We all know that today there is a considerable growth in activities and relationships between countries through diplomacy. We also know that in the history of Australia there has always been an unfortunate tendency to delude ourselves into believing that Australia can stand aloof and shut herself away from the world ‘s problems. Today we are entering an increasingly interdependent world and our attitude towards national sovereignty and other problems will undoubtedly be affected by the situations we see in other countries. For that reason it is the responsibility of all governments, regardless of their political colour, to ensure that they bring to the attention of the Australian people, through the Australian Parliament, the activities, the problems and the solutions which the government of the day sees as being best fitted to the interests of this nation.

This Government has been in power now for 23 months. During that period, despite the comments made by the Minister for Science (Mr Morrison), the fact still remains that only one statement on foreign policy has been made in this House. I am not commenting on statements made in the other place. The fact of the matter is that a statement on foreign policy has been made on only one occasion in this House and that was on 24 May 1973. Since that date the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) has made no fewer than 1 1 visits overseas to no fewer than 25 countries. This is a remarkable record and it has not been equalled by any Prime Minister since Federation.

I do not quarrel with the principle of the rights of a Prime Minister and leaders of a Government to travel overseas to ensure that they are up to date with trends and expectations of other nations, but what I do comment on is that on their return it is the right of the Australian people through their Parliament to know what the Prime Minister and the Ministers have learnt by their experiences. It is not good enough just to swan around the world using taxpayers’ money and then returning to ominous silence. We do not want silence from a government. We want to know what its policies are and the people of this country want to know what sort of leadership they have both domestically and in a foreign context.

We have seen for too long- in the last year in particular- the shambles which this country has been reduced to because of the Government’s lack of specific economic policies. Are we to see a similar situation develop in our foreign relationships? The implications are clear and the dangers which face us today are just as relevant as they were to previous governments in earlier times. We have been told that the Government’s foreign and defence policies which of course should always be interrelated are based on the principle that Australia is not likely to face a threat for some 10 to IS years. At the same time we have a government which allows Indonesian fishing fleets to go into the north-west shelf area of Australia because we lack the capacity to stop them. If we sent our entire fleet of small ships up there we would leave the rest of Australia more or less denuded of naval defence. I do not wish to discuss defence in the context of this debate but the fact remains, as the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) so rightly pointed out, that no country in today’s world is able to sit back and say with any conclusive reliability that no likely threat will occur within the next 1 0 to 1 5 years.

We have seen in the last few months the enunciation of a new doctrine of nuclear war by the United States Secretary of Defence. The implications of this for countries like Australia are of considerable importance. We want to know what the Government thinks of this. Why should not the people know the importance and relevance of the bi-polar axis? Why should not the people of this nation be given a chance to appreciate that although we must live in the bi-polar context the fact remains that there is a considerable growth in technology which has developed through nuclear capacity? This is growing all the time. We must be aware that within the next 5 years many more states will either have the atomic bomb or have the capacity to build it. This is relevant to our policies. It is relevant to Australia’s defence, especially when we see the nations to the north of us- India, and Indonesia in particular- already, in the last 2 months, coming out with a statement which to say the least was ambivalent but which would give reasonable expectation that they too are now prepared to get on the nuclear bandwagon if they can do so.

We have also seen in the last few months the United States making the decision to supply technology and uranium reactors to both the United Arab Republic and to Israel. The implications of this are enormous. Again we need to know the Australian Government’s view. We are well aware, through the comments made in the United Nations and elsewhere, that the Government is against the proliferation of nuclear weapons and so are we. But is the Prime Minister when he goes to Moscow at the end of this year going to make it quite clear to the Russians where we stand and how we expect to see the Russians assist the United States in coming to a reasonable arrangement with the states which already have nuclear capacity to ensure that we do not have this proliferation any further?

Let us get the facts understood. Let us learn the situation as the Government sees it. It is not good enough for the Department of Foreign Affairs to be the sole purveyors of information. If this is a democracy and if this Parliament is to be active as it is supposed to be in the interests of the Australian people we need to discuss these matters. Isolation, as I said earlier, is a reality in Australia and it is something which has to be broken down in the interests of this country.

The Minister for Science made the comment that monumental bungles had been made by previous Liberal Prime Ministers. He failed to give us any specific examples except to suggest the Press is now able to travel faster than aeroplanes. I do not regard that as being particularly relevant.

There are, however, a number of points worth raising in the context of this Government’s foreign policy. For example, we had the Asian forum, an idea which the Prime Minister went to great length to expound in the early days of his first Ministry. Since then there has been dead silence. Why? Because he tried to launch an idea in the Asian region which the region was not prepared to accept at that time. Then we have the insults to Mr Nixon. Regardless of the past, the fact of the matter is that Mr Nixon at that stage was President of the United States- a country with which we were supposed to be allies and with which we had very good relations. Yet, this Government was quite prepared to insult President Nixon to an unprecedented extent. Then in October 1974 3 Ministers went to Tokyo allegedly to talk about minerals and energy matters. They had no policy when they got on the plane. They tried to prepare one on the way to Tokyo. The 3 Ministers concerned all spoke with different voices and, of course, the Japanese did not give them an inch because nobodyespecially the Japanese- would be prepared to negotiate on such an extraordinary basis.

More recently, we had the case of the exMinister for Immigration who joined the Prime Minister in overseas visits. They visited the

Philippines and assured those people that the White Australia policy was dead and that there was nothing more to worry about. What was the result of this quaint use of words? We had 10,000 Burmese trying to invade our embassy in Rangoon. We had Burmese selling our immigration papers on the streets. Thousands of Burmese returned to their families and villages and were able to say, with the knowledge of their own experience, that Australia was not genuine- that they had gone to the Australian Embassy and they had been turned away from the door. The same thing happened in the Philippines. The statistics are quite clear. I ask honourable members to examine them. If they do so they will see that whenever the Prime Minister or Mr Grassby visited South East Asia there was an enormous increase in applications for immigration to Australia.

Let us be ‘fair dinkum’ for a change. Let us give this country and this Parliament a fair go- a term we have heard used so much in other quarters. Let the people of Australia know the Government’s expectations because unless our future is secured and unless we are in a position to be able to look forward and make reasonable assessments as to our future, this country will no longer be secure.

Mr CROSS:
Brisbane

-I am not opposed to the basic idea behind this discussion which was introduced by the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), which is that we ought to have from time to time proper debates on foreign policy in this Parliament and that we ought to have a reasonable amount of time to conduct such debates. I think that we all accept the principle that the people of Australia, generally speaking, are not well informed on foreign affairs or defence matters. When we debate such matters in this Parliament we tend to debate, on both sides of this House, in fairly simplistic terms trying to extract political advantage rather than trying to develop a well informed electorate.

But I would not like the idea to gain currency that this failure to have proper debates on foreign affairs matters is something that took effect from December 1972. 1 have been in this Parliament since early 1962 and I well recall the hiatus in the last couple of years of the former Liberal-Country Party Government when it was very difficult to get debates on foreign affairs. That Government was prepared to debate foreign affairs matters when there was some political advantage in debating them but was completely unprepared to debate such matters when it was obvious that the people of Australia had turned against the Vietnam policy which was rejected not only by a majority of the people of this country but also by a majority of people throughout the world.

Mr Lucock:

– That is not right either.

Mr CROSS:

-One only has to look at the record to see the number of foreign affairs debates and the issues that were covered. I think we all ought to be honest enough to admit that we have never had the sort of free ranging foreign affairs debates that one has in the House of Commons where the important issues of the present and future are properly canvassed by public debate. Rather, foreign affairs debates in this place have hinged on the particular political advantage of the day.

When one thinks of the infinite number of debates we had on Vietnam until Vietnam went sour and the Opposition would not debate the subject because there were no votes in it. I agree there are many matters of great importance to this country that we ought to debate. It is a fact that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) is in the Senate- a fairly new developmentand that a number of statements have been made in the Senate. The opportunity has been there to debate those statements but that opportunity has not been taken up by the Opposition in the Senate which, as honourable members are aware, is in a rather more competitive position than the Opposition is here. I do not contest the fact that debates should take place in this House. Let us look at the reason that, in this fairly difficult situation when domestic policies are demanding so much attention we have so little time to do this.

I am sure that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam)- I do not think any honourable member on either side of the Parliament would contest this fact- enjoys the involvement that he has in foreign affairs. I think that he has brought to foreign affairs, in the period when he was Minister for Foreign Affairs and since, a great deal of capacity, leadership and new direction which was badly needed. I am sure the Prime Minister would have welcomed very much a discussion of this nature but earlier this year the Opposition brought us to a double dissolution and drove like a steam roller through the parliamentary program for this year. Since we have come back this Government has been wrestling with the rather important economic issues that have plagued not only this country but also other countries. If the Opposition had been fortunate enough- that might be a debatable term- to be returned to power at the last general election it would have been wrestling with those issues, too.

The point has been made that we have not spent enough time on foreign affairs. I do not dispute that fact. I would like to see us debating a whole range of developments that are taking place in our part of the world. I would like to see us debating the future of Timor, for example. Timor is a small country about to become independent. In size it does not differ very greatly from a number of our neighbours in this part of the world. We ought to be showing here that we have an interest in these things. I do not contest that fact at all.

I hope that next year we will be able in our parliamentary program to have meaningful discussions on these matters in this House. I do not think anybody should get the idea that this has been a particularly easy year. We have now had outlined the parliamentary program which will take us up to the end of the first week in December. We are extending the parliamentary sitting times for the last couple of weeks of this session. Perhaps honourable members might feel that we should sit later into December, but it has been a fairly difficult year for all of us. Anyway, this is very much a matter of opinion.

The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) mentioned a number of matters. He mentioned the presence of Indonesian ships on the north-west shelf. I would not like anyone to think that this is a matter which has not been given great attention. Not only have vessels of the Royal Australian Navy been diverted to that area but also discussions have taken place in Djakarta on the matter of resolving this question, not by gunboat diplomacy but by the Indonesian authorities exercising some reasonable restraint over the activities of their own nationals. The honourable member for Bradfield also spoke about the Asian forum idea of which we have not heard very much since it was developed. I share the honourable member’s hope that there will be further developments in this regard because some of the promising development in this area should be canvassed in this House as soon as possible.

The honourable member made certain comments about the insults to President Nixon. I did not agree with some of the attitudes expressed by Ministers at the time they were expressed in relation to the President of the United States although I think that many of the things that were said about President Nixon have unfortunately been proven to be correct. I think that one of the hopeful facts of life has been the very successful visits to the United States of America by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister (Dr J. F. Cairns) who is there at the present time. I come from the State of Queensland. There is a fair bit of political shot and shell around there at the moment for some reason and the Premier of Queensland is fond of attacking the Prime Minister for going overseas. I notice that some members of the Opposition in this House made certain comments, and I am not thinking of Queensland members when I say that.

Surely it was most important that the Prime Minister of this country should have gone to meet the new American President. It was certainly in line with almost every principle of foreign policy enunciated in this Parliament by the previous Government during its term of office. I think that all Australians ought to welcome the extremely successful negotiations that took place recently in the United States between the Prime Minister and President Ford. All Australians should welcome the extremely successful discussions that are taking place at the present time between the Deputy Prime Minister and the American authorities. I would hope that a statement can be made on those matters when the Deputy Prime Minister returns, and I would hope that we will have time to debate it. In relation to the lack of time in this area, again I make the point that the whole wreckage of this year’s program was brought about by the complete irresponsibility of the Opposition in bringing on a double dissolution by threatening to oppose supply in the Senate earlier in this year. Any government wrestling with serious economic problems must of the very nature of things devote its time to those problems.

I do not know that there is much more that I wish to say. I do not propose therefore to take up the remaining couple of minutes available to me. However, I repeat that I do not disagree that we should spend more time in debating foreign affairs. But this is not a new development; it goes back to the days of the previous Government when it was virtually impossible to have meaningful discussions on foreign affairs outside those areas of immediate political advantage to the Government. In my time in the Parliament there has never been a wide ranging discussion on foreign policy such as I would hope ought to be the norm in this House. I think it is the function of the Government to set an example in this matter. I know that the Prime Minister, with his own very deep interest in foreign affairs, would have that same view. I hope that next year when we get back to a normal parliamentary session, unaffected by the irresponsible activities of the Opposition, we will have more time to devote to this area. But I repudiate any suggestion that the fact that we have not had this time was brought about by any neglect or lack of interest on the part of the Government; anything but that.

Mr LUCOCK:
Lyne

– I appreciate the fact that an agreement has been made in regard to the number of speakers in this debate being limited. I will not delay the House for very long. I just want to place on record the fact that I was gagged during consideration of the estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs when only one hour and 15 minutes was set aside to consider what are some of the most important estimates to go before the Committee. I want to add my protest to the fact that not sufficient time has been given by the Government in this Parliament to debate foreign affairs, which is of vital importance to this country at any stage, but I believe more particularly at this moment.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The discussion is concluded.

page 3441

CUSTOMS TARIFF PROPOSALS

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

– I move:

Customs TariffProposals No. 15 (1974) which I have just tabled impose a primage duty of 10 per cent on assembled and unassempled motor cars and their derivatives. The new duty will operate from commencement of business this morning. This action is being taken as an interim measure to give approximate effect to the announcement made last night by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) that duties on car imports would be generally increased by 10 percentage points. A summary showing present duties together with the new primage duty is being circulated to honourable members. I commend the Proposals.

Debate (on motion by Mr Peacock) adjourned.

page 3441

HANDICAPPED PERSONS ASSISTANCE BILL 1974

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

Second Reading

Mr HAYDEN:
Minister for Social Security · Oxley · ALP

– I move:

This Bill, which repeals the Sheltered Employment (Assistance) Act and the Handicapped Children (Assistance) Act, consolidates and extends the Australian Government’s programs of assistance to voluntary organisations that have assumed responsibility for the welfare of handicapped people. In doing so it takes us several steps further in our endeavour to give handicapped people every opportunity to live full and useful lives. The Sheltered Employment (Assistance) Act has been in operation for more than 7 years and the Handicapped Children (Assistance) Act for more than 4 years. Both have proved beneficial and during these years both my Department and the voluntary organisations through which the various services are provided have learned a great deal.

The number of disabled employees in sheltered workshops in 1966 was just over 2,000. That number has now increased to almost 10,000. The gross production income of sheltered workshops in 1966 was $2.2m. By 1 974 the income had risen to $16m. But it had become clear that there was need for further improvement, not only in the basic services that were being provided, but also in the peripheral activities that help the handicapped people to participate more fully in the general life of the community.

These questions were discussed at length with representatives of the Australian Council for Rehabilitation of Disabled, the Australian Association for the Mentally Retarded and the consultants engaged by my Department to assist the voluntary bodies to develop effective sheltered workshops and hostels. The program that was evolved as a result of those discussions forms the basis of this Bill. Although the Sheltered Employment (Assistance) Act and the Handicapped Children (Assistance) Act will be repealed, the main provisions of those 2 Acts are to be continued and expanded. It is designed to cater for the needs of handicapped children and handicapped adults who do not require constant medical attention but who, nevertheless, need special facilities to enable them to take their place in the community.

The broad details of the new measures were contained in an announcement I made earlier this year, when I outlined a 1 5-point program for the welfare of handicapped people. This Bill gives effect to those of the 1 5 points that require legislative action. I should like to refer to several of the more important provisions.

The subsidy for establishing sheltered workshops for handicapped adults, training centres for handicapped children and hostels for both children and adults will be doubled from $2 to $4 for every $1 raised by voluntary organisations. This will take effect from the date the Act receives royal assent. The extension of the rental subsidy to many new types of projects will, I am sure, result in the provision of many additional and much needed services. It will also enable organisations with very limited capital resources to provide facilities. The renting of an existing large home for use as a half-way house for handicapped people being re-established in the community is but one example. The Bill also transfers the provisions relating to the handicapped children’s benefit, which is now administered by my Department, from the National Health Act to this Act. In doing so the rate of benefit has been increased from $3 to $3.50 a day, and provision made to enable short absences, such as when the child returns home for a weekend, to be disregarded.

Voluntary organisations are being faced with increasing overhead expenditure, especially on wages and salaries. And they have all had the experience that, while it is still possible to get donations towards the cost of a tangible project such as a new hostel or workshop, it is much more difficult to raise charity funds to meet operational costs. The Bill introduces a salary subsidy of 50 per cent for approved staff. This provision, which previously applied only in relation to sheltered employment, will now apply to the whole range of prescribed services. With new ventures 100 per cent of staff salaries may be paid for up to 2 years to enable the service to become established.

Also as a result of this Bill voluntary organisations will be able to obtain subsidy assistance towards the cost of establishing activity centres for those handicapped people who cannot meet the requirements of a sheltered workshop. The Bill will also assist the development of recreational and rehabilitating facilities that are ancillary to either the workshop training centre or activity centre. It will encourage organisations to put greater emphasis on the social interests of the disabled.

It is not enough to provide these people with training, sheltered employment and accommodation. They also need encouragement to lead a more normal social life and to develop the capacity to accept and be accepted by the society in which they live. At this point I would like to express my appreciation of the work of the voluntary agencies. There is a very special role for them to play for there are many people whose needs are best served by these organisations. Although the Australian Government provides for the general economic welfare of the disabled, it is the voluntary organisations that are able to help, in a way not always possible for a Government department, in the personal day-to-day care of many mentally or physically handicapped people.

Voluntary organisations have an ‘individual touch’. They can deal with the person as a whole, helping with not one but perhaps four or five interlocking personal difficulties. And they can be so much more flexible in their approach. This personal interest is irreplaceable and this is why co-operation between the voluntary agencies and the Government is so vital. The Australian Government has the financial resources; the voluntary agencies have the grass roots understanding. By working together we have achieved much. This Bill opens the way for us to achieve more.

The provisions that are contained in this Bill constitute the Government’s considered program for an area of special need. It caters for physically and mentally handicapped children and adults most of whom require assistance by way of training, supervision, employment or accommodation if their lives are not to be wasted. It provides a balanced and integrated program that is intended to serve an area of social need bounded on one side by the program of the Australian Assistance Plan and on the other by the Hospitals and Health Services Commission. It will also be necessary to ensure that the assistance provided for handicapped children is coordinated with the activities of the Schools Commission.

All of the measures contained in this Bill deeply involve the community. But they are measures that the community wants and, indeed, in many cases has taken the initiative in supplying. It is a privilege to be able to join forces with these voluntary organisations and so make their efforts more effective.

We, in this Government, accept that a Government’s duty is not discharged simply by assisting handicapped people to live in comfort. We accept as a challenge the role of joining with community organisations to broaden the horizons of handicapped people, to promote their abilities in both occupational and recreational activities and, overall, to improve the range of their social opportunities. At a time and in a country where expectations of higher life styles are continually rising from a base of affluence and social improvement we want to ensure that the needs and aspirations of all Australians are met. I believe that some Australians whose legitimate claims on the social conscience of our community have been the highest have, in fact, been short changed.

The morality of the social contracts written by past governments for some of these groups has been very much open to question. All too often it has been a case of those with the most financial and political influence, the most access and the most highly developed sense of their own importance to our economic and social system receiving the most attention. On the other hand the modest, the humble and the handicapped have received only token attention. The exciting new provisions covered by this Bill provide a significant measure of the social progress we have made in the past 2 years. I believe the real measure of a civilised community to be the size of the gap between the meaningful aspirations and the opportunities to fulfil those aspirations available to all of its members. With this Bill our Government is aiming to reduce one of the gaps which has existed for far too long in Australia. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr McLeay) adjourned.

page 3443

DEFENCE FORCE RETIREMENT AND DEATH BENEFITS (PENSION INCREASES) BILL 1974

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

Second Reading

Mr BARNARD:
Minister for Defence · Bass · ALP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to increase certain pension benefits payable under the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948-1973 and the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973-1974. Honourable members may recall that when I introduced the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits (Pension Increases) Bill in May of last year I explained that the increases, which applied in respect of servicemen who contributed to the defence forces retirement benefits scheme, were an interim measure only. There were sound reasons for adopting that course. The Government’s aim is to ensure that in the matter of post-retirement pension adjustments, all its retired employees receive comparable treatment, irrespective of the differences that may exist in the benefits structures of the various schemes.

The 1973 interim adjustments of DFRB pensions were based on proposals to increase superannuation pensions payable to retired public servants, which are now incorporated in the Superannuation Act, and complied with that aim. There were, however, some difficulties in the way of applying the same adjustment method to pensioners under the new defence force retirement and death benefits scheme, the legislation for which was introduced at the same time as the pension increase Bill. It was decided therefore to defer the question of a permanent method for adjusting servicemen’s pensions under both schemes until all relevant aspects had been thoroughly examined.

I would have hoped by this time to have been in a position to announce details of the adjustment arrangements to apply in the future and have them incorporated in the principal Acts. The Government, however, has properly recognised the need to examine various other proposals that have been put to it in recent months for the annual adjustment of benefits arising from a person’s retirement and, more importantly, any effects their possible introduction may have in the future on the pension updating arrangements currently in force. These inquiries are not yet complete. This Bill provides, therefore, for further interim increases this year, which will be payable with effect from and including the pension pay day of 4 July 1974. Legislation will be introduced next year to provide for future permanent methods of adjustments. I should make it clear, however, that if any pensioner does not receive from this and last year’s interim adjustments the full benefits of the increase which the future permanent method would have provided for him during the period concerned, his pension payments will be adjusted retrospectively to the pension pay day of 4 July 1973.

The increases in both DFRB and DFRDB pensions as proposed by this Bill will be related to the 16.2 per cent increase in average weekly earnings during the 12 months ending 31 March 1974. In the case of DFRB pensioners, that is those who retired before 1 October, 1972, the amount of the increase is determined by applying that percentage to a notional Consolidated Revenue share of the total pension payable, which comprises the amount of the pension adjusted last year plus the amount of last year’s pension increase. In practical terms, the 16.2 per cent will be applied, in the great majority of cases, to almost 80 per cent of the total pension currently payable. For pensioners retired under the conditions of the new DFRDB scheme a notional Consolidated Revenue share of fivesevenths of the total pension payable is to be adjusted by 16.2 per cent except where retirement occurred within the 12 months preceding 1 July 1974, when the percentage will be proportionately reduced in relation to the number of months served during that year. Widows’ pensions and the ‘additional’ pension payable in respect of eligible children will be increased in proportion to the increase that would have applied to the deceased serviceman if he were still alive and drawing pension. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr McLeay) adjourned.

page 3444

ELECTORAL LAWS AMENDMENT BILL 1974

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

This Bill is designed to introduce several reforms of a fundamental nature to the Commonwealth Electoral Act and also to make a number of fairly minor amendments of a procedural nature. It also proposes consequential amendments of the Senate Elections Act 1903-1948, the Senate Elections Act 1966 and the Representation Act 1903-1973. Taken overall, these various proposals are intended to allow for, firstly, a speedier finalisation of federal election results; secondly, improved voting facilities for electors; thirdly, the introduction of some new or changed procedures; and, fourthly, the correction of some obvious defects in the existing electoral law. Australians can be justly proud of their electoral machinery. We have not suffered the electoral malpractices common in many other countries. However, Australian governments in the past have tended to become unduly complacent and sometimes have shirked the difficulties involved in any attempt to remedy defects in our electoral practices. This Bill amounts to one of the most comprehensive attempts ever made in this direction. The Bill is therefore far more substantial than that allowed to lapse in 1971 by the coalition government.

In this second reading speech, I will be paying particular attention to those provisions which the Government regards as being of major importance. Though reference will also be made to some of the less substantial amendments, such references, of necessity, will be brief. I shall therefore now summarise the matters dealt with in the Bill as a guide to the wide-ranging scope of the proposed amendments. These include: optional preferential marking of ballot-paper; printing of party affiliations of candidates on ballot-papers; registration of political parties for purposes of identification and printing of affiliations on ballot-papers; introduction of mobile polling booths at hospitals and similar institutions; drawing for positions of candidates on House of Representatives ballot-papers; closing of the polls at 6 p.m. rather than 8 p.m.; requiring a candidate changing his name within 12 months prior to nominations to declare the change, and providing for the former name to be included on the ballotpaper; prevention of persons enrolling or nominating for election under changed names in certain circumstances; an earlier deadline for the return of postal votes and for the return of postal votes direct to respective returning officers; restricting postal vote application forms to be used at an election or referendum to those specified by notice in the Gazette; prohibiting the listing of names of persons who apply for postal votes, except in certain specified circumstances; providing postal voting facilities for prisoners who have retained their franchise entitlements; increasing the amount of deposit required with nomination and varying the conditions under which deposits may be saved; preservation of the voting entitlement of Australian citizens posted overseas in the service of the Crown, and retention on the roll of the name of an elector temporarily absent from his address; precluding nomination for election to the Australian Parliament of a member of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory or the Australian Capital Territory; prevention of a person from nominating as a candidate for more than one Federal election held on the same day; protection of candidates against the issue of misleading how-to-vote cards; change in qualifications for enrolment, voting and candidature from ‘British subject’ to ‘status of a British subject’; eliminating the need to state the address of author in the case of broadcasting or telecasting of political matters; the manner of announcing the name of an author of political matter on radio or television; responsibility for publication of matter or comment of a political nature in the Press between issue of the writ and the close of the poll; removal of the restriction on exhibition of electoral posters within a hall or room being used for political party meetings; provision of support staff for Distribution Commissioners; authority for alterations to the roll when a street is renamed or renumbered; lowering the permissible age of presiding officers or assisting presiding officers to 18 years; appointment of substitute assistant returning officer at places outside Australia in certain circumstances; increases in penalties for failure to enrol; the provision of fines as an alternative to imprisonment where relevant; amounts of monetary penalties to match imprisonment terms; amendment of questions to be put to voters by presiding officers; conversion of distances to metric measurements; use of ‘given names’ in lieu of ‘Christian names’; candidates making gifts, donations, etc., prior to an election; retitling of the Act.

Several of the more significant proposals contained in this Bill are intended, either in whole or in part, to enable the final result of a Federal election to be known more speedily than has been possible hitherto. One such proposal relates to the introduction of optional preferential marking of ballot-papers, which will result in a speedier count for Senate elections in particular. However, this intended modification to the existing exhaustive preferential voting system is also aimed at allowing electors the maximum degree of choice in exercising their democratic voting rights.

Under the existing preferential system, each voter, irrespective of his individual wishes in the matter, is compelled to rank in order of preference all the candidates on the ballot paper, whether this requires the marking of only 2 squares or, as was the case in the most recent Senate election in New South Wales, not less than 73. This often means that an elector, in order to record a valid vote, is compelled to express a preference for candidates whom he may not know or for whom he has an extreme dislike. Faced with this meaningless, undemocratic requirement, many electors either intentionally or unintentionally disfranchise themselves by failing to correctly mark all necessary squares on the ballot paper. Furthermore, during the scrutiny process, the time needed to check the validity of Senate ballot papers in particular causes excessive delays in finalising the result.

The existing system of preferential voting has resulted in an average informal vote of about 10 per cent at normal Senate elections. Any voting system which leads to the disfranchisement of such a large number of electors should not be tolerated. It is therefore proposed to require an elector to mark his order of preference on the ballot paper only up to the number of candidates to be elected. However, and I cannot stress this point too strongly, an elector will retain the freedom to express a preference for as many additional candidates as he pleases. Supporters of one political party who wish to exchange preferences with the supporters of another will of course still be able to do so.

As members will appreciate, the present system involves intolerable delays in finalising the election results. To abate this situation, the Bill contains several amendments affecting postal voting, two of which merit some comment here. Firstly, it is proposed that an earlier deadline be fixed for the return of postal votes. Secondly, it is proposed that postal votes be returned direct to the relevant returning officer, by the elector or his agent, rather than through an assistant returning officer, some other returning officer or a presiding officer as allowed under the existing law. At present, a period of 10 days’ grace after polling day is allowed for the receipt of postal votes by the relevant returning officer, of votes posted direct to him. This practice presents many obstacles to any attempt to speed the count, especially for Senate elections. For instance, under the proportional representation system used for the Senate, the quota for an election cannot be determined, nor can the count commence, until the exact number of formal votes cast is known. At the recent Senate election, the precise number of formal votes was unknown until over 2 weeks after polling day. Therefore, not a single senator could be elected until about 3 weeks after polling day. While the proposed introduction of optional preferential marking of ballot papers will speed up the counting process, especially for the Senate, this advantage will be largely lost if it remains necessary to wait for postal votes for up to 10 days after polling day. It is therefore proposed that postal votes be returned so as to reach the appropriate returning officer not later than the close of the poll. As far as can be ascertained, no other country allows the admission of votes returned after polling day.

This proposed legislation also takes a significant step forward in making it easier for aged and ill persons to exercise their franchise by the introduction of mobile polling booths at hospitals, rest homes and similar institutions. This reform will, at the same time, serve to minimise the possibility of the aged and infirm being subjected to unscrupulous practices on the part of overzealous campaign workers. Current practice provides for the establishment of a polling booth at each hospital or similar institution containing SO or more beds, where suitable arrangements can be made with the appropriate authorities. However, these booths are confined to fixed locations and, in practice, serve only staff and ambulant patients. Thus, in order to vote, patients confined to bed must at present make an application for a postal vote prior to polling day. Under the proposed reform the presiding officer, by arrangement with the appropriate authority at a hospital, institution or rest home, will take the ballot box from bed to bed and ward to ward. Of course, scrutineers will still be permitted to accompany polling officials.

This Bill also makes provision for votes to be recorded at specially designated hospitals and institutions before polling day itself. Thus, the past practice of party workers invading such institutions for the apparent purpose of assisting postal voters should be largely eliminated. As the Government is particularly anxious, as I feel all honourable members are, to prevent unscrupulous persons taking advantage of aged or infirm electors, it is also proposed to prohibit the inspection of postal vote applications for the purpose of listing of names of persons who apply for postal votes at an election, except where such listing is genuinely required in connection with an inquiry into possible malpractices. The Bill contains a further provision designed to eliminate the possibility of postal voting malpractices. Under a proposed provision, the only postal vote application forms which may be used at an election will be those specified or declared to be applicable by the Chief Australian Electoral Officer.

This proposal is designed to curb the current dubious practice of having thousands of postal vote applications completed months in advance of the next ensuing election, then forwarding these to electors at or about the time of the issue of writs, without any precise knowledge as to whether the persons concerned are, in fact, entitled to vote by post.

Another reform contained in this Bill, which I believe will be welcomed by all electors, relates to the printing of party affiliations of candidates on ballot papers. This measure will greatly simplify the voting process for electors, especially for the recent arrivals to this country who do not know the party affiliations of many of the candidates. The Government anticipates that one of the beneficial results of the printing of such affiliations on ballot papers will be a reduction in the level of informal voting, particularly when added to the introduction of optional preferential voting. This reform will necessitate the registration of political parties and provision is made accordingly in the Bill. For the purpose of recognition as a political party under these amendments, it is proposed that a party must have candidates officially nominated for not less than one-fourth of the vacancies to be filled at the relevant election, except in the case of an election to fill a casual Senate vacancy or a by-election for the House of Representatives. In these cases, a party must have had candidates officially nominated at the immediately preceding Senate or House of Representatives election, in accordance with the formula specified.

Another long overdue reform contained in this Bill provides for the drawing for positions of candidates on the House of Representatives ballot paper. This will remove the advantage taken by certain candidates in the past of changing their names in order to get top position on the House of Representatives ballot papers. It is also proposed that persons be prevented from enrolling or nominating under changed names in certain specified circumstances. Cases occurred recently where persons have sought enrolment as ‘A’ (without any christian name), ‘XXX’ (without any christian name) and ‘White Australia’. In one case, a person successfully enrolled as ‘HBerrill (Surname) Stop Asian Immigration Now’ (other names) and was a candidate in that name at the recent Senate election.

Mr McLeay:

– It was a she.

Mr DALY:

– It was a she, and the only good thing about it is that she was not elected. The Senate is in enough trouble now.

In order to avoid further incidents of this kind, it is proposed to incorporate in the Act a provision which makes it clear that the adoption of such names, even though they may be adopted by taking formal steps under State law, will not necessarily be valid for electoral purposes. Under the provisions of the Bill a person may be nominated for election only in the name under which he is enrolled or, if he is not enrolled, in the name under which he is entitled to enrol.

I now turn to another important area awaiting reform, one which has been highlighted by the most recent elections. I refer to the amounts of deposit required to be lodged with nominations. It is proposed to increase these amounts to a level consistent with present monetary values, namely $250 for the House of Representatives and $1,000 for the Senate. Obviously, the fixing of fairly substantial deposits is required in order to keep to a reasonable level the increasing proliferation of candidates which has occurred over the past decade and which reached absurd levels in May 1974, particularly for the Senate. It is hoped that the new deposit requirements will keep this proliferation of candidates within reasonable proportions, without going so far as to deprive serious intending candidates of their legitimate democratic rights to present themselves for election to public office.

Let me now refer to one further proposal of some significance. It is the proposal to close the polls at 6 p.m. rather than 8 p.m. The earlier closing of the poll will permit an earlier indication on polling night of the possible result of an election and it will also ease the burden a little on the thousands of poll workers without, I believe, inconveniencing the electors. It is already the practice in Queensland to close the polls at 6 p.m. In order to prevent any possible misunderstanding, I must stress that people who, because of their religious beliefs, are precluded from voting during certain hours will retain the right to apply for postal votes.

This Bill also clarifies the circumstances under which an Australian citizen in the service of the Crown posted overseas may retain his right to vote at federal elections. Under the existing Act, a person loses his enrolment entitlement if he ceases to live in the subdivision for which he is enrolled. This Bill now proposes that where a person, who is qualified for enrolment, is living outside Australia as a result of a posting in the service of Australia, a State or other prescribed authority, he shall, if he has a fixed intention of living in a particular subdivision when he returns to Australia, be entitled to enrol on the roll for that subdivision, and will be enrolled in respect of his overseas address.

I now refer to another aspect of the Bill which requires some clarification. At present there is doubt as to whether or not a member of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory could, without resigning his position on that body, also stand for a seat in the Australian Parliament. The Government believes that there should be no uncertainty in this matter. Therefore, just as it has been considered appropriate in the past for a member of a State legislature to be ineligible to stand for election to the Australian Parliament, so the Government considers that it should be made quite clear that a member of the legislature of an internal Territory is likewise ineligible to nominate. Accordingly, this Bill provides that no person who is at the date of nomination, or was at any time within 14 days prior to the date of nomination, a member of the Legislative Assembly for the Northern Territory, or for the Australian Capital Territory, shall be eligible for nomination to the Australian Parliament.

Provision is also made in this Bill to prevent a person from becoming a candidate for two or more federal elections held on the same day. At the 1969 elections, a person stood as a candidate for the Senate election in South Australia, as well as for the House of Representatives in the Division of Hindmarsh. At least one cannot say he was not keen. Although no specific debarment is included in the existing law, it was surely never intended that a person should have the right to dual nomination and an appropriate provision is embodied in this Bill.

Some concern has been expressed in the past at the possibility of a candidate assuming the name of, say, a sitting member, primarily for the purpose of gaining some political advantage at an election and thereby causing confusion in the minds of electors. This Bill therefore makes provision so that any former name of a candidate specified in the nomination paper shall be printed on the ballot-paper, in addition to the name under which the candidate is actually nominated. This will not relate to a change of name by marriage.

Another provision in this Bill deals with gifts, donations and prizes by candidates to clubs or organisations within a specified period prior to polling day. Under the existing provisions it is an offence for a candidate to make a gift or donation to, say, a club within 3 months of polling day but he could be unwittingly in breach of the law by making a gift or donation at a time which subsequently turns out to be within 3 months of polling day. To meet this situation, it is proposed to give a candidate a defence against a prosecution if he proves that, at the time when he made the gift, donation, prize etc. he believed on reasonable grounds that the polling would not be within 3 months.

Two proposals concerning the appointment of Distribution Commissioners merit a brief reference. Firstly, given that it has not always been possible to obtain the services of the Surveyor-General of a State or an officer having similar qualifications for the purpose of redistributing a State, it is proposed to provide that one of the Commissioners shall be a registered surveyor, which will enable greater flexibility in the selection of a surveyor. Secondly, it is proposed that provision be made for the engagement of adequate staff to assist in the work of a distribution and that the fees and allowances paid to Distribution Commissioners and other such assisting staff shall, as is the practice now, be determined by the Minister.

It is also proposed that the provisions relating to enrolment and nomination be amended so that the wording ‘status of a British subject’ is substituted for the term ‘British subject’. The term ‘British subject’ is not denned in the existing Act, being governed by the provisions of the Australian Citizenship Act. Following amendments to that Act in 1969, the term ‘British subject’ is obsolete for these purposes, having been replaced by the wording ‘the status of a British subject’. While a section of the Australian Citizenship Act makes it clear that that Act applies to the Electoral Act, the continued use of the term ‘British subject’ in the Commonwealth Electoral Act would be inappropriate and potentially confusing.

The provisions in this Bill also revise and update many of the penalties, some of which have remained unchanged since Federation. There are a number of other provisions in this Bill which are mainly procedural in nature. Taken as a whole, these measures constitute a significant updating of the Electoral Act, and will ensure that the Act becomes an even more effective instrument of electoral administration. I seek leave of the House to incorporate in Hansard 6 tables which are relevant to the proposed amendments to the Electoral Act. I might mention that I have spoken to the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) about incorporating this material. The tables which I wish to have incorporated are:

Table I- Percentage of informal votes recorded at Senate elections 1949-1974.

Table II- Number of candidates in each State at Senate elections 1949-1974.

Table III- Number of deposits forfeited by candidates at Senate and House of Representatives elections 1 966- 1 974.

Table IV- Number of postal votes admitted to the scrutiny at the 1972 and 1974 House of Representatives elections.

Table V- Summary of votes for political parties showing the votes recorded, Seats won and percentages in respect of the Senate elections held on 18 May 1974.

Table VI- Summary of votes for political parties showing the votes recorded, seats won and percentages in respect of the House of Representatives elections held on 18 May 1974.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

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

Mr DALY:

– I thank the House. Before concluding I should mention that a further electoral Bill is currently being prepared and relates to the public disclosure of contributions to candidates of political parties, the imposition of limits on expenditure by parties and certain other matters. I hope to be in a position to introduce this further Bill during the current session. In the meantime I commend this Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr McLeay) adjourned.

page 3454

QUEENSLAND GRANT (CLARE WEIR)

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to authorise a grant of $3m to the Queensland Government towards the cost of constructing a weir on the Burdekin River near Clare in North Queensland. The Burdekin River basin, to the south and west of Townsville, is situated in the dry tropics of northern Queensland. It is the largest undeveloped river basin in Australia close to well developed infrastructure with an annual basin discharge estimated at 8.6 million megalitres (7 million acre feet). Only about 3.6 per cent of the total runoff is at present committed for industrial, urban and agricultural use.

Eungella Dam on the Broken River, with a storage capacity of 131,000 megalitres ( 106,000 acre feet) and Gorge and Blue Valley weirs on the Burdekin River with a combined storage of 12,600 megalitres ( 10,200 acre feet) are the only existing surface water storages in the basin and their assured yield is fully committed. In conjunction with unregulated flow in the Bowen and Burdekin river systems, the storages provide an annual water supply for irrigation in the lower Burdekin of 83,000 megalitres (67,500 acre feet) after allowance for supplies totalling 12,300 megalitres (10,000 acre feet) for Collinsville town and power station, Goonyella coal development and stock and domestic water supplies. In addition, provision of part of the unregulated flow in the Burdekin is required for delta aquifer recharge by the North and South Burdekin Water Boards to maintain sugar production in the Burdekin delta.

Associated with the vast and as yet relatively undeveloped water resource, is a flood plain of considerable potential for intensive agriculture. The basin possesses highly productive sugar, rice and beef cattle industries, numerous alternative storage sites on the Burdekin River and its tributaries and significant mineral deposits.

Rainfall is the major limitation to agricultural production in the area and supplementary irrigation would secure the efficient production of a large range of crops, thereby considerably enhancing the flexibility of the agricultural economy in the region. Sugar yields on the already established cane farms in the region are among the highest in the world, a long-grain rice industry has made good progress over recent years, and the potential for establishing a viable soybean industry has been demonstrated at the Millaroo Research Station under simulated commercial conditions. Other possible enterprises of economic significance are seed beans, horticulture, maize and cattle production.

The Federal-State Burdekin Project Committee, established in 1973 on the initiative of the Australian Government, is at present assessing the potential for development of resources of the basin for industrial, urban and agricultural development, for power generation and for flood mitigation. A request from the Queensland Government for financial assistance for the Urannah Dam-Clare Weir proposals was first made in 1971 and renewed to the present Government with a high order of priority. The Department of Northern Development, with assistance from State departments and the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, carried out a comprehensive appraisal of the proposal. The economic evaluation of Clare Weir and its associated development indicates a sound return to private and public investment on the basis of conservative assumptions on commodity prices, especially in relation to the current state of the international sugar and grains markets. No unfavourable environmental consequences are expected from the Clare Weir development and the project could bring considerable improvements in social infrastructural facilities in existing smaller centres.

The development which would be based on the availability of water from Urannah Dam is still subject to further investigations and will be considered when a final report becomes available. Although the main function of Clare Weir is, at a later stage, to regulate releases from a major storage on the Burdekin River system, it is large enough to make a significant contribution to the stability of flows in the lower Burdekin River. The Clare Weir site is located on the lower Burdekin River, 5 1 kilometres- 31.5 miles- from the river mouth and some 8 kilometres- 5 miles- upstream from Clare. The structure is designed to minimise siltation. It will be a concrete gravity weir founded on alluvium with an upstream concrete cut-off to bedrock. Collapsible steel shutters about 2 metres in height will be installed to provide the required storage of 15,500 megalitres- 12,600 acre feet-and to allow the passage of major floods in the river. In conjunction with unregulated flows, the weir would assure a supply of some 25,000 megalitres- 20,000 acre feet- for agricultural use on some 2000 and 3000 hectares-5000 to 7500 acres.

Clare Weir is estimated to cost $3.4m and the associated pumping, reticulation, drainage and other ancillary works $1.2m. Escalation over the construction period would probably bring the total cost to $5. 8m. Clare Weir represents the first significant step in a partnership with the State in the development of the Burdekin Basin. While the programme of studies in progress under the supervision of the Burdekin Project Committee might eventually indicate a range of development options to meet the needs of industry, agriculture, mining and so on, Clare Weir would be an essential regulatory component of any plan for using water released from a major storage on the river system for agriculture along the lower Burdekin or for reticulation to urban and industrial areas along the coast.

Clare Weir can, in fact, be rightly regarded as a pilot scheme for future development of the vast resources of the Burdekin Basin. The full development of the resources of the Burdekin Basin will be of a long-term nature with considerable national significance for industrial and regional development. It is now over 25 years since the first bold concept of a development plan for the Burdekin Basin was conceived and had the support of the Chifley Government. Clare Weir will now provide the first impetus from an Australian Government in this direction. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr McLeay) adjourned.

page 3455

QUEENSLAND GRANT (PROSERPINE

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to enable a grant of up to $120,000 to be made available to Queensland for the construction of urgently needed flood mitigation works on the Proserpine River. The grant is conditional upon matching expenditure being provided by the Queensland Government and the Proserpine River Improvement Trust on the basis of 40 per cent Federal, 40 per cent State and 20 per cent local authority contributions and is consistent with the Government’s overall approach to the problem of flood mitigation. Following the extensive and disastrous floods which occurred throughout Queensland earlier this year, the Australian Government offered to undertake investigations jointly with the Queensland Government for the preparation of a State-wide plan on flood mitigation. The Australian Government’s intention was that such a plan could form the basis of consideration for financial assistance.

The Queensland Government, in responding to this approach, indicated that one of the works which was considered most urgent involved a flood mitigation scheme for the Proserpine River. In the past, land-owners along the Proserpine River have constructed levee banks to protect their properties, but the capacity of the middle and lower reaches of the river are inadequate to contain even floods which are estimated to occur once every 3 years. The town of Proserpine and adjacent rural areas are therefore likely to be flooded relatively frequently and a scheme for diverting flood waters upstream of the town has been proposed. Detailed investigations of the complete scheme are still in progress and I have arranged for the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation to provide expert advice on the proposed scheme.

The floods of January 1974 created an urgent situation by damaging some levee banks and greatly eroding an existing natural floodwater ‘break-out’, with the result that flooding caused considerable damage to property and crops. This has created the need for urgent restoration of the damaged works before the next wet season to prevent further widespread damage from even a minor flood. The Australian Government has considered assistance for these restoration works as a matter or urgency to facilitate construction before the next wet season. The works are already in progress and include reinstatement of the damaged levee banks and the provision of better control at the floodwater ‘break-out’ at a total estimated cost of $300,000.

This Bill will enable the Australian Government to provide funds towards the cost of construction of these urgent works. The request for further Australian Government assistance for the complete flood mitigation scheme will be considered when the detailed investigations are completed. In keeping with the Australian

Government’s positive and constructive approach towards flood damage restoration and flood mitigation, financial assistance is warranted for this project. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr McLeay) adjourned.

page 3456

STATES GRANTS (UNIVERSITIES) BILL (No. 2) 1974

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

Second Reading

Mr BEAZLEY:
Minister for Education · Fremantle · ALP

– I move:

The primary purpose of this Bill is to make adjustments to the approved triennial programs of universities to take account of cost variations. It is intended to preserve the original triennial programs of the universities and to ensure that they are not prevented from completing these approved programs as a result of variations in costs. Provision has been made in the legislation for cost variations for both building and recurrent expenditures by universities. The Government intends to propose amendments to the principal Act during each Budget session to take account of variations in costs using indexes constructed by the Universities Commission. These indexes will be based on actual changes in costs arising from such things as movements in wages and salaries, costs of non-salary items and building construction costs.

Honourable members will recall that earlier in the session an amending Bill to the States Grants (Universities) Act 1972-1973 was enacted which included provision for grants for teaching and research in community practice, social work and in special education at a number of universities. The present Bill provides for similar grants to additional universities. In accordance with established practice, adjustments have been made to salaries payable to academic staff at universities arising from the national wage case decision in May 1974. New rates of salaries resulting from this judgment and which provide a basis for funding this part of university expenditures are incorporated in the principal Act by this Bill.

Because of the increasing volume of matters of detail before the Commission, especially in relation to building and equipment programs and the desirability of quick decisions on them, the Government has decided that there should be provision for a power of delegation from the

Commission to its full-time members to enable administrative procedures arising from the legislation to be expedited. The Bill provides for the necessary legislative authority for delegation of the Commission’s powers. The total additional cost to the Australian Government in providing for cost variations in the universities’ programs is approximately $51m. Earmarked funds for teaching and research in community practice and the other special activities which I have already mentioned are provided in addition to this amount to the extent of $940,000. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr McLeay) adjourned.

page 3456

STATES GRANTS (WATER RESOURCES ASSESSMENT) BILL 1974

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

Second Reading

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Minister for Health · Capricornia · ALP

– I move:

This Bill concerns the provision of grants to the States over the financial years 1974-75 and 1975-76 for the measurement of the quality of surface and underground water resources. Following a recommendation by the Australian Water Resources Council, the Australian Government and the State Governments in 1964 adopted an accelerated program of surface and underground water investigations designed to improve knowledge of the rate of flow, the quantity and changes in quantity of Australia’s water resources. This program has been most successful and is a good example of co-operation between the Australian Government and the various State Governments. It has now become apparent to the Water Resources Council that the present program would benefit greatly by the concurrent assessment of water quality. Thus, this Bill provides for an expansion in the program so as to include water quality assessment of both surface and underground water resources. The cost of such a program for each State was determined by that State. It is intended that the Australian Government’s contribution to water quality assessment be in the form of a grant on a dollar for dollar basis with the States, up to specified limits. Within this framework, the total amounts of Australian Government finance that would be available to the States is $446,305 for surface water quality assessment and $361,600 for underground water quality assessment. In making the contribution of $807,905 the Australian Government is confident that the States will meet their commitments to the water quality assessment program so that the objectives endorsed by the Water Resources Council may be achieved.

The proposed legislation does not, of course, cover the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory as it is expected that these will be provided for in appropriations for the Department of the Northern Territory and the Department of the Capital Territory respectively. It was originally intended that these grants would be available to the States prior to the commencement of the 1974-75 financial year. However, due to unforeseen delays brought about by the election in May 1 974, the Bill has been held over until now. Despite this, the Australian Government has decided to make available the full amount requested by the States for the remainder of this financial year.

I turn now to the Bill itself, which is in the form of amendments to the States Grants (Water Resources Measurement) Act 1973. Section 4 provides for an amendment to section 3 of the principal Act to set out the scope of the word Assessment’ so that it now includes water quality measurement in addition to water quantity measurement. The Bill also amends the machinery provisions of the principal Act by altering the provisions for the submission of progress reports. Thus, it can be seen that sections 8 ( 1) (b) and 8(l)(c) allow the States an extra month in which to submit their reports. This is considered necessary due to the increase in the number of State departments that will be involved in collecting the extra data and also the increase in the data itself. Provisions for increases in the grants of financial assistance related to State expenditure is provided for by sections 9 and 10 which amend Schedules 1 and 2 of the principal Act. These increases in grants have been allocated between the States on the basis of thenown proposed programs.

In order to implement a planned program in the water field for the conservation, development and proper management of Australia’s water resources it is essential that a national water quality assessment program be implemented in conjunction with the present water quantity measurement program to provide the necessary basic data. The program of water quality assessment which forms the basis for this Act and in which all Governments in Australia will be participating has been devised with this end in view. Such a program was in fact envisaged in the water policy statement that the Minister for

Environment and Conservation (Dr Cass) released on 10 October 1973. I now have pleasure in commending the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr McLeay) adjourned.

page 3457

RIVER MURRAY WATERS BILL 1974

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

Second Reading

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Minister for Health · Capricornia · ALP

-I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to correct some anomalies in connection with the conditions of employment of staff of the River Murray Commission. An almost identical Bill was passed by this House in March this year but lapsed when the double dissolution occurred before it was debated in the Senate. Because the River Murray Waters Act preceded the Officers’ Rights Declaration Act and the Superannuation Act, there have been problems in the application of those Acts to staff of the River Murray Commission. Furthermore, the Commission is not an agency of the Australian Government.

The proposed amendments will ensure that members of the Australian Government services will not be disadvantaged if they obtain employment with the River Murray Commission, and will enable staff recruited by the Commission from other sources, who are not covered by superannuation elsewhere, to be covered by the Superannuation Act 1922-1973. In addition, under the Remuneration Act 1973, salaries of statutory officers are now to be determined by that Tribunal. Section 6 in the River Murray Waters Act is being amended accordingly, although under present conditions no salaries are payable to the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner.

I would stress that this Bill deals with amendments to the River Murray Waters Act which refers only to the Australian Government, and does not affect the River Murray Waters Agreement in which the 3 River Murray States are also involved. In addition, I should mention that a good deal of thought is being given to much more extensive amendments to the River Murray administration, but these must be expected to take a good deal of time to develop, and in the meantime it is desired to correct existing anomalies in staff conditions. I have much pleasure in commending the Bill to the house.

Debate (on motion by Mr McLeay) adjourned.

page 3458

QUESTION

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE- REFERENCE OF WORKS

Malak Primary and Pre-school, Darwin

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

– I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969-1974, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for investigation and report: Construction of Malak primary and pre-school at Darwin.

The proposal is for the construction of a facility for 800 primary and 100 pre-school students to serve the subdivision area of Malak in Darwin. The school will have the following major elements of accommodation which are planned to achieve optimum functional relationships: Administrative, library/resources centre, learning areas, multi-purpose areas, pre-school. The building will be constructed of steel columns supporting steel rafters, with non-loadbearing external concrete block walls and coloured steel deck roofing. Lightweight internal partitions will be installed, and carpets and acoustic ceilings will be used to reduce the general noise level. The building will be air conditioned and fire protection systems will be installed. The building design utilises verandahs with wide roof overhangs to reduce glare and the load on the air conditioning system. The site will be landscaped. The estimated cost of the proposd work is $2. 8m at October 1974 prices. I table plans of the proposed work.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Central Hospital Service Complex, Australian Capital Territory

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

– I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969-1974, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for investigation and report: Construction of a proposed warehouse and workshop as stage 2 development of the central hospital service complex in the A.CT.

The proposal is stage 2 of the development proposed to supply eventually the support services needs in a central facility for all present and future hospitals and other health institutions in the Australian Capital Territory. The proposal involves construction of a warehouse, workshop and minor other facilities. Construction will consist of reinforced concrete floors with triangulated steel space frame roof structures, supported in the warehouse on reinforced concrete columns, and in the workshop on perimeter steel columns, external walls will be concrete blockwork, with metal framed windows, metal deck roofing, and metal fascias. Certain areas will be air conditioned with the main warehouse area heated. Reticulated systems such as compressed air, etc., will be provided to the workshop. Roads and car parks will be integrated with the stage 1 works, as will landscaping of the area around the stage 2 proposal. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $2.35m at July 1974 prices. I table plans for the proposed work.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3458

AIR NAVIGATION BILL 1974

Bill presented by Mr Charles Jones, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Transport · Newcastle · ALP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Frequently since attaining office this Government has drawn attention to the vast gulf between the cost of providing, operating and maintaining our aviation infrastructure, and the revenue received for the use of the various facilities. In 1973-74 the cost to provide, operate and maintain Australia’s airport and airways systems amounted to $ 1 40m. Only $75m or 54 per cent pf that amount was recovered. The Australian taxpayer, rather than the users, was called upon to meet the $65m deficit. This Government intends to increase substantially the rate of recovery from the users and, indeed, already has embarked on such a program.

There is absolutely no justification for continuing the heavy subsidy support of the general aviation industry which makes heavy demands on aviation facilities and on the funds to provide and maintain them. Special aerodromes for general aviation aircraft, Archerfield, Bankstown, Jandakot, Essendon, Moorabbin and Parafield, have been provided in all capital cities- by the taxpayer. Last year, these aerodromes alone cost $10m to operate and maintain. In addition, facilities have been provided at other aerodromes largely for general aviation aircraft, things like light aircraft aprons and taxiways, traffic control and flight service units, communications and fire units. Yet our total recovery from the general aviation industry including air navigation charges, commercial revenue and aviation fuel tax amounted to less than $4.5m, a recovery rate of only 44 per cent. The Government sees no reason why all sectors of the aviation industry should not pay their way at least to the extent of the 80 per cent recovery target set by the Government.

In 1960 the then Liberal-Country Party Government adopted a long term policy for ultimate full recovery of costs of air transport facilities provided by Government However, no target date for achieving the objective was set. This Government decided last year to set a target date and to accelerate the cost recovery program. It was then announced that an 80 per cent recovery rate was to be attained by 1978. In the first year following the announcement the recovery rate was increased from 49 per cent to 54 per cent. This was achieved, with the co-operation of industry, by both increasing revenue within the statutory limitations where they apply and by a more efficient allocation of resources through a vigorous pruning of costs wherever possible. By continuing to pursue this policy the Government will achieve a balanced, co-ordinated transport system. Resources will be properly allocated on the demonstrated needs of the community and a system will be developed in which each transport mode performs the role best suited to it. In this way the maximum benefit will accrue to the nation. While this policy caters for 80 per cent recovery of the costs attributable to the provision, operation and maintenance of the airport and airways systems attention has also been focused on the cost to the Government of providing the many other services for which no charge is made. Therefore, consistent with the cost recovery policy and also with the broader policy that the user should pay, the Government has recently decided to introduce fees and charges for a wide variety of other services provided to the aviation industry by the Air Transport Group of the Department of Transport.

The Air Navigation Bill 1974 enables the Air Navigation Act to be amended to provide authority for fees and charges to be imposed through the Air Navigation Regulations. The actual charges have not yet been determined but will be tabled in the Parliament as amendments to the Regulations before implementation. It is intended that they be introduced during the 1974-75 financial year and that full recovery of the cost of these services be attained within 3 years. The full commercial cost to the Department of providing the services is estimated at more than $6m for this financial year. The services for which fees and charges are to be imposed may be described generally as being for applications or examinations for the grant, issue, renewal or variation of licences, certificates, approvals, permits, registrations or exemptions under the Regulations. As would be expected this general description embraces various types of differing services which are too extensive to describe fully. This country has sustained an enviable air safety record over a long period. Much effort and financial resources have been expended by the Department to achieve this. For example, considerable effort has been directed to ensuring that proficiency is attained and maintained by both pilots and operators. It is now proposed to charge for services provided in the issue of flight crew and air service licences. Similarity, it is proposed to introduce charges for the many services provided in respect of airworthiness matters. These charges will include application fees for such services as the issue or variation of certificates of registration, the issue or renewal of certificates of airworthiness, the issue of certificates of type approval in respect of a type of aircraft or aircraft component.

Authorities intending to erect buildings on Government aerodromes are required to first obtain the Department’s approval to ensure that siting considerations are met and that the proposed building meets both structural and architectural standards. It is proposed that applicants for such approvals be required to pay a fee in a similar manner to the building permit fee imposed by local councils. In the case of aerodromes owned and operated by local authorities, private individuals or business undertakings, a licence is issued by the Department before the aerodrome can be made available for public use. The issue of the licence is preceded by consultation concerning the standard of aerodrome and inspection of the site to determine that the Department’s standards have been met in order to ensure that the aerodrome is suitable and safe for the proposed operations. It is proposed to charge for this service. It is intended, of course, to charge for many other services provided by the Department. The specific services mentioned are illustrative only. It is further intended that the full commercial cost of providing these services will be recovered.

Another significant effect of this Bill is to change the definition of ‘state aircraft’ and to make several related changes. The purpose of these changes is to enable civil aircraft registered in Australia which are being flown by members of the Defence Forces in the course of their duties to continue to be subject to the Air Navigation Regulations.

In recent years privately owned civil aircraft registered in Australia under the Air Navigation Regulations have been hired on a number of occasions by the Army, Navy and Royal Australian Air Force for relatively short periods.

These aircraft have been flown by members of the Defence Forces in the course of their duties for such purposes as flying training and surveys. In accordance with the Air Navigation Act 1920-1973 these aircraft are ‘state aircraft’ as defined and, except where the Act makes an express reference, are not subject to the Act. Difficulties have arisen, and would continue to arise, in such circumstances. Particular problems have involved maintenance, pilot licensing and investigation of accidents. For instance, the Defence Force has been expected to institute its own maintenance procedures for hired aircraft. Notwithstanding this, on the return of the aircraft to civil operations, its airworthiness could be in question due to the possible consequences of its time spent beyond the control of the Act and the Regulations.

Therefore, it is most desirable that the provisions of the Air Navigation Regulations should continue to apply to civil registered aircraft which are under the temporary control of the Defence Force by virtue of a contract of hire or charter and are being flown by members of the Defence Force in the course of their duties. On the other hand, honourable members may be assured, if an aircraft is hired or chartered by a part of the Defence Force for a lengthy period, or if for any special reason it is desirable that it should not be subject to the provisions of the Air Navigation Regulations while under hire or charter, the registration of the aircraft can be cancelled on the application of the owner. The aircraft will then be under the complete control of the service department concerned. The opportunity has also been taken to substitute, in the Air Navigation Act and the Airports (Surface Traffic) Act, references to ‘Director-General of Department of Civil Aviation’ by ‘Secretary to the Department of Transport’, and ‘the Commonwealth’ by ‘Australia’. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr McLeay) adjourned.

page 3460

STATES GRANTS (HOUSING ASSISTANCE) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 30 October, on motion by Mr Les Johnson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

- Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation? Before the debate is resumed on this Bill I would like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill and the Housing Agreement Bill 1974 as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest, therefore, that the House permit the subject matter of both Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:

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

Mr McLEAY:
Boothby

-The Opposition certainly agrees with the idea of considering these 2 Bills together. Let me say at the outset that the Opposition does not intend to oppose either of them. One Bill seeks to introduce certain amendments to the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement which was negotiated last year. We will support those amendments. The other Bill seeks to arrange for the transmission of funds to finance this Agreement. I think that at least one State- probably more than one State- has already passed complementary legislation. For this reason the Opposition agrees that it is important that these Bills be passed as quickly as possible. The fact that amendments are now necessary, so soon after the original agreement was negotiated, supports the views which we have expressed and which the various State Housing Ministers have expressed that the 1973 Agreement was no improvement on earlier agreements. In fact, it was generally accepted on our side of the House that it was a retrograde step. Under the 1945 original agreement- and those operating while we were in government- the concessional rate of interest was related to the long-term bond rate. In operation the interest charge under the 1945 agreement was pegged at 3 per cent although the long-term bond rate rose from 3V4 per cent in 1945 to 5 per cent in 1956. The concessional rate while we were in governmentto be fair I will say ‘with minor exceptions’was always maintained at 1 per cent below the long-term bond rate. I believe that the concessional gap which exists today of 4 per cent and even 5 per cent is grossly out of balance.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Was it too big?

Mr McLEAY:

-Too big. In the 1973 agreement this tie with the long-term bond rate was abandoned. Advances to the State Housing Authorities and to the home builders accounts from which loans are made to co-operative building societies and, in the State of South Australia, State banks, were fixed at 4 per cent and 4Vi per cent respectively. It is now becoming obvious to anyone with half a brain that with a rising long-term bond rate the pegged concessional rate of interest is producing serious inequities and the benefits of those obtaining welfare housing compared to the rest of the community, especially including those without any house at all, are staggering.

I would interpose here the point that the Government proposes to abolish totally the home savings grant. I received a letter from the Minister for Housing (Mr Les Johnson) just a few days ago which also confirms that the Government has no intention of lifting the limit on house value above $22,500. 1 thank the Minister for the letter because it clears up a point which has been of some concern to people in the community. At the same time I make the point that when that legislation has gone there is nothing to assist a person without a home to obtain a home. Not if, but when, we return to government in the near future we are committed to reintroducing the home savings scheme. We will clean it up and improve it. We do not deny that it can be improved.

One of the worst features of this Government’s behaviour- and to this extent I say that the Minister is also slightly guilty- has been its treatment of the States and the way in which it has managed to circumvent the Australian Constitution and thereby impose its socialist and centralist ideology upon the Australian people. The Government has made no statement about its constitutional authority to purchase the land at Glebe. Nor has there been an official pronouncement about the proposed acquisition of the Leyland land for the simple reason, I suspect, that the Commonwealth Government has no constitutional power to purchase either of those pieces of land. I realise that this is not strictly within the area of the Minister. However, it is of considerable interest to us and, I am sure, to the Australian people.

I draw the attention of the Minister to a question placed on notice on 12 November concerning in particular the Glebe land. I hope that we will at least get an answer in the near future about the letting policy of the Government in relation to this land. I also draw the attention of the Minister to the suggestion in the local newspaper that people living in that area are in fact being moved out.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Glebe land is the subject of legislation which is quite separate from the Bills before the House. For that matter, the honourable gentlemen is raising an objection now which was not raised by the Opposition when those

Bills were before the House. In fact, they were supported by the Opposition.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:

-The point of order is upheld. I ask the honourable member to confine his remarks to the ambit of the Bill.

Mr McLEAY:

– I simply make the point that in that instance the Government bought the land without constitutional authority and that it is now advertising for people to be employed at a very high salary to run, maintain and manage the land. I also make the point that there is some problem with rentals. I do this by way of passing reference and I hope that the Minister will do something about it.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The ability to buy land was mentioned in the second reading speech on the Bill.

Mr McLEAY:

– I do not want to labour the point. I make only a passing reference because there is no other opportunity to make the point. We believe that the Australian Government is taking these actions without the constitutional authority to do so. The present Government should realise that the State governments are also elected by people, the same people who elect the Federal Government. As recent State and other elections have certainly indicated, the Australian people have a different idea of the mandate given to the Government from the idea which the Government has. We believe that the Government has no mandate to circumvent the Australian Constitution. The failure of recent referenda makes the Australian people’s view quite clear in relation to attempts to upset the Constitution.

Coming back to the Bill, the first proposed amendment, which is to clause 9, restores to the States the right to allocate more than what we believe was a restrictive 30 per cent of the loan funds to building institutions authorised to finance home building. This clause was strenuously opposed by the State Ministers when it was first advocated by the Federal Minister. Having read the transcripts of the proceedings of the various conferences between the Housing Ministers, it is fair to say that the Federal Minister adopted a take it or leave it attitude from which he has now had to retreat. To insist on this amendment in the first place makes nonsense of the Government’s assertion that it supports the principle of home ownership.

The second proposed amendment concerns the imposition of a needs test upon persons seeking dwellings from State housing commissions or housing trusts. In the 1973 Agreement, which the

Minister forced upon the States last year, an applicant’s overtime was included in his income for the purpose of determining his eligibility for a commission dwelling or for a loan from the Home Builders Account. Victoria was the only State with a formal needs test. But, as each State Minister pointed out in the 1973 discussions, the States themselves, without exception, applied a needs or a means test hi the allocation of these dwellings or these funds. Although not formal, the guidelines were clear enough, and overtime was never included in the applicant’s income. The Minister on that occasion once again maintained his take it or leave it attitude and now he has had to admit that the States knew more about it than he did. As a result overtime will no longer be included.

I refer briefly to the unfortunate incident involving the Victorian Housing Minister. He was so disgusted with the treatment that the State Ministers were getting that he actually left the conference. Unlike the Government, we believe in co-operation with Ministers, not confrontation.

Mr Scholes:

– That is not true.

Mr McLEAY:

– I am not sure what the interjection is.

Mr Scholes:

– I am just telling you that it is not true that he left the conference other than to catch a plane.

Mr McLEAY:

-I rather doubt that the honourable member is sitting in his place. Therefore I will not respond. I refer to an article in the ‘Age’ newspaper of 12 October. No one knows better than the Minister how to get reports in the newspapers these days. The article to which I refer makes reference to Mr Dickie’s three weeks ‘running battle’ with Mr Johnson- although I would think that it has probably been longer than 3 weeks- over a means test for low income earners, which is exactly what we are talking about- government housing for low income earners. Mr Dickie wanted the limits reviewed immediately and, according to this report, Mr Johnson wanted to wait until early next year, and Mr Dickie walked out of the talks.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That is quite nonsensical.

Mr McLEAY:

– Is the Minister saying that that is not true?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is quite nonsensical, without any foundation of fact.

Mr McLEAY:

– Somehow or other the ‘Age’ has got a wrong report. But certainly Mr Dickie, the Housing Minister in Victoria was very upset and he said: ‘I will make the decisions now and they can try to buck me if they like. I am fed up with Canberra’. This means that he is fed up with the treatment that the Federal Minister has been handing out to him.

The third proposed amendment alters the Agreement to make it possible for supplementary advances to be negotiated during a financial year. This suggestion, as the Minister will well remember, was also made by the State Ministers and was also turned down flat by him. Once again he has presumably seen the error of his ways and has had to change his aggressive stance and amend the Agreement. However, with some of his typically quick footwork, he has been able to predict the change and make it look as though it came about by his own initiative. I must say that I do admire the way in which the Minister has done that. He is able to announce all the bad news in the world about housing and cloak it with a good news appearance and have it so reported. I hope that when we are in government we have the same sort of success. I have never known a Housing Minister who has announced so much bad news, especially for Australian home seekers, has dressed it up as good news and, what is more, has had it reported by the media as good news.

The Opposition does not oppose the legislation. We feel that the States have been bludgeoned into accepting it. I think the Victorian Minister used similar words only a few days ago, which confirms this point of view. The States have been bludgeoned into its acceptance because of the concessional rate of interest. As I said earlier, some of the States- certainly Western Australia- have already passed complementary legislation. I believe that the principle of granting concessional rates of interest is not a good principle. It may well create grave problems in the future. One might well ask how long it will be before there will be a conference of some other groups of Ministers- perhaps Health Ministers- who will be called together to establish some similar agreement which will similarly excise a portion of public spending at concessional rates of interest.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Do you think that the interest rate is too low?

Mr McLEAY:

– I will come to that in a moment. I appreciate the interjection because I want to deal with interest rates separately. What I am saying now is that if groups of Ministers are going to get together and arrange between them an agreement at concessional rates of interest, and if part of the agreement is that powers will be surrendered to the Federal Minister in Canberra, I can see dangers. I believe that this Agreement has also created serious social problems because of its discriminatory effect upon those persons in the community unfortunate enough to have to pay the market rate of interest, which may be perhaps 11% per cent or 12 per cent It seems to me to be totally unfair that the action of this Government has forced the majority of home buyers and home builders to pay 4 per cent or 5 per cent more in interest than the select few who will be able to purchase a home as a result of this so-called welfare housing agreement. The Australian Labor Party went to the people on a range of policies. I think it is fanenough to say, after last night’s performance, that those policies are now totally discredited and rejected by a helpless Australian community. The Labor Party ‘s housing policy states: … the integration of all housing policies with urban, regional and social welfare policies in such a way to ensure that every family can secure accommodation of its own choosing appropriate to its own needs.

That is what the Labor Party says about housing. I would like the Minister for Housing to tell us how his Government relates those pious words to the application of a means test to a housing commission or, as it is in South Australia, housing trust tenant who subsequently desires to purchase his home. The means test described in the Agreement will apply not only at the time of the allocation of a house, whether on a rental or home ownership basis, but also to a tenant who desires to purchase subsequently. Consequently a tenant who has an eligible income when he is allotted a house, whose income increases subsequently beyond the means test and who then feels that he can undertake ownership will be debarred from acquiring the home in which he has been and probably still is living and to which he has no doubt made substantial improvements in the way of planting lawns and shrubs and building concrete paths. How does the Minister relate that to the Government’s housing policy, which claims to ensure that every family can secure accommodation of its own choosing that is appropriate to its own needs? When he sums up perhaps the Minister might be able to deal with that one.

We believe that the philosophy of the Labor Party is crystal clear, that is, that the worker will live in publicly owned housing, that home ownership creates little capitalists and must be discouraged and that the worker will remain beholden to the Government, which, like Big Brother will provide everything from the cradle to the grave. We should recall the many statements which have been made by the Minister to the effect that the States will be given all the money that they can spend to house low to moderate income families. Each of the State Ministers prepared detailed and I should think well supported cases for additional funds which could be put to use immediately to assist not only to overcome the housing shortage, which I think even the Minister will agree is chronic in Australia today, but also the building industry to recover from the depressing effects that the present Government’s economic policies have created.

The Minister has talked about an open cheque for the States. Just 6 or 8 weeks ago he was talking about a bottomless pit. In one of the delightful Press releases which the Minister for Housing churns out daily and which are frequently picked up by the Press he talked about a bottomless pit of funds for housing. He said that he had told the State Ministers that he will give them all the money they can use to build more homes for the lower income earners. I am sure that he will nod his head in agreement with that. He also talked about an open cheque for the States. But, like so many of the Government’s extravagant promises, the performance has not matched the words. That cheque had already been crossed and marked ‘not negotiable’ and ‘account payee only’ long before the Minister met with his State counterparts last month. The Minister for Housing will remember the concern of his counterpart from the State of New South Wales, which received $50m less than the amount which it had asked for and which it had assured him it could spend. As the President of the Association of Cooperative Building Societies of New South Wales said at a housing conference only about 3 weeks ago- on 20 October to be precise- the people most affected by the Government’s policies have been the low income earners, who are the people the Association had been designed to serve. I make the point that they are the people who the Federal Government- I believe falsely- also claims to represent.

There are a couple of points I would like to put to the Minister or to the House on the question of low incomes. Perhaps I should put them in the form of questions. In this regard I think that we all suffer the same sort of problem. What is a low income earner? How many people are earning less than the average wage? The position is that no one knows. There is no statistical information available which tells us how many people in this country earn how much money. The figures which are supplied by the Australian Bureau of

Statistics from the Taxation Office are always 2 years old and are quite irrelevant. I put it to the Minister, without trying to score any political points from him, that this area of the activities of the Bureau of Statistics should be, to use an expression, jazzed up. No matter which party is in Government it cannot make a proper assessment if it does not know how many people it is catering for. Let us think in terms of a rough graph on which the peak is the average weekly wage. We do not know how many of the people on the left of it go down to, say, $70 or $80 a week and we do not know how many people are on the longer, tapering out line on the right which goes up to $2 10 a week.

I have mentioned those figures deliberately. The way in which the legislation is dratted people on 95 per cent of the average national weekly wage will receive this low interest money. But we do not know how many there are. We do know that they will get this money at an interest rate of 5% per cent. If a person is on $ 120 a week or, in the case of South Australia, $1 10 a weekbeing a South Australian you will appreciate this point, Mr Deputy Speaker- and has been for the last 6 months he can borrow at 53A per cent interest but if he is on $ 1 2 1 a week in the case of the national figure, or $ 1 1 1 a week in the case of the South Australian figure, he will be lucky if he can borrow anything but if he can he could have to borrow at all sorts of rates of interest including up to 12 per cent from a building society. So I ask the Minister to take this matter up with the Special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen), who, I believe, now administers the Bureau of Statistics.

I do not believe that this arbitrary cut-off figure is fair in any way whatsoever. The Government makes a great deal of political capital out of the fact that it is supplying finance to low income earners, but I suggest that not very many of the people in the community who are earning $110 a week in the case of South Australia or $120 in the case of the national figure will be able to take advantage of this low interest money because they still have to overcome the deposit gap. I would like the Minister to tell me whether it is possible to buy a house anywhere in Sydney for $20,000. Is it possible? It is certainly not possible in most of the places to which I have been. If one can buy a house for $20,000 and one can borrow the money at the rate of 5% per cent interest one has still to overcome the deposit gap of $5000. Of course, it is more likely to be $8,000 or $10,000. I do not know whether the Minister is interested in this problem, but it seems to me to be the nub of the issue of the Government’s making money available to low income families. It is no good making it available if they cannot use it.

Another problem which is related to this matter and which affects not only people on low incomes but also people on all sorts of incomes is the cost of building. I do not think that the Minister is going to make any effort to acknowledge my comments at this moment because he is at present conducting an animated conversation, although presumably he is interested in the matters in which I am interested. I have had a question on notice since, I think, 7 July about the cost of housing. I cannot understand why the Minister does not answer it, although I could hazard a guess. Perhaps he will give some sort of indication by way of nodding his head. Taking the cost of housing as revealed by the consumer price index figures, it does appear as though the cost of building a modest dwelling for about $20,000 is escalating faster than the national average wage. While the cost of housing is going up at this rate and the deposit gap is widening how can the people he claims to be helping with low interest money get any advantage? The Minister does not seem to be interested in answering that question either. At some stage I should like the Minister also to indicate what he believes will be the shortfall of houses because Opposition members believe that at this moment the shortfall is at least 50,000 and by this time next year could be as high as 150,000 or 160,000, which represents one year’s supply of dwelling units throughout Australia.

I feel sorry for the Minister that in the short time he has held this portfolio he has presided over the destruction of the building industry and has adversely affected the possibility of people ever achieving home ownership. This will not be a pleasant label for him to have to wear for the rest of his life in Opposition. The Minister asked me to give him the benefit of the Opposition’s views on the question of interest rates. I have already told him that I do not believe that concessional rates are a good thing in the long term, but there is really a jungle in the interest rate situation in Australia today. I do not know how any young person or any person about to buy a home can manage. People do not know where to go to seek information or just what to do. One of our policy initiatives in government will be to set up a housing guidance bureau.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– That is a good idea. It shows great imagination.

Mr McLEAY:

– I appreciate the interjection because this policy proposal for a housing guidance bureau was the brain child of my colleague from the Lilley electorate in Queensland. When we are returned to government we will see that its establishment becomes a fact. However, let us examine the variations in interest rates. The Minister has provided a concessional interest rate of 5% per cent. In South Australia even if people are able to bridge the deposit gap- I suggest that not many can these days- there is an 8-months delay for a new home and a 2 -years delay for a lived-in home at the concessional rate of 5% per cent. The next interest rate is 6% per cent which is that which applies to loans to qualified people from the terminating building societies and the Savings Bank of South Australia and the State Bank of South Australia. This relates to people who have an income in excess of $109.50. 1 cannot think of any more effective way to make all Australians equal than the way in which this Government has messed up interest rates. As I said, 6% per cent is the rate from those banks in South Australia for people who are above the 95 per cent income figure. I should imagine this rate applies to terminating societies throughout Australia. A person in South Australia who wishes to negotiate a loan goes to a bank. His gross income is assessed. The bank takes into account the amounts involved in his first and second mortgage repayments, his hire purchase commitments and his rates and taxes, which are escalating at an inconceivable rate under the Dunstan Government. If, after these amounts are deducted, the person has a surplus of $55 a week he can negotiate a loan of $15,000 which, I believe, is to be increased to $17,500. But that person still has to raise sufficient bridging finance to meet the deposit.

With private banks interest rates are from 10 per cent to 1 1 Vi per cent according to the value of a property. For lower priced properties one can negotiate loans at lower rates of interest. If a person lives on the property he is entitled to a lower rate of interest. I have already mentioned rates of 5% per cent, 6% per cent, 10 per cent and 11V4 per cent. This is not a bad splash of different interest rates. The most favoured rate with the Commonwealth Bank is 9Vi per cent. The poor old permanent co-operative societies provide loans at 11% and 12 per cent. The last time I checked, bridging finance- if you can get itcommanded an interest rate of 19Vi per cent. The interest structure is an absolute maze. This Government will cause more and more trouble for itself by messing about with the interest structure and by messing about also with concessional rates of interest which I do not believe should ever apply in the housing industry. The Government is talking of injecting more money into the banks but we do not know how this is to be done. Probably the Minister does not know yet and I doubt whether the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) knows. How is money injected into the banks? Will the banks get it from the Reserve Bank? If so, what will be the rate of interest? I am referring now to the Prime Minister’s statement of last night.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– We will introduce legislation.

Mr McLEAY:

– Yes, and I am prepared to bet the Minister dollars to doughnuts that it will be at a concessional rate of interest- at yet another rate of interest to add to the rates I have already listed. Perhaps the Minister is not yet in a position to say what that rate will be but until we can get away from this proliferation of interest rates I think the future for home builders and home seekers will be bleak. We do not oppose the amendments; we support the legislation.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

-I listened with interest to the previous speaker, the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay). It is a pity that over and over again members of the Opposition concentrate an attack on creating division and divisiveness and in trying to present a picture of continual acrimony and bitterness between various levels of government. This is something on which their ideology is based- a class society. They cannot accept that government within Australia and the management of our nation are matters in which all Australians should participate and in respect of which there should be a common objective. The bitterness of having been defeated in 1972 and again a few months ago has not been digested by members opposite. They do Australia and the people of Australia a great disservice by continually presenting a picture of bitterness and of almost hatred. One can almost sense in their words at times the hatred they have developed towards Canberra. They forget that most of what happens in Canberra was developed, enlarged and expanded upon in policies laid down during their 23 years of administration. It seems almost a betrayal of their own actions to continue along on that course.

The honourable member for Boothby spoke about the establishment of the housing advisory bureau. The Department of Housing and Construction is establishing a housing advisory service, the details of which have already been circulated to State Ministers for Housing for their comments. Mention was made also of the amounts allocated to the States. The amounts allocated are on the basis that the Australian Government is prepared to consider granting additional finance if the States can show that they have the capacity to construct more houses and if the state of the building industry will permit it. As recently as yesterday we heard the announcement of an additional $8m for the Queensland Government, so let us forget the idea that there is a fixed amount. If it can be shown that the building industry in a State has the capacity to construct homes and the housing commission is able to utilise funds, additional funds will be available.

The honourable member for Boothby made another misrepresentation when he referred to the Victorian Minister for Housing, Mr Dickie. If I recall correctly, he said that Mr Dickie could not get a hearing from the Federal Government and walked out of the Housing Ministers’ Conference on 1 1 October. That was a direct misrepresentation. The facts are these:

Mr Dickie said to the conference:

Unfortunately, I have to catch a plane at 2.20. There are 2 items on the agenda- the Australian Housing Corporation and the Australian Housing Research Council. Will they take more than a quarter of an hour or 20 minutes to discuss?

The Australian Minister for Housing, Mr Les Johnson, said:

It is up to the meeting. I cannot measure the time.

There was another speaker, Mr Lowe. Then the Australian Minister for Housing said:

I have a lead-in statement here. I would be very happy to make a copy of it available to Mr Dickie since he is leaving early. I intend to read it as an open to that agenda item. The position is that there is a motion before the meeting and it has been carried, If that would suit your purpose, Mr Dickie, it would serve to inform you to the extent that most people seek to be informed.

The conference then adjourned for lunch. I think that quite clearly shows what actually took place. The honourable member for Boothby sought to show that there was acrimony at that meeting and that a State Minister who was present was not able to gain a hearing. As I have said, the facts show that the opposite was the case. The Minister was given an opportunity. He had to leave to catch an aircraft. The remarks of the honourable member are completely untrue.

This Bill involves advances by the Australian Government of $3 10m for welfare housing in 1974-75, almost double the amount spent by the States in the last year of the Liberal-Country Party Government. Not only is the amount of money advanced generous. The terms on which it is made available are also extremely generous.

The advances made are repayable over 53 years. The rate of interest charged is fixed at 4 per cent per annum for advances to the State housing authorities and 416 per cent per annum in respect of advances allocated to the Home Builders Account. This compares with the rate previously charged- 1 per cent below the bond rate- which was charged under previous agreements.

One can only imagine the plight of the State housing authorities and of those whom they accommodate if this highly concessional interest rate had not been written into the agreement. I realise that honourable members opposite claim that the current high level of the bond rate would not apply if they had still been in government. But the fact of the matter is that interest rates did rise under previous Liberal-Country Party governments and there is no doubt that in the face of world wide inflationary pressures they would have risen to higher levels if the Liberals had still been in government.

Mr Corbett:

– What did they rise to under the former Government?

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– They fell also.

Mr MORRIS:

-You fell. It is also a fact that the unprecedented boom conditions which forced the Government to take restraining action were the result of the unplanned explosion in the money supply which took place in the dying days of that Liberal-Country Party Government in 1972. In a desperate effort to stay in office the previous Government allowed the money supply to increase by an alarming 17 per cent in the last half of 1972. This compared with annual increases of between 6 per cent and 8 per cent in previous years. In these circumstances it is little wonder that the building industry was awash with funds. The value of loans by banks, building societies and life offices almost trebled in the 2 years, from $1250m in 1970-71 to $2,987m in 1972-73. Yet in face of this staggering increase no attempt was made by the previous Government to increase the supply of labour or materials. No attempt was made to encourage young men to enter the building industry. Certainly the generous inducements to apprenticeships which this Government has made were never contemplated by our predecessors. The results of this absence of planning were greatly lengthening construction times, skyrocketing land costs and unprecedented price rises for building materials. In the field of welfare housing, the result was that part of the record amounts made available by this government were left unspent. Over $25m was unspent because State Housing authorities could not attract tenderers in a highly strained industry. If this Government had not taken responsible action, if it had not introduced restraints, there would have been little hope of stepping up activities in the welfare housing area and as well most homeseekers in the private housing market would have been permanently excluded by rising costs from ever purchasing their own home.

The need for restraining action was fully realised by the then honourable member for Wentworth, Mr Leslie Bury, who spoke in this House last year on the housing agreement bill. He is reported in Hansard of 1 May at page IS 1 1 in this way:

If the Government does nothing at all to restrain the development of the building sector the inflationary problem will become worse and worse.

He went on to say :

The pressure has to be eased. Someone has to take the unpopular role of reducing the pressure on the building industry .. . the present rate of expansion which is quite unsuitable will build up pressures more and more. I hope the Minister for Housing will play his part to make sure that this industry- as important as it is- will keep on a very even keel.

Of course this advocacy of restraint has been forgotten by those opposite. It is alien to their political nature to advocate responsible action.

There are some other comments made by the former member for Wentworth in that debate which are worth drawing to mind. They relate to the emphasis which the 1973 Housing Agreement gave to the building up of a stock of rental accommodation for those sections of the community unable to afford their own homes. I know that this concept is repugnant to the Liberal and Country Parties. I know that they believe that those who cannot afford to buy a house of their own should not be assisted with low cost rental housing. We heard the honourable member for Boothby emphasising this when he talked about concessional rates of interest for home building. I know that they use our concern for the plight of these people falsely to assert that in some way we are opposed to home ownership. It is worth recalling therefore the comments made by their former Treasurer and Minister for Housing, the honourable member for Wentworth, Mr Bury, who stated, on 1 May 1 973 in this chamber:

There are some features of the Bill which I would like to mention and to commend on the whole. One of the obvious shortages in Australia is housing for rental. We have probably reached the stage where home ownership has been relatively over-done. We now have an increasingly mobile population which needs to shift from place to place and not to undertake long term commitments like buying a house. These people need to rent houses and to be able to move quickly from one place to another and from one job to another. This is a requirement which is most acutely felt amongst the lower income groups. I do not believe that the housing commissions run by the States, which diner very much between themselves, have given proper recognition to the basic problem. That is more rental accommodation, particularly housing, for the lower income group. Unfortunately, housing for rental has declined for a number of reasons, one of which is the construction activities of State housing commissions. These vary from State to State.

He went on to say:

The housing commissions are so wrapped up in construction that this is what they want to do above all. It is their policy. The advice which the commissioners give to their Ministers is to obtain as much money from the Commonwealth as possible and then to sell as many homes as they can so that they get the money back and fill up their coffers. Then they can turn over their investment and build still more houses and sell them. They are overdoing it. Money for housing which is provided by the Government should be for social purposes. It should be used to improve the lot of the lower income people who cannot afford housing. This diversion of housing commission resources into building for sale has absorbed altogether too much of their total resources. Every house which the housing commissions build and merely rent freezes their funds for a long time and they do not get the joy and privilege of building still more houses and building up their functions. This advice is continually poured into the ears of the housing commissioners, some of whom are unsuspecting and new to the job.

I believe that public moneys for housing have been in some degrees misapplied. For instance, many houses sold by the State housing commissions have worked out as a nice little capital gains for their purchasers. There is a great contrast between the automobiles and the other exhibits of wealth which surround many housing commission homes and the incomes of those within them. In this field I believe that the Minister is right in tilting the housing commission operations much more towards the provision of rental accommodation which is what Australia badly needs overall.

Those comments were made not by a member of the Government but by a then member of the Opposition who was a former Minister for Housing in the Liberal-Country Party Administration and a former Treasurer of that Government. He made those only 17 months ago. We on this side of the House are proud of the emphasis the 1973 Agreement gives to rental accommodation and the Government’s commitment to assisting home ownership is also underlined by the amendments which this Bill will make.

The amendment which this Bill makes to clause 9 of the Agreement will permit the allocation to a State’s Home Builders Account of more than 30 per cent of the total advance to that State. This 30 per cent nexus had the effect last year of preventing the allocation of additional funds for private home purchase by needy persons at a time when housing authorities were unable to let contracts for dwelling construction in the numbers hoped for because of excessive demands on the building industry. This latest amendment to the legislation has been agreed to by all State Ministers and is a sensible approach to take. Again, this is in contrast to the picture which the previous speaker tried to conjure up of acrimony and argument between the Australian

Minister for Housing and the respective State Ministers. I repeat that the latest amendment to the legislation has been agreed to by all State Ministers as a sensible and responsible approach to take. It is a pity that the Liberal-Country Party members of the State parliaments cannot pass over to their opposites in this place some of the capacity to have dialogue with the Australian Government.

I also applaud the exclusion of overtime from a person’s income in determining his eligibility for a Home Builders Account loan, which has been made in response to representations from the co-operative terminating society movement. I also welcome the undertaking given by the Minister, and agreed to by all Housing Ministers at their meeting on 1 1 October to look at a new formula to establish eligibility within the means test under the agreement. As honourable members will know, the percentage of average weekly earnings used under the agreement is based on the December quarter figures- traditionally the highest for the year. In an inflationary situation v however this is no longer necessarily the case. As a result it is possible that a person who qualifies in the December quarter, might lose his eligibility during the year but become eligible again in the next December quarter. By establishing a new basis the obvious difficulties caused for some people will be overcome.

I also want to congratulate the Government on the significant moves taken to reverse the very recent decline in building industry activity. These include the measures taken in the Budget, the easing of monetary policy, devaluation, easing of overseas capital inflows, increasing the proportion of savings bank deposits lent for housing, increased funds through the CommonwealthState Housing Agreement and last night’s injection of $ 1 SOm to the savings bank system. One of the significant differences between this Government and our predecessors is that when the building industry was in a downturn the LiberalCountry Party Government at the time let it fight its own way out of trouble, whereas this Government stands by ready to take strong and effective re-stimulatory measures quickly. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I wish to speak only briefly on this BUI. There are a number of points that I desire to make. I think that the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay) has to be congratulated on the characteristically succinct and clear manner in which he stated the Opposition’s point of view on this Bill. Of course, he has put forward a policy which contains sound and simple commonsense and which any government ought to follow if it had any commonsense.

A number of points which were touched on by the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris), who has just spoken in the debate, and by the honourable member for Boothby deserve at least passing comment. If there is an umbrella which covers the administration of any housing agreement or any housing policy, that umbrella has to consist of the experience of interest rates in a country. The level of interest rates is one aspect of economic and social life which cannot escape our concern. There are 2 areas of Australian economic life where one cannot pass the buck any further. One is our balance of payments position and once that is in serious jeopardy something has to be done. The other area, which applies in a domestic sense, is interest rates. If the level of interest rates is unsatisfactory something should be done about them. In many ways this Bill is a reflection of the concern the Government has about rising interest rates in Australia.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Les Johnson) is to be congratulated for one or two features of the agreement which he was able to obtain through his own party last year. The fact that he was able to obtain money at an interest rate of 4 per cent is a very great achievement and he deserves to be congratulated for it. The fact that money will be made available under this Bill at 4 per cent to State housing authorities and at 4% per cent for the Home Builders Account is a significant achievement. When one looks at the interest rates that are applying elsewhere the level of interest rates proposed under this legislation represents a subsidy of some dollars a week for those people who are lucky enough to be able to obtain this money, and there is the crunch in this question.

The organisation of the Australian economy has been such that the waiting list for homes is now longer than ever. The inability of people to obtain finance for homes is greater than has ever been experienced and it is unlikely to be satisfied in the near future. The acquisition of homes is directly related to the level of interest rates and inflation. Both of these factors are working against housing not in the sense of bricks and mortar but in the sense of families wanting to obtain them, whether they are well-to-do families or poor families because everyone has the right to purchase a home.

The Bill seeks to do 3 things, and it is in relation to them that I wish to pass very short comments. The intention to increase the proportion of funds that can be allocated to the Home

Builders Account is very welcome. If I may mention a little piece of history, this proposal is almost a repetition of the great battle that Senator Spooner had away back in 1956 when he sought to get an adequate proportion of funds made available for the Home Builders Account for use by the co-operative terminating building societies. On that occasion the argument was, and I believe that the argument remains now, that money spent through these sources is spent more efficiently than money spent through the other sources of funds that are available for welfare housing. Money made available through the Home Builders Account will be well and efficiently utilised and will give a maximum return. I have only one doubt in this regard, and that arises from the fact that co-operative terminating building societies are scattered very sparsely throughout Australia. I hope that the State Ministers will utilise the flexibility contained in this Bill and will allocate more money to these areas because no doubt they are aware of the fact that there are many large cities, especially large provincial cities, which are inadequately served by terminating building societies. I hope that the Minister for Housing and Construction will prevail upon the State Ministers to use the facilities available to their own departments to take up the slack.

I come to a second feature of the Bill which has been applauded so far, but which disguises some very great difficulties that will be put upon the State authorities. I refer to the imposition of the needs test. Immediately one says that one does not think the needs test should be imposed by a central government, there is a response from people such as the honourable member for Shortland such as: ‘Well, of course, you are not interested in the poor’. But that is absolute nonsense. The imposition of a needs test from Canberra on State authorities which have to administer these funds can cause a very great injustice. I would like to give honourable members a couple of examples. To relate the needs test to 95 per cent of average weekly earnings of the main income earner of a family forgets that the criterion for determining need used by the Henderson Commission and by every other inquiry into poverty or relative affluence in a community is a family income.

As far as I can see, that essential criterion is being put aside and ignored altogether in respect of the needs test which is being imposed under this Bill. For example, does the Government suggest that in a time of rising unemployment a family which hitherto had 2 income earners and which now has only one income earner who receives say 85 per cent of average earnings and whose wife is unemployed, is not in a different position and that for all practical purposes the needs test applying to this family has not altered? Of course it has. The status of that family has altered. The income available to that family has altered. But yet, as I understand it, and as implied by the needs test, there is no change. So in a time of rising unemployment- seriously rising unemployment- the needs test is rather torn to pieces in this respect.

I believe that the needs test is torn to pieces in another respect. An allowance of $2 per week is given for each child above two in a family. I am not sure what the calculation is concerning the needs test at the moment. However, say it is $ 1 00 or 95 per cent of average weekly earnings- I think that this was the figure at the December quarter. This would be the level of a needs test for a family consisting of a man, his wife and 2 children. Are we to say that if a family has 6 children and the needs test moves up to $ 108 a week that family is in exactly the same position as a family on $100 a week with 2 children? That is the implication of the needs test. That runs contrary to the eminent common sense utilised by Professor Henderson in the principles of his own reports on poverty. People who try to impose a needs test like this make a very grave error and do not comprehend the essential measure of poverty which has to be available and disposable family income, according to circumstances.

For that reason when I was Minister for Housing I hesitated to interfere in imposing a means test because I judged then, as I judge now, that those officers in State housing commissions, trusts or authorities who are dealing with cases individually are better able to judge relative needs. Any monetary criteria which are attempted to be imposed from this place have to fall into serious error. They put people in the same circumstances who are not in the same circumstances. They advantage some and disadvantage others. I recollect that the Tasmanian Government was always concerned to make its own judgments and to set its own criteria in this area. I suggest that a return to that kind of situation would not be a disadvantage to the Bill. While I say this I do not want to criticise the Minister. He has a concern for poverty and for proper needs, but in trying to develop and to set criteria I think he is setting himself an almost impossible task. I do not suggest for one moment these measures have been taken out of illwill, a lack of concern or a lack of sensitivity as to what is needed in these areas, but I suggest that unless many other criteria are used by its very nature the legislation is wrong. Children cannot be kept on $2 a week, and to make distinctions of that nature is to make a mistake.

I have one further characteristic to add. It still seems that Hargreave’s Law applies with respect to the family situation and it still seems that families with more than the average number of children tend to be poorer families. This operates particularly in the area in which these housing commissions are involved. I refer to the less welltodo families in Australian life. I ask the Minister to consider this matter. I in no way mean it to be other than an objective comment while discussing this matter. Since discussion has been entered into in a passing manner on other housing policies, I stress that the difficulties of implementing this Bill reflect the difficulties that are occurring in the other areas of Australian life. I suggest that many more people will be shunted into making appeals for housing commission money than would hitherto have been the case. Savings bank interest rates cannot be altered without making variations in this area. Availability of money from finance companies cannot be altered without putting people into these areas. The same applies to permanent building societies.

One of the tragedies that has occurred in respect of housing during the past 12 months I believe has been the activities of some savings banks as they affect those who apply for housing commission loans, agreements or finance. Over the past year the Commonwealth Savings Bank on all the available criteria, has attempted to impose its own credit squeeze on funds available for housing in Australia. The Commonwealth Banking Corporation report shows that it has quite clearly entered into money market and bond buying activities to an extent that has never hitherto occurred in Australian life. The Savings Bank which was developed to assist housing, was not set up for that reason.

Mr McLeay:

– It is supposed to be the people’s bank.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-As the honourable member for Boothby, who has an intimate understanding of all these things, says, it is supposed to be the people’s bank. The Commonwealth Savings Bank became a principal buyer of government bonds in order to keep up the demand for bonds on the market. Insofar as it did that its own proportion of assets which it made available for housing fell to a very low level and fell continually during 1973-74.

The private savings banks, on the other hand, raised the proportion of their own assets which was appropriated to housing. That affects this Bill because funds not available to people in one area will cause people to apply for funds in another area. Savings banks make funds available to people who are just a little above criteria usually set for people who apply for funds from housing commissions and funds which are made available through this housing agreement. This fact cannot be ignored. As I said earlier, the ripple effects in one area of the interest rate market affect every other area of the market, and certainly in this area. One of the other tragic consequences of what has happened, because a credit squeeze has been maintained in respect of reasonable interest rate housing funds available, has been that for the first year ever, I believe, more funds were made available and had to be sought through finance companies for these fields than from savings banks. That situation has never applied before. The difference in interest rates between savings banks and finance companies of 4 per cent, 5 per cent, 6 per cent or 7 per cent means a penalty to borrowers of $ 10, $15 or $20 more a week because they are driven to finance companies. The consequences cannot be ignored.

Finally I return to the precise content of this Bill and the agreement which has been proposed. The Bill, insofar as it deals with interest rates of 4 per cent and 4% per cent, is very generous. I do not know the kind of battle the Minister had, but if he can get interest rates down to that level he should be applauded for doing so. It is a very commendable achievement. I remind him that this Bill and this agreement cannot stand alone. Those people to whom funds will be available are those to whom funds are not available from permanent building societies, savings banks and finance companies. The Bill also relates to those people who are unable to pay the rates of interest required from each of the other levels of Australian life. I return to the second point I made. I think it is an appropriate proposal. I ask the Minister to consider seriously the details of the needs test which he requires, the relation of that needs test in terms of growing unemployment in Australia and the essential criteria for determining the position of a family’s income.

I suggest that unless the Minister puts many more variables into the test- I do not believe he can rightly do so- it may be best to leave the determination of those who should be able to apply for these funds to the goodwill, the sense of tradition and the judgment of State housing authorities. They have been in the business for a long time and they are in closer contact with the people who would desire funds as a result of this agreement.

Mr McKenzie:
Diamond Valley · ALP

– I listened with interest to the thoughtful contribution of the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns). He has had considerable experience in the field of housing. Some words that he used a moment ago caught my attention. He said that the Bill cannot stand alone. I think that he is correct, but it only goes to point out that this Bill cannot be considered in isolation. I would like him to reflect on the fact that this Bill proposes to do certain things. Therefore I do not believe that the criticism that links in everything else in the housing field is particularly valid. For instance the honourable member for Lilley said that it was all right if people were lucky enough to obtain the money. That is true as far as it goes. But of course the fact is that certain people in society find it much more difficult to obtain money for housing than do others.

With all matters where governments provide funds, in social services and in other matters, there is always a cut-off point. For instance, someone may earn 5c a week more than would entitle that person to be eligible for a pension and that person cannot get the pension because he is earning over the amount specified. This has happened before and I think that consideration has been given not only by this Government but also by previous governments to tapering off means tests and so on. But it is obviously much easier for people who are in receipt of a more substantial income to provide housing for themselves and their families. It seemed to me that the honourable member for Lilley was somewhat in conflict with the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay).

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Oh no, not at all.

Mr McKenzie:
Diamond Valley · ALP

-I shall just point out that the honourable member for Lilley was in conflict because he congratulated the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Les Johnson), saying that the Minister by dint of hard work and persuasion managed to persuade the Government to provide money at 4 per cent interest. But the honourable member for Boothby complained, saying that in his opinion there should not be differential rates of interest on money provided in this way. I suggest that the honourable member for Lilley and the honourable member for Boothby ought to get together and work out their differences. The speech of the honourable member for Lilley was also somewhat in contrast to the speech of the honourable member for

Boothby. I heard the honourable member for Boothby use such pejorative terms as ‘socialist’ and ‘centralist’. I might just as well stand here and say that the former government and the members of the Opposition Parties are in favour of a capitalist and unco-ordinated approach. These sorts of terms of disapproval do not get us anywhere but it seems they are becoming much more common lately.

Mr McLeay:

– Do you not claim to be a democratic socialist?

Mr McKenzie:
Diamond Valley · ALP

– I accept democratic socialism but the honourable member for Boothby did not use the term in that way; he used it in a pejorative sense and I do not think that it adds to proper argument and debate in this Parliament. The honourable member for Lilley also mentioned interest rates. I should like to point out to the House that interest rates are directly related to the inflation in the money market. If inflation is running at, say, 15 per cent and money at an interest rate of 10 per cent is obtained, the person obtaining that money at that rate is in fact getting the money at a negative interest rate of 5 per cent. In fact people who have enough money to get into the system, people who are earning a bit more money, can in fact use the system. The problem seems to me to arise when the drain on the liquid resources of the individual are such that he has not enough money to meet his requirements at a particular time.

The policies announced by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) last night, providing additional funds and making tax cuts, will help this situation and I believe that the additional money will flow through to the housing industry. The Minister for Housing and Construction pointed out in his second reading speech that the purpose of these 2 Bills is, firstly, to enable the Treasurer (Mr Crean) to appropriate $3 10m for welfare housing in 1974-75 and, secondly, to make certain amendments to the 1973 Housing Agreement. The most significant feature of these measures is the massive increase in the allocation to be made available to the States this year. An amount of $3 18m is to be made available in 1974-75. This is an increase of $1 16m over the amount spent by the States in 1973-74- an increase of more than 60 per cent. But more significantly, it is almost double the amount spent during the last year of the Liberal-Country Party Government-$318m in 1974-75 as against $ 162m in 1972-73.

This comparison, more than anything else, illustrates the commitment which this Labor Government has to housing families of limited financial means. It contrasts with the approach taken by our predecessors who had, I believe, a rather callous and cruel belief that those who, because of their limited means, would otherwise be left homeless, should be left to fend for themselves. It is one thing to criticise this Bill on the basis that there is a cut-off point; it is quite another thing to say that we should not provide any money at all because to do so would differentiate. The system itself unfortunately discriminates between individuals.

To the Liberals Commonwealth and State Housing Agreements were regarded as an unfortunate legacy of the Chifley Labor Governmenta legacy which they wanted to let languish. The new Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement negotiated by the Minister in the early months of the Labor Government’s administration ushered in a new era in housing for the underprivileged. Yet even now the Liberals still want to return to the days when welfare housing was accorded a low priority. Only the other day the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) on the Australian Broadcasting Commission program ‘Monday Conference’ advocated an across the board cut of 8 per cent in all Commonwealth Government expenditures. The amount included in the Budget Speech for the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement was $235m- in other words the amount agreed to in June of this year before the 11 October meeting of Housing Ministers when an additional $75m was allocated by the Australian Government. This means that the amount the Opposition wants to cut by 8 per cent is the original $23Sm. If members of the Opposition had their way the Australian Government would this year allocate only $2 16m instead of the $3 18m which we will allocate this financial year.

Surely the Opposition must realise that the people who will be assisted by this money are the people who are in most need, the people I mentioned before, people who are desperate to gain decent accommodation, people who under 23 years of Liberal-Country Party government were consigned to ever-lengthening waiting lists, people who had no hope of relief from a Government which had little compassion for their particular and desperate problems. But these are the people whose hopes would be dashed by this latest example of short-sighted economy and cheap politicking by those people opposite. If the Australian Government carried out the policy of the Liberal Party 5,000 families this year alone would be deprived of a chance to get a decent home. These people are the people whom this

Government wants to help, the same people who were denied housing and hope for 23 years.

The Opposition’s proposed cuts in housing illustrate not only its callousness but also its inconsistency. In one breath it talks about restimulating the housing industry and in the next breath it talks about cut-backs. So, too, from time to time members of the Opposition talk about the alleged raw deal this Government is giving to the States. I point out that the Victorian Government failed to spend $8m of last year’s allocation. If the Opposition had its way the States this year would receive $102m less for welfare housing than they will in fact receive. Again the Opposition attacks this Government for its supposed disinterest in home ownership. In fact, if we look at the record, this Government has done more to foster home ownership than any of its predecessors did. If we look at the allocations under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement to the Home Builders Account the evidence for this claim is clear and unmistakable.

I remind the House that allocations to the Home Builders Account are channelled to terminating building societies for lending to home buyers at highly concessional interest rates of 5% per cent. As I pointed out before, in a time of inflation, which is occurring, such rates are a very real concession to those people. This year the allocation for this purpose- that is, low interest finance for home ownership- will be $127m, an increase of $56m over 1973-74 and an increase of $71m from 1972-73. This amounts to an increase of 126 per cent from the Liberal Party’s last year of government. Even allowing for inflation, this is certainly a big increase in real terms. These figures show that the Opposition’s argument that Labor is hostile to home ownership is quite false. But they certainly do prove that home ownership for low income families was a nonexistent priority for the last Liberal-Country Party Government. The facts speak for themselves and cannot be denied by honourable members opposite.

The many other initiatives of this Government to assist home ownership are further proof of the emptiness of the Opposition’s claim. The Government’s introduction of tax deductibility for mortgage interest repayments will significantly assist every home buyer. I remind the House that although the scheme will apply from 1 July 1974, it will be introduced on a payasyouearn basis from 1 January 1975. So as from the first pay period after 1 January the amount that will be channelled into pay packets will be double the amount it would have been if the tax rebates were spread over the full year. I remind the House that the Opposition has been strangely silent on this scheme. I would like to hear what Opposition members have to say about it. They denigrated it, of course, when it was first proposed and compared it with the housing grant that was given previously, but I have not heard very much from them lately. The reason is quite obvious; our new scheme is much better and provides much more. I believe that, once and for all, the Opposition members should state unequivocally whether this scheme would be one of their victims of the expenditure cutbacks which they have been proposing.

Only yesterday we witnessed another example of this Government’s support for home ownership and for the home building industry. I refer to the $150m to be channelled to the savings banks to facilitate a speedy upswing in the level of housing commencements. I might also add that even when the low level of commencements for the last quarter are considered- a level which the Government regards as far too low and which it is taking strong action to reverse- the number of commencements since December 1972 is far greater than the number for the same period before December 1972. 1 mentioned this when I was speaking on the estimates for the Department of Housing and Construction. In the 7 quarters since 1972 over 287,000 dwellings have been commenced. In the 7 quarters preceding the end of 1972 only 260,000 dwellings were commenced. So there has been an improvement in real terms.

I need only outline very quickly some of the other initiatives taken by this Government to facilitate home ownership. The task force on modern housing techniques will have considerable impact on the Australian housing industry in the years to come. It will have a particular impact on the cost of housing and therefore on the ability of Australians to obtain a home of their own. A builder in my electorate who has already won prizes for home construction and design is at present experimenting with modular construction using plywood as the inside lining of the house, the outside of which is treated in a similar way to a brick veneer house. These are some of the developments that are occurring. This Government has established this task force. It is a continuing body and it will be actively looking at new building techniques. I believe that the Australian public will get a great deal of advantage from it. I applaud the Minister for his initiative. As he well knows, I have been talking to him lately not only on this project but also on the use of urban bricks, which used to be called mud bricks. The ones in which the people in my electorate are interested are extruded.

I support the Bill, but I am pleased to see that the members of the Opposition are also supporting it. I stress again that the money provided in it is for particular and special tasks. If the Opposition wants to argue about other factors concerned with housing, then let it do so, but not on the basis of this Bill, which is designed to do something for people who were not catered for in the 23 years of Liberal-Country Party government and for whom this Government is now catering in a proper and useful way.

Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa

-The Opposition supports the Bill. We must recognise that there are some problems relative to it. I would like to emphasise some points made by the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay). He referred to a person who was eligible because of his income to be allotted a housing commission house. He rented the house for a time and then decided that he could undertake the purchase of it, but in the meantime his income had increased beyond the maximum allowable under the means test and he was debarred from purchasing the house in which he had been living and to which he probably had made substantial contributions in the way of improvements. That point is worth emphasising, and I hope the Minister will take notice of it.

There are many problems confronting people who want to own their homes. Largely because of the policies of this Government land prices have escalated and are now at very high levels. In conjunction with them the costs of home construction have risen. While there are some other factors relative to those increasing costs, I think the unbiased observer would agree that they have been brought about to a large degree by the domination of this Government by the left wing trade union movement, which has constantly pressed for unrealistic wage increases. Wage increases have gone well beyond the increase in productivity and have only resulted in rapidly increasing inflation, which in its turn is putting the price of a home beyond the reach of the family on the average income. Those are factors which I believe are very real in the context of this legislation. I acknowledge that excessive profit margins in other areas have contributed to some extent to the spiral in the past but they are not doing so today. They are not as evident today in general terms. I contend that the policies of this Government, which have supposedly been designed to assist the average wage earner particularly to own his home, are in fact precluding the average wage earner from owning his home.

That is surely the desirable and legitimate objective of every Australian. At any rate it is in the opinion of honourable members on this side of the House.

It is contended by people with expertise in the field that a person should earn $10 a week for every $1,000 he borrows to buy a home. So even a $20,000 loan would require an income of $200 a week. How many of the people this Bill is designed to serve would earn $200 a week or $10,000 per annum? Even if some did, where would they buy a house for $20,000? In all probability a house would cost them in the vicinity of $30,000. That means that they would require a $10,000 deposit to be able to get even a reasonable house with a $20,000 loan.

The very high cost of interest, which has reached record heights under this Government, is a substantial contributing factor to the present deplorable situation. The Government does not seem to be able to do anything about it. I too commend the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Les Johnson) for the fact that he has been able to have included in this Bill preferential interest rates. Indeed, going on the figures I have cited with regard to what it would require to finance the purchase of a reasonable home, and surely the type of home we would all want to see the working people of this country housed in, it seems to me that the means test should be eased to allow more average wage earners to get the advantages of the Bill. When people have difficulty in obtaining funds, even at preferential interest rates, to take advantage of this Bill, the measure loses a lot of its value. That point needs emphasising. How many people will be able to take advantage of the legislation even though it offers preferential interest rates?

The point is that no matter how much money is provided by the Government that, in itself, does not mean that people can move into their own homes for the reasons that I have stated. It is easy to understand under those circumstances why some of the funds that have already been provided have not been utilised.

The sum of $3 10m is being allocated in this Bill. This has been mentioned by the honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr McKenzie) who has just resumed his seat. Queensland will receive an extra $8m. Even though $3 10m is a lot of money, we should remember that it will provide finance only for less than 16,000 homes of the type that I would like to see provided for the working people in Australia. Taking another line, that will achieve only about 10 per cent of the total housing production. We can see that it is a substantial amount of money but at the same time there will be a large gap left in providing housing for the community generally throughout Australia, despite the fact that these provisions are being made.

We also run into the problem of the utilisation of these funds in the provision of housing. When we speak of trying to increase activity in the home building industry we should bear in mind that there is only a limited number of builders who in fact carry out work in this particular field. There are a variety of reasons for this, one of which is that this work is of a specialised character. Consequently the injection of even $300m may not do as much for the home building industry as we would like to see it achieve. We have got to get over those problems. I put it to the Minister that this is something to which he ought to give serious consideration. Nevertheless, I welcome the finance being made available which, indeed, is the first essential step to be taken to provide more housing for the Australian people.

I have agreed to limit my remarks to some extent. But I would like to make some comment on the remarks that have been made by some of the previous speakers in this debate. I refer first of all to the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) who said that interest rates rose under the previous government. In a very clear interjection in a quiet House I said: ‘What did they rise to?’ He completely ignored the question. The interest rates certainly did not rise to the levels to which they have risen since this Government came to office.

The honourable member for Shortland spoke also about the apprentice scheme. This might be a good scheme and I do not condemn it at all. I welcome the introduction of such a scheme, I think it is a good idea. Let us have an apprentice scheme by all means. But I say to the Minister and to the Government: ‘What is the use of having apprentices if your own policies are the very basis of putting the employers of these apprentices out of business and sending them bankrupt?’ That is what is happening. Where are we going to find the avenues of employment for the apprentices that the Government claims to be providing if, in fact, there is no viability in the home building industry due to the impossibility of those who in the past have been employers of labour being able to provide employment.

If one wishes to make comparisons, when we were in government and there was an apprentice scheme working, on completion of their training apprentices were able to find a job. It is going to be a tragedy for the young people who are trying to get employment not only in this field but in other fields if they cannot do so. The outlook for their prospects of employment is tragic. I feel very sorry indeed for those people- an increasing number of people- who generally want to work. I feel particularly sorry for the school leavers who want to start out in life and who are not going to get an opportunity. This is one of the things the Government should be thinking about. It comes into the area of this Bill insofar as the provision of homes for the people of Australia is concerned.

I think that governments might be well advised to examine opportunities for providing homes for their employees. I intend to speak not only about what this Government could do but also about what the State governments could do. Quite recently I had an application from a branch of a teachers’ union at Stanthorpe in Queensland asking for the provision of homes for the members of the union employed in Stanthorpe. I wrote on their behalf to try to encourage the provision of adequate accommodation for these people. I think the State governments should undertake this sort of work. In that way it would help decentralisation and it would encourage people to go to live in those areas. Not only does that apply to the State governments, but also it applies to the Australian Government in just the same way. I have received similar requests from employees of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department at Quilpie. They have been looking for homes for a considerable time and I would hope that the Government will provide those homes for them. The latest information I have is that they are looking around to try to find some homes that might be available for sale. I think this is a rather short-sighted policy if, in fact, they are having any difficulty in finding suitable homes. I hope that both the State governments and the Australian Government will look at the prospect of being able to provide sufficient homes for their own employees for a start. That might ease the strain on those who want to provide other homes. If government employees take advantage of the finance that is being provided in these Bills, it means that someone else has to go without.

The honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr McKenzie) said- of course it is an obvious fact- that people who are in receipt of a substantial income are in a better position to provide homes for their families. They might be in a better position but unless they are in receipt of a very substantial income they have difficulty also in finding homes for their families. They are in difficulty in a number of ways. They are in difficulty because of the shortage of materials for contractors. They have difficulty in getting contractors to build their homes. Here again, if finance were made available to more people to build homes on their own initiative and if these inhibitions on the building of homes were not there, there would be more homes for rent and there would be an easing of the whole situation. Under the present circumstances people have to have a very substantial income to be able to build even a reasonable home if they are to pay the interest rates, the costs of construction and the high prices for land which prevail at the present time.

The honourable member for Diamond Valley spoke about the massive increase to $3 18m. I have already covered that point to some extent by saying that it will provide only a comparatively small percentage of the homes that we want to provide. To compare the actual amount of money that is being provided in these Bills with what was provided previously, disregarding the rate of inflation and the extra costs involved, is to make a comparison which is not real and fair. I want to be completely fair to the honourable member for Diamond Valley, but even allowing for the rate of inflation, if we take the total conditions under which people have to build homes today and compare them with conditions when we were in government, we will find that it was easier for the average wage earner to build or to rent a home in those days than it is today. That is the acid test of whether we are making progress with regard to the provision of homes, apart from the provision of money.

While we appreciate the fact that the Minister has sincerely endeavoured to do his best in this direction because of the general policies of this Government his efforts and the general progress towards home ownership for the Australian people has been undercut. The Opposition welcomes this Bill. We realise that it will not go nearly far enough unless the Government somersaults I notice that those words were used in the morning Press- towards the policies that the Opposition has advocated for a number of years. In that sense the Government is showing a little more realism in every field and I hope they will continue to do so. I wish the Government success in trying to adopt the policies of the Opposition.

Mr CONNOLLY:
Bradfield

-As the final speaker for the Opposition in this debate it is my pleasure to try to bring together some of the rather extraordinary combinations and permutations of statistics, views, counter views and various shibboleths which have been given to this House by various supporters of the Government. The Opposition, as has been pointed out by the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay) who led for the Opposition in this debate, agrees with the contents of these 2 pieces of legislation. I think we should realise, however, that the Government’s decision to increase expenditure to more than $ 1 16m, or 60 per cent, during 1973-74 was perhaps required more because of the shambles which we find today in the Australian housing industry than because of some charitable concept it may have for looking after those who are in need.

One of the speakers for the Government made the point that previous Liberal-Country Party governments had shown a constant lack of capacity to appreciate the problems of those who are in need in the field of housing. I would like to quote, for the benefit of the House, from a document entitled ‘Australia’s Population- Aspects and Prospects’ prepared by the Australian National Committee for World Population Year of which I was a member. This document was issued as an official document of the Government in April this year. In paragraph 64, ‘Housing’, this is what we said:

The number of dwellings in Australia almost doubled between 1947 and 1971 to meet the needs arising from rapid population expansion and to overcome a backlog in dwelling construction which developed during the 1939-4S war years. The 1971 census showed that some 94 per cent of the population of over 12.7 million was housed in 3.6 million separate dwellings. Of the remaining 6 per cent -

These are the people we are in fact talking about in terms of this legislation - about one quarter lived in mobile or improvised homes or in shared accommodation. The rest were housed in non-private dwellings such as hotels or motels, staff quarters, hospitals, boarding houses, nursing homes and other institutions. Since 1 947 housing preference has changed. There was a four-fold increase in self-contained flats. In 1 97 1 , 20 per cent of the occupants of flats and 76 per cent of occupants of private houses were outright owners or were in the course of purchasing their dwellings.

In paragraph 65 we said:

During the last 10 years, about 84 per cent of all houses completed in Australia were privately built, mainly with finance obtained from major institutional lenders. But the Australian and State governments have contributed significantly . . .

That is the accurate situation which has pertained in Australia for over the last 25 years. It varies most significantly from what we have seen in a mere 23 months. The Labor Government has put us in a situation today where Australia faces, in the words of the Housing Industry Association, a crisis in housing not paralleled since the immediate post-war period. The older members of this House will remember that at that time people were forced to live in garages, and I can assure those same honourable members that once again in Sydney people are living in garages and sub-standard accommodation. Approvals and commencements have fallen dramatically, interest rates are at an all time high, and housing and land costs have soared. There are shortages of serviced land, materials and labour. All of these shortages have now reached alarming proportions. The Government has failed completely in the field of housing. It is no good taking housing out of context. We have to look at the entire economic situation, because housing is a vital factor in the economic wellbeing of this community and is a vital factor in the social wellbeing of all Australians, regardless of their economic or social position.

With regard to the section of the community which I have said I estimate to be not more than 6 per cent, which we are discussing in terms of this legislation, there has been a tendency, I fear, for the Government to draw a red herring across this area by its concentration on public housing which, as I have said, represents at the present time approximately 6 per cent of the housing demand. We have been told by the Federal Minister for Housing (Mr Les Johnson) on other occasions in somewhat grandeloquent terms that there is a need for a spread-eagled constitutionality and that he has to draw together the threads so that he can overcome the problems of local and State government responsibility in this field. There is undoubtedly a role for the Federal Government to play in terms of overall housing policy, especially at the level of finance, but the actual activity involved in the construction and the administrative work involved in meeting the needs of the people must be at a lower level.

As one who served in the Public Service for more than a decade before entering this House, I honestly believe that it is not possible with all the will in the world for public servants in Canberra to be able to appreciate at the grass roots level the real problems of society as found in the large urban conurbations, such as Sydney and Melbourne in particular, where most of this 6 per cent of the population happen to live.

The ultimate result of the Government’s philosophy in terms of its involvement in housing is that the Government should regulate completely the 2 major components, that is, land and finance, and the availability of both for all Australians. I submit that its present policy is not consistent with the realities. It does not show, nor can it be related to, the financial structure of this country. Above all, it is quite inimical to the philosophy of my Party.

The field of housing in many respects- I think the Minister will agree with me on this pointhas failed fundamentally because there has been a tendency not to compare in terms of reality the role of the Federal Government and its relationship with the States. For a long time, and still today, Australia has been faced with a shambles in relation to uniform building codes. Attempts to improve have been made. The previous Government attempted to get the State authorities to see the situation. The present Government is also moving in that direction. This is a major consideration which has to be seen for what it is. It is not possible to cut down the cost of overall housing expenditure in terms of per unit cost until we can come up with respectable and applicable uniform codes throughout Australia. This can be achieved only through the close cooperation of the State authorities with the Commonwealth.

In my opinion- I know my Party would accept this- we need to recognise that the transfer of resources from private to public housing in the traditional sense is slow, difficult and often a very wasteful process. This has been amply illustrated by the fact that the present Government in 23 months of rule has failed in its attempt to reallocate funds into certain other areas of the building industry. In fact, it is but another example of a growing list of economic failures which have resulted in the average Australian today being in a poorer situation than he was in 3 years ago. My Party is sympathetic to that section of the community which needs our assistance. We have always been sympathetic, and I would like to see any honourable member in this House be prepared to deny the right of every Australian, regardless of his economic or social position, to live in a decent manner, to house his family. But I do question the fundamental need to construct a sizable section of the housing industry on the premise that people should only pay rent. Those who have gone into and lived within large areas of rental accommodation in this country and elsewhere would perhaps note one important characteristic, that is, that the fact of ownership changes people’s attitude towards their houses, and I would suggest that it changes their attitude towards what goes on in a home. In other words, there is a very close correlation between people’s economic and social wellbeing in terms of their capacity to play a full and purposeful role in the community and their ability to have the pride of ownership. Above all, in the family context it enables them to be a good parent and to give their children a better environment in which to grow up.

At the same time there is quite obviously a section of the community which is often movingeither coming into Australia or going out, as many people are doing at the moment- or transferring occupations which would suggest that there is a need for some rented accommodation. It has been shown in recent years that there is no incentive in Australia for the private sector to construct rented accommodation to the degree required. All of a sudden the Government has decided that it can achieve its so-called socialist and sociological goals by applying vast sums of money to the State housing authorities for the construction of accommodation, ostensibly for that 6 per cent of the population which needs assistance.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– It is more than 6 per cent now.

Mr CONNOLLY:

-I agree entirely. Obviously under the present economic circumstances it is more than 6 per cent. Regrettably we do not have statistics to back us up on that at this moment. However, in the last 12 months housing costs have risen on a national level by 21.5 per cent. That is enormous, when it is related to the increase in funds which the Government intends to allocate. It suggests that from the vast sum of $160m-odd 21.5 per cent has to be deducted before we will get to a real figure upon which we can compare the situation with previous fundings for this type of housing. There is no doubt, as I have already pointed out, that there is a pressing need for an effective housing policy for Australia. I think that it is also quite within reason to expect that if the public sector of the economy, through the Government, is going to contribute, as it has up to now, approximately only 6 per cent of the need the private sector must continue to fulfil a very real role in the future. The Government’s policies, especially economic policies, have done their best to break that down, but the fact still remains- and I wish the Minister to recall once again the statistics which I have already mentioned in this House- that according to the projections which were prepared by the Housing Industry Association in 1975 we will need over 184,500 new homes and that by 1980 the number will increase to over 207,000. I would like to remind the House that those statistics do not take into account the fact that we are at least 60,000 homes behind what we should have had last year. With the growth of the Australian population- the anticipated increase in the number of families in the Australian populationthe fact of the matter is that the building industry today is indeed in a very parlous state.

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

– In reply- In the S minutes or so available to me I would like to deal with several of the points which have been made. Primarily we are talking about the States Grants (Housing Assistance) Bill and the Housing Agreement Bill. The States Grants (Housing Assistance) Bill involves the process of facilitating or appropriating $3 10m for State - housing authority purposes. It also involves amending the Housing Agreement. Principally the change concerns the question of making it possible to spend more than 30 per cent of the money for Home Builders Account purposes and removing overtime from the consideration of the means test for Home Builders Account purposes. It is a very laudable proposition. I am pleased that the Opposition has not opposed the propositions involved. In fact, the House will be pleased to know that they were supported by the State Ministers for Housing in their entirety.

The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), who preceded me in the debate, drew attention to the housing situation in Australia. What he should realise, of course, is that the housing situation is not an isolated situation but is a trend throughout the world. I have just returned from the United States of America and Canada. The amazing feature of the situation in the United States of America is that the year before last there were 2.6 million housing commencements and this year there are expected to be 1.2 million. There has been an enormous downturn in the industry there. Of course, the cost of land and the inflationary situation are such that people are unable to afford the traditional house- the single family house. So there is a doubling of the number of people who are going into apartments or, as they are called there, condominiums. There is a doubling of the number of people who are using transportable homes and the number of people who are using single family homes has been reduced by something like 60 per cent. That is the kind of trend which is in evidence throughout the world. We have been holding out much better than a number of comparable countries.

It has been difficult to follow the debate because there have been inconsistencies in the attitude adopted by the members of the Opposition. Firstly, there was opposition today by the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay), who is the spokesman for the Opposition on housing, to the acquisition of land at Glebe and Emerald Hill. It is strange that there was no opposition to that proposal when the Bills dealing with it were before the Parliament.

Mr McLeay:

– That is not true. There was no opposition.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) did not oppose that proposal. He certainly made no contention along the lines that we were proceeding unconstitutionally; yet that is the contention which was made today. The thing which stood out more sharply than anything else today was that the honourable member for Boothby, without much equivocation or ambiguity, was making the point that the Housing Agreement was bad in principle because it provided for concessional loans to low income earners. He thought it was a very bad principle to allocate funds at 4 per cent and 4’A per cent for Home Builders Account purposes. But I was pleased to see our colleague the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns), who was once Minister for Housing and who obviously knows what this business is about, saying that it is a highly virtuous characteristic. He is delighted that we have been able to do something about it. What a good thing it is, he said, that we have acted because there is this economic situation characteristic of the inflationary trend around the world and if we had not initiated the 1973 Housing Agreement the people who depend on housing commissions for their rented homes or for their home purchases would find themselves faced with an impossible proposition. What the honourable member for Boothby is really advocating is that we eliminate these preferential interest rates. Of course, that would have the effect of forcing up rents. It would result in people being evicted from housing commission homes. In addition, it would make it impossible for people to purchase. Because of the time factor I cannot proceed with the debate any further. I thank honourable members for their contribution to the debate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage)Order! Is it the wish of the House to proceed to the third reading forthwith?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! Is it the wish of the House to proceed to the third reading forthwith?

Mr McLeay:

– I wish to raise a point of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– What is your point of order?

Mr McLeay:

– In his summing up the Minister for Housing and Construction said- I have forgotten the exact words- that I was opposed to this legislation and that I was -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! That is not a point of order. If the honourable member wishes to raise an issue such as that he has to do it at a later stage by way of a personal explanation. Is it the wish of the House to proceed to the third reading forthwith? There being no objection, that course will be followed.

Motion ( by Mr Les Johnson) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr McLEAY:
Boothby

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to speak to the motion for the third reading of the Bill.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member does not have much time in which to do so.

Mr McLEAY:

– I realise that. Let me make it clear that what I am advocating is that we arrive at the situation in which there is no need for these concessional or large differential rates of interest to apply. Persons benefiting from the low interest scheme now pay interest at a rate of 5% per cent while the persons living next door to them may have to pay 12 per cent. I refuse to accept that there is not something wrong with the system there. I think I should have that placed on the record, otherwise it will be used against me.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 3479

HOUSING AGREEMENT BILL 1974

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 30 October on motion by Mr Les Johnson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

Sitting suspended from 6.15 to 8 p.m.

page 3479

STATES GRANTS (SPECIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23 October on motion by Mr Crean:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

-I address the House tonight on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) in respect of this Bill. It is appropriate that I should, on behalf of the Opposition, congratulate the Country- Liberal Party on its overwhelming victory in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly elections. I hope that the Government will accord to that Assembly the same powers as it would have done had it been a Labor Party victory there. I hope the Government will not try to hamstring the Legislative Assembly because the electors have, in no uncertain terms, indicated what they think of the Government. One must pay special tribute to the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) for the manner in which he is looking after the interests of the people of the Territory.

I turn to another aspect of northern development, namely, the plight of northern Queensland. I believe it is important that I quote the words of the local councils of that area which replied to the Leader of the Opposition in response to a telegram he sent in June. I remind the House and the Government that the economic conditions at that time were not nearly as bad as they are now. The Government has really shown a lack of sensitivity to northern Queensland. I quote from the words of councils within the Federal electorate of Leichhardt, presently held by the Labor Party. The Shire Chairman of the Atherton Shire Council said:

It is anticipated that through major increases in labour and costs of materials, that to maintain the council ‘s present work force and undertake the current program of works, substantial rises in rates and charges are envisaged.

At the same time he said:

Employment to date had not been unduly affected, but there is considerable uncertainty, and alarm and concern ure being expressed by some people . . . lt is not easy to think back and draw a realistic comparison, but I believe it is the suddenness of the present situation that is the more alarming. The shortages of most commodities -

He was speaking of the situation in northern Queensland- have become most noticeable during 1973 and are still most marked, but now development and further expansion are at a low ebb and must shortly trouble all sections of the community. People are now ceasing in initiative and we believe this will cause stagnation.

What a striking indictment of the Labor Government ‘s policies this is from a northern Queenslander. I quote further from Douglas, another shire in the electorate of Leichhardt:

Banks are hamstrung, all forward planning curtailed, all types of machinery, building supplies 6 to 12 months delivery if available. Grocer and general merchandise houses are forced to buy 2 to 3 months supply as deliveries so uncertain.

Mr Scholes:

– This was June last year.

Mr GARLAND:

-That is right. I am glad the honourable member emphasises that point, which I have already made. The position today is so much worse. At that time the Chairman of the shire made the point that the sugar harvest was camouflaging the employment position. At present in Queensland the unemployment rate has risen to 3.3 per cent or 25,900 for the month of September, seasonally adjusted and including school leavers. This is the highest for any mainland State.

Moving further northwards to Cooktown, the Shire President there emphasised the depressed cattle prices and the exorbitant fuel costs. He, too, like his colleague in Douglas, anticipated unemployment increases and business retrenchments for the forthcoming financial year. Such is the position in northern Queensland. The Labor Government and its policies, as Tasmanian members have demonstrated, have not served the local area at all. By contrast, Bob Katter, the shadow Minister for Northern Development and the Northern Territory, has the complete confidence of the Opposition. He has done well in displaying his many abilities and in helping the needs of his community. He knows the problems and is fully aware of the problems which have been so eloquently put by the Shire Clerk of Emerald which is in his electorate of Kennedy. I ask honourable members to remember that this was written 4 months ago, since which time the position has deteriorated appreciably. However, it indicates the whole problems of the Department of Northern Development and its Minister (Dr Patterson) of getting the ear of this Labor Government. The Shire Clerk wrote:

In 1961 the cattle market dropped maybe 30 per cent for only 3 months- currently prices after dropping for 8 months are SO per cent down and still falling with no end in sight.

Carry-on finance for pastoralists is not available. Already unemployment has become a problem and station hands are being paid off. Town jobs are also in jeopardy as spending power becomes very restricted.

The unavailability of employment is creating hardship for property owners whose credit and income are stopped and who need a job off their holding.

He made 3 further points as follows:

Serious shortages of plant, equipment and spare parts are holding up production. Breakdowns take weeks to restore instead of days. Delivery of new equipment is measured in months.

The threat of an imminent locust plague hangs over the area and valuable winter crops are at risk. Federal financial assistance for the purchase of control insecticides is badly needed.

The apparent lethargy and impotence of the Government to check the steep down slide is of prime concern as is the absence of regard for the developing seriousness of the rural situation.

I notice the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Duthie) looking very thoughtful. I am sure this reminds him of another area much closer to home. I quote now from the Livingstone Shire Council which is in the Capricornia electorate held by the Minister for Health (Dr Everingham). That council wrote:

The rural area of this local authority is being drastically affected as far as cattle are concerned. The market has not been so low since the fifties. The export market is practically non-existent, resulting in a glut of the local market. Pressure for a 35 per cent increase in the market will almost cripple it. A depressed state is also evident within the farming community. This is a probable result emanating from the position of the meatworks.

That council quotes a specific example of how the Labor Government’s economic policy is affecting local government. It stated:

Some months ago council accepted a tender for 2 trucks. From the time of acceptance to supply, each truck price had risen $300 more. Recently a tender received for another truck increased $1,158 before the order was even placed. An increase in price is bad enough, but the period one waits for supply is unbelievable.

Lastly I turn to the electorate of Herbert, which is so ably represented by Duke Bonnett. He has done a great job in presenting the case for northern development and has continually made the Liberal and Country Parties informed and deeply aware of the plight of the area. The Mayor of Townsville said:

Whereas retrenchments were taking place in the home building industry this labour is being absorbed in commercial buildings which up to now have had a labour shortage. Real estate firms report sales and business investment almost zero because of lack of finance. Our loan allocation will be reduced in the coming year and problems are anticipated in loan raising.

It would surely be tragic to see a city as important as Townsville for so many reasons, undermined by the same lack of Government sensitivity.

In the limited time available to me, I have not mentioned the seat of Dawson, represented by the Minister for Northern Development and Minister for the Northern Territory. The Minister has been described jokingly as the Minister for Sugar. He has tried here but the fact is that the north of Queensland is not being developed. The high hopes which the Government had when it created the Department of Northern

Development have come crashing down because the Government has not been sensitive. It has existed in a Canberra igloo. It has not talked to the people. It just has not bothered to find out.

Mr GILES:
Angas

– I wish to comment on the specific purpose grants to these 2 States. These grants are a matter of some concern to my State of South Australia and I think should be -

Mr Daly:

– You are not even on the list of speakers.

Mr GILES:

-It does not matter if I substitute. That is the business of my Party not yours.

Mr Daly:

– You did not substitute.

Mr GILES:

– You are the most overpaid Assistant Whip who has ever appeared in this House.

Mr Daly:

– You did not substitute. Make the most of this. You will be going for only 2 minutes.

MrSPEAKER-Order!

Mr GILES:

- Mr Speaker, I am sorry to transgress and I will continue to address my remarks through the Chair, if I may.

Mr Daly:

– You were not on the list.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will address the Chair and ignore interjections.

Mr GILES:

-Thank you, Mr Speaker. There are some aspects of this matter -

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 56

NOES: 51

Majority……. 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr Stewart)- by leaveproposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr GILES:
Angas

– I was about to say, when I was so rudely gagged, that South Australia has a strong interest in specific purpose grants. The House will bear in mind that the Bill deals with specific purpose grants for 2 States. I am interested in this matter because if my memory is correct there has been no debate and not a word spoken up to this time about specific purpose grants as they affect South Australia. I do not wish to hold up the third reading stage of this Bill. However, I have been forced to speak at this time because proper debate was not allowed to take place on behalf of the State from which I come.

The problem facing South Australia at present is clearly this: The Government of South Australia has for some time been taking part in negotiations for grants and has put its views and evidence to the Grants Commission. But despite the specific purpose grants that have been made, a revenue situation has been forced on South Australia- and undoubtedly this applies also to Queensland, about which I know a lot less- that is contributing very heavily to the inflationary spiral that is hitting all sections of the community at present. This problem has been highlighted by the Budgets that have been brought down by various State governments and by the revenue raising steps that have been taken by local government bodies in all States. I am suggesting that the financial policies of this Government have caused the States and local government bodies to turn to many of their own revenue raising activities. This is the reason the Premier of South Australia is going throughout the length and breadth of the country today producing financial schemes which he says this Government should adopt in order to alleviate the financial position in which South Australia finds itself.

The principle is a more general one than that. Every State Premier has had to increase the revenue raised by his Budget because he cannot get the kind of specific purpose grants needed to meet the financial requirements of his State. It is no secret that the Premiers of States such as South Australia and New South Wales have been forced to bring in revenue raising programs such as an increase of 6c in the price of petrol. Nothing could contribute more heavily to the inflationary situation throughout Australia than the economic position that has been forced upon the States by this Government’s fiscal and monetary policies. I think it is quite proper that someone from this side of the House should be given the chance to point out the difficulties with which many of the States are being faced because of the fact that grants allocated for general purposes and specific purposes are not high enough.

It is bad enough for the people who live in the metropolitan areas to be faced with this problem. But the people who are specifically hit are those people who live some distance away from the metropolitan areas. These people pay a high proportion of their cost of production in increased fuel costs, increased cost of Post Office services and a legion of other costs. I think it is proper that this matter should be brought before the Government tonight so that it can see quite clearly- even if it does not realise that this has happened- that if it squeezes the States to the degree where they cannot effect proper economies they can do nothing else but increase revenue raising charges which affect the total livelihood of many small industries and the people who live in those States.

I notice the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart), who is at the table, is indicating that perhaps I have spoken for long enough. I do not agree with him, but it is not my intention to belabour points unduly, engage in repetition or try to disrupt in any way the program of the House which is extremely tight. Therefore I would just like to sum up the points that I have been making. The specific purpose grants are appreciated by the Government of the State of South Australia which is well aware of what is involved because it has taken part in the negotiations. There is still a shortfall of $ 12m in terms of the current Budget in my State. Provisional revenue raising procedures and a provisional Budget have been forecast in South Australia to make good the shortfall if it cannot be made up in other ways. I beseech the Federal Government to make quite sure, if it has the problems caused by inflation at heart, that the State governments are not squeezed to the extent that every section of the community will suffer from increased land and petrol taxes or from State revenue raising procedures that will have a very great effect on the people of the State, whichever State it may be. I have raised this matter tonight on behalf of the people of the States. I have put forward their point of view. The State governments feel they should not have to introduce measures that will cause inflation to rage within their State boundaries.

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 58

NOES: 51

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 3483

STATES GRANTS (CAPITAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 2 October on motion by Mr Hayden:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

– I speak on behalf of the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Lynch), who cannot be here this evening. The Bill before the House seeks to authorise the payment of capital grants to the States in 1974-75 of more than $326m. This amount represents the grant component from the Federal Government of the State Governments’ Loan Council programs for 1974-75. The Bill also provides for the making of grants in the first 6 months of 1975-76 on condition that such grants do not exceed more than half the amount allowed for in 1974-75. Payments made to a State under this legislation may be made out of Consolidated Revenue or from the Loan Fund. General purpose capital funds for State governments for 1974-75 total more than $lm, that is more than $326m in grants, and the balance of more than $700m consists of approved Loan Council borrowing programs including a temporary allocation to Queensland of nearly $ 10m for flood restoration purposes.

The system of providing capital grants to the States follows arrangements that were made at the June 1970 Premiers Conference when the previous Government was in power. At that time we recognised the tremendous burden that was placed upon the States in financing their capital works programs, particularly items for which debt charges are not normally recoverable, such as school buildings, police buildings and the like. This is a most significant consideration as roughly half of the interest burden of State government budgets is not recoverable by charges on trading funds and trading accounts. As a result of the arrangements which were formulated at the June 1970 Premiers Conference the Federal Government undertook to provide, on a continuing basis, a portion of the State governments’ Loan Council programs in the form of interest free grants in lieu of what would otherwise be borrowing by the States, in order to help the States to finance capital works from which debt charges are not normally recoverable. The saving to the States of debt charges by the operation of this system is significant. In 1974-75 the total saving has been estimated at $59.7m.

Capital grants provided by this Bill represent 32 per cent of the total general purpose capital funds for State governments after adjusting for the temporary allocation to Queensland. This is the same percentage as operated in 1973-74. However, the Labor Government, by allowing this relationship to go unchanged, has made no allowance for the crippling interest rate burden that has been forced on the States through its economic policies. By failing to make special provision for the cushioning of the unprecedented rise in interest rates which has occurred in the past year, Labor has made a mockery of the whole purpose behind capital assistance grants-and that was to ease the burden of interest rate payments on the States.

The following figures give some indication of the rate at which capital grants have increased as a percentage of general purpose capital funds for the States. For the year 1970-71 there were 200 capital grants, total general purpose capital funds were $823m and capital grants as a percentage of general funds were 24.3 per cent. In 1972- 73 there were 249 capital grants, total general purpose capital funds were $982m and capital grants as a percentage of total general purpose capital funds were 2S.4 per cent. In 1974-75 there were 327 capital grants, total general purpose capital funds were $ 1,027m and capital grants as a percentage of total general purpose capital funds were 32.1 per cent, to which I have previously referred.

The increase in the basic loan programs for the States was increased in two stages for the 1974-75 financial year. At the 1974 meeting of the Loan Council, approved programs for the States totalled $934,919,000, that is $925m and the $9. 9m in temporary allocation to Queensland. An announcement was then made at the time of the 1974-75 Budget that the Australian Government had proposed that the States’ basic programs should be increased by 10 per cent to $1,017,500,000. The decision to provide this increase was made in a frantic attempt to respond to the growing realisation that inflation was accelerating towards at least a 20 per cent rate by the end of this year.

Because of the Government’s assumption of full responsibility for financing tertiary education from 1 January, 1974, the States’ basic programs take into account estimated capital expenditure of which the States have been relieved. The reduction agreed at the Premiers’ ConferenceLoan Council meeting is $65.4m. When adjustment is made to take into account these differences so that comparison can be made with 1973- 74 it shows that the 1974-75 basic program for each State is 20 per cent greater than in 1973- 74. However, in view of the fact that the 1974- 75 Budget was formulated on the expectation of an inflation rate of 20 per cent in 1974-75 the States are receiving no effective growth in funds available at all. In fact in the current year further wage and cost pressures stand to undermine further the purchasing power of the funds that have been available to them.

The 20 per cent increase in funds available to the States in 1974-75 must be viewed in comparison with the huge 32.4 per cent increase in Federal Government spending which the Labor

Government has voted itself. One of the greatest acts of hypocrisy of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) is evidenced by his behaviour in this area. At the June Premiers’ Conference he made a plea to the States for restraints as he promised that the Federal Government would be alongside them as they all tightened their belts to fight off accelerating inflation. The Budget, only 3 months later, revealed the details of Labor’s inflationary spending spree in complete contradiction to the Prime Minister’s earlier promises. On an overall basis the States have been allocated an increase of 38 per cent, including the Loan Council Program. However, this is a misleading measure. Specific purpose grants have been increased by 67.7 per cent while general purpose grants have been lifted by only 22 per cent. In real terms, that is, corrected for inflation, therefore, the funds provided directly for the funding of the States’ own programs have not been increased at all.

The Federal Government’s policy in regard to the States will add materially to cost inflation as State governments implement compensating increases in State taxes and charges. Unless an agreed system of revenue sharing on a fixed proportional basis is adopted, State governments will be placed in an impossible position; that is, they will have the responsibility for exercising clearly defined constitutional responsibilities without the necessary resources. The 1974-75 Budget makes a great stride towards just that outcome. In so doing it completely abrogates the commitments given by the Federal Government as to matching restraints of Federal outlays.

The Liberal Party has just put forward a revenue plan that would be adopted with tremendous benefits for the States as soon as we return to Government. The proposal calls for a supplementary grant to the States to enable them to maintain their essential services without recourse to new or additional State taxation. This system contrasts strongly with the Federal Labor Government’s attempt to gain political capital by making piece-meal grants to various institutions and industries. The smaller States in particular will benefit by having made available to them adequate funds which allow them freedom to allocate them as they see fit.

Statements by Ministers of the Labor Government when referring to the States give a very clear indication that they are completely out of touch with conditions, particularly in the smaller States such as Tasmania. For example, while Tasmania is suffering from the most acute case of unemployment in Australia and the Federal Government’s squeeze on funds to that State exacerbated its serious economic problems, the Deputy Prime Minister, Dr J. F. Cairns, told Tasmanians: ‘Stop whinging- Tasmanians are on velvet’. The policy we put forward in our Party platform includes the following vital aspects:

Financial arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States to provide adequate and assured sources of revenue with which to carry out their constitutional responsibilities, such sources to provide the States with substantial income under their own control.

The guaranteeing of an adequate proportion of Commonwealth personal income tax revenue for the purposes of the States, such proportion to be determined by the arrangement between the Commonwealth and the States.

Continuance of national purpose grants, but grants to the States being free of restrictions in detail that infringe on the right of the States to determine policy in their areas of responsibility.

The Opposition Parties are very seriously concerned at the trend that the Labor Government’s attitude to the States has shown. The trend that is evident has far-reaching implications for the federal system of Government. The LiberalCountry Party believes strongly in the retention of Australia’s federal system of Government. We do so because this system is most conducive to the progress and the well-being of Australia, and most conducive to the democratic protection of the freedom of the individual.

Mr DAWKINS:
Tangney

-The States Grants (Capital Assistance) Bill goes to the very root of the problem of Commonwealth-State financial relationships. Unfortunately this is a very poorly understood matter despite the fact that it is the basis of one of the most highly publicised controversies in contemporary Australian politics. The debate surrounding this controversy has been disappointing in that it has usually developed into a slanging match between the State and Federal governments, regardless of which parties happen to be in power at either of the levels. That in itself is a matter of deep concern because the progress of this nation will be limited for as long as State-Federal rivalries dominate the mainstream of political thought.

I have said that this controversy has been mainly between the State and Federal Governments irrespective of the parties. To illustrate this I think one needs only to point to the feud which used to be waged between the Gorton Federal Government and the Bolte Government in Victoria. However, despite that fact, there is no question that the degree of animosity has increased sharply as a result of the election of a Federal Labor Government. State Premiers have become much more vindictive than they ever were before.

I think to discover the reason for this increased animosity it is important to have a general understanding of the changes that have taken place in State-Federal financial relationships. There are 3 categories under which the Federal Government makes finance available to the States. The broad headings are general revenue assistance, general purpose capital funds and specific purpose payments. I will examine specifically the changes that have occurred in the general purpose capital funds and the specific purposes payments. The States Grants (Capital Assistance) Bill makes available to the States funds under the heading of general purpose capital funds. These funds come within the categories of borrowings and capital grants, which are interest free non-repayable grants. These borrowings and grants are available for capital purposes only and recurrent expenditures are found from other sources.

The origin of this Bill goes back to the June 1974 Premiers Conference when the Loan Council program was agreed upon between the State and Federal Governments. At that time it was agreed to increase the allocation to the States from $0.8 billion in 1973-74 to $0,935 billion in 1974-75 including nearly $ 10m in extra borrowings for Queensland to overcome the problems created by the floods. In September of this year the amount was increased to just over $ 1 billion, making an increase of 21.5 per cent over the 1973- 74 figure. Of this amount $0.7 billion was in the form of borrowings and $0,326 billion was in the form of non-repayable grants. I think it is important to take account of the proportion that was made up of grants as opposed to borrowings. The grants have increased from 24.3 per cent in 1970-71 under the previous Federal Government to 32.1 per cent under the present Government in 1974-75. That in itself is quite significant in as much as the amount that is non-repayable has increased from one-quarter to nearly onethird of the total amount made available under these arrangements.

The other main form of assistance that the States receive for capital and recurrent expenditure comes under the heading of specific purpose grants. These have increased from $1.5 billion in round figures in 1973-74 to $2.6 billion in 1974- 75, that is, an increase of 64 per cent in adjusted terms. This has meant that the total allocation to the States under all 3 headings has increased from $4.3 billion in 1973-74 to $6.1 billion in 1974-75 -an increase of 40 per cent. So I think that when one considers the program in total- a 40 per cent increase being made available to the States when the increase in expenditure of this Government is of the order of 33 per cent- the wailing of some of the State Premiers has to be taken with a grain of salt. Indeed, the total increases that took place in the last year of the previous Government were of the order of 1 8.4 per cent. In the first year of this Government the increases amounted to 20.6 per cent and, as I said previously, for this current year they will amount to 40 per cent.

One of the things that some of the Premiers complain about is that, when the Australian Government takes over total responsibility for some areas, a balancing reduction is made in general purpose grants. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) made this point very clear both at the 1973 Premiers Conference and at the 1974 Premiers Conference. At the June 1974 Conference, he said:

The Australian Government is firmly committed to this principle and will pursue its application wherever appropriate. I have informed the Premiers of our intention to do so in respect of initiatives we are taking in the fields of Aboriginal affairs and assistance for deserted wives, and I expect that further cases could arise as we develop our policies in other areas.

These intended areas of involvement in Aboriginal affairs and assistance to deserted wives followed the Australian Government’s assumption of complete responsibility in the area of tertiary education. In response to the words of the Prime Minister, the Premier of Western Australia, Sir Charles Court, issued the following circular to his Ministers:

The Commonwealth Government has introduced a wide range of programs under which funds are offered to the State for specified purposes subject to the approval of the program by the Federal Minister concerned.

In many cases, the grants are payable under conditions which may require the commitment of State funds, either as a specified proportion of the expenditure involved or in the form of maintenance of existing levels of State expenditure.

It is a firm policy of the Commonwealth Government that where the Commonwealth assumes responsibility for programs so as to relieve the State of expenditure, the State’s Financial Assistance Grant and Loan Fund allocation are reduced by a corresponding sum. Consequently, an apparently attractive proposal may offer no real financial advantage to the State when this subsequent adjustment is taken into account.

Adjustments of this type have already occurred as a result of the Commonwealth taking over the responsibility for financing tertiary education and welfare housing and, at the recent Premiers’ Conference, the Prime Minister announced that the Financial Assistance Grants would be further reduced as a result of Commonwealth initiatives in the fields of Aboriginal Affairs and assistance to deserted wives.

It is essential that the financial implications of any proposed arrangement with the Commonwealth be fully examined before any decision to participate in the arrangement is made and preferably before negotiations are far advanced. Accordingly, the Treasury should be informed immediately of any financial proposals put forward by the Commonwealth at Ministerial or departmental level and arrangements made for a Treasury officer to be involved in any negotiations.

Would you please advise your departmental officers of this requirement.

Sir Charles Court’s remarks would not appear to be too unreasonable but an examination of what has happened in the area of tertiery education upon the assumption of total responsibility by the Australian Government shows that his is a fairly shallow sort of threat. In fact, as a result of an Australian Government taking over responsibility for tertiary education, an adjustment of $2.7 million was made to the 1973-74 Loan Council programs. This amount represented expenditure for the half-year because the assumption of responsibility by the Australian Government took place on 1 January 1974. In 1974-75 the Western Australian Loan Council program was reduced by $5. 4m. This matter has to be seen in the context of the increase in total expenditure in the field of tertiary education in those 2 years. The combined capital and recurrent expenditure on universities and colleges of advanced education increased from $ 15.7m in 1972-73 to $43.6m in 1973-74, and in 1974-75 it is intended to be $69.6m. One can clearly see that the increases far outweighed the reductions which took place in the Loan Council programs.

I think that the attitude of the Premier is doubly ridiculous when one realises- I understand that this is the case- that his circular was also sent to some of the institutions which are in the area of total Australian Government responsibility. For instance, it would be absurd if teachers colleges which are autonomous and which are funded directly by the Australian Government were asked to go into an involved and complicated process before they were able to receive any assistance from the Australian Government for any specific programs. Yet this is the sort of intimidation that is inherent in the circular which has been circulated by the Premier. I think that only indicates that many of the State Premiers have grossly over-reacted to the changes which have taken place. They do not really take into consideration the reason for this change having taken place. It was only as a result of many of the States failing to come to grips with the problems which were crying out for solution that the Australian Government insisted on taking an active role in areas which had previously been the province of the States.

One only has to point to the areas of education, Aboriginal affairs and the extension of urban facilities, which are 3 areas of very gross neglect when they were the sole province of State governments and one only has to look at the massive increase which has occurred in education expenditure, the expenditure on Aboriginal affairs and expenditure such as that for the extension of sewerage into the suburbs, to realise what a backlog of neglect existed prior to the Australian Government becoming directly involved.

So it is this sort of background- a background of neglect, mismanagement and disinterest on the part of many of the States- which has encouraged the Australian Government to come in and fill the void. It is natural that when the Australian Government does take an active interest in the solution of these problems it should take some hand in determining what policies should be developed and should make sure that funds are adequately expended. This is not to say that the States are incapable of doing this but the Australian Government realises that it has the final responsibility to the taxpayer in relation to many of these funds. It is only reasonable that the Australian Government should have a first hand involvement in the problems.

I think one of the reasons this is important is that in areas such as education and Aboriginal affairs it is quite crucial that the programs developed in each of the States and in the Territories bear some relation, one to the other, and that if one is going to have excessive duplication and lack of co-ordination then this is only going to add to the problems and not add to the solution of them. One would hope that in the near future the atmosphere of antagonism, which has been encouraged, particularly by such Premiers as Sir Charles Court and the Premier of Queensland, would give way to a more sensible approach. There is no reason why the Australian Government should not have an involvement in many of these problems in many of these areas of policies which involve Government action. So long as the States maintain and exacerbate this antagonism the solutions to the problems will be delayed by that much. In the end it is necessary that all tiers of government- federal, state and municipal- should co-operate in the solution of these problems because, after all, they are all responsible to exactly the same people and when they co-operate together they can best serve those people.

Mr LUSHER:
Hume

-What we are dealing with in this Bill is a question that has significant ramifications for the States, the rights of

States and the whole financial relationship which exists between this Federal Government and the State system. I am seriously concerned at the direction that Federal and State relationships, in financial terms, are taking. I think that the time has come when we must have a total re-think on the whole question of Commonwealth-State financial relationships. I want to state my position clearly: I am a federalist. I believe in the federal system as does the entire Australian Country Party. We support strongly the system of State rights and there is no doubt about our position. We have stated it time and time again and we will continue to fight for it within this Parliament.

At the moment we are faced with a situation where the Federal Government, under the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), is starving the States of money. There is no doubt in my mind that this is completely consistent with the philosophy of the Australian Labor Party that States should eventually be wiped out and replaced with a second tier of government which would be based on regional districts. This is the sort of action which will be eased and facilitated by the squeeze which has been put on State governments and which Bills like this Bill with which we are dealing tonight will also facilitate. As I said earlier we have to have a total re-think of the whole question of the Federal-State financial relationships. We cannot continue to operate on a system of piecemeal money given out here and there, adjusted for this and adjusted for that, with strings attached to it and with the different conditions that the Government here in Canberra wants to apply. We need to help and we need to put States back on their feet- States which are, in fact, on the brink of bankruptcy in many instances. We have to arrive at a revenue sharing formula. It is no longer good enough to have the States come with their caps in their hands begging to the big brother in Canberra for money with which to carry out the essential programs that they are elected to carry out on behalf of their constituents- just as we have our responsibilities to our constituents. It is just not good enough to keep this relationship going in this sort of fashion for much longer.

I would be prepared to go along with suggestions that the States could have taxes collected on their behalf by the Government in Canberra. I think it would not be a bad thing, indeed, if the States were responsible to the people for the moneys which they spent. It seems to me that there is always a difficulty when the States have no responsibilities in the field of raising funds. As long as we keep the States in the position where they raise funds only from the charges that they make for their services, they will be in a position where they can blame Canberra for the fact that they have no money and for the fact that their programs cannot be implemented as they have promised. If, in fact, we do give some of this tax raising responsibility to the States, I think it might add overall to the stature of parliaments, treasuries and the methods by which money is allocated amongst the priorities which face ministries and governments.

Mr Duthie:

– Previous governments did not do it, you know.

Mr LUSHER:

– That is right. I am prepared to accept that. I am talking about a relationship which has to be changed in the future if, in fact, we are going to get ourselves on a sound footing between the Commonwealth and the State governments and if we are going to achieve any sort of rationale in a system which has completely changed because of the inflation that has been forced upon the economy by the absolutely irresponsible actions of the Government of which the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Duthie) is part.

Mr Duthie:

– I disagree with that.

Mr LUSHER:

-The honourable member may care to disagree with that. I would be prepared to suggest that what I am saying is completely defensible. I said earlier that what is going on here in Canberra amongst the people who run government- the people who, outside government, have influence and exert pressure on the decisions that are made here- is that there is a philosophy in relation to the States which is that they are a damn nuisance and we have to do our best to wipe them out. That is the attitude that is taken by the Government of Australia today. It is that philosophy which is behind so much of the legislation that has come forward. This Bill, I suggest, is just another example to force the States into a more difficult and more humiliating financial position and to throw much more power, in terms of control over State affairs, into the hands of Ministers in Canberra.

Mr Duthie:

– How much money are they getting out of it?

Mr LUSHER:

-Let us not talk about how much money they are getting out of it. Let us talk about the effects of inflation and the reductions that will be imposed on the State governments under this program.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! This is not a private debate. I ask the honourable member for Hume to address the Chair and I ask the honourable member for Wilmot to cease interjecting.

Mr LUSHER:

-Thank you, Mr Speaker. We have to give back to the sovereign States- let me emphasise that point because not enough people in this place understand it; the States are sovereign- the responsibility for the expenditure which they incur on behalf of the people that they represent. We have to stop this tying up, by way of special grants and tied grants, of so much of the money which is being allocated to States in different areas. This is just not on. I am prepared to admit that there are some areas in which a national approach needs to be taken, and I would not disagree with such a thing as a national highway because it seems to be obvious that the States have not met their responsibilities in that area. If the Federal Government does not intervene we will not get an efficient transport system in the way of roads around this great and large country. Although I think that there are special circumstances such as that, I am prepared to say categorically in this House this evening that there are a lot of other areas in which these sorts of tied grants, these condition-attached grants, are not necessary, nor should they be necessary, nor are they acceptable. They will not be acceptable under our administration, and they are certainly not acceptable under the State administration.

The position is quite plain. If the States do not accept the conditions they do not get the money. That is not good enough in this day and age when we are dealing with responsible and democratically elected governments which have their own responsibilities in their own States. We have heard tonight that there is solid reason for instituting a program which has led to grants of this nature being passed through these Houses of Parliament. The basic reason behind it is to ease the interest burden which is felt by the States. Those programs have been worthwhile because in fact they have been worth something like $5 9m or $60m to the States in the current financial year. We have to put this into perspective because half of the State interest bill which is paid in so many different areas is just not recoverable by charges and the other incidental means by which the States can recover funds. So that is dead money; it is down the drain. If there is to be any sanity in the system, if there is to be any realism in the system, then there have to be offsetting grants to the States to allow them to recover from the Federal Government those moneys which they are not able to recover under thenown administration.

The whole problem that this type of grant is aimed at eliminating has been so seriously exacerbated by inflation that the whole thing has now been put into the context of being unreal. The States are back into the situation of being on their knees. The Government was forced to increase the grants to the States for these purposes by 10 per cent from $92Sm to $ 1 ,0 1 7m just in an effort to do something about the inflationary effect that its irresponsible policies, its community crippling policies, have had upon the States in these areas. The Government then proceeded to do some figure juggling. It rigged the system again. It said that expenditure commitments had been relieved in the States because the Commonwealth had taken over responsibility for tertiary education. The Government says: ‘We have an agreement with the States and $65m will be cut off because this expenditure is now coming directly from the Commonwealth and the States no longer have to find it’. The Government calls it an agreement. I would like to have been a fly on the wall during that particular meeting with the States when the agreement was reached to see how hard the Government twisted the arms of the State representatives to get that agreement.

This is such a messy system. There are so many bills; there are so many different accounts; there are so many different ways and means of giving a bit of money here, giving a bit of money there, taking it back here, re-arranging it there, changing the figures, and nobody is able to follow in any logical or rational form the purpose for which the money is being paid across. The amount of the grant is up by only 20 per cent on the 1973-74 figure. Let us put this into perspective. The grant is up 20 per cent on the funds provided during the previous year. What has the Government done in relation to its own expenditure? What has the Government done in relation to inflation? The Government said to the States in June: ‘You have to tighten your belts; you have to show restraint; you have to increase your own charges and your own taxes; you have to improve your own revenue raising methods, such as they are, if you expect to be able to survive in this current economic situation, because we cannot give you any more. We are tightening our belt’. But what did the Government do? Not a couple of months later it increased its own expenditure by 32V4 per cent. But the Government had said to the States: ‘You had better tighten your belts’. What is the hypocrisy of that situation? I find it astonishing and astounding that a government can be so two-faced in such a short period of time.

We have had another Budget and another Budget- 3 Budgets within a couple of months. Now we are in a situation where, in spite of the fact that Government expenditure was going to be increased by 32 per cent and in spite of the fact that there was going to be an overall Budget deficit of $25m or a sum of that order, we are now faced with a deficit of $ 1,200m for this current financial year. If we had that sort of spending over a full year instead of over only 6 months, we would be talking about a deficit of approximately $2,500m. What is that going to do to the inflationary situation in Australia? How many jobs will that cost the people who work and who make up the backbone of this nation? How many jobs will that cost? The Government is talking to the States in these terms: ‘Sorry, no more money for you; sorry, you tighten your belts but do not worry about us because we have the keys to the kingdom; we have got the keys to the safe and we are going to look after ourselves. We are going to make sure that we keep outselves popular in our electorates and that we keep ourselves in a position in our marginal seats where we can be assured of holding on, and the seats that we do not think we can hang on to we will abolish. If we cannot abolish them we will see that the redistribution at least makes them safer in our direction’.

In New South Wales the relativities between the Government and the Opposition now stands at 25 seats to 20 seats. With the proposed redistribution this will change to 29 seats to 16 seats. How is that for a situation from a Government which is trying to rescue itself, which is trying to scramble out from under the bed to get away from the nervous Nellies? It says to its members: ‘Well, at least we are going to try to hang on to these seats and at least we are going to try to hang on to government by rigging the system’. Rigging the system is the only option that is open to the Government if it is to ensure that it at least has a chance of holding government. Despite the polls, which show a 10 per cent swing against the Government, and despite all the other factors that are being built up in the minds -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! I suggest that the honourable member for Hume does not proceed any further with the subject matter of the redistribution.

Mr Fisher:

– It is very true though.

Mr LUSHER:

-Indeed it is true, as the honourable member for Mallee points out.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– It is not a matter of whether it is true; it is a matter of whether it is relevant to the discussion in the House at this moment.

Mr LUSHER:

-I will not dispute your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was just trying to indicate the philosophy behind this type of legislation and the way in which the Government is trying to protect its position vis a vis the electorate. As I have said, we are building up to a deficit of $2,500m. That is absolutely ludicrous when one takes into account that the States have been asked to exercise restraint and the Commonwealth Government has promised to exercise restraint. The entire hypocrisy of the whole situation is apparent.

Mr Sullivan:

– Get back onto the redistribution.

Mr LUSHER:

– The honourable member for Riverina has suggested that I should get back onto the proposed redistribution. I have to accept your ruling on that, Mr Deputy Speaker. Although the honourable member for Riverina and I have a particular interest in that subject there is little that we can do about it at this stage and still keep within the bounds of the Standing Orders. Let us have a look at another effect this Bill is going to have on the States. It will force them to raise their transport charges, their levies, their payroll taxes and the different ways and means that they have left open to them to get a miserable amount in revenue so that they can carry out their urgent, vital and necessary programs. Such increases would have an inflationary effect. But the States have been put into a position in which they have no choice but to increase charges. The cost of petrol in New South Wales is to increase by 6c a gallon. What effect will that have on the transport industry? What effect will that have on the cost of living of the private individual? What is that going to mean to somebody like myself who travels in excess of 1,000 miles a week or the honourable member for Riverina, who travelled 2,000 miles around his vast electorate last weekend? It has to be inflationary. There is no other way in which one can assess the situation.

The States are being forced to contribute to the alarmingly high rate of increase in inflation that this country is undergoing. There is nothing that the States can do, because of the squeeze position in which they find themselves, but try to supplement the miserable amount of revenue they receive by imposing increased charges which must add to the cost of living, the cost of running businesses and the entire cost structure of the community. I could go on for another half an hour about the effect that this measure is going to have on the great rural areas of this country, which provide half the export wealth of this country and which have in fact allowed it to survive through bad times and will continue to allow it to survive in further bad times that occur.

This whole Bill is aimed at trying to reduce the financial responsibilities of the States, to grab more power in Canberra, to exacerbate inflation, to embarrass the State governments and to enable the Commonwealth Government to do everything it can to discredit the State administrations and to build up its position vis-a-vis that of the States so that after a period of this type of State administration, a period of putting the States in a position in which they cannot carry out programs on an adequate basis, the people may be prepared to say: ‘OK, let us do away with the States, if that is what you really want’. I will oppose that. The Australian Country Party will oppose it. The Liberal Party of Australia will oppose it. As long as we are elected to represent the people there is no way in which there will be any change in the federal structure. We will support the States strongly. We will support their rights strongly. We will continue to do so in the interests of Australia, in the interests of true democracy and in the interests of the people because that is what is important in Australia today.

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

Mrs CHILD:
Henty

-The Australian Government has undertaken to support a $1 billion program of both loan funds and interest free capital grants to the States for the 1974-75 financial year. May I point out that the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher), who is so concerned about the inflationary prospects for the States, should do a little mental arithmetic and ascertain how much less the States would get under the 8 per cent across the board cut that the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia has forecast. It works out at something like $50m. If the States had $50m less in their pockets they would have to do quite a bit of belt tightening.

The outlay includes the provision of almost $10m to Queensland for flood restoration purposes to cover the cost of resiting and reconstructing those properties destroyed or damaged by the floods last year. Quite a few people may be unaware that the Government has promised to provide flood relief money. Certainly the Premier of Queensland has not gone out of his way to publicise his appreciation of the Government’s action, but that is just about par for the course for the Premier of Queensland. The States have been relieved of the responsibility of financing tertiary education. The basic program for each State is 20 per cent greater than last year’s proposal. The sum of $326m has been provided by the Government to the States as capital grants. They are interest free grants and there are no strings attached to them as to the spending of the finance. Those States which constantly criticise the Government for tying grants and those honourable members who constantly join in with the criticism neglect to say that this year the States will be getting 8 per cent more than last year in interest free, no strings attached grants and $126m more than when the scheme was started. In September of this year the Australian Government proposed, and the States agreed, to an increase of 10 per cent in the basic program. This agreement will be formally approved at a later meeting of the Loan Council.

It is a great disappointment to me personally that local government bodies do not have a voice of their own on the Loan Council. There are over 900 local government bodies in Australia. Their responsibilities to their ratepayers over past years have increased rapidly. These local government bodies are becoming heavily involved in social welfare, conservation, child care and the provision of pre-school facilities. Their access to finance should be considered. The refusal by the States to allow local government bodies to be represented in their own right was deplorable to me. I was also disappointed to find that New South Wales was the only State which saw the light in the recent referendum and voted for representation The Government has, of course, initiated access to the Grants Commission, which does give some straight out grants with no strings attached to local government bodies, but I still believe that they should have their own voice and their own representation on the Loan Council.

The Government makes no apology for putting particular emphasis on the funding of specific purpose programs. We have never attempted to make any apology about that. We believe that the funds which go to the States, as distinct from capital grants, should have strings attached to them. At the June 1973 Premiers Conference the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) said:

From now on, we will expect to be involved in the planning of the function to which we are financially committed.

That sounds like good common sense to me. If one puts money into something one wants to see that it is spent in the way in which one envisaged its being spent. After some of the experiences we have had with the States in the past I do not have quite the same confidence in them as the honourable member for Hume appears to have. In particular I am thinking of the library grants by the Commonwealth which went through the Department of Education in Victoria as distinct from the ones which went to private schools in that State. The Commonwealth moneys spent on libraries by the private schools resulted in the construction of beautiful buildings and the standards were superb. Altogether they were buildings and equipment of which to be proud. But that was not so with respect to the spending by the Victorian Government of Commonwealth money on libraries for State schools. One of the reasons I am wedded to the idea of specific grants is that one knows one is going to get what one has said the money is for.

I point out that the Australian Government now makes over 100 grants to the States for specific purposes, which is a great increase on the grants in previous years. There can be no substance to Opposition statements that the Government is not catering for the needs of the States. As I stated earlier, the number of capital grants has increased quite significantly since the Government took over. As well as the increase in the actual number of grants the States have benefited from having grants replace borrowings. For instance, as grants replace the borrowings that would have otherwise been made by the States there have been substantial savings by the States in debt charges. These savings have been estimated at around $59.7m. One does not hear much mention of that by the State Premiers. To me it is quite a large sum of money, but they seem to have been able to sweep it under the carpet quite easily. The interest-free capital grants are designed to help the States to finance those capital works from which the States cannot expect a return- schools, police buildings and the like. Under a separate Bill a record amount of money is being provided to the States for welfare housing. A moderate rate of interest is to apply. Homes will be built specifically for renting or purchase by low income earners. I repeat that I am wedded to these specific purpose grants because we know that the money will be spent on what is most needed and where it is most needed.

It is regrettable that in some of the areas where this Government does not have a say projects lag far behind schedule. In Victoria the State school building program is failing to keep up with the new schools that are so desperately needed. In my own electorate I know of schools that should be bulldozed and replaced with buildings in which teachers and students alike could work in comfort. Schools in Victoria, and for that matter in other States, still have playgrounds defaced with collections of chicken coops, formerly known as portables, in which students freeze in winter and boil in summer, and reach them either through a mat of dust or a sea of mud, depending on the season. By comparison, in the Australian Capital Territory where this Government does have a say in the education system and school buildings, schools are of a high standard. They comprise good equipment and permanent buildings where the staff actually has a room in which to sit and work instead of a staff room doubling as a sick bay, cloakroom, remedial teaching room and lunch room.

I have always had the impression that the Australian States make up the Australian nation. I feel it is quite destructive to have constant carping from the States about Australian Government interference. Money spent in Australia, whether it be by the Australian Government or by the State governments, usually comes from the same source- the taxpayer’s pocket. It is usually spent for the same purpose- in service to the Australian taxpayer. This Government has taken over responsibility for a whole range of expenditure that it normally would not have. As well, and in conjunction with the States, it is entering further new fields. This is apparent in subsidies and grants, which generally are not known to the public, to hospitals, nursing homes, aged persons hostels, pre-schools, child care centres and, through the Australian assistance plan, to a whole range of community projects. This Government has taken over the funding of tertiary educational institutions. It is making direct grants to local governments. It is maintaining and expanding capital grants to the States. The amount involved, totalling $1,0 17m, is made up of $690m in borrowings and almost $327m in capital grants. The percentage of capital, interest free, no strings tied, grants is definitely on the improve. Overall the funds available to the States and their authorities in 1 974-75 for capital purposes from Loan Councils borrowing programs, Australian Government general purpose and specific purpose payments and estimated borrowings by authorities will amount to one-third more than last financial year.

If the 8 per cent cut across the board about which the Opposition likes to speak so blithely is put into effect, bearing in mind that the Opposition has said it will increase defence spending and hold education spending, the States will collect a bonanza of a $50m cut in their spending.

This will mean that the States will be scratching, as the honourable member for Hume suggests they are scratching now. I do not know where he gets his figures because last year Victoria alone returned $8m of its money to the Commonwealth because it could not spend it. The honourable member for Hume spoke also of transport charges being increased and of the very poor services the States are providing. I remind him, although he is not in the House at the moment -

Mr Corbett:

– There are not many Labor Party members here either.

Mrs CHILD:

– I thought the honourable member for Hume would have remained during this debate. I remind him that this Government offered to take over completely the Victorian railway system, but that offer was refused. This is a time when all governments, State and Federal, Labor or Liberal, should be trying to co-operate so that the changes that are bringing such advantages to the people could proceed smoothly. We are all mouthing the same words day after day, saying that this nation is facing difficult times. When we face difficult times there should be cooperation. When difficulty arises people usually close ranks and fight together. This is the time when people need houses, builders need work and building material is freely available. The State housing commissions should be accelerating their building programs and not fighting with the Federal Government. Similarly State education authorities should be accelerating the replacement of their run-down schools, not fighting with the Federal Government. This is the time when people and their needs should be paramount.

I was recently told- the honourable member for Hume again implied it about my colleaguesthat I did not support federalism and that I did not support States’ rights. My answer then and my answer now is and always will be that I do not; I support people’s rights. They are paramount and they take the place of States’ rights and they take the place of the Federal Government’s rights. I do not support the rights of a State to obstruct and thwart programs financed by Australian Government money, bearing in mind that this Australian Government was elected to office. The aim of expending money is to produce the goods and services people need, and they need schools, hospitals and houses. Let us hope that the capital grants contained in this Bill will be used wisely in the people’s interests and not in an effort to score points over the Australian Government. Let us hope also that for once we might get a little maturity into State and Federal relations instead of the usual reaction we have been getting. Recently in Victoria the Victorian State Health Minister stated rather petulantly that child care centres that accepted Federal money would not get State money. That attitude seems absurd to me. The Victorian State Minister for Transport boycotted the public display of a prototype railway carriage because the Federal Government built it. This is 1974 and people are facing problems. Surely we can face these problems together and move away from such churlish behaviour.

Mr CORBETT (Maranoa) ^^^Notwithstanding all my gallantry I must disagree and be at cross-purposes with the honourable member for Henry (Mrs Child) who said that she does not support State rights. To give her her due, she said that she supports people’s rights. As I see it, in supporting State rights members of the Opposition are supporting the State rights of the people of those States, and this is the fundamental issue. In depriving the States of their rights the Government is depriving the people of the States of the rights they now enjoy. The honourable member for Henty referred also to the Opposition’s proposed 8 per cent across the board cut in government expenditure but like other Labor Party members she made her own assessment of what the proposed cuts would involve. Government supporters do not realise that when the Opposition is returned to government it will adopt economic policies which will enable the 8 per cent cut to be made without the drastic results envisaged by Government supporters.

I agree with the honourable member for Henty when she said that local government bodies should be represented on the Loan Council. She referred also to the activities of the Grants Commission with respect to local government. In view of the funds that the Grants Commission has provided for local government, I believe it has been a dismal failure. I know of some councils that have not received any financial assistance at all. The present Government has taken over responsibility for what it calls national arterial roads but in so doing it has taken funds away from rural arterial roads with the result that shire councils, which were dependent largely for work for their employees on the Main Roads Department, for which they acted as constructing authorities, are now putting off men who have given long and faithful service. This is directly the result of the policies of this Government which is claiming some credit for accepting responsibility for national arterial roads. It has assumed that responsibility at the expense of rural arterial roads and other rural roads, and shire councils are suffering greatly as a result.

The Grants Commission scheme could have been good but it has turned out to be a real failure. The Grants Commission has been a big disappointment to local governments in Queensland, particularly to those shires which did not receive even one cent. Other shires did get something.

This Bill is similar to legislation which comes before the House annually. But this year, the aim and thrust of the Bill are different, thus reflecting the attitude of the Government. We must beware. We cannot accept with outward calm the implied threats contained in the legislation. Ever since 2 December 1972, the notes have been slowly dribbling in and the message is clear: The small will be swallowed by the large and the large will be swallowed by the huge. We lament this environment but unless State and local governments unite to repel the invader the incurred wounds of centralis tic control will take a lot of curing. The medicine will be drastic. We must shoulder the burden to overcome the suspicion that permeates the Australian economic and social scene today.

Let us analyse the position of the States. Table No. 8 which is headed ‘Securities on Issue, Australia and Overseas, and Total per Head of Population as at 30 June 1950 to 1974’ which appears at page 25 of Budget Paper No. 6, ‘Government Securities on Issue at 30 June 1974’ is a most enlightening table. I have shown this table to the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart) who is at the table and, with his agreement, I ask for leave to incorporate that table in Hansard.

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

Mr CORBETT:

– I thank the House. The table shows that the debt of the Australian Government has decreased in the period 1950 to 1974 from $456.18 per head to $306.93 per head, while the States’ debt has increased from $290.78 per head to $860.70 per head. If what the honourable member for Henty said in her speech is correct- that is, that the Government is doing such a wonderful job for the States- I ask: What sort of a position are we going to get into? We cannot object to the principle established in 1970 of capital grants as a measure in an overall review of financial arrangements between the States and the Australian Government. But we can argue and we will argue with thrust and muscle that due to massive increases in the Commonwealth Government’s tax revenues since 1970, the Commonwealth must now have a greater capacity to provide the States with capital assistance by way of grant than it did at that time. So, it is only giving back some of the money which has been brought into the Commonwealth’s hands as a result of inflation. The position is becoming worse, as the table which I have incorporated indicates, and corrective measures of greater assistance are certainly required urgently. A mutual beneficial relationship between the States and the Commonwealth can be established only if the central Government is aware of the problems of the States and takes effective action to counter those problems.

The grants have not been a one way traffic. The all time high interest rates charged to the States on borrowings and conversions of existing borrowings have been offsets against the grants and indicate that much more must be done. The position of Queensland deserves special consideration and examination. Queensland gets a relatively low share, this being traced back to the post- World War II period and resulting from the scarcity of resources under the last Federal Labor Government and an alternative source of finance from the post-war Reconstruction and Development Trust Fund. But the position has to be clarified.

No longer is it an eminently logical argument to advance the proposition that distribution should be made on a formula based on previous years’ loan spending. Queensland is entitled to a larger share of the capital grants in line with its population and its requirements. It could be argued that Queensland obtains 18 per cent of the total allocation for semi-governmental authorities compared with its population proportion of 1 5.2 per cent, but this argument can be rebutted and set aside by pointing out that these semi-governmental loans are amortised over much shorter periods than the 53 years over which Commonwealth-State loans are amortised. Additionally, the semi-governmental authorities have the problem of raising these moneys themselves whereas the State loan allocations are raised by the Commonwealth which also undertakes to make up any deficiency in the amount borrowed. Further semi-governmental borrowings involve higher interest rates than Commonwealth loans raised on behalf of the States, and their repayment is not assisted with a sinking fund contribution from the Commonwealth as is the case with Commonwealth loans on behalf of the States.

Australian Federal-State financial relations have undergone a process of change since Federation in 1901. The Federal Constitution laid down the framework for a division of responsibilities and financial resources between the Federal and State governments. But that framework was savagely fractured by the drastic and impervious announcement of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) at the June 1973 Premiers’ Conference when he said:

From now on, we will expect to be involved in the planning of the function in which we are financially involved. We believe that it would be irresponsible for the national Government to content itself with simply providing funds without being involved in the process by which priorities are met and by which expenditures are planned and by which standards are met.

The Government has set out deliberately to subvert section 96 by twisting it to meet the demands of socialistic philosophies. Section 96 was originally intended as a short term measure to help the States. Now it is being used in some ways to throttle and strangle them.

The Constitution laid down quite definitely and without equivocation the Commonwealth responsibilities such as defence, foreign affairs, trade, customs and excise, etc, and State responsibilities which are those not specifically given to the Federal Government in 1901. Education, health and transport are all State responsibilities. Yet we find this catastrophe of a Government has appointed Ministers in these areas. Duplication has resulted. I submit they should all be called Special Ministers for Section 96. It can be argued that there has been a blatant usurping of the powers of the States. Scant regard has been given to the plaintiff calls for restraint in Government spending from such true statesmen as the Honourable Joh Bjelke-Petersen, soon to be reelected as Premier of Queensland, who has led the fight of opposition to the steamrolling monster of centralism. Never before have we witnessed the acceleration of the establishment of authorities in the Federal sphere duplicating existing instrumentalities in the States. Jobs for the boys have been created and will be created in the Cities Commission, the Housing Corporation and the Education Commission, all duplicating the missions of well established, well regimented and highly functional State departments. There are many people aware of the intentions and advocating a change in section 96 to read ‘Commonwealth can make grants to States on mutually acceptable terms’. This surely is reasonable and would retain the spirit and heart. of federalism thus negating the attempts of the Prime Minister to use that section as a club to destroy the States. We of the Opposition call on the Prime Minister to stop this trumpeting and bugle blowing and get on with the job of controlling inflation.

When will the Prime Minister co-operate with the States? When will he accept the BjelkePetersen plan for controlling inflation, granting taxation concessions and lowering of sales tax? Why did the Prime Minister refuse to co-operate with the States? He refused much to the disgust of all thinking Australians. He would not cooperate by curtailing his mammoth empire building through cutting expenditure. It is no wonder the Premier of Queensland described the Premiers’ Conference on 13 August 1974 as a complete waste of time because the Commonwealth did not have a plan and the Prime Minister, who admits he has neither interest nor expertise in economic matters said there was not a crisis in the economy. That was his attitude to it.

Mr O’Keefe:

– Three Budgets in 3 months.

Mr CORBETT:

-Then, as my colleague from Paterson has interjected, his Government has had to introduce 3 Budgets in 3 months. The Prime Minister did not admit at the time of that Premiers Conference that there was any crisis. All that the Prime Minister offered to the Conference was flowery words- another example of the Prime Minister’s characteristic much ado but little done.

In his second reading speech, the Minister dealt with larger authorities’ programs but the position of local authorities total debt was summarily dismissed. The Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics, as it then was, in its publication 1970-71, reference No. 5.36 on pages 4 and 5, shows the debt of local government at that date as $ 1,730.5m. The problem that confronts local authorities throughout the Commonwealth is the enormous debt that they have had to incur because of the lack of interest and understanding by the Commonwealth Government of the needs of the States. This is emphasised by reference to the attitude that the Commonwealth Government has taken in relation to the arterial roads plan. It has accepted the responsibility with respect to arterial roads and has taken the funds away from the States and local government to use them for this national arterial roads undertaking. I agree completely with the need for a national arterial roads program if the funds for that program were provided by the Commonwealth Government, not at the expense of the States or of local government. That is one of the greatest condemnations we have had in recent times of this Government’s financial relationships with the State governments and local authorities. Supporters of the Labor Party talk about being interested in people. Let me tell them that as a result of that measure alone hundreds and hundreds of people throughout Australia have been put out of work. Some of the smaller towns in which local authorities are the major employers of labour are suffering very severely as a result of this measure and, of course, from the damage that has been caused by the other policies of the Government.

The Commonwealth has shown its true colours in another instance. The matter I am about to mention was also mentioned by the honourable member for Henty in her speech tonight. She referred in glowing terms to the action of the Commonwealth Government in providing $9.5m to Queensland to be used for the restoration of flood damage. In point of fact this was money that the State was allowed to borrow.

Mr King:

– It was not Federal money at all?

Mr CORBETT:

– It was Federal money but the State had to borrow it from the Federal Government. It was not a grant. The Government seems impervious to personal hardship and distress despite what it says. It appears to be unmoved by the calls for assistance for personal hardship and distress, the restoration of private dwellings, assistance to primary producers and to private industry and assistance to State Government departments and semigovernmental authorities.

I want to limit my time to meet the wishes of the Government. I conclude my remarks by saying that I support and the Opposition supports the essence of the Bill. In States which are pulsating with energy to get on with the building of more schools and police buildings, we submit that the amount of capital assistance is too little. In a day and age when we are crying out for fit Australians one can only marvel at the stringent conditions applicable to the provision of shortterm re-establishment finance for sporting bodies suffering flood damage. I hope that the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, who is sitting at the table, will take some note of that. We realise the problem of containing the fires of centralism fanned by the Government. We are not daunted by the problem of fighting a protracted campaign. The thoughts and aspirations of the

Australian people are behind us and they proved by their overwhelming defeat of the referenda proposals that they believe in State rights.

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

– I would not have risen to speak in this debate had I not been challenged by the reference to sporting bodies in the last couple of sentences of the speech just made by the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett). This Government is the first Australian Government that has done anything for sporting bodies in Australia. Liberal-Country Party governments for 23 years allowed our Commonwealth Games and Olympic Games athletes to conduct chook and beer raffles and to go around begging for funds. Last year this Government gave $4m for sporting and recreational facilities throughout Australia and $lm to help our national teams participate in various events.

The honourable member for Maranoa issued another challenge when he said: ‘Will someone tell me when this Government will co-operate with the States?’ Previous speakers who participated in this debate said something about centralist governments. They said that the programs that have been introduced by the Federal Government for the benefit of all Australians have been financed at the expense of State and local government. Let me give the House just a few facts and honourable members opposite can check them out as closely as they wish. I will divide the components which make up the item ‘Payments to or for the States 1974-75’ into 3 categories- general revenue assistance; general purpose capital funds; and total funds granted by the Australian Government to the States. General revenue assistance in 1974-75 is expected to amount to $2,376m compared with $l,923m in 1973-74 and $l,701m in 1972-73, which was the last Budget that was brought down by the Liberal-Country Party Government before it was defeated.

I will take those figures a little further. Allowing for certain arrangements for financing tertiary education and the transfer of payroll tax to the States in 1971-72, the effective increases in 1974-75, 1973-74 and 1972-73 are 28 per cent, 20 per cent and 17 per cent. So in 1972-73 the previous Government increased the general revenue assistance to or for the States by only 17 per cent compared with 28 per cent this year. I will not give the figures for general purpose capital funds, I will just give the percentages. These funds were increased in the 1974-75 Budget by 2 1 per cent compared with 10 per cent in the preceding 2 years. Both general and specific purpose funds for recurrent and capital purposes are expected to total $6,1 16m this year compared with $4,359m in 1973-74 and $3,614m 1972-73. Again I stress that the 1972-73 Budget was the last Budget that the Liberal-Country Party Government brought down. The increase in this financial year is 21 per cent compared with increases of 18 per cent in the previous 2 years. No less than 35 per cent of all Australian Government outlays in 1974-75 will go to the States. The bulk of this money consists of general purpose funds, revenue grants and allocations made under Loan Council programs.

Part of the outlays of the Australian Government for 1974-75 will be directed specifically to certain areas in the States. For instance, 76 per cent of the money spent on education will go to the States, 52 per cent spent in the housing field will go to the State and 65 per cent spent in the fields of urban and regional development and the environment will go to the States.

Mr Corbett:

– We will still get more into debt.

Mr STEWART:

– I am tired of the fact that people on the other side of the House can get up continuously and time after time use those lies that you are using now. Look at the direct fact -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! I suggest that the Minister withdraw the word that he just used.

Mr STEWART:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I was using a general phrase. I said: ‘You people on that side can tell those lies ‘.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest to the Minister that he was actually referring to the speech of the honourable member for Maranoa. I think perhaps it would have been wiser if he had not used that word at that point in his speech.

Mr STEWART:

– I withdraw the word ‘lie’, if you think that it refers to my friend, the honourable member for Maranoa. I did not direct that word to him. I had no intention -

Mr Calder:

– You aimed it at us all.

Mr STEWART:

– That is right, I aimed it at all of you.

Mr Calder:

– You are completely and utterly wrong.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for the Northern Territory will cease interjecting.

Mr STEWART:

-This is the sort of thing I also dislike. I was not in the House last night when the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) made his speech on the economy. I happened to be listening to the speech in my home and I heard -

Mr Ellicott:

– 1 rise to order. My point of order is that the Minister should address himself to the Bill before the House. I thought that he would speak for 2 minutes. He has been speaking now for 7 minutes. Having in mind the time limit placed on this debate, I decided not to speak so as to allow the Minister the opportunity to speak. Notwithstanding this, the Minister is still talking.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I would suggest that the Minister should not reply to interjections. I have already told the honourable member for the Northern Territory that interjections are out of order.

Mr STEWART:

– It is remarkably gracious of the honourable member who just took that point of order to say that he paid me the courtesy of sitting down. He has not been a member of the House long enough to realise that there is a speaker from the Opposition side and then a speaker from the Government side.

Mr Ellicott:

– You know quite well I made an arrangement.

Mr STEWART:

– I merely suggest that if members on the other side of the House intend talking on these Bills they should make certain of the facts that they use. As a government we have done more for the States and more for local government than any previous Australian Government-has done. It is time that the people in local government and State governments realised that this Government is not a centralist government. It is an Australian Government and we always aim our policies at doing the most for the majority of the people in Australia.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 3498

PAY ROLL TAX (TERRITORIES) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 2 October on motion by Mr Hayden:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

– I speak on behalf of the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Lynch), who cannot be here this evening. The Bill before the House seeks to amend the Pay Roll Tax (Territories) Act 1971-73 for the purpose of increasing the rate at which payroll tax is levied in the territories from 4Vi to S per cent. The legislation is pursuant to the statement of the Treasurer (Mr Crean) to this effect in his Budget speech. The passage of this legislation will bring the rate of payroll tax levied in the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory into line with the rate which, as from 1 September, has already been introduced into some State parliaments. The rates of payroll tax levied in the States and the Territories originally moved out of line following the transfer of payroll tax to the States. This measure followed the 1971 Premiers’ Conference where it was agreed that payroll tax would be transferred to the States in order to give them access to a new growth tax to assist them in the budgetary difficulties which they were facing at that time. The States at that stage were anxious to obtain a new area of growth revenue to finance improvements in State services.

The Australian Government continued to impose its own tax on the territories at the existing rate at that time of 2.5 per cent, with the rate being subject to review in the light of changes the States might make in their individual domains. The differential between the rate of payroll tax levied in the States and that levied in the territories at first developed when the States raised their rate from 2Vi to 3V4 per cent, but the Federal Government did not follow suit in respect of the territories. The Coombs Task Force, reporting on the continuing expenditure policies of the previous Government in June 1973, criticised this differential as a disguised expenditure. It said that it took the form of a concession to employers in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory by comparison with their counterparts in the States. The Task Force estimated the cost to revenue of the differential in rates- operative at that stage- at $2m in 1 972-73 and 1973-74 and $3m in the following 2 years. The rate of payroll tax levied in the territories was brought into line with the States since then, when in 1973 it was increased from 2Vi per cent to 3 Vi as from 1 September 1973 and to 4 ½ per cent from 1 July 1974. However, since the States raised their rate to 5 per cent from 1 September this year, the territory rate is again lagging.

During the debate on payroll tax adjustment last year, the Opposition expressed its agreement with the Government that there was no good reason why the territory employers should not be called upon to meet taxes and charges comparable with those borne by employers in the States. The Opposition recognises that the Federal Government is in no way bound to follow the lead of the States in fixing the rates of payroll tax. However, the maintenance of a differential rate could lead to anomalous situations. For instance, the operation of a lower payroll tax in the ACT would provide an artificial advantage to Canberra-based businesses as opposed to those based in Queanbeyan paying taxes to the New South Wales Government. The Opposition made it clear during the previous debate on this issue that we accept the standardisation of payroll tax as a general principle. However, at the same time we also stated our view that there could be valid reasons why certain special provisions should be made in respect of the Australian territories. In certain circumstances the operation of a differential rate of payroll tax could be considered, for example, to provide stimulation to the business community in a particular area. This possibility could be considered in an area which experiences particular difficulties and is isolated, for example, the Northern Territory.

Another possibility is for the Federal Government to use funds raised through payroll tax in the territories for the purpose of assisting areas which suffered from particular disabilities. Such funds raised in the Northern Territory could perhaps be applied to the development of this area and for providing facilities which the Territory could not normally provide because of its sparse population and the difficulties and expenses involved. It is worth adverting to the original purpose of payroll tax. The levy was introduced by the Commonwealth Government in 1941 as a companion measure with the Child Endowment Act. Subsequently, payroll tax was paid into Consolidated Revenue, out of which child endowment was paid.

Therefore, a tax originally introduced to finance a particular welfare expenditure has simply become a further element of a complex revenue raising system. The Asprey Committee ‘s preliminary report referred to payroll tax in the following terms:

Many of the key features of the present tax system were introduced in the 1930’s and 1940’s for good short-term reasons connected with the depression and World War II, without much thought to their longer-run implications. This is true, for instance, of the adoption of sales tax in 1930, of the discontinuance in 1940 of company tax rebate on dividends to individuals, and of the introduction in 1941 of payroll tax (now under the control of the States) and Federal gift duty. Three decades or more later it is reasonable to examine the permanent consequences of these changes as well as to take stock of the piecemeal accumulation of minor changes that have since occurred.

The Asprey Committee’s preliminary report does not provide a basis for any re-assessment of payroll tax. Regardless of the original purpose of payroll tax, this levy is now well entrenched in the system netting an annual figure of a not insignificant $700m. In terms of the territories the growth has been particularly rapid as would the burden of the levy as the rate has been doubled in just over a year. The increase from 2Vi per per cent to 3V4 per cent operated from 1 September 1973 and the increase to 4Vi per cent operated from 1 July 1974. The increase to 5 per cent will come into operation in respect of wages that become payable on or after 1 December 1974. This doubling of the rate in respect of the territories in such a short time should be compared with the fact that payroll tax when this Government came to power in December 1972 was still being imposed at the same rate as that originally introduced in 1941, that is, at the rate of 2Vi per cent.

The impact on businesses in the territories of this increase must be considered in relation to the other tax increases which they have had to sustain under this Labor Government. Notwithstanding the reductions in company tax introduced last night, the increases in tax on businesses include an increase in the rate of private company tax from 42 Vi per cent to 45 per cent, the same rate as public companies pay without a comparable reduction in the tax on retained profits; the introduction of capital gains tax; the removal of the investment allowance and substantial cuts in deductible items for tax purposes. These increased taxes must be considered in line with the introduction of quarterly tax collection which places another, and often an intolerable, burden on company liquidity at a time when severe credit limitations are still applicable.

The fact that the States have been forced to make frequent and substantial increases in the rate at which payroll tax is levied is an indication of the inadequacy of the funds allotted to them by the Federal Government. The burden which this tax places on all Australian businesses appears to have been completely disregarded by the Federal Government in its decisions on funding for the States and its decisions to make so many varied and substantial increases in company taxation. An additional facet of this tax which should be considered is the huge increase in the amount of tax as a percentage of rapidly increasing wages, not all of which are recoverable in increased prices.

The Opposition Parties, however, support the proposal before the House to standardise this tax as we believe that under the present system anomalies in the rate between different business communities could operate to the detriment of the States. However, we stress that this area is one in need of review and we express the hope that the final report of the Asprey Committee will provide a thorough appraisal of the situation and suggestions which can restore the use of this levy to its rightful perspective in the overall taxation mechanism.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– It is accepted that payroll tax in the Northern Territory is to be raised by the Commonwealth Government from 4’A per cent to 5 per cent. I note that the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) who is probably not the Minister who will speak on this Bill, stated in his second reading speech- he was then the acting Treasurer- that there is no good reason why Territory employers should not be called on to meet taxes and charges comparable with those borne by employers in the States. I just ask: Why? We are . discussing an area which has not had the privileges and development of the States and which has spent years behind the 8-ball. And everyone is now saying that the Territory should be taxed the same and treated the same in relation to freight rates and so on. It is suffering from the transport difficulties and the tremendous charges on everything that arrives in the Northern Territory.

Virtually everything in the Budget, while not necessarily aimed at the Northern Territory, hit the Territory fairly directly, not indirectly. I refer to such things as freight charge rebates, fuel equalisation funds and so on. It is generally accepted in the Territory that people who live in the south know nothing whatsoever about the Northern Territory. I include the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Mr Enderby), who will probably speak in this debate. He demonstrated so ably when he was the Minister for the Northern Territory that he knew nothing whatsoever about the area. If he speaks in this debate let it be recorded in Hansard that he is completely ignorant of the feelings of the people in the Northern Territory and of what is going on there.

During a recent election campaign which took place in the Northern Territory the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam)- he was purring at the timesaid: ‘We are the people who care. We are the ones who will give you a vote in the Senate’. Let him put on a vote in the Senate for the Northern Territory any time he likes. I want to get this point over because the people in the south do not seem to realise the difficulties and the problems that exist for those living in the Northern Territory. They blithely say what was said in the second reading speech of the then Acting Treasurer. I emphasise the fact that this tax is blithely introduced. I know that it has to be imposed, but it is the attitude of the people who impose it that is so riling to us who live there.

For a reason which is very apparent, no Australian Labor Party candidates were voted into the new Legislative Assembly. The people of the Northern Territory know only too well- Government supporters can say what they like when they speak in this debate- that they have absolutely turned their backs on the Labor Party and its policies.

Mr Holten:

– They have had them properly.

Mr CALDER:
NORTHERN TERRITORY · CP; NCP from May 1975

– They certainly have. The Northern Territory is one area which cannot be cut up by having a redistribution, and the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly), who is at the table, should remember that. By all means give the Territory a couple of senators. It has been talking about it ever since I have been a member of the Parliament and now it should do it.

Mr Daly:

– Your party and you voted against it.

Mr CALDER:
NORTHERN TERRITORY · CP; NCP from May 1975

– Come on. You have been spruiking about it ever since I have been a member of this House. You are completely insincere and critical. To return to the Bill -

Mr Daly:

– On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I take the point that the honourable member voted against that question in this Parliament.

Mr Wentworth:

– That is a frivolous point of order. The Leader of the House should be ashamed of himself.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes)Order! The honourable member for Mackellar may wish to speak next in the debate.

Mr CALDER:

-Just tell the Minister what happened to the Labor Party in the last election for the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. I am telling him what the Northern Territory people think of him and of the Labor Party. The Minister can rave his head off when he speaks in this debate. He should go to the Northern Territory as his great Prime Minister went there -

Mr Daly:

– But you voted against the Northern Territory having senators.

Mr CALDER:

– Yes, and you put on the election.

Mr Daly:

– Why did you vote against it?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest -

Mr CALDER:

– He is supposed to be a Minister -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! While I am speaking the honourable member will remain silent. I suggest that the honourable member should remain away from the microphone or he will deafen somebody.

Mr CALDER:

– I shall come back to this Bill. We have heard so much from the Minister for Services and Property. He cannot cut up the Northern Territory to suit the Labor Party so that it will get back into office forever, as he had told me, on this very bench, that it will. Let the general public know that, if he is considering a fair distribution of seats, I trust that the Labor Government will give the new Northern Territory Legislative Assembly a fair go when it discusses this tax and other matters. I know it must have been very distressing for the Government to have fielded a candidate in every electorate but one, and to have lost in all of them. And all the Labor members of the former Legislative Council were defeated.

I ask the Government why it is rushing this sort of Bill through the House when it has not been considered by the Legislative Assembly, the brain child of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam). He said that regardless of how long it would take to organise, there would be a fully elected Legislative Assembly in the Northern Territory before December 1974. The Legislative Assembly is now a reality but it so happens that there are no Labor members in it. That is just too bad for the Labor Party. I want to know why this Bill, which is the sort of legislation that would normally be considered by a State Parliament, has not come before the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. No one has said what the executive powers of the Assembly will be; no one has said what its responsibilities will be and no one has said what the remuneration of its members will be.

I say again that this Bill and the Northern Territory (Stabilisation of Land Prices) Bill are being forced through this Parliament when they should be the prerogative of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. I am sure that the members of the Assembly are prepared to take the responsibility. They are Territorians of long standing. Yet one or two Ministers who know nothing about the Territory and care less about it will stand up and castigate me for saying what I have said. Let them go to the Territory; let them speak to the people. Let the Minister for the

Northern Territory (Dr Patterson) go there and discuss what this legislation is all about. But let him remember that on 25 October 1972, the previous Government made an offer to the Northern Territory to give it responsibility for a range of functions. Let us face it; that offer did not mention payroll tax, but it covered such things as State type taxation, stamp duties and succession duties. It also included the control of the Northern Territory police and urban lands.

This is why I am saying that these Bills should not be rushed through this House. They should be withdrawn, redrafted and either presented to the Assembly by whatever mechanism this Government intends to use to get its legislation through the Assembly or they should be introduced by the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly itself. What is happening is typical and exactly what one would expect of the Labor Party. It called for a fully elected Legislative Assembly, yet although elections for the Assembly have been held, the Government is determined to put these Bills through this House and not consider the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. I say that these Bills should be withdrawn, redrafted and presented to that Assembly.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 3502

SERVICE AND EXECUTION OF PROCESS BILL 1974

Second Reading

Mr ENDERBY:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · Canberra · ALP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Service and Execution of Process Act 1901-1973 to express distances referred to in the Act in terms of kilometres rather than miles. The change arises of course out of the metric conversion program. Under section 5 of the Act every writ of summons to which an appearance is required to be entered by the party to whom it is address must contain a notice requiring that party to show on his appearance an address for service of documents within 5 miles of the office of the court out of which the summons is issued. Section 9 of the Act makes a similar requirement in respect of appearances entered by or on behalf of a defendant to a writ of summons served under the Act in accordance with the requirements of the metric conversion program it is necessary to remove these references to miles and insert appropriate distances expressed in kilometres. It has been decided to provide in sections 5 and 9 of the Act for distances of 10 kilometres in each case, this being a conveniently rounded figure.

The amendments made by the Bill are, by clause 4, to apply to any writ of summons issued after the commencement of the Act and to any appearance entered after that time, including an appearance to a writ of summons issued before that commencement. The Act would of course commence on the 28th day after it receives the royal assent. As 10 kilometres is a slightly greater distance than 5 miles the change has the effect of allowing parties to summonses served and appearances entered under the Act a greater radius within which an address for service must be shown. I have given my colleagues, the Attorneys-General of the States, and the legal profession generally notice of the proposed amendment so that parties affected by the change may be aware of what is intended. The amendments set out in the Schedule to the Bill are of a purely formal nature, for the purpose of applying current drafting practices to the provisions of the principal Act. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr ELLICOTT:
Wentworth

-This is an amendment to one of the oldest Acts of the Commonwealth which has stood the passage of time, unlike much of the legislation that is going through the House at the moment. It has remained on the statute book for 70 years untrammelled. The Opposition is very happy to support this amendment to bring the Act into line with the decision of this House to adopt metric measurements. We offer no opposition to the Bill and wish it a speedy passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 3502

ADJOURNMENT

Speech by the Prime Minister- Company LawAustralian Economy

Motion (by Mr Enderby) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-On 23 September of this year, the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) was present at a dinner hosted by the Heavy Engineering Manufacturers Association. He made certain remarks which were reported in the Australian Broadcasting Commission program ‘AM ‘ the following day. He said that he was a strong supporter of the Rattigan plan for rationalising industries, that is, for closing down inefficient industries and making their members unemployed. He castigated as ‘nervous Nellies’ those who were frightened of the consequences. The Prime Minister then went on to say: ‘Do not exaggerate. It is not as bad as people say-that 900 people were laid off in Launceston. Only 360 were laid off. ‘

This morning I asked the Prime Minister a question relating to the policy of tariff slashing. I asked whether he recalled the ‘A.M.’ broadcast in which he supported the concept that the tariff slashing was to be commended even though it meant a certain amount of unemployment and he categorised as ‘nervous Nellies’ those people who were frightened of a certain amount of unemployment. The Prime Minister denied that he had said these things. As it happened, I had in my hand the actual transcript of what he had said. But I have gone better than that. I now actually have the tape recording of what he said and I propose to play it. (The honourable member for Mackellar operating a tape recorder)-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will cease playing that tape recorder. (The honourable member for Mackellar continuing to operate the tape recorder)-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I shall name the honourable member for Mackellar if he continues to play that tape in the House.

Mr Peacock:

– I rise to order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no provision in the Standing Orders to play a tape in the House.

Mr Peacock:

– But the honourable member for Mackellar is specifically excluded -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will not be allowed to play the tape in the House. (The honourable member for Mackellar having ceased to operate the tape recorder)-

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Very good, Sir. Let me just say that I have the tape. I have verified it. I shall now read what was on the tape. The transcript reads as follows:

Mr Whitlam:

– I don’t discount the fact that a lot of these things have to be done, that we’ve grown accustomed to them, but if you want to put it in personal terms I’m a strong Rattigan man. I’ve scarcely known the man, but I’ve admired him for years. 1 believe Rattigan is the most rationalising force in the use of this nation’s resources that any of us have known and I back- I don’t discount the fact that with so many many pressures going around there’ll be ‘nervous Nellies ‘ in my party as much as in any other party.

Mr Peacock:

– Is this actually played on the tape?

Mr WENTWORTH:

-This is actually on the tape. I cannot play it but it is there. I will be willing to make it available to honourable members afterwards. The Prime Minister said further:

But I do get a bit irked, not with your membership, not with this association, but with some others that spread panic. I suppose I might as well cite the textile industry. Some of you have heard me mention in the past during last April and May, by an extraordinary coincidence. I remember there was one company in the Latrobe Valley which said that it would have to sack 300 people if we didn’t reimpose quotas or embargoes or the 25 per cent tariff. They’ve never employed more than 65, and recently, I haven’t read the report in detail, but I had a glance at it today, Clyde Cameron showed it to me, there’ve been allegations that textile companies have had to put off 900 people in Launceston. The department made an investigation. There were 360 laid off.

I think that my question in the House today fairly summarised the position which the Prime Minister took up. He was in favour of tariff slashing in order to create a certain amount of unemployment. Whatever may have been the position when the economy was buoyant, surely one cannot go about tariff slashing when the economy is in its present form- when there are no further jobs available for people who lose their jobs by the action of the Government. There are no further jobs available when manufacturers dismiss the people in the town who depend upon them. There are no further avenues open. If we are to have tariff slashing it must be done- and I do not say it should be done because I am one of the people who believe in a high Australian content for our goods that we consume- at a time of full employment. It must be done only when the economy is buoyant.

This is the trouble: The Prime Minister and the Government have entirely miscalculated the economy. I am not saying that they did this deliberately. I am saying that they were muddlers and that the consequences of their muddle are now being felt by the Australian people from Perth to Cairns. I do not know whether there are any decent penitents in the Government. Members of the Government do not seem to understand that by their miscalculation they have caused misery and unemployment which has not yet reached its peak because there is still trouble in the pipeline. The measures which the Prime Minister announced last night, tardy though they were, ill conceived though some of them were, nevertheless were in the right direction but were too late. This Government is incompetent and the measure of this Government’s incompetence is the amount of unemployment in the Australian economy and the loss of production from Australian industry. That is the measure of what the Government has done and Government supporters should show a decent degree of penitence at the present time.

Mr Peacock:

– But the Prime Minister denied having said that.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I will come to that. The Prime Minister, at the table, denied having said this. I cannot press this button on the tape recorder. You, Mr Speaker, will not allow me to do so. I shall play the tape recording outside this chamber. I have the tape here and it is available to anyone. In the Prime Minister’s own words, this is what he said. He stood up in the House today and he denied that he had said anything along these lines. I have given honourable members an exact quote of the question I asked the Prime Minister today. Honourable members are aware that the Prime Minister denied that he said these things. I do not on this occasion accuse the Prime Minister of having told a deliberate lie. It may be that his memory -

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr WENTWORTH:

– I do not accuse him.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I have warned the honourable gentleman time after time. I do not want him to skirt around what I have been telling him time after time. The honourable member for Mackellar seems to be pretty adept in getting around my warning. I ask him not to do this.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Yes, Mr Speaker. I am not making an accusation. I am making quite clear -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I have given the honourable member for Mackellar every opportunity in the past when he has been making his speeches. I am asking him not to do this. If he does, he will go out.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Well, Mr Speaker, I am not doing it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! If you do do it, you will be put out of this chamber.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I think that the Prime Minister -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I am giving the honourable member for Mackellar a fair warning.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Yes, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I have been very tolerant with the honourable member. I have given him a fair warning.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-The Prime Minister -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Mackellar will have a week’s rest without pay next time.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-The Prime Minister was guilty of a deplorable lapse of memory. I think it was his guilty conscience because he does not dare face the truth that it is his miscalculation and his incompetence that is imposing these economic disasters on Australia. I am sorry indeed that you, Mr Speaker, should think that I was trying to get around any one of your rulings. I made it quite clear that I have not accused the Prime Minister in the word that I must not say. But it is extraordinary. It is almost a kind of Freudian lapse of memory. This is a man with a guilty conscience who does not dare face the consequences of what he has done to the Australian economy. I think I will leave it at that. I again tell the House that I have this tape here. The words of the Prime Minister are on that tape and he cannot deny them. Let him refurbish his memory.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

– I appreciate the great talents of the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) but it is a pity that he has referred to a matter which is rather trivial compared with the matter that I am going to mention. I would have even greater admiration for the honourable member for Mackellar if he would use the time of this Parliament to bring to the notice of the Australian people gigantic rackets of the type that I want to re-emphasise and which were referred to in three of the major newspapers today. I believe that the honourable member’s Liberal colleagues in Sydney and the Liberal Government in New South Wales are responsible for this continued racketeering and for allowing crook companies and crook company directors to operate. This matter hit the headlines in today’s ‘Financial Review’, the ‘Australian’ and the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’. The honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) and I, together with other supporters of the Government, have expressed and shown concern for some time about the urgent need for action to be taken. We have spoken of the Government’s intention to put on the statute book of the nation in the immediate future a uniform companies law so that some of the spivs and racketeers in Australia and from overseas will be eliminated for all time. We learned from the daily Press that two former Hungarians who migrated to Australia have been detained by the police in Paraguay. We know that the Liberal Government in New South Wales has not exerted any great vigour or shown any enthusiasm in attempting to bring back -

Mr Lusher:

- Mr Speaker -

Mr JAMES:

– I did not mention their names. The honourable member is trying to stop me again. He is Andrew Jones the second, a oncer.

Mr Lusher:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. I simply want to request you to ask the technicians to turn the volume down a little in the interests of debate.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no substance in the point of order. That is a frivolous point of order.

Mr Lusher:

– No, it is not frivolous at all.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr JAMES:

– Apparently other members of the Opposition would like to hear my submissions but the boy from Hume is not interested in having his mind informed. This morning’s ‘Financial Review’ discloses the result of some few years investigation by investigators. According to a report tabled in the New South Wales Parliament yesterday they have established that a 10-man syndicate of highly disciplined and skilled share traders made almost $5m in profits from insider trading, that is getting the information from the inside. The article in the ‘Financial Review ‘ goes on to say:

The report, tabled by the Attorney-General, Mr McCaw, was prepared by 2 special investigators acting for the New South Wales, Victorian and Tasmanian Government.

Every Australian is aware that quite recently Mainline Corporation, the former gigantic private enterprise company, crashed, bringing about the ruination of many workers who depended on Mainline for their income and thenjob. Many small investors lost the money they had invested in Mainline. But two of the directors of Mainline were also directors of Endurance mining company. They were Mr Baker and Mr O’Neill. According to the article in today’s ‘Financial Review’ and similar articles in the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ and the ‘Australian’, these people have made virtually hundreds of thousands of dollars out of their crook practices connected with insider trading. They belong to the 10-man syndicate to which I referred a short time ago.

Mr Armitage:

– They are members of the Liberal Party too.

Mr JAMES:

-Yes, they are. This clique belongs to two of the posh clubs in Sydney- the Royal Sydney Golf Club and the Union Club.

Mr Lusher:

– Would they not let you in?

Mr JAMES:

– I would never want to be a member. I would sooner be a member, as I am, of the Toronto Workers Club and the Kurri Workers Club. Anyhow, these spivs netted $200,000 and more from their shady, crook practices in connection with the Attunga Mining Corporation. These people who are in a Hungarian sponsored clique have rented the present police headquarters premises in College Street, Sydney, at a cost of -

Mr Hunt:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. This matter is sub-judice and subject to a judicial inquiry. I think it is intolerable that the House should permit the canvassing of this issue.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Chair is not to know whether these matters are before a court and are sub-judice.

Mr JAMES:

– I am really surprised that the honourable member for Gwydir should try to protect the names of people who got away from Australia with $22m. I will use that fact in the honourable member’s electorate next time I am there. I did not think he would compel me to do it.

Mr Hunt:

– I did not think you would go there.

Mr JAMES:

– I will go to the honourable member’s electorate. The honourable member is trying to protect these people. I thought that he would have applauded me for raising this matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Hunter will contain himself.

Mr JAMES:

-It is very difficult.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Hunter will contain himself. I suggest that he cools down a minute. I remind the House that the Chair is not in a position to know what is sub-judice in all matters. I remind the House also that at the present time 5 royal commissions are being conducted in the Federal sphere. I do not think it possible for any man, even a leading Q.C., to judge what is sub-judice in relation to 5 royal commissions. I think I would have to be a guardian angel to be able to do that.

Mr Hunt:

– I was trying to protect Mr Speaker, that is all. I do not care about those blokes.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I call the honourable member for Gwydir

Mr JAMES:

-Mr Speaker, I have not concluded my remarks. I sat down out of respect to you, Mr Speaker, because you asked me to resume my seat. Being a disciplined person I did that.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Well, stand up and continue.

Mr Lusher:

– Tell us about Neville Wran and those Botany councillors of yours. They are completely corrupt.

Mr JAMES:

-I will tell the honourable member about Askin first.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I ask the honourable member for Hunter whether there is a case before the court connected with the matter about which the honourable member is speaking.

Mr JAMES:

-Not to my knowledge, Mr Speaker. These people are as elusive as a greasy eel, and any law enforcement authority that can get them before a court is a wizard. I do not think they will ever go before a court.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I am not too sure what a greasy eel is like myself.

Mr JAMES:

-Let me go a little further. This same clique, this same body of people, is renting the police headquarters building in Sydney from the New South Wales Government at a cost of $930,000 a year. The premises are rented by -

Mr King:

– It was the Minister for Labor and Immigration who upset him, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr JAMES:

-The premises are rented by the New South Wales Government from the Parkes Development Corporation at a cost of $930,000 a year.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr HUNT:
Gwydir

-The other day I read a poster which stated: ‘He’s had a fair go and he’s stuffed it’. It is strange language but a compelling message.

Mr James:

- Mr Speaker, is this relevant to the Parliament and to the people of Australia? I think that it is poppycrap and that it does not come within the ambit of clean debate. It is something in which the people are not interested.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I call the honourable member for Gwydir.

Mr HUNT:

– It is strange language, as the honourable member for Hunter has said, but I think that there is a compelling message in it. On a closer examination it was apparent that the poster referred to the record of the Government and of the Prime Minister who leads it. It is a sad commentary because I understand that it was written prior to the second 1974 Budget and prior to the deepening unemployment crisis. The unemployment rate is now standing at the seasonally adjusted figure of 190,000 people and is predicted to reach -

Mr James:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could you have the amplification system turned up a bit as I am finding great difficulty in hearing the honourable member for Gwydir.

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr HUNT:

– The unemployment rate has been predicted to reach 250,000 or 300,000 people by April or May of next year. The poster does represent a sad commentary on what has been an incredibly bad government. In the heady days of late 1972 the Australian people were promised a new deal, a new horizon. They were promised a humane government. They were promised a stable economy. We were told that there would be a cessation of industrial disorder. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) said: ‘We are a government of the unions. We know the unions. We know how to deal with them’. We were promised an end to the unemployment situation, which had resulted in just over 100,000 people being out of work at the peak of the problem. The Prime Minister promised an end to inflation; yet we have seen inflation reach record heights. We were told that the Labor Government would be a low interest rate government; yet today interest rates are at the highest level on record.

The Prime Minister looked good in those days. The Australian Labor Party looked good to the uninitiated. We were told that it had an ongoing program. The Australian Labor Party appeared to have a social conscience and a concern for the worker, the farmer, the townsman and the businessman. The people were led to believe that 23 years of Liberal-Country Party Government had destroyed the fabric of our society. The truth of the matter is that 23 years of Liberal-Country Party Government brought unprecedented economic growth, industrial development and one of the highest standards of living in the world. The mesmerised voters who swung to the Australian Labor Party in 1972 did not read the small print of the Australian Labor Party’s platform; that is, the pledge to socialism, a pledge which is signed by every Labor Party candidate. As a result those who swung to it have been disillusioned and dismayed by the spiralling events since 1 972.

From the day the Australian Labor Party was elected to office we saw a new style of government in this country. In the first 10 days there was a 2-man Ministry. A plethora of advisers, of armchair strategists, was called in to fulfil the charter of advising the Government on ways and means of restructuring the economy and of reallocating resources. There was to be a new rationalisation to achieve the socialist objectives. Decision after decision was taken rushing the Australian people and the economy into confusion. Soon the private sector got the message as to what the Government was about and all confidence took flight. One recalls the memorable phrase in this year’s second Budget speech of the now discredited Treasurer. Is he Treasurer tonight? Will he resign tomorrow or the next day? Is he going to be sacked? The Treasurer (Mr Crean), in the pivot to his Budget Speech, said:

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

Last night we were treated to the third Budget in 3 months. On the face of it, it is a complete somersault. The Prime Minister is now trying to convince the business sector, the multinationals and the overseas investors that they can bring their money into this country if they are game enough to do so and that the Labor Party loves them after all. He is trying to convince those in the private sector who are trying to run their farms and businesses that the Government loves them after all because it is prepared to give them a tax cut. But is the Government fair dinkum? Is it afraid that it might be forced to the people against the background of disastrous gallup polls and shattering electoral results in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory?

I submit that if the Government were fair dinkum it would have done 2 simple things to restore confidence in the private sector in addition to the actions it has taken. The first would be to defer the collection of the quarterly company tax, thus leaving $400m in the private sector. Even the Premier of South Australia has pleaded to the Government to adopt that course. Every group representing the private sector has made that plea to the Government. The other course of action that it could have taken but failed to take was to increase the first advance on this year’s wheat crop to $1.80 per bushel by agreeing to advance to the Australian Wheat

Board an additional $240m from the Rural Credit Section of the Reserve Bank.

Mr Cohen:

– Who suggested that?

Mr HUNT:

-The Australian Wheat Growers Federation put that proposal to the Government. I am surprised that the honourable member for Robertson has not been informed about it because his good judgment might have had some influence upon the result. The Prime Minister postured at the United Nations in New York just recently, saying that Australia had the capacity to produce food for the starving peoples of the world and giving the impression that the Government would provide an incentive to the wheat growers to help them to produce the grain that is necessary to feed the starving millions. The Government is helping to starve thousands and thousands of people throughout the world by its policies. The Government has failed to provide any incentive although it has had a chance to do so. The wheat decision was an act of political stupidity, apart from anything else. Wheat is today selling on the overseas market at over $4 a bushel; yet the Australian Government has refused to increase the first advance on this year’s crop beyond $ 1 .20. It is not a handout that the Australian wheat growers want; it is an advance from the Reserve Bank of Australia in relation to which the wheat growers themselves will have to repay both the capital and the interest. I believe that the whole exercise has been a fraud, a stunt. This socialist government is not interested in the private sector.

Mr James:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Lusher:

– He raised a frivolous point of order, Mr Speaker, but you would not let me raise one.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Hume will remain silent. I, not the honourable member for Hume, will deal with the point of order.

Mr Calder:

– How about dealing with this one?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for the Northern Territory also will remain silent.

Mr James:

- Mr Speaker, is the honourable member for Gwydir entitled to mislead the House in connection with the plight of these people?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order involved in regard to what the honourable member for Gwydir is saying about wheat.

Mr HUNT:

-The Government of which the honourable member for Hunter is a supporter, with its doctrinaire philosophy, will lead to its own destruction and to the destruction of our way of life.

Mr Morris:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr HUNT:

-Take your point of order and take your bat home.

Mr Morris:

- Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the base remarks which have been coming from the other side of the House. Surely something can be done to stop them.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Gwydir ‘s time has expired. It being 1 1 o’clock, the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 3509

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Ministerial Councils: Contact with States (Question No. 63)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Will he provide a list of all formal committees, councils, etc., that nave been established which enable him or officers of his Department to maintain contact with State Government Ministers or State Government officers.
  2. When was each body established and by whom.
  3. What is the (a) composition and (b) function of each body.
  4. On what occasions has each body met in the last 2 years and for what purpose.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. I ) to (4) I refer the right honourable member’s attention to the answer provided by the Prime Minister to Parliamentary Question No. 41 (Hansard, page 2233 of 3 October 1974).

Ministerial Councils: Contact with States (Question No. 66) . Mr Snedden asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Will the Minister provide a list of all formal committees, councils, etc., that have been established which enable him or officers of his Department to maintain contact with State Government Ministers or State Government officers.
  2. ) When was each body established and by whom.
  3. What is the (a) composition and (b) function of each body.
  4. On what occasions has each body met in the last 2 years and for what purpose.
Mr Bryant:
Minister for the Capital Territory · WILLS, VICTORIA · ALP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the right honourable member’s question: “I refer the right honourable member to the reply to Question 41 given by Mr Whitlam on 3 October 1974”.

Postmaster-General’s Department: Appointment of Women (Question No. 115)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many women have been appointed to senior positions in the Postmaster-General’s Department since 2 December 1972?
  2. Who are they?
  3. 3 ) To what position has each been appointed, and what is the function of the position?
Mr Lionel Bowen:
Special Minister of State · KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I refer the right honourable member to the answer provided by the

Prime Minister to Parliamentary Question No. 97 (Hansard page 625 of 24 July 1974).

Ord River Research Program (Question No. 265)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has the Government embarked upon an Ord River Research Program.
  2. If so, what is the nature of the program, and what progress has been made.
  3. Will a report be submitted to the Government: if so, will it be tabled.
  4. Who is undertaking the study.
Mr Morrison:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2), (3) and (4) The Kimberley Research Station was operated as a joint CSIRO and Western Australian State Department of Agriculture field research station in the Ord Valley from 1 946 to 30 June 1 974. The research objectives of the Station were to study potential crops for the area as a basis for land development and diversification, and to carry out research on improved production methods for beef cattle and crops that have been grown commercially in the area, particularly cotton and sorghum.

The findings relating to the wide range of crops tested cannot be summarised briefly, but research results have been published in appropriate scientific journals and summarised in the Annual Reports of the Station.

At the request of the Australian Government, a Kimberley Research Station Review Committee was established last year. It comprised the existing Kimberley Research Station Policy Committee (made up of representatives of the Australian Department of Northern Development, the CSIRO and the Western Australian Departments of Agriculture and Public Works), together with representatives of the Australian Departments of the Treasury, and the Environment and Conservation.

The Review Committee considered objectives, programs and arrangements for research in the Ord Region, with particular reference to the Kimberley Research Station. It recommended the termination of the arrangement for joint operation of the Station by the Western Australian Department of Agriculture and CSIRO, and proposed the following division of responsibility between the State and Australian Governments: the State Government to be responsible mainly for research aimed at increasing production efficiency, solving the immediate problems of farmers, and developing viable agricultural systems for the whole of the irrigable area. the Australian Government to be responsible mainly for longer-term research aimed at improving resource utilisation throughout north-western Australia, bearing in mind environmental and social considerations.

The Review Committee further concluded that the Australian Government could most effectively implement its role as defined above by having CSIRO operate the Kimberley Research Station as part of its Division of Tropical Agronomy, carrying out research concerned largely with integrating the beef cattle industry with irrigated agriculture and increasing productivity through improved cattle nutrition.

The Western Australian State Government and the Australian Government accepted these recommendations, appropriate financial arrangements were agreed, and they have been implemented. The State Department of Agriculture is operating a separate Research Station concentrating on the shorter-term problems of existing farmers and the development of viable agricultural systems for the Ord irrigation scheme.

Progress with CSIRO’s research program will be reported regularly in the Annual Reports of the Division of Tropical Agronomy.

Hooker Creek: Council for Aboriginal Affairs (Question No. 899)

Mr Snedden:

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

  1. 1 ) Further to the answer to question No. 438 of 16 July 1 974, what recommendations were made by the members of the Council for Aboriginal Affairs who visited Hooker Creek.
  2. What action has been taken by the Government since the visit in order to increase Aboriginal involvement in the affairs of the community.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) On 15 August 1974,I tabled in the Senate a report by Dr H. C. Coombs and Professor W. E. H. Stanner on Yuendumu and Hooker Creek.
  2. A number of Aboriginals have replaced European employees in former staff positions and have accepted responsibility for the operation of the works force and town services. The Council is meeting regularly and advising my Department of community views and needs in relation to the movement of people in and around the area, the location of town facilities and acceptance of design. “ Following a consultative project survey and in accordance with the Council’s request funds have been provided to the Council for their employment of 25 men on award wages on work projects of the Council ‘s choosing. These are orientated toward improving community conditions.

Provision is made for all-Aboriginal executives of the Yuwarli Housing Association and the Wampana Progress Association.

Coal: Conversion to Oil (Question No. 907)

Mr Anthony:

asked the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) is the proposed future conversion of coal in Australia to oil to employ (a) the pyrolysis process, (b) the hydrogeneration process or (c) the partial oxidation process.
  2. What studies have been undertaken at his instigation on (a) the relative technical suitability of the above methods in relation to Australian circumstances and (b) the relative cost per unit of energy of the processes in part ( 1 ).
  3. What studies have been undertaken at his instigation on the relative merits of differing locations for the proposed coal conversion plants.
  4. Will he table the results of the studies referred to in parts(2)and(3).
Mr Connor:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The selection of the process or processes for the conversion of coal to oil will depend on their technical and economic feasibility.
  2. (a) An additional $100,000 to the normal allocation of $260,000 has been made available in 1974/75 to the National Coal Research Advisory Committee for specific allocation to oil from coal research.

A total of $135,000 has been granted to the Australian Coal Industry Research Laboratories for research into the production of synthetic oil and chemicals from Australian coal.

  1. Until demonstration plants have been constructed and operated, there can be no certainty as to the costs of production of synthetic oil.

Although it has been claimed overseas that synthetic crude oils could be produced at costs ranging from SUS3.25 to $US4.00 per barrel from coals priced between$US1.25 and $US3.25 per tonne, it will be impossible to verify the validity of these claims until demonstration plants have been operated.

  1. Coal Research Officers of my Department are currently assessing the broad implications of the establishment of a synthetic oil from coal industry in Australia including the relative merits of differing locations for the siting of coal conversion plants.
  2. On 30 May 1973, the National Coal Research Advisory Committee reported to me on the Status of the Technology of Coal Gasification and Oil from Coal.

This report was released under my authority on 1 3 July 1973, and has been widely circulated to Government Departments, research organisations and the coal and oil industries. As requested I shall table it.

Detailed half-yearly reports of progress in all sponsored coal research projects are presented to the National Coal Research Advisory Committee and these are summarised in the Committee’s annual reports which are widely circulated, both within Australia and overseas. The Committee’s Ninth Annual Report covers the year ended 30 November 1973 and I shall also table it.

Other reports in preparation by the Coal Research Section of my Department will be tabled and made available as they are completed.

The Pipeline Authority (Question No. 909)

Mr Anthony:

asked the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many people are employed by the Pipeline Authority (a) in a consultative capacity and (b) on a permanent basis.
  2. What were the respective salary or fee costs for those employed in the two categories in part ( 1 ) during 1 973-74.
Mr Connor:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) (a) Two consultant companies and one individual consultant are retained by The Pipeline Authority and its wholly owned East-Aust. Pipeline Corporation Ltd. (b)26.
  2. (a) $376,850. (b)$153,129.

Pinjarra: Aboriginal Community Centre (Question No. 1039)

Mr Bungey:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

  1. Has a decision been made on assistance for development and equipment of an Aboriginal community centre at Pinjarra submitted by the Murray District Aboriginal Association to the Southern Region Social Development Board under the Australian Assistance Plan, and subsequently referred by the Social Welfare Commission to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs.
  2. If so, what is the decision.
  3. If not, when will a decision be made.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

  1. (2) and (3) On 25 May 1973, my predecessor approved in principle a grant of $60,000 to the Murray District Aboriginal Association for the erection of an Aboriginal Community Centre at Pinjarra.

The approval was subject to the Murray District Aboriginal Association submitting plans and specifications for the Centre and conditional on them making a contribution of approximately 10 per cent towards the cost.

On 25 June 1974 I approved a grant of $60,000 for the project.

Deserted Wives: Government Benefits (Question No. 1094)

Mr Lloyd:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. Will the Australian Government’s responsibility for payments to deserted wives, previously shared on a 50/50 basis with the States under the States Grants (Deserted Wives) Act 1968, become effective on 1 July 1975 or at a date to be announced after the next Budget.
  2. Will the Government require any waiting period for payment of the benefit after it assumes responsibility.
  3. Will the benefits be at the same level as those paid to recipients after the present 6 month period.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) to (3) This matter is still subject to discussion with the States and final details of the scheme, including the precise date from which it will become effective, have not yet been determined.

Norfolk Island (Question No. 1202)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that his administration of Norfolk Island is the cause for alarm.
  2. Has his attention been drawn to the statement of the editor of the only newspaper of Norfolk Island that the Island population wants to begin moves to secede from Australia.
  3. If so, what is the attitude of the Government to these moves.
  4. What action is proposed by the Government in respect of these local moves.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

  1. No.
  2. (3) and (4) I have read articles wherein the editor of ‘The Norfolk Islander’ has been quoted as saying that Norfolk Island wants to secede from Australia and that a United Nations delegation may be asked to visit the Island to look into this matter.

The honourable member will appreciate that one of the functions of the Norfolk Island Council as the elected representatives of the people of Norfolk Island is to advise on the peace, order and good government of Norfolk Island.

On 7 August 1 974 that Council resolved as follows, ‘Council disassociates itself from the recent publicity in the Australian and local press concerning a visit to Norfolk Island by a United Nations delegation and further emphasises that the Norfolk Island Council has not considered such action. Furthermore, no poll was ever conducted to ascertain the views of all Councillors concerning a proposed visit of a United Nations delegation to Norfolk Island.’.

I have told Council that 1 am sympathetic to them assuming increased local executive authority and responsibility. In this respect I have offered assistance to the Council in formulating its proposals.

I refer the honourable member to my reply on 19 September 1974 to Question number 846 asked by Mr Peacock.

Oil Consuming Countries: Meeting (Question No. 1220)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon notice:

  1. Was a meeting of oil consuming countries held in Brussels on 5 August 1974.
  2. If so, which countries attended the meeting.
  3. Did Australia participate.
  4. What was the outcome of the meeting and, in particular, what was decided with respect to (a) measures to conserve energy, (b) percentage reductions by specified countries in their consumption of oil or other energy resources, (c) sharing of available resources and (d) production on the basis of need.
  5. With respect to part (4)(b). which countries were specified, and what percentages were set.
  6. Will Australia participate in future meetings of oil consuming countries.
Mr Connor:
ALP

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

  1. Not to my knowledge.
  2. ,(3),(4),(5)and(6).See answer to ( 1 ) above.

Papua New Guinea: Defence (Question No. 1237)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did he indicate to a group of senior defence officers in August 1974 that when Papua New Guinea becomes independent there would be no automatic involvement of Australian Forces there.
  2. If so, will he give details of what he meant by this reference.
  3. Did he further indicate that there would be continuing close relations between Australia and Papua New Guinea in defence matters.
  4. If so, what form will these relations take.
  5. What form of future defence co-operation is being planned.
  6. What discussions are being held with the Government of Papua New Guinea on this question.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 ), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) The Government’s present thinking and intentions regarding the future defence relationship between Australia and an independent Papua New Guinea was detailed in my Statement on Australian Defence Estimates 1 974/75 tabled in Parliament on 24 October 1 974.

I think the answers to the right honourable member’s questions are contained in that Statement.

United States Establishments in Australia (Question No. 1238)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. With reference to his reply to question No. 21 on 25 July 1974 (Hansard, page 730), what stage have consultations now reached on arrangements to transfer to sole Australian management (a) the United States Air Force facility at Amberley and (b) the United States seismic station at Alice Springs.
  2. What procedures have been decided upon to implement the agreement reached during his visit to Washington in January 1974.
  3. Can he now provide an estimate of the annual cost to Australia of running the installations referred to.
  4. Why is this matter taking so long to settle.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) My colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs, whose Department is conducting the consultations referred to, has advised me that the negotiation of these matters is continuing. The procedures to apply to the facility at Amberley have been agreed and an instrument to implement these procedures requires only one or two formalities before being put to the Executive Council. The procedures to apply at Alice Springs are being negotiated.
  2. and (3) It would be premature to release the details. In each instance, however, provision is being made for the involvement both of Australian Government Departments and authorities, and civil contractors.
  3. The matter is taking no longer to settle than is to be expected having regard to the number of agencies and parties involved.

Defence: Joint Purchase and Maintenance of Equipment (Question No. 1241)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. Further to his answer to question No. 969 on 24 October 1973 (Hansard, page 2664), what further consultations have now been held with Canada concerning the feasibility of joint purchasing of defence equipment.
  2. Have officials investigated the type of machinery required to enable initial procurement arrangements to proceed.
  3. If so, what were their findings.
  4. What action has been taken to follow-up their findings.
  5. 5 ) Has similar action been taken with any other country.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. During my visit to Canada last January I had further discussions with the Canadian Minister for National Defence on possibilities for closer co-operation between Canada and Australia on defence procurement. Subsequently there were developments on the official level concerning the establishment of suitable procedural arrangements.
  2. Yes.
  3. Canada has recently agreed to a procedure proposed by Australia under which each will exchange annually details of major new equipment proposals being considered for authorisation in the next financial year. Australia has now sent such information to Canada in respect of financial years 1974-75 and 1975-76. Desk officers have also been appointed in each country to keep informed on developments in the other country and to be focal points for information and action. Where both countries have identical or closely similar requirements, there will be further consultation on the scope for co-ordinating the procurements. Also, as opportunity offers, there will be discussions on defence procurement co-operation during visits of Ministers and officials to Ottawa and Canberra. The foregoing will supplement existing arrangements between Canada and Australia under which there is a regular exchange of defence information, including on equipment.
  4. See(3).
  5. The procedure outlined in (3) is similar to arrangements already operating satisfactorily between Australia and New Zealand.

Australian Capital Territory Commonwealth Hostels: Social Workers (Question No. 1398)

Mr Street:
CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many social workers are provided to each Commonwealth hostel in the Australian Capital Territory.
  2. What is their role.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

(1)4(2)

The Department of the Capital Territory does not provide social workers to Commonwealth hostels in the Australian Capital Territory. The Department employs thirty-six social workers and welfare officers whose services are available to all members of the community.

Canberra Residents (Question No. 1407)

Mr Street:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the average age of new residents coming to Canberra.
  2. What proportion of new residents each year are single.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) During the period between the two most recent Population Censuses, i.e. 30 June 1966 to 30 June 1971, the average age of new residents coming to the A.C.T. was approximately 24 years.
  2. No information available.

Canberra Residents (Question No. 1409)

Mr Street:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

What was the city or town of origin of newly arrived unmarried residents in Canberra in each of the last 3 years.

Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

Statistics of this nature are not kept by the Department of the Capital Territory.

Commemorative Postage Stamps (Question Na 1412)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

How many commemorative stamps were issued during each of the years 1970, 1971, 1972 and 1973, and how many stamps are proposed to be issued in the years 1 974, 1 975 and 1976, where such stamps relate specifically to conventions and/or other assemblies of people meeting within Australia.

Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

– The Postmaster-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

Since 1970 four postage stamps have been issued specifically to commemorate conferences or congresses held in Australia. These were: 1970 5c XIth International Grassland Conference approval for which was given on 9.5.67 1970 6c XVIth Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference approval for which was given on 7.3.69 1970 6c XVIII th International Dairy Congress approval for which was given on 22.3.65 1972 7c Xth International Accountancy Congress approval for which was given on 22.5.69

It is proposed to issue a stamp next year to draw attention to Australia’s role in the international postal community and to coincide with the Illrd Congress of the Asian Oceanic Postal Union which is to be held in Melbourne.

Non-official Post Offices: Closures (Question No. 1423)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

  1. What non-official post offices are scheduled to be closed or investigated for possible closure in 1 974-75.
  2. Which ones were closed in 1972-73 and 1973-74.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

– The Postmaster-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) & (2) The Government recognises that all Australians believe that they should be provided with a postal delivery service and that a postal counter service facility should be available nearby. However, finding the balance between giving that service and meeting its cost is difficult. As the Postal Service has for many years met only some of its costs from its revenues, the shortfall must be made up from public funds, and it is necessary therefore to review all services constantly to see whether they are strictly needed.

Of course, in seeking out ways of minimising the cost of service, the Department is quite properly ensuring that public funds are effectively used.

For example, many small rural post offices were established years ago when service needs were very different from today. Since then, the extensive use of motor cars, the extension of automatic telephone service and the withdrawal of social security payments from post offices have resulted in many of these small rural post offices being by-passed by the local residents.

At many of these offices, which now serve mainly as mail distribution points, satisfactory alternative mail distribution arrangements can be made at less cost, often including mail deliveries to residents ‘ properties. 1 17 small non-official post offices were closed in 1972/73 including 4 in the Murray Electorate, namely Graytown, Cooma, Mooroopna North and Harston. In 1973-74, 282 such offices were closed, including Tandara and Dhurringile in the Murray Electorate. As the honourable member would also be aware, this financial year, 4 non-official post offices have been closed in his Electorate, namely Baileston East, Goulburn Weir, Wahring and Mywee.

There were no shops in the vicinity of most of the offices that were closed, and the average daily value of postage stamp sales at many of the offices was less than $ 1 .

There is still a number of these small offices throughout Australia which are being reviewed progressively, and on an individual basis, to determine whether suitable alternative mail delivery arrangements can be made and, if so, whether there are any local factors which would preclude the office being closed. Until each review is completed it is not possible to say with certainty whether or not a particular office will be closed. Before an office is closed the alternative mail arrangements are discussed with residents who are affected, and the Federal Member is advised.

Voluntary Organisations: Federal Headquarters (Question No. 1429)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What voluntary organisations have requested financial assistance from his Department for the establishment or maintenance of a federal headquarters.
  2. What has been the response to the requests.
Mr Connor:
ALP

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

  1. None.
  2. See(l) above.

Voluntary Organisations: Federal Headquarters (Question No. 1446)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What voluntary organisations have requested financial assistance from the Postmaster-General’s Department for the establishment or maintenance of a federal headquarters.
  2. What has been the response to the requests.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

– The Postmaster-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s questions:

  1. and (2) No such requests by voluntary organisations have been received by the Postmaster-General’ s Department.

Immigration: Indian Residents of Uganda (Question No. 182)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. How many (a) successful and (b) unsuccessful applications for migration to Australia from Indian residents of Uganda have been processed by his Department in each of the last three years and in 1 974 to 1 July.

  2. How many of these applications were processed in

    1. Uganda or a neighbouring African country and
    2. the United Kingdom or other non-African country.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I am informed that the answer to the honourable member’s questions is as follows:

Department of Tourism and Recreation: Research Grants (Question No. 96)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Will he provide a list of all grants, to any organisation or individual, that are provided from moneys appropriated to his Department or authorities under his control, to undertake research.
  2. ) To what bodies have such moneys been advanced and what was or is the nature of the research being undertaken as a result of the grants in each of the last 3 years.
Mr Stewart:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable members question is as follows:

a study of community usage, activities and facilities of schools in selected areas of New South Wales, by the Sport and Recreation Service of New South Wales; a study in Mildura and surrounding districts of the number and distribution of recreational facilities and their accessibility, by Dr K. Lansley, Footscray Institute of Technology; a survey of the northern suburbs of Melbourne to obtain details of recreation services, facilities, programmes and personnel, by Dr P. Reichenback, Preston Institute of Technology; a study of recreational needs and interests and the use of existing facilities in the community and schools in Doveton, Victoria, by Mr W. Walker and Mr N. Barrass of the State College of Victoria; a study of recreational needs and expectations of school leavers in the Ringwood area of Melbourne by Dr A. W. Willee and Mr B. Nettleton, Melbourne University; surveys of community recreation activity and facilities in a number of centres in Queensland, by Mr B. Neilson, Department of Tourism, Sport and Welfare Services, Brisbane; an inventory of existing recreation facilities, and a study of recreation activities in the Adelaide metropolitan area, and a study of facility usage by Mr D. Speechly, State Planning Office of South Australia; a comparative study of the cities of Kew and Williamstown in Victoria under the direction of Dr G. Watkins, University of Western Australia; a study of recreation facilities and participation in Belmont, City Beach, Port Hedland and Moora, Western Australia, by Dr Watkins, University of Western Australia; a study of recreation facilities in Glenorchy schools and in the Huon Valley area, and a survey of perception of recreation in Scottsdale, Tasmania, by Mr K. Thomas, National Fitness Council, Hobart.

Medical Funds: Special Accounts (Question No. 967)

Dr Klugman:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has he any details of the operation of special accounts by registered medical and hospital benefit organisations which indicate that all or any organisations have changed their policy in relation to special account entries which has had the effect of significantly increasing Australian Government liability for benefits and thereby reducing fund liability.
  2. If so, will he provide details of these trends and whether the trends indicate that the system is being abused.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Amongst the major organisations in Australia the statistical evidence available shows that an increase in utilisation has occurred in the medical fund special accounts operated by the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia and Hospital Contributions Fund of Australia in New South Wales and the Hospital Benefits Fund of Western Australia. Increases have occurred in both medical and hospital special account funds operated by the Medical Benefit Fund of Australia Limited in Queensland and Tasmania.
  2. The most significant increase which could reflect a change in policy to take greater advantage of the special account provisions is in respect of the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Limited in Queensland. The relevant figures are:

I have had the situation revealed by these figures and those of the other organisations referred to examined by my Department. I am informed that the organisations are acting within the terms of the legislation in admitting persons to special account.

It must be realised that the special account system was designed by the previous Liberal/Country Party Government to prop up the health benefits funds and the legislative provisions are loosely framed to permit the organisations to take advantage of the subsidies it provides to a much greater extent than this Government believes is proper. There is not even power in the Act for the responsible Minister to withdraw the special account subsidies from an organisation.

This fairly wide margin of interpretation permitted organisations is reflected particularly in the statistics for the Medical Benefits Fund, Queensland, which indicate that this organisation since 1972 has availed itself more and more of the special account subsidies. This point has been demonstrated above and is emphasised sail further in the following table in respect of the hospital fund of that organisation:

Ministerial Councils: Contact with States (Question No. SO)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Will he provide a list of all formal committees, councils, etc., that have been established which enable him or officers of his Department to maintain contact with State Government Ministers or State Government Officers.
  2. When was each body established and by whom.
  3. What is the (a) composition, and (b) function of each body.
  4. On what occasions has each body met in the last two years and for what purpose.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 ), (2), (3) and (4) I refer the right honourable member to the Prime Minister’s answer to question No. 41 (Hansard 3 October 1974, pages 2233-2239) in which he provided details of Councils upon which both Australian Government and State Ministers are represented.

Urban Public Transport Services (Question No. 402)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Can he say what amounts each State Government has expended on the provision of urban public transport services in each of the last 10 years.
  2. What amounts have been provided by the Australian Government to the States for the provision of urban public transport services.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

  1. Figures are not available in the form requested by the right honourable member. However, the Bureau of Transport Economics has estimated that the following gross capital expenditure on urban transport services in the six capital cities was undertaken by States in the period 1 960-6 1 to 1970-71.
  1. Expenditure on capital assets including rolling stock, track and right of way (in the case of railways), land and buildings, plant and equipment.

Source: ‘Economic Evaluation of Capital Investment in Urban Public Transport’, Bureau of Transport Economics, June 1972.

  1. Under the Urban Public Transport Agreement the Australian Government has approved the following Programs of financial assistance to the States for the improvement of urban transport systems:

Additional Programs will be approved in subsequent years of the Agreement.

Department of Transport: Management Firms (Question No. 809)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Transport, 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 Charles Jones:
ALP

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

  1. The Department of Transport has not used management consultants in the last 1 2 months.
  2. and (3) Not applicable.

TAA Express Delivery Service (Question No. 995)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Under what conditions are TAA express delivery items accepted for delivery to private addresses.
  2. Are delivery costs pre-paid by the sender unless otherwise specified.
  3. When delivery from the airport to the destination is contracted to private carriers, are payments for this service met by TAA out of charges made against the sender.
  4. Are private contractors carrying out these contracts empowered to send delivery accounts to the person to whom items are forwarded, without notice to the recipient either in advance or at the time of delivery that these charges are to be levied as a result of acceptance of delivery.
  5. Will he inquire into accounts rendered by Mayne Nickless Ltd to addresses to whom TAA express delivery items are delivered.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Express delivery items are in two categories:

    1. Jet Express, where the basic rate covers carriage from the TAA Office in the city or airports of origin, to the TAA office in the city or airport at destination. The person lodging the parcel is asked if immediate delivery is desired at the destination. If the answer is YES, or there are any doubts as to the delivery requirements, TAA presumes that immediate delivery is required and the appropriate messenger service delivery rates are shown on the consignment note and charged to the consignor.

Should the consignor indicate, ‘Notify Arrival To The Consignee’, and the consignee requests delivery, then delivery charges involved are to be collected from this consignee, either by direct payment to the messenger service, or by a charge to the consignee’s account.

  1. Person to Person, where the consignment is collected by a messenger service at the office or residence of the consignor at the point or origin, expressed to the destination port, and delivered to the office or residence of the consignee. There is one all inclusive charge for this particular service.

    1. Yes.
    2. Yes- if delivery is pre-paid.
    3. It is not usual for a delivery contractor to debit a TAA client direct, the contractor normally debits TAA for the delivery action.

If the collection is a cash transaction, the delivery contractor is responsible for this action and accounts to TAA. If the cash is not collected at the time of delivery, the contractor will endeavour to obtain it before accounting to TAA.

  1. If there are any individual cases of consignors/consignees receiving accounts not contracted for, TAA would be pleased to investigate the circumstances.

Regional Employment Development Scheme (Question No. 1060)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. From what appropriation will funds for the regional employment development scheme be provided.
  2. What funds are actually available to fund the scheme in the period between the scheme’s inception and the date of appropriation approval.
  3. If the funds available are not sufficient to fund the scheme, will a special Appropriation Bill be introduced to provide necessary funds.
Mr Crean:
ALP

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

  1. Division 879, Item 05; Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1974-1975 (when enacted). (2) and (3) Pending passage of the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1974-1975, payments are being financed from the Advance to the Treasurer.

Advanced Harrier Aircraft (Question No. 1068)

Mr Anthony:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Was consideration given to Australian participation in the development of an advanced Harrier aircraft in association with Britain and the United States of America; if not, why not.
  2. Would such an aircraft have a role in any future fleet air arm and/or Royal Australian Air Force; if not, why not.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. Whilst no consideration has been given to Australian participation in the development of an advanced Harrier aircraft in association with Britain and the United States of America the VTOL concept has been under Defence evaluation along with fixed and rotary wing contenders in the context of the possible long term needs of the Services.
  2. Plans for the development of the RAAF tactical fighter capability are being prepared. Should an advanced Harrier be proposed in response to Air Force Staff Requirements, issued as part of this development plan, the aircraft would be considered along with other contenders.

Immigration: Soviet Jews (Question No. 1099)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Have any Soviet Jews who have left Israel applied for permission to migrate to Australia.
  2. If so, has any priority been given to processing their applications. . (3) If not, can he say whether several hundred of them are now in a number of West European countries and are classed as stateless.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I am informed that the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) Yes. Applications for migrant visas have been lodged with some Australian posts in Western Europe by a number of Soviet Jews who have left Israel.
  2. Such applications are considered in the normal course with, and assessed against the same criteria as, other migrant visa applications.
  3. It has been reported that some hundreds of Soviet Jews have moved on to Western Europe from Israel and that the movement is continuing. It is not known whether any of these are now classified as stateless but it has been reported that generally their movement to Western Europe has been and is on the basis of valid Israeli passports.

If any of the Soviet Jews in question, who have refugee status, apply for entry to Australia the honourable member can be assured that such applications will be considered on their merits sympathetically.

Wilcox Mofflin Ltd (Question No. 1126)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has written Government approval been given for the English Barrow Hepburn Group to take over Wilcox Mofflin Ltd. If so, why.
  2. Is Wilcox Mofflin Ltd the biggest hide processor and exporter in Australia.
Mr Crean:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. The Government raised no objections to a merger of Wilcox Mofflin Ltd and Colyer-NZT Pty Ltd, a subsidiary of the Barrow Hepburn Group. Implementation of the proposal would initially give Barrow Hepburn Group a majority of the shares in the merged enterprise. However, Barrow Hepburn Group has undertaken that, if the merger is effected, Australian shareholders will appoint a majority of the board, of the merged enterprise and majority Australian ownership of Wilcox Mofflin will be restored within a specified period. In the latter regard, it is relevant that Barrow Hepburn Group acquired a 36 per cent interest in Wilcox Mofflin before the introduction of the foreign takeover measures on 26 September 1972 and that the proposal submitted to the Government envisaged that any increase in the Group’s shareholding above 40 per cent would be temporary only. In the foregoing circumstances, I was unable to satisfy myself that foreign interests would be in a position to exercise effective control of the merged enterprise. I therefore found that action was not available under the Companies (Foreign Take-overs) Act in respect of the proposed merger.
  2. No.

Committee of Inquiry into the Citizen Military Forces (Question No. 1280)

Dr Forbes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

What action has the Government taken on each of the recommendations of the Millar Committee of Inquiry into the Citizen Military Forces.

Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

Since this question was put on notice I have tabled on 24 October 1974 a statement on the 1974-75 Defence Estimates. In this statement I brought up to date decisions taken since my statement on 4 April 1974 when I first tabled the report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Citizen Military Forces. If you refer to pages 8, 9 and 10 of my statement on the Defence Estimates it contains a full explanation of action taken so far on the recommendations of the CMF Committee.

National Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation (Question No. 1372)

Mr Lynch:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) When was the National Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation established.
  2. What are its terms of reference.
  3. How many persons have been appointed to the Committee.
  4. What are their qualifications.
  5. How many reports has the Committee produced.
  6. What recommendations of any kind has the Committee made to date.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I am informed that the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. The National Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation was established in June 1 973.
  2. The main functions of the National Committee are to consider allegations of discrimination in employment and occupation referred to it by the six State Committees, to interpret the requirements of the national policy, to advise the Government on the action necessary to ensure full compliance with the policy, and to develop a national education and publicity program designed to promote equality of opportunity in employment and occupation.
  3. Seven persons have been appointed as members of the National Committee.
  4. The National Committee consists of an independent Chairman, one representative each of the Australian Government, the ACTU and the central employers ‘ organisations, and three other members, one each with special knowledge of the employment problems of women, immigrants and Aboriginals.

The Chairman and members of the National Committee are as follows:

Chairman:

Mr R. E. McGarvie,QC

Members:

Mr C. Dixon, Liaison Officer, Department of Aboriginal Affairs, Sydney

Mr W. Lippmann, MBE, Chairman, Committee on Community Relations and President, Australian Jewish Welfare Society

Mr K. C. McKenzie, Deputy Secretary, Australian Department of Labor and Immigration

Mr J. Petrie, ACTU Representative

Mr G. Polites, MBE, Executive Director, Australian Council of Employers’ Federations

Ms G. Wilenski, Women’s Electoral Lobby, Australian Capital Territory.

  1. and (6) The first Annual Report of the National Committee covering the period June 1973 to June 1974 will be finalised shortly.

National Employment and Training Scheme: Women (Question No. 1378)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. Where do women fit into the list of priorities of the National Employment and Training Scheme.
  2. What specific schemes have been formulated to provide assistance to women.
  3. How many women have applied for assistance under the Scheme.
  4. What type of assistance have they been offered.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. The list of priorities to which the honourable member refers is applied without discrimination to women and men alike.
  2. The National Employment and Training System, by discarding the constraints imposed on women by the restrictive criteria of the previous Employment Training Scheme for Women, enables the provision of training on a basis sufficiently flexible to meet the variable needs of women as individuals.
  3. On present estimates some 6,500 women are currently being assisted under NEAT.
  4. The types of assistance offered to all who seek training under NEAT are applied without discrimination as to sex. These include training allowances, living-away-from-home allowances and assistance with tuition fees and costs of essential books and equipment.

Department of Labor and Immigration: Personnel (Question No. 1468)

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

Will he ensure that the personnel in his Department, who have been removed from the section which deals with specialised institutions due to manpower difficulties in getting the new employment development scheme underway, will be replaced in the very near future.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

The majority of specialist officers dealing with handicapped persons in institutions have been returned to their normal duties after a short period in which they assisted in the introduction of the National Employment and Training system. The few remaining will return very soon. I believe that every assistance should be given to handicapped persons seeking employment and the experience which these officers have gained with NEAT will prove of considerable benefit to them in their valuable work.

Australian Government Expenditure (Question No. 1474)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

What was the Australian Government expenditure as a percentage of the gross national product on (a) cash benefit for persons and (b) education (i) as an average during the period 1968-69 to 1971-72 and (ii) in 1973-74.

Mr Crean:
ALP

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

  1. Australian Government expenditure on cash benefits to persons represented 5.4 per cent of gross domestic product, on average, over the period 1968-69 to 197 1-72, and 6.2 per cent in 1973-74. (b) Australian Government expenditure on education represented 0.9 per cent of gross domestic product, on average, over the period 1968-69 to 1971-72 and 1.7 per cent in 1973-74. It should be noted that the bulk of Australian Government spending on education is in the form of grants to the States, which are included in the preceding figures. In interpreting the figures, it needs to be borne in mind that a substantial part of the recent increases in Australian Government grants to the States for education has resulted from its assumption of full responsibility for financing tertiary education from the beginning of 1974. with accompanying reductions in general purpose funds provided to the States. Thus, pan of the increase in Australian Government outlays on education reflects a transfer in financial responsibility from the States, rather than increased final expenditure on education.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 13 November 1974, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1974/19741113_reps_29_hor91/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant