House of Representatives
19 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 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 3625

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Education

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

That the reduction of the allowable deduction of education expenses under Section 82 J of the Income Tax Assessment Act from $400 to $ 1 50 is $50 below the 1956-57 figure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Gorton, Mr Macphee and Mr Staley. Petitions received.

Family Relationships

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 Family Law Bill be postponed till full Parliamentary debate on welfare aspects can be assured, i.e.

  1. 1 ) The stability of the marriage institution, so essential for family welfare, be supported by law, as at present.
  2. When contract dissolved, rights of both partners be fully protected.
  3. Judical separation, in interim period, be enforced, as at present, to prevent affronts to dignity in such cases as adultery.

Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that debate, to define and protect the different roles of husband and wife in full dignity, be so promoted.

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

Family Law Bill

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

That we strongly oppose the Family Law Bill in its present form.

That we believe that the Government has no mandate for the radical changes in the Bill, and that there is no obvious demand for them.

That the Bill in its present form will diminish the stability of society and will lead to a society that regards marriage as a temporary association and not a permanent union where children are reared in the love and security of the family.

That we regard the concept of matrimonial fault necessary for the justification of divorce, and for a fair decision on the custody and maintenance of the children.

Therefore we deplore its exclusion from the Bill.

That none of the foregoing is acceptable to us.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will not proceed with the Bill in its present form, but will graciously consider our petition.

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

Colleges of Advanced Education: Academic Staff

To the Honourable the members of the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors, members of the Academic Staff of Salisbury College of Advanced Education, showeth:

That whereas the academic staff of Colleges of Advanced education have suffered a marked loss of relativity with the leaching 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. byMrNicholls.

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

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 they are deeply concerned that the Family Law Bill will undermine rather than buttress the stability of marriage and consequently undermine the stability of Australian society.
  2. That Clause 26 of the Bill will enable the unilateral termination of marriage in such a manner as to render the State powerless to act in any helpful or regulatory way and which will obviously undermine the stability of marriages of the very young and marriages which have not endured for at least 2 years, and
  3. That Clause5 1 will weaken the position of a rejected wife.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House amend the Family Law Bill so as to (1) create greater opportunities for marriage guidance before marriage, (2) prolong the minimum period before which an intended marriage can be celebrated, (3) provide for a longer period of irretrievable breakdown as grounds for divorce, and (4) provide assistance for rejected wives.

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

Petition received.

National Health Scheme

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

That the proposed ‘free’ national health scheme is not free at all and will cost four out of five Australians more than the present scheme.

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

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:

That we support the concept of no fault divorce in the Family Law Bill because:

  1. 1 ) Marriage is not merely a contract it is a relationship.
  2. That if a party withdraws from that relationship for whatever reason there is no good to be achieved by insisting on a continuance of a contractural shell.
  3. That where a marriage relationship has demonstrably broken down divorce should be as quick and simple as possible for the interests of the dignity of the parties and the emotional well being of the 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 Scholes.

Petition received.

page 3626

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

I inform the House that the Minister for Health, Dr Doug Everingham, who left Australia on 16 November to lead the Australian delegation to the 4th Commonwealth Medical Conference in Sri Lanka, will be returning on 2 December. In his absence the Minister for the Environment and Conservation, Dr Moss Cass, will act as Minister for Health.

page 3626

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 3626

QUESTION

FLAT GLASS INDUSTRY

Mr MACPHEE:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

-Has the Minister for Manufacturing Industry been acquainted with the serious situation obtaining in the flat glass industry? By that I mean and include the manufacture of float glass, sheet glass and the processing of safety glass. Does the Minister realise that 550 people have been or will have been dismissed because of the closure of plants? Is it a fact that representatives of the company involved, namely, Pilkington ACI Ltd, has made representations to the Minister to explain the seriousness of the problem? Does the Minister realise that early in the new year virtually all of the flat glass industry in Australia will have been closed down? Is he oblivious of the cumulative effects on the company, its people and the people dependent on the services of the company? Is the Minister aware that a major contributing factor to this sorry state is imports which have been arriving at approximately double the rate of last year and are now taking up SO per cent of the market which, because of the Government’s economic and fiscal policies, is sadly diminished? What is the Minister doing to urge acceptance of the company’s proposals for assistance, bearing in mind that a high proportion of the imported glass is coming from so-called less developed countries?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Will the honourable member ask his question.

Mr MACPHEE:

– There are a number of matters raised and the Minister is familiar with the problem. I would like an indication of his attitude to the company’s problems.

Mr ENDERBY:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · ALP

– I am aware of certain decisions taken by the company in recent times and indeed I have had a number of discussions with senior officers of the company, the most recent of those discussions having taken place only last week. A number of allegations has been made concerning the situation as it relates to the company. For example, one allegation is that the difficulty flows in large measure from the import competition referred to by the honourable member. It has been suggested that the company is itself partly responsible for that import competition, either because of its associations with overseas exporters or in other ways. That matter has been the subject of discussion with officers of the company.

I should add that import competition is sometimes put forward to suggest that, in large measure, unemployment as it exists in Australia today flows from it. The most recent figures available to me negate- rebut- that suggestion. The last figures I have seen- I believe I am correct in saying that they go to the end of Octobersuggest that the amount of unemployment attributable to import competition is certainly less than 10 per cent and is in the area of 7 per cent of the total. If that is correct one gets to the situation where unemployment is part of a cyclical downturn and the decisions of companies like

Pilkington ACI to retrench a number of their employees and to suspend operations are in large measure related to the cyclical business downturn which exists in Australia at the moment.

As the honourable member knows, the Government has taken a number of very active and imaginative steps in recent times to stop that cyclical business downturn. I refer to the Budget and the Government’s monetary policies and fiscal policies. A time lag is involved but it is confidently expected that these steps will be very successful. Many of the decisions taken by Pilkington ACI relate to the situation in the motor vehicle industry and the building industry. That is as far as I can go, but I will be happy to give the honourable member any additional information he seeks.

page 3627

QUESTION

AMPOL PETROLEUM LTD: OIL PRICE

Mr KEATING:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister for Minerals and Energy and refer to the outrageous application by Ampol Petroleum Ltd to the Prices Justification Tribunal for an increase in the price of Australian crude oil from $2.23 a barrel to $6.38 a barrel. Was the application a breach of the agreement made between a former Australian government, the government led by Mr John Gorton, and the Bass Strait and Barrow Island producers? Will the Minister explain why a regulation was gazetted to exclude the matter from investigation by the Prices Justification Tribunal?

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

-The position is that had the application been successful- and I make no speculation on that score- it would have been a golden handshake of $668m a year from the Australian motorist to the Ampol and other producing companies. Ampol is a company which merely had a one-seventh interest in the Barrow Island operation and was not supported by either of its 3 co-partners- Shell, Cal-Asiatic and Texaco which each have a two-sevenths interest and which, moreover, knew nothing of the application. In 1968 the then Government announced an indigenous crude policy which still continues in force. That policy gave Australian producers an assured domestic market for 10 years commencing from 1970. The price was fixed up to September of next year. I might remind the House that no less a personage than the Leader of the Country Party is on record in respect of the former Prime Minister as supporting his policy and saying it was fixed, permanent, and would not be changed.

Mr Anthony:

– But you were against it.

Mr CONNOR:

– Yes. But a good man and a big man is prepared to admit his mistakes. The application to the Prices Justification Tribunal is in respect to a matter of about 5,000 barrels a day. The total production from WAPET on Barrow Island is 40,000 barrels. Production from Bass Strait is approximately 400,000 barrels. I repeat that we consider the price to be fixed until September 1975. There is no country in the world more dependent on motor transport than Australia. There is no country in the world where an increase in price will have a more drastic and dramatic effect. For that reason we intend to keep the price as low as we possibly can as an offset to the ever-escalating price of imported crude.

page 3628

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Mr ADERMANN:
FISHER, QUEENSLAND

– I preface my question to the Prime Minister by noting that in Queensland over the weekend the Prime Minister has been confidently proclaiming to us in reference to inflation and unemployment that we will have turned the corner by the middle of next year. I ask the Prime Minister: Is this the same corner as he said we had turned during the election campaign of April and May of this year- because that was a disastrous turning- and, on turning this elusive corner which is still in the future, can we now have any confidence that we shall arrive at a different and happier destination?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-Statistics at home and abroad have deteriorated unexpectedly in the last few weeks. I am satisfied that the steps which I announced in Parliament a week ago can give us confidence that the position will be improved well before the middle of next year. It would be very much easier to be confident of it if the 4 Liberal and Country Party States which have said that they will oppose wage indexation in the Arbitration Commission were in fact to cooperate with the Australian Government and with employee organisations, including the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Australian Council of Salaried and Professional Associations and the Council of Commonwealth Public Service Organisations, in obtaining that very great improvement in our wage-fixing structures. The only government which completely supports indexation in any respect is the outgoing Queensland Government which supports indexation for members of Parliament and Ministers of the Crown; it opposes it for people on ordinary awards. I have yet to hear any response from any Liberal or Country Party Premier to the Australian Government’s proposal to ask the Arbitration Commission to take into account the very substantial income tax reductions which the Australian Government is making and which should compensate for any increases in prices in the consumer price index in the current quarter.

page 3628

QUESTION

WESTERN MINING COMPANY

Mr COLLARD:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Has the attention of the Minister for Minerals and Energy been attracted to an article in the ‘Kalgoorlie Miner’ of 4 November in which Senator Durack accuses the Minister of ignoring Western Mining Company with respect to the development of the uranium deposit at Yeelirrie in Western Australia? Is not the article simply another deliberate falsification of the actual situation? Is it not correct that frank and useful discussions have taken place between the Minister and a representative of the Western Mining Company? Finally, is it not correct also that as a result of those discussions the way is now open to arrive at an arrangement for the development of the deposits which will be beneficial to everyone concerned, including the people of Australia?

Mr CONNOR:
ALP

– The statement made by Senator Durack is in fact a falsification. I repeat, it is a falsification. Worse than that, it is deliberate falsification. Having put back the development of uranium for 6 months by his activities in the Senate, the honourable senator now chooses to apply his doubtful talents in another field. In point of fact there will be no discrimination whatever between the Northern Territory and Western Australia. Some 12 months ago I contacted a representative of Western Mining Company with regard to the Yeelirrie -

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. Standing order 75 states:

No Member may use offensive words against either House of the Parliament or any Member thereof . . .

I would suggest that the words ‘a deliberate falsification’ used by the Minister are not only entirely inaccurate but also designedly inaccurate.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The point of order is valid. The Minister must withdraw the word ‘deliberate’.

Mr CONNOR:

-Sir, I withdraw the word. The Yeelirrie deposit contains 50,000 short tons of uranium oxide. Some 12 months ago I contacted a representative of Western Mining Corporation, discussed the position with him and suggested the Corporation would be well advised to wait for the market to mature. Some 2 months ago I was again in contact with a representative of the same company- it has the advantage of being a well managed and overwhelmingly Australian corporation- and suggested that we might have a look at the matter further. I met a representative of that company last week. We compared notes as to the Corporation’s planning and development and we have arranged for appropriate co-ordination. It is of the utmost importance to Australia that that 50,000 short tons of uranium oxide be available. It is available of course, under the laws of Western Australia, but we are interested in ensuring that it is released at the proper time and at the proper price. There would be no one in this House who would gainsay me when I assert that we have shown ourselves as a government capable of getting a proper price for mineral exports. We will get the exact planning of this company and we will closely co-ordinate with the company. We are interested in co-operation and development and it will be carried out with a good Australian company and in the best interests of Australia.

page 3629

QUESTION

INFLATION: OVERSEAS INFLUENCE

Mr SNEDDEN:
BRUCE, VICTORIA

– I ask the Treasurer Is it not true that Australia’s inflation rate has accelerated faster than that of any other major country of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development? Is it not true that Australia’s unemployment rate is now double our long term average as compared to the Western countries and northern American countries, where it is marginally above the long term rate? Is it not true that Australia has been insulated more than any other economy from the effects of the world energy crisis? Will the Treasurer make a detailed statement showing precisely how world economic conditions have affected or are expected to affect Australian economic conditions? In doing so, will he bear in mind that there has been no major injection of overseas liquidity into Australia for 2 years, that there has been no general collapse of Australian exports and that the Government itself claims that import prices have not made a major contribution to inflation in this country? How then can overseas conditions have influenced our domestic crisis?

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA · ALP

-The right honourable gentleman’s words are more a series of affirmations than a question. He asked specifically about the rate of inflation in Australia relative to some or most OECD countries. The Australian rate is lower than that of some of these countries and higher than that of others. The right honourable gentleman is interjecting. He has asked a question and I am giving an answer, if he wants it. The rate of inflation is higher in Japan, which is an OECD country, than it is here, and it is lower in the United States than it is here.

The right honourable member referred to unemployment. Again, unemployment is higher in Australia than in some places and lower than in others. For instance, unemployment in countries with which the honourable member likes to compare us at times, such as the United States and Canada, is significantly higher than it is in Australia. I believe that the rate of inflation and the rate of unemployment in Australia are higher than any of us would like, but I think it is about time we stopped trying to score off each other about the unfortunate circumstances and began to look closely at the reasons for them. I have endeavoured in recent times to try to indicate that unless employer and employee groups can get together in some sort of trustful co-operation in relation to the problems I think we are likely still to finish up in the wrangle that because of price rises increased wage demands are sought and when increased wages demands are conceded this becomes an excuse for further price rises. The two are intertwined, and the sooner we acknowledge it the better. The right honourable member asked whether Australia is more insulated than most countries from the effects of the energy crisis. It is true that we are, but nevertheless, as my colleague has pointed out, Australia’s imported oil bill is some $600m more than it might have been. This surely must make some difference to relative shares of the gross product.

page 3629

QUESTION

OIL SEARCH

Mr ANTHONY:

– I ask the Prime Minister whether he recalls writing to the Chairman of the Prices Justification Tribunal on 12 November in these terms: …. the Tribunal should give particular attention to the problems of sustaining and stimulating an adequate level of private investment and of maintaining rates of return on capital which will induce the new investment required to maintain economic growth and employment.

Is the Prime Minister aware of the fact that the search for new oil deposits in Australia has virtually come to a halt because of the low return to Australian producers in comparison with return to producers in other countries, and because of the withdrawal by the Government of oil search incentives? I ask the Prime Minister whether it might not be in the interests of the Australian people, who are already paying nearly $ 1 ,000m a year for imported fuel, to adopt the policy of the Opposition Parties, which is that oil pricing policy should be reviewed now with a view to deciding what should be done after the expiry of the present agreement, having in mind the urgent need to stimulate exploration. Can the Prime Minister see any inconsistency between his letter to the Tribunal this week and the virtual destruction of Australia’s oil search program by his refusal to give explorers any indication as to what they may look forward to after the expiry of the agreement?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-Last week I answered a question concerning the submission that I sent to the Prices Justification Tribunal. In essence, I stated that the Government was anxious to see that companies coming before the Tribunal were able to make the same percentage of their profits available for investment as they had done before the Tribunal was established. My colleague the Minister for Minerals and Energy has stated on many occasions, the most recent occasion being this morning, the attitude of the Government towards the price for indigenous oil. I myself stated yesterday that we believed that the policy established by the Gorton Government in October 1968 should continue to be observed. We stand ready to discuss any variations in the price which should be made in favour of any companies or in favour of the public after the period of expiry of the agreement established by the Gorton Government, which is next September.

page 3630

QUESTION

ASSISTANCE TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Mr KEOGH:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

-I refer the Minister for Urban and Regional Development to reports that assistance given by the Australian Government to local government through the Grants Commission and the area improvement program has discriminated against country areas. I ask the Minister. Is there any substance in these reports? In particular, could the Minister indicate whether there has been any discrimination in assistance given to country areas in Queensland?

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

-Liberal Party and Country Party Opposition members have been accusing the Grants Commission of favouritism to city areas.

Mr Anthony:

– That is right.

Mr UREN:

– The Leader of the Australian Country Party interjects and says: ‘That is right’. Let us examine the evidence. It shows that for the first time the Australian Government, through the Grants Commission, made an allocation of $56.3m for assistance to local government. This money was given throughout Australia on a per head of population basis. In the city areas $2.92 per head of population was granted and in the non-metropolitan areas, or rural areas the Commonwealth Government gave $6.88 per head of population. An amount of $9m was made available to Queensland through the Grants Commission. That money was granted on the basis of $3.12 per head of population in the cities and $6.23 per head of population in rural areas.

These grants represent only a part of the overall policy of the Australian Government in assisting local governments as a whole. For instance, my colleague the Minister for Tourism and Recreation is making money available to local governments for recreational purposes. The Minister for Social Security, through the Social Welfare Commission and the Australian Assistance Plan, also is assisting local government. The Australian Council for the Arts, which comes under the control of the Prime Minister, is making grants available to local government, as is the Department of Transport under the roads program. For the first time we are making available to local government money for urban local roads. In the next 3 years $30m will be made available for this purpose.

I emphasise that in Queensland where local government had been faring badly with its finances, for the first time an Australian Government has been making available money and also is giving an opportunity to the Queensland Government to assist 2 area improvement programs for the Moreton region, and the Fitzroy Basin region, which takes in the Gladstone and Rockhampton areas. Both were badly treated by the previous Government.

page 3630

QUESTION

PRIME MINISTER’S OVERSEAS VISIT

Mr GARLAND:
CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I address a question to the Prime Minister. What are the purposes of his impending visit overseas? What countries will he visit? When does he propose to leave? What period will his visit cover? What will be the size of his entourage?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-The purpose of my visit is to visit the Economic Community, the Soviet Union and the principal countries from which migrants have come and are coming to Australia. I point out that no senior Minister visited any of those countries last year or this and, in fact, in the case of some of the migrant countries I will be the first Prime Minister to visit them. For instance, there has been a long-standing invitation over 7 years by the President of Italy for the head of the Australian Government to visit that country- the country from which the greatest number of migrants have come other than from Britain. Australia’s discourtesy in this respect is resented by other countries and by Australians who have come from those other countries. I earlier informed the House that my visit would take four or five weeks. Last week I informed the House that I would be accompanied by the Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade, the Secretary of the Department of Minerals and Energy, a deputy secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and a deputy secretary of the Prime Minister’s Department.

page 3631

QUESTION

REDISTRIBUTION OF ELECTORATES

Mr INNES:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– For the benefit of the House will the Minister for Services and Property state why the proposed redistribution of electorates has been approved, in order to correct the evident misleading statements by the Opposition in regard to these proposals?

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

– The usual procedure is for a redistribution of electorates to take place after each census. A census was held in June 1971 but the previous Liberal-Country Party Government did not fulfil its obligation and refused to carry out a redistribution. At that time by so doing it deprived Western Australia of an additional seat which was granted by the Labor Party when it came to office. As a redistribution has not taken place since 1968 and the previous Government sidestepped its obligation, this Government sees no reason to follow that example and in accordance with the practice to bring in democratic voting the Government has introduced the proposals for a redistribution of electorates. For the benefit of the House I quote in support of the proposal reasons additional to those I have previously stated. At present in Australia 30 seats vary from the quota by more than 10 per cent, a further 19 by more than 20 per cent, and of the 127 seats in Australia 40 per cent are outside the quota at this time. In New South Wales, 14 seats vary from the quota by more than 10 per cent, a further six by more than 20 per cent, and 44 per cent of the seats are outside the quota. In Victoria, 6 seats vary from the quota by more than 10 per cent, a further 8 seats by more than 20 per cent and 14 of the 34 seats, or 41 per cent, are out of focus. In Queensland 6 seats vary from the quota by more than 10 per cent, a further 3 by more than 20 per cent, and SO per cent, or 9 out of 18, are outside the quota. In South Australia, 2 seats vary by more than 10 per cent, a further two by more than 20 per cent and 50 per cent, or 4 out of 8 are outside the quota. For Tasmania, where it was stated at the time of the redistribution that there were no variations, there are no figures to be quoted.

I now quote further discrepancies and the reasons which justify a redistribution. In New South Wales, for instance, the electorate of Mitchell has 82,864 voters and Darling 47,806, a difference of 35,058 or 42 per cent. In Victoria, Diamond Valley has 87,725 voters and Wimmera 49,512, a difference of 38,213 or 43 per cent. In Queensland McPherson has 90,525 voters and Maranoa 47,493, a difference of 43,032 or 47 per cent.

Mr Garland:

– I rise to order. This is question time. The Minister is obviously reading a lot of statistics from a document. I ask you, Mr Speaker, whether you will ask him to make a statement on this subject so that it can be debated -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! All the Chair can do is to ask the Minister to be as brief as possible with his answer.

Mr DALY:

– I can understand why the facts upset the Opposition. In South Australia Bonython has 80,271 electors and Wakefield 49,526, a difference of 30,745 or 38 per cent. In Tasmania, Braddon has 5 1,625 and Bass 46,843, a difference of 4,842 or 9 per cent. By 1976 the position will be further aggravated. Therefore, the Government believes, for electoral justice, that the democratic rights of the people must be preserved and there must be one vote one value. The Leader of the Country Party constantly criticises this principle. He does not criticise his counterparts in New South Wales who have a redistribution before every election. He does not criticise his counterparts in Queensland where the present Premier said, if by some mischance he is re-elected, he will put in another gerrymander next Wednesday week. The Leader of the Country Party continually misleads the Australian people. This is the situation at this time.

Let me show the House what is being done about this question in Victoria by people of the political colour of Opposition members. In Victoria the first redistribution of boundaries for the Legislative Assembly is taking place since 1965 and the first redistribution of boundaries for the Legislative Council since before the World War. That is how far back they are. They say that it is the biggest electoral shake up for 20 years. Of course it is. It is the biggest gerrymander since Mr Bjelke-Petersen did bis in Queensland.

Mr Hewson:

– A point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister is not responsible for the Victorian figures and the Legislative Council figures have been redistributed since the time he mentioned.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the Minister to be as brief as possible with his answer.

Mr DALY:

– I will, Mr Speaker, but I think the honourable member who won by 1 7 per cent of the primary votes in Victoria is entitled to an answer. The Opposition does not want these proposals changed. In Victoria the metropolitan electorates will have 28,000 electors and the 32 country electorates will have 24,000. There will be a marginal difference of up to 15 per cent between the seats. This means that in some cases the value of the country vote will be 3 times higher than that of the city vote.

Mr Howard:

- Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the provisions of standing order 145 which states:

An answer shall be relevant to the question.

The question which was asked concerned the redistribution of Federal electorates, not the redistribution of State electorates.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I think that the House would be aware that the Chair is unable to give decisions as to the exact relevance of answers on these matters. I ask the Minister to be brief.

Mr DALY:

-I will, Mr Speaker. I am just pointing out the so-called democratic approach of the Opposition to electoral reform compared with our reason for having a redistribution at this time. In the upper House in Victoria the vote will favour country voters by 2 to 1. The upper House will average quotas of 112,000 and 80,000 in country provinces, a discrepancy of 32,000 or 28 per cent. This is a grotesque distortion between city and country seats. The Government has directed the Distribution Commissioners to depart from set quotas by 10 per cent, more or less. Yet those who sit opposite in this House would not agree to differences of less than 20 per cent, but even in Victoria they have come down to 15 per cent. Mr Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence. I hope I have enlightened the Leader of the Country Party as to the reason for the redistribution so that he and his cohorts will not stump the country, crying and whinging about proposals which are in accordance with the democratic practice that they refused to implement after the last census. I tell the people of Victoria: I did not think it could happen but they are in for a bigger gerrymander than BjelkePetersen ‘s in Queensland.

page 3632

QUESTION

CATTLE INDUSTRY

Mr DRUMMOND:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-My question is directed to the Minister for Northern Development in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture. As some time has now elapsed since the cattle industry’s troubles became apparent, can the Minister say whether the Government is now in a position to explain any measures it intends to take to see that this major Australian industry survives for the undoubted period of prosperity that lies ahead?

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

-As has been outlined in this House several times in answers to questions by myself and the Prime Minister, and in the Senate by Senator Wriedt, this matter is being seriously considered by the Government. The Government has accepted the fact that liquidity is a serious problem in some sectors of the cattle industry. We are also looking at the possibility of being able to provide foreign aid in the form of certain cuts of meat in tinned or some other substitute form. All of these matters are being looked at in a practical, sensible way.

page 3632

QUESTION

NATURAL GAS SUPPLIES

Mr BERINSON:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the attention of the Minister for Minerals and Energy been drawn to a statement by the Western Australian Government that Perth could face a crisis with its natural gas supplies by 1980? Can the Minister indicate whether his own advice would lead to the same conclusion? If so, what proposals, if any, does the Commonwealth Government have which might help to meet the situation? Can the Minister also comment on suggestions that such problems as exist with Perth’s future gas supplies have been contributed to by Australian Government policies on the North West Shelf fields?

Mr CONNOR:
ALP

-The honourable gentleman draws attention to the campaign which is being waged at the present time in Western Australia by the Western Australian Government to stir up the people to cause alarm. The fundamental problem is that it is the Government of Western Australia which is responsible for the High Court challenge which has thrown into jeopardy not merely the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Act but also the Seas and Submerged Lands Act and the Pipeline Authority Act by challenging the Commonwealth sovereignty. When that matter is determined- may I inform the House that it will be the subject of reference in the High Court on the 27 November when Commonwealth counsel will ask for the earliest possible hearing date, and we hope that it will be set down for hearing at the commencement of the first term in 1975- then we will be able to proceed with the true exploitation of the North West Shelf. Last week I had a conference with representatives of a major oil company which is anxious to participate in oil search there. The previous week, accompanied by the head of my Department, I had a consultation with another major oil company which is equally concerned in a fifty-fifty proposition under which Australia provides the resource and the company provides the risk capital and the technology. Two months ago I had a conference with another company which is also interested. Let me stress the point that in the main, the North West Shelf is a gas field. I had advice a few weeks ago from the Burmah company, which is the operator of the project, that what oil was there- it is subsidiary only to the natural gas- would not be produced by Burmah. Oil is much further out on what is known as the Exmouth Plateau. The Government might have something to announce about that in the near future.

With regard to the special needs of Perth, over 18 months ago the Bechtel Corporation, which performed a similar operation in respect of South Australia, did 2 feasibility studies for us in collaboration with the then Labor Government in Western Australia for the construction of a 32-inch pipeline and a 24-inch pipeline. We have also conducted our own inquiries into the offshore operations, and it would appear that the main production platform will be located about 83 miles off-shore. About 79 miles of that has a perfectly easy, level sandy bottom. For the remaining 4 miles there will be problems of depth, and too much stress has been given to this. As a Government faced with disbursing $640m to import 30 per cent of its oil requirements from overseas I would say we will have at least an equal interest with the Western Australian Government in ensuring that there is the promptest possible supply of natural gas from Dampier to Perth. We will lose no time, and at the same time we will answer and debunk completely the propaganda which is at present coming from Western Australia and which is utterly mischievous and not in the best interests of that State, its progress and public confidence in it.

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I ask that further questions be placed on notice.

Mr Snedden:

– I wish to raise a point of order in relation to question time. The Standing Orders provide that the Prime Minister may ask for questions to be placed on the notice paper but it has been the practice of this House for many years for question time to be of 45 minutes duration. Today 45 minutes has not passed on questions because a great deal of time was taken up with the reading of petitions by the Clerk. Last Wednesday question time occupied 41 minutes, which was 4 minutes short. Today it is about 3 minutes short. With the small number of questions that can be asked in a day it makes a difference of two or possibly three questions. I repeat that the practice is to spend 45 minutes on questions. My expectation in that the Prime Minister was not aware of the amount of time that was taken by the reading of petitions. I have checked with the Clerk and normally question time would have continued until 18 minutes past 11 o’clock.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I think the House will appreciate that this is not a matter for the Chair to decide. It is purely and simply in the hands of the Prime Minister. I call the honourable member for Mackellar on a point of order.

Mr Wentworth:

- Mr Speaker, I direct your attention to standing order 60 which states:

By the indulgence of the House, a Member unable conveniently to stand, by reason of sickness or infirmity, will be permitted to speak sitting.

In view of my advanced age, am I entitled to the benefit of this provision?

Mr SPEAKER:

– If the honourable member can produce a medical certificate I will certainly see that he is allowed to speak sitting.

page 3633

SCIENCE AND INDUSTRY ENDOWMENT FUND

Mr CREAN (Melbourne PortsTreasurer)For the information of honourable members I present the annual report by the AuditorGeneral on the accounts for the Science and Industry Endowment Fund for the year ended 30 June 1974.

page 3633

AUSTRALIAN MEAT RESEARCH COMMITTEE

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

– Pursuant to section 17 of the Meat Research Act 1960-1973, 1 present the eighth annual report of the Australian Meat Research Committee for the year ended 30 June 1974. An interim report of the Committee was presented to the House on 19 September 1974.

page 3633

AUSTRALIAN SHIPPING COMMISSION ACT

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Transport · Newcastle · ALP

– Pursuant to section 17 (5) of the Australian Shipping Commission Act 1956-1974 I present a direction to the Australian Shipping Commission pursuant to section 17 (1) of that Act.

page 3633

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY POLICE

Mr ENDERBY:
ALP

-(Canberra-Minister for Manufacturing Industry)- For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Police for the year ended 30 June 1974.

page 3633

HOMES SAVINGS GRANT ACT

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

– Pursuant to section 32 of the Homes Savings Grant Act 1964-73 I present the annual report on the administration and operation of that Act for the year ended 30 June 1974.

page 3634

STATES GRANTS (HOUSING ASSISTANCE) BILL

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

-With the indulgence of the Chair I should like to correct an error in my second-reading speech on the States Grants (Housing Assistance) Bill on 30 October. The amount payable to New South Wales for welfare housing is $96.41 lm, not $46.41 lm, the figure shown in the Hansard report on page 3041.

page 3634

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr HEWSON:
McMillan

-I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr HEWSON:

-Yes. I have been gravely misrepresented by the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly). He very disrespectfully referred to me as ‘Mr seventeen per cent’ when he knows very well that I was elected in 1972 with 16.7 per cent of primary votes and reelected in 1974 with 26 per cent, which was a personal triumph for me. His remarks were also a great reflection on the policies of the Australian Country Party which I have promoted in the 18 months I have been here and in the 10 years that I have been associated with Parliament. It is an act of political vandalism for the Minister to continue to cast these aspersions on people who struggle to represent their electorates. The second point is that the Minister said that the electoral boundaries of the Legislative Council of Victoria have not been redistributed -

Mr SPEAKER:

-That has nothing to do with the honourable member’s personal explanation.

Mr HEWSON:

-As I was a member of the Legislative Council -

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable member cannot speak for a group of people. He can speak only for himself and point out where he has been personally misrepresented.

page 3634

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Compensation (Australian Government Employees) Bill 1974

Seamen’s Compensation Bill 1974

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1974-75

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1974-75

Service and Execution of Process Bill 1 974

page 3634

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION

Motion (by Dr Cass)- by leave- agreed to:

That paragraph 9 of the resolution of appointment of the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation be omitted and that the following paragraph be substituted:

That 3 members of the of the Committee constitute a quorum of the Committee and a majority of members of a sub-committee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee.

page 3634

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Deprivation and dislocation arising from a proposed 8 per cent ‘ across the board ‘ reduction in Government spending.

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

Mr MATHEWS:
Casey

– It is vitally important that the people of Australia, the Parliament of Australia, understand what the proposals recently put forward for a reduction in Government spending by 8 per cent mean in practice, as well as in the form in which they are advanced. It is vitally important that we should all understand the consequences in terms of deprivation for individuals who depend on the Australian Government for their well being-

Mr Sullivan:

-Tell the truth.

Mr MATHEWS:

-And in terms of dislocation of committed works and programs at every level of government in this country and, what is more, for governments of every political complexion in this country.

We are all indebted- and, I repeat, indebtedto the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) for grasping the nettle and explaining at long last what honourable members opposite mean when they talk about reduction of Government spending. We are all indebted to the honourable gentleman for stating very forcefully on ‘Monday Conference’ on 28 October 1974 that there should be an 8 per cent reduction in Government spending across the board. Pensioners and other social security beneficiaries now know the exact extent to which their incomes would be reduced in the unlikely event of the Opposition being in a position to give effect to its theories.

Mr Sullivan:

-Tell the truth.

Mr MATHEWS:

– Low and middle income earners who need houses now know by how much the waiting period for welfare housing and co-operative building society loans will be increased.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is far too much audible conversation from all sides of the House.

Mr Sullivan:

– Well, nobody is interested in listening to this.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The House will come to order. I call the honourable member for Casey.

Mr MATHEWS:

-The sick are now in no doubt about the period for which the new hospitals and the better health facilities that they need will be postponed. Parents, teachers and students are clear about the extent to which the educational opportunities of an overwhelming majority of young Australians will have to be curtailed.

Mr Sullivan:

-Stick to the truth.

Mr MATHEWS:

– Social security payments, low cost housing, housing loans-

Mr Bourchier:

– What about overseas trips?

Mr MATHEWS:

– Health centres, child care centres, pre-school centres, schools and universities

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Yes, what about overseas trips?

Mr MATHEWS:

-They are all products of Government spending.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Griffith will remain silent.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– He is talking a lot of rubbish.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I warn the honourable member for Griffith.

Mr MATHEWS:

– All these things would be cut by 8 per cent under the program outlined by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Judging by some of the interjections which have been coming particularly from the Country Party benches over the last few minutes, honourable gentlemen opposite are not familiar with the transcript of the program in which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition made his remarks. Let me bring that transcript to their attention. Let me refresh the memories of those opposite who saw the program or who obtained a copy of the transcript for themselves. On page 2 of the transcript of the ‘Monday Conference’ program, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is quoted as saying: … we have said, I believe as a matter of responsibility, that the rate of increase in Government spending this year should be 25 per cent, not the 32.4 per cent which this Government has budgeted for.

Again, on that same page, he continued:

That obviously means that there will need to be a cutback on the present increase which this Government has budgeted for and, if necessary, of course that will mean a cutback of 8 per cent across the board . . .

He was asked by the program’s compere, Mr Robert Moore:

What are some of the more obvious areas for a cutback?

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, as quoted at page 3 of the transcript, replied:

Well this, of course, is always a very difficult question for any Opposition to meet because we don’t have access to the detailed figuring which is, of course, available to the Government, but we’re saying, in very clear terms, it means a cutback of 8 percent-

Mr James:

– Who said this?

Mr James:

– Who said this?

Mr MATHEWS:

-This was said by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on television. He continued: . . . which is less than this Government has budgeted for and if necessary that will be- and I put this quite precisely- a cutback across the board . . .

At page 28 of the transcript, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is quoted as saying: . . . I’m making it perfectly clear that the reductions would be across the board but that there would be major priority in certain areas.

I said at the outset that we are indebted to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for at long last bringing some substance to the many Delphic utterances of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) on this matter. But it is unfortunate that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did not go a little further and make clear the real arithmetic underlying his calculations. (Quorum formed) When the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) made his attempt to cut short the already short time available to me to put these facts to the House by calling for a quorum I was saying that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, in acknowledging that what the Opposition has in mind is an across the board cutback of 8 per cent in Government expenditure, was telling only half of the truth about the extent to which the program the Opposition has foreshadowed would affect public expenditure.

Let me give the House the arithmetic. The total planned expenditure of the Government for 1974-75 is $16.3 billion, and 8 per cent of that, of course, is $1.3 billion, suggesting, on the surface of things, that the revised Liberal-Country Party coalition expenditure program would be of the order of $15 billion. But that does not take any account whatsoever of the additional expenditure commitments into which the Liberals themselves have entered and which would themselves be a charge against the present expenditure programs of the Australian Government. I mention only a few of those because it is important that people should be aware of them. At one end of the scale, in the field of education, the Liberals are committed to a sum of up to $ 15m for higher grants to category A schools. They are committed to $33m to bring the education tax allowance back from $150 per annum to $400. In the field of health, the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp) has committed a Liberal-Country Party coalition government to an amount of $200m in its first year for a further face lift of the aging, ailing Liberal health insurance scheme.

In the field of primary production $70m is proposed to be provided for the perpetuation of the superphosphate bounty. It is proposed to provide $60m to restore subsidies for mining companies and $45m to restore the investment allowance. Indeed, I am not too sure that the $45 m would be adequate for the task, because yesterday the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser), who is the Liberal spokesman in these matters, was referring not simply to a reinstatement of the investment allowance but to what he referred to as a ‘very substantial reinstatement of the investment allowance’. The Leader of the Opposition himself in yesterday’s Melbourne ‘Sun’ was quoted as saying how much more a Liberal-Country Party coalition government would spend on activities under the Tourism and Recreation portfolio than is being spent under the present Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart). Of course, above all, there is the question of defence. The honourable member for Barker (Dr Forbes), in an impassioned contribution to the Estimates debates a few weeks ago, had this to day:

We are committed -

That is a Liberal-Country Party coalition government- quite specifically and without qualification to substantially increased defence expenditure when we come into government.

That was said by the Opposition spokesman on defence. Of course one links that statement with his earlier remark that defence spending should be at the level of 3.5 per cent of gross national product. In other words, in addition to the $1.3 billion which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has said his Party will cut from Government expenditure across the board, there is another $ 1 ,000m-another $ 1 billion- and more, to come off the present expenditure programs in terms of new commitments, of firm promises, into which Opposition spokesmen have entered. In other words, the amount remaining for existing expenditure programs is of the order not of $ 15,000m as it would seem from the surface of the statement of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, but in fact of $ 1 4,000m.

Honourable gentlemen should address their minds to the amount that will have to be slashed from the expenditure of each department to meet that colossal reduction in overall government spending. Let the pensioners and social security beneficiaries of this country ask themselves what level of pension could be paid in the face of a reduction of the Estimates by one-eighth. Let the education authorities of Australia, State and Federal, ask themselves to what extent the building and recurrent expenditure programs in education could be maintained in the face of this sort of cutback. How many school building projects would have to be abandoned? How many teachers would have to be dismissed? How many children would be unable to find places in schools at the beginning of a new school year following the implementation of these measuresnot the cut of $ 1 ,000m that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition talked about, but a cut of $2.3 billion in the present expenditure programs of Australia?

Let the State’ Governments, irrespective of their political complexion, ask themselves what would be the impact on their programs of this further reduction in the block grants available to them, cumulative to and many times exceeding the amounts by which their block grant this year fell short of their hopes. Let the State Governments ask themselves, and let honourable gentlemen on both sides of this place ask themselves, what catastrophic consequences on cooperation between the 3 levels of government in our Federal system would follow from reductions in all the programs to which the States have already committed themselves and to which local government has already committed itself to buy goods and services, if not only block grants to the States but the $56m allocated this year for local government through the Grants Commission were cut back.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr McMAHON:
Lowe

– It is obvious that the big boy from Casey (Mr Mathews) has very little knowledge of economics and finance and certainty knows nothing at all about budgeting, fiscal policy or the administration of the economic policies of a government. The matter of public importance which he has proposed in the House is a complete contradiction in terms and a clear indication that he understands neither the historical background nor the consequences of what he is saying. Nor does he understand what has been said by the Treasurer (Mr Crean) or what was said by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) on the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s television program ‘Monday Conference’ when he explained the Opposition’s policy in considerable detail.

I am glad I am able to refer to the ‘Australian’ of 1 1 November which refers to the unbelievable change that has occurred in the Australian economy since the Labor Party assumed power and what a muck up Labor has made of it all. For once I agree with that newspaper, and I want it to be understood that I do not think that the ‘Australian’ has ever been regarded as a very great friend of mine- certainly not in 1972. But in that editorial leader that newspaper claimed that whilst the Government came into power at a time of prosperity, a time when all things were imaginable, with every conceivable advantage that a government could want- the preceding Liberal-Country Party Government had left it that way- it has made an intolerable muck of the economy. I believe the conclusion can fairly be drawn that the Labor Party ought to get out now and give somebody else a chance to do a better job.

Let me argue, first of all, as to the ‘deprivation and dislocation arising from a proposed 8 per cent “across the board” reduction in government spending’. Nobody has ever argued that there should be an overall and immediate cut in government expenditure. The statement made by the Treasurer when he introduced his July mini-Budget made it clear that there ought to be phased withdrawals from the public to the private sector consistent with economic management whenever action was taken. That is crucial, but it is not understood by the honourable member for Casey who, I have to repeat, obviously is totally ignorant of financial and economic policies. Of course, what the Treasurer stated is exactly the policy that would be followed by the incoming government to be led by Mr Snedden in the not too distant future.

Let me put this matter in historical sequence. I think even you, Mr Speaker, a colleague and friend of mine, born and reared in the same district as I was, have got to concede that nobody knows today what the Labor Party is up to. If we go back a little bit we can read the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) at the

Premiers Conference. The States were ordered to cut back on government expenditure and to increase indirect taxes, and therefore inflation. If he did not know what he was doing, it would not be unusual. I do not think he did know what he was doing but that somebody gave him a bum steer, and he is continuing to get bum steers given to him every time he gets on his feet to talk on economic and financial problems.

The Treasurer himself came along with his mini-Budget and said exactly the same thing. So, too, did the Treasurer designate, Dr Cairns, who is to be appointed soon. In July he made the exactly identical statement- that Government expenditure had to come down. If it is to come down the honourable gentleman from Casey ought to be able to tell us in what areas the Government is going to reduce expenditure. If one can take any notice of what the Prime Minister has said in his recent speeches in Queensland- I understand they were not very favourably received but, nonetheless, he made them- he now wants further reductions in personal taxation. He wants to help the States cut down their indirect taxes. He has been heard to mumble, when he could be heard against the din that has occurred up there in Queensland, that he is also prepared to look at a reduction in government expenditure. So the honourable member for Casey should go back to school and learn his facts before he speaks. When he does it will be a happier day for the Labor Party arid I believe it will be a happier day for the honourable member, if he wants to retain the constituency of Casey.

Let me come back, if I may, to the change that has occurred during the course of the last 2 years. I refer again to the ‘Australian’ newspaper. In accordance with the implicit price deflation index we had inflation down to 2.2 per cent and by the consumer index inflation of 4.6 per cent, the unemployment level at 88,000, and a growth rate of approximately 7½ per cent. What has the Labor Party done now as a result of its many changes in policy, by its business bashing, by pushing back the private sector, and by trying to build up the public sector? The Labor Government has created unemployment which by the end of March will, unless it gerrymanders the figures again and excludes school leavers, be at least 250,000. According to the Treasury, there will be no growth whatsoever in productivity or in the economy other than as a result of the increase in the work force. I think even the Treasury will have to review its figures now because, far from there being a big increase in the work force, there will be a very big increase in unemployment. So if this is the kind of record that the Australian people want and of which the people in the Labor Party are proud, they can keep it. I do not like it; I never have liked it. I believe that each one of the new budget type actions of the Labor Government has turned out to be a little more disastrous than the one before.

I cannot deal in detail with the first miniBudget, and then the statement of 17 September which cannot be dignified by being described as a budget or even a financial and economic statement. It was a collection of tripe, a collection of idiotic little dippings from newspapers which somebody gathered together but which were not put together as a totally consistent, comprehensive and understandable economic and financial policy for this country. The Treasurer himself, who did not have the good grace to come into the chamber and listen to his colleague this morning, has had to admit that he does not believe in the typical type of Budget, that he does not believe in a Budget setting out the program for the future and in giving the guidelines and the limits within which business, social welfare and other kinds of operations can work in the fiscal year. But he believes in ad hocery, in doing one sort of thing now and another a few day later when he feels that the chill winds are blowing from the Caucus or from the Cabinet and when he consequently experiences a compulsion to put up his hands when he sees which way the majority is going. That will not do. It is just not the kind of policy that we believe ought to be followed.

Let me refer to what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said in answer to several questions put to him during his appearance on ‘Monday Conference’. He did say- I admit this- that there would be an across the board cut but he went on to say as well- I believe that this must be stated as a matter of accuracy and truth- that priority would be given in the fields of education, social welfare and health. To those areas I would say, I hope very clearly, the area of defence, because I believe that the problems associated with Soviet operations in the Indian Ocean must compel us to build up our defence and we must give that a priority as well. But I want to emphasise that no absolute rule was laid down.

Let me say what I would do and what I believe a Liberal-Country Party Government would do and what would be the proper course of action that ought to have been taken by the Labor Party. This is consistent with the policies that are adopted by democratic countries in every part of the world. I want to give this lesson- I do not mind doing this- to the young fellow from Casey. I do not mind doing this for him because I was a little sorry for the poor brute when he spoke. Let me tell him exactly what ought to be done. When a government is formulating its Budget strategy the Treasury supplies the background on which the Cabinet, the Caucus and the Government of the day can make up their mind. The Treasury, first produces a paper showing the demand and supply position within the economy whether there is excess or deficient demand. It says: ‘Based on this, we do not think that government expenditure should increase beyond a certain amount’. It is done in the same way today. A limit is set. I used to put it at about 8 per cent.

I well remember saying in one of my Budgets that in the previous 9 years we had an inflation rate of only 6 per cent. That is not a bad record, if one cares to think, which obviously the honourable gentleman from Casey has not done. Then a government has to establish certain priorities. One day it might be defence; the next day it might be something else. Certainly it might be education, which has received priority ever since the Liberal Party came into government in 1 949. Under Sir Robert Menzies we introduced the scheme relating to the subsidisation of universities throughout Australia. That is the sort of thing that will be done by the next Liberal-Country Party Government when it comes into power. Then cuts are made in other departments consistent with the strategy.

But those basic principles have been forgotten. No one in the Government has the experience, the knowledge of economic and financial affairs- - with the possible exception of 2 people, and these days I even wonder whether they have the degree of authority and influence they had 6 months ago- to understand those principles. I repeat that no one in the Government, least of all the honourable member for Casey, understands those principles and the way in which they should be applied. I now come back to the words of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition when he stated what the Opposition would do. We would give priorities to certain areas and we would be able to reduce substantially Government expenditure consistent with the overall strategy. I believe that that is of critical importance.

Let me refer back to the November miniBudget, if I may use that term. Firstly, there can be no doubt that the statement made on 17 September-the so-called Budget itself- was based upon the policy of business bashing, of crushing down the private enterprise sector of the economy and inevitably creating greater inflationary pressures and greater unemployment. The Whitlam Government learnt a lesson from that and consequently the Prime Minister was compelled to bring in another Budget by means of which he intends to superimpose on the $2,000m increase in expenditure by the Government the year before and, in this Budget, the extra $3,900m, a deficit of $ 1,300m. There will not be a slight surplus of, say, $20m; there will be an additional deficit of $ 1,300m. Those 2 amounts, that is, the $3, 900m increase and the deficit of $ 1,300m, must inevitably create increased demand inflationary pressures. Those increased inflationary pressures must in their turn in time create increased unemployment. If honourable members want a total explanation of this position, I ask them to read an article written by Mr Samuel Brittan which appears in today’s ‘Financial Review’ newspaper. I ask the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) whether he will give me permission to have this article incorporated in Hansard.

Mr Daly:
Mr McMAHON:

-It is an article by Mr Samuel Brittan on demand inflation superimposing itself on cost inflation.

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

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

The Social Contract Can Only be a Myth

The Labor Government has been edging towards an incomes policy for some time. Campaigning in Queensland at the weekend, Prime Minister Whitlam described the Government’s tax cuts and union acceptance of wage indexation as a ‘compact’. Financial Times writer Samuel Brittan examines the British version of a similar compact and finds:

Neither Mr Harold Wilson nor Mr Denis Healey is normally regarded as a sentimental romantic. The critics of these two political leaders, especially of the second, are more inclined to say that they overdo the hard-boiled realist act

Yet the fact is that both these men are at least partially taken in by a myth- that of the ‘social contract ‘.

The expression is of course a misuse of the title of an eighteenth century philosophical treatise by Jean- Jacques Rousseau on the grounds of political obligation; and I will not digress on what Rousseau ‘really meant’- no two commentators agee.

When the term was brought back into circulation earlier this year, I regarded it as a diplomatic fig-leaf to cover up the fact that the Labor Party would not dare force another statutory incomes policy down the throats of the unions.

But incredible though it may seem, the present Government is actually being influenced by this non-existent contractnot as much as it pretends, but enough to make one worried.

It is, of course, too much to expect politicians to learn from history. But it is difficult even to summon up an interest in ‘voluntary restraint’ in view of the record.

Mr Butler relied on this when he over-stimulated the economy in 1955, to his own lasting damage. Mr Maudling’s expansionary Budget of 1963 was deliberately framed to persuade the TUC to accept a voluntary incomes policy- and the result was the famous 1964 payments deficit and Mr Heath’s election as Conservative leader.

In 1964 Mr George Brown relied on a statement of intent by the two sides of industry, which did not prevent a subsequent wage explosion and the burial of the national plan in less than two years.

The present social contract is not even a ‘solemn and binding’ declaration (popularly known as ‘Mr Solomon Binding’). It belongs to that even feebler category known as ‘best endeavours’.

Unfortunately, too much criticism of the contract stops short at the most obvious points.

For example, it is often stated that some union leaders are more interested in ‘busting the system’ than in strictly industrial objectives. So they are; and one should not be deterred by cries of ‘reds under beds ‘ from emphasising the fact.

It also said that the TUC guideline, that wage increases should not in general do more than keep up with the cost of living, is impossible to fulfil.

For not only is there an indefinite number of exceptions to accommodate; but the existing standard of living cannot be guaranteed when resources have to be shifted to exports and import-saving at a time of world recession.

But what is less frequently realised is that even if the union leaders were entirely non-political and interested only in pay and conditions, and even if the guidelines were drawn up by the Royal Economic Society the ‘contract’ would still be a delusion.

The first and most elementary point is that if the demand for labour exceeds the supply no incomes policy on earthnot even the death penalty as ordained by Roman emperors, let alone the guidance of Len Murray- will stop not merely inflation but accelerating inflation.

This last point about acceleration has only recently begun to be appreciated. For if it is official policy to maintain such excess demand in the name of ‘full employment’, then in the face of rising prices money wages must climb faster and faster if they are to buy what was originally intended; and a non-indexed progressive tax system makes the acceleration problem all the worse.

Indeed, excess demand would lead to ever-accelerating inflation, even if the unions themselves were to vanish from the face of the earth. There are, of course, endless problems in defining the point at which the demand for labour exceeds the supply.

The difficulty is that the situation varies from skill to skill and from area to area.

Even at the height of a boom, there will be workers difficult to place because of personal characteristics or regional imbalances, while even in a slump some kinds of labour will still be in short supply. The point of balance is simply that at which the overall movement of money wages is steady.

Nobody can be sure in advance what this point of balance is.

It is unfortunate that it has been named the ‘natural’ rate of unemployment, as it is anything but natural and influenced by all kinds of policies and institutions.

Keynes, who together with Disraeli has been proclaimed by Mr Peter Walker as the founder of modern Toryism, himself put the rate at 800,000, which was 6-7 per cent of the prewar and wartime labour force, or well over a million, on today’s numbers and definitions.

But we do know that the more wages are prevented from moving in accordance with market forces the higher in unemployment terms the point of balance will be; and that many well-intentioned demands in TUC ‘social contract’ pronouncements, such as priority for the lower paid, or ‘equal pay for the sexes’ in the face of unequal employer or customer perferences, will push up the sustainable unemployment rate.

The direct effect of trade unions is not, as is popularly believed, to cause a continuing inflation.

It is- like bad housing policies, restrictive practices, or other obstacles to mobility- to increase the rate of unemployment.

If a sufficient number of trade unionists make increased use of their monopoly power, this will price their members out of jobs.

As these displaced workers are likely to be reluctant to take other work on inferior terms- and there may be union or other institutional obstacles in their doing so- the net result is an increase in the unemployment total.

Inflation or accelerating inflation, comes into the picture when governments go in for ‘reflationary’ fiscal or credit policies, of the kind which Mr Healey is planning for next week, in an attempt which can at best be only temporary, to mop up this unemployment by pushing more spending money into the economy.

Some ‘monetarist’ economists, while admitting that this is a theoretical possibility, deny that union power has been used in such a way, and claim that British inflation and stop-go episodes can be explained by other means.

The strong point of their thesis is the world-wide nature of the current inflation. The weak point is the extent to which Britain’s difficulties are worse than those of other countries.

Moreover, even if union power has not been used in the past to push up the sustainable unemployment rate, and therefore to tempt governments into inflationary policies, there is nothing to prevent this from happening now; and this is what many casual observers, without refined statistical techniques, believe is happening before their eyes.

Moreover, we are starting from a 17-20 per cent rate of inflation, to which the economic and social system has not adjusted, and which most people believe to be intolerable.

To move from here to a lower rate involves not a deflation, as the sillier anti-monetarists allege, but a slower growth of spending.

How far this slowdown is reflected in smaller rises in money incomes and prices, and how far in increased unemployment, will depend on the extent to which trade unions resist the forces of the labour market and price their members out of jobs.

This was a point which, as I understood it, Professor Milton Friedman conceded on his recent visit.

If the ‘social contract* were merely a pompous way of describing the intention and ability of union leaders to make less use of their monopoly powers, it would therefore be worth having, if it were obtainable at not too extortionate a price. But is it so obtainable?

The question is best considered from the point of view of a union leader- not necessarily the man at central headquarters but the one who exercises shop-floor power.

The gains from restraint in use of monopoly power are what economists call ‘public goods ‘.

They are things, such as fuller employment or the avoidance of runaway inflation, the benefits of which are widely diffused among the whole population. The costs on the other hand are incurred by the group which exercises restraint.

It will therefore usually be in the interest of a particular union group that other trade unionists should show restraint while its own members move ahead.

Union self-interest is thus likely to lead to the speedy crumbling of voluntary restraint. We are left then with the hope that agreement on a ‘socially just’ pattern of relativities will replace self-interest in wage bargaining.

There is neither the space at the end of this article, nor surely the need, to demonstrate that ‘there ain’t no agreement’ on what such a socially just pattern would look like, and that some quasi-moral justification can be found for almost any pay claim.

Nor is it any answer to point to what Cripps achieved for a very short period in 1948 in what was still virtually a wartime atmosphere (which we do not have at the moment despite the burning desire of so many people to bring it back).

In return for the thinnest of hopes, based on the flimsiest of logical foundation, governments of different political persuasions have imposed a price control stranglehold on British business and have been afraid to tax either corporations or individuals at realistic rates and have gone in for policies of levelling downwards which must soon begin to show themselves in the immigration rates.

The main result to date has been a stepping up of union demands in the running of national and corporate affairsthe actuality and fear of which has already brought the growth of productivity to a near standstill, to the ultimate detriment of real wages.

But then historians have always known that the main effect of paying Danegeld is that the Danes come back and ask for more.

Mr Daly:

– I am about to announce that I am with you.

Mr McMAHON:

– I know the honourable gentleman is with me. It is inevitable now that with these totally conflicting policies that somewhere the crunch has to come. What is obvious now is that because the private sector has to be re-inflated, because taxation is to be reduced and because the Prime Minister has to consider many other things as well during the course of the Queensland election campaign, we will have inflation, unemployment and a balance of payments problem of a kind that will be completely intolerable.

Every person with a bit of common sense and who is capable of thinking about the position knows that the November mini-Budget was inconsistent because it did not reduce government expenditure proportionately to the rate at which it took other action in the private sector. We all know that indirect taxes should have been reduced to reduce inflation. We all know that some assistance should have been given if we were to promote the exploration and development of energy resources, particularly fuel resources. But none of these things has been done. Therefore, the mini-Budget will be disastrous for everyone.

Let me come back to areas in which reductions in Government expenditure can take place. Of course, if the honourable member for Casey wants to be a little more informed on the subject matter before he rises to speak on it on the next occasion, he should read an article written by Yvonne Preston in the ‘National Times’ newspaper of 18-23 November 1974. That newspaper is an admirer of the Government. That newspaper gives a plan not for the reduction of Government expenditure by about $900m but more. It deals with the unnecessary growth of Government departments such as the Department of the Media, and all sorts of plans are set out. Again, I ask to have this newspaper article incorporated in Hansard because it will give some guidance to the Government in an attempt to reduce Government expenditure and time precludes me from dealing with this in detail.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)- ‘Have money can’t spend’: plenty of room to cut government budgets

By Yvonne Preston

It is easy to call for cuts in public expenditure. Less easy to pinpoint what cuts should be made.

It’s almost impossible to decide who will be subsidising whom, and therefore who will pay the price for public restraint, when the pruning is over.

While the necessity to do something to revive those ‘relatively subdued private sector conditions’ prompted last week’s mini-Budget, Mr Whitlam remained firm on the spending program, if a shade more defensive than before.

He was supporting what one leader writer called Labor’s ‘cherished program for lavish expenditure on education, health, transport and social welfare generally’. If it was not cut, went that argument, it would fuel the inflationary fires.

Part of the solution to the problem of whether or not to cut back will, in a sense, be automatic and therefore relatively painless.

It is not at all certain that the Government will be able to buy all the goods and services it has budgeted for.

The Government reckons to spend this financial year $555 million on schools, an increase of 1 37 per cent on last year.

Whether the physical resources, building materials, machines and people will prove up to ensuring that all those dollar bills are spent is doubtful- even allowing for the fact that inflation will take care of a few of them.

An estimated $56.9 million is due to be spent on land commissions in the States to buy, service and put on the market land for housing.

Co-operation with the States is an uncertain quantity here. Only South Australia has so far got its land commission in operation.

Child care program

Agreements in principle have been reached with New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania, but that is all. The

Government has yet to put a single serviced block of land on the New South Wales market.

Delays in getting that eternally long drawn out childcare program underway may make it difficult to see the $75m allocation for this financial year spent.

The emphasis of the Government on priority needs, as well as on a response to demands from community groups, complicate matters even further.

Government personnel to stimulate local areas to express their needs are still thin on the ground if they exist at all.

And there could be all sorts of difficulties with the States to be overcome if the Government really presses ahead with its plan to build ‘Australian Government hospitals’ in Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne. A total of $28m has been allocated for the year.

It is easier to assign the dollar bills in Budget estimates than to see them actually spent well, in the face of limited resources fronting gigantic programs and the intractability of some State Governments.

Stimulation of the private sector in last week’s turnabout Budget will also help undermine Mr Crean’s optimism about opportunities to transfer resources to the public sector.

In part then the Government’s expansionary shopping list is likely to be as attainable as if it had been prepared on a desert island.

That’s on the negative, ‘have money, cannot spend ‘, side.

On the positive side of actually opting for specific items to cut there have been few precise proposals, even from vocal advocates of public restraint like Mr Snedden.

Election time

Partly, of course, this is impossible to do without upsetting someone and when you’re an Opposition leader sitting it out to election time that’s the last thing you want to do.

How difficult it all is was neatly explained by Professor Henry Mayer in an article in Australian Politics- A Budget of One’s Own. He took the findings of an ASRB opinion poll which asked whether people favoured an increase, decrease or steadying of Government expenditure.

The findings showed an overall desire to double education expenditure, health and foreign aid, increase social welfare outlays by one-quarter and slash- by two-thirds- defence spending and spending on economic development. The net result would have been to increase Government outlays by nearly S2’A billion-turning the 1969-70 Budget deficit of $8,725m into $10,7 15m.

In other words the ‘voters’ budget’ wanted more public goods despite a common tendency for people generally to clamour for public expenditure cuts, mainly because they have little idea of what is spent on what, now it benefits them, or they see public spending simply in terms of bureaucrats and desks.

Significantly, however, the survey did not ask whether they would still opt for an increase in Government expenditure if it meant higher taxes.

Part of the key to curbing expenditure, if the Budget papers are simply approached with a blue pencil, is to trim the wings of some of those expansionary, often obsolete Government departments. There are many examples.

The administration expenses and salary costs for the Repatriation Department alone total $97 million, on behalf of a relatively small and declining section of the population.

The Department’s total expenditure estimates for this year have risen by nearly $150m to $653,140,000 on last year’s figures.

The cost of running the Prime Minister’s Department has risen two and a half times on the latest Budget estimates over last year.

The Department of Urban and Regional Development is embarked on the kind of growth program it would like to see in Albury-Wodonga, where $40m will be spent this year, nearly trebling its total estimated outlays.

And the Department of the Media, which might in our Utopian Budget vanish altogether with defence, is firmly set on an inflationary course. Its total appropriation is up to $26m on last year. There are signs it is curbing some of its excesses.

The appropriation for ‘publicity for the machinery of government’ is down to a mere $800,000 this year, compared with the $ 1 1¼m it spent last.

The Department of Tourism and Recreation is budgeting for $ 1 6,283,000 this year compared with just under $8m last year. It is conducting research into community recreation, a quarter of a million dollars’ worth, handing out $2 Vim for developing tourist attractions, and has undertaken a preliminary survey of national recreation needs which will cost $140,000.

And for sheer grandiloquence on an opulent scale Australia’s representatives abroad will soon enjoy by courtesy the dedication of the Foreign Affairs Department, luxury plus.

During this and the next two financial years, expenditure of the order of $40m will take place on Australian embassies and consulates- new architect-planned buildings in Saigon, Suva, Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, Bangkok and Paris; extensions to Jakarta and Tokyo; a feasibility study for Brasilia; and a new chancery in Wellington with extensions to Washington.

Opulent demands

Peking and Hanoi are still in the negotiating stages. The Brasilia chancery alone will cost an estimated $2m and the Paris chancery and apartment block a cool $ 1 9,200,000.

Apart from the opulent demands of international diplomacy, much of the growing Federal bureaucracy is due to the intractability of State bureaucracies, or perhaps that should read centralist tendencies of Canberra. The Australian Housing Corporation with an appropriation of $2Sm, is designed to give the Federal Department of Housing rather more of a role than simply to act as an agency for passing funds to the States.

Its duplicating policies, however, include lending for private housing, a function which is already being heavily subsidised through the public purse by interest subsidies for home buyers.

And in areas where the Government hoped to debureaucratise, as with the Australian Assistance Plan, it is in imminent danger of creating a fourth tier of government to add to the other three.

In Sydney’s pilot south-west region, where few community projects have as yet been funded, it is already easier to approve an expenditure of $600 on curtains, $8,000 on renting large new offices, salary for a PR man and money for hiring electric typewriters, than to do what the AAP was dreamily planning to do.

This kind of luxurious waste of Government funds to prove a touch of social welfare sophistication, sits sadly atop a welfare system which barely provides adequately for the financial day-to-day needs of the needy.

The list of private expenditure is endless. International Women ‘s Year, or as one woman has called it Mother’s Day 363 times over, has been allocated $2m.

Free university education will cost an estimated $46.8m for the current year.

Assistance to the arts roll on at $20m.

All these, and dozens more items like them, beg one important question, without which just looking at the expenditure side of the Budget can be a fairly meaningless exercise.

Who is paying whom? In the final analysis it ‘s a case of I ‘11 subsidise you and you subsidise me, but just who in the end is paying in this complicated game of net transfers?

Does the Aboriginal get the same benefit for each dollar of tax he pays as the white, middle-class young home-buying couple? Without any idea of who benefits most from what, ‘cutting public expenditures ‘ becomes just an exercise in subjectivity or political opportunism; a cliche with no reference to equity or even sanity.

Mr McMAHON:

– I conclude on this basis: First, it is obvious that the Labor Party does not know what it is doing. It does not understand what is likely to happen as a result of its actions. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has put our position clearly. We will show preference in some areas, but in others reductions in expenditure must be made. Above all, our policy would phase in an increase in private expenditure with a reduction in public expenditure and -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

-This debate will be known as the debate that proved Southey right. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Lowe (Mr McMahon)- a former Prime Minister- totally ignored the question before the House. He has even disappeared from the chamber. He would not even stay here for the completion of the debate. The honourable member for McPherson (Mr Eric Robinson) will follow him on that side in the debate. He is the one and only friend of the honourable member for Lowe, his former phone friend and the only person he was ever able to talk to whilst he was Prime Minister. The interesting point is that the previous speaker totally ignored the subject matter of the debate. He ignored the subject under discussion and rarely, if ever, touched on it. Let me quote what was stated by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) so that perhaps some honourable members opposite will understand what this debate is about. He said in the television interview:

That obviously means that there will need to be a cutback on the present increase which this Government has budgeted for and, if necessary, of course that will mean a cutback of 8 per cent across the board, but necessarily there will be very high preference and priority given to programmes in the fields of health, education, social welfare and urban and regional development.

We saw the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) display his usual inane, supercilious grin, that he seems to have cultivated over the last few months, when the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) announced last week that there would be tax cuts amounting to $ 1,200m. The Leader of the Opposition said: ‘I was going to do that; you have taken my goodies away from me’. Of course he did not mention that the tax cuts he proposed would not have been distributed amongst the low income earners, as this Government has done, and that they would have been given to most of his affluent friends. What fascinates me when listening to the Leader of the Opposition is not his willingness to be every man’s friend when it comes to tax cuts but his unwillingness to specify in which areas the tax cuts would be made.

During the last election campaign- that is, the 1974 election campaign- the Opposition got itself into an unholy mess because it had no policies. It constantly talked about areas in which it would increase spending but stated that it would make tax cuts. However, members of the Opposition stated that there would be no cuts in spending in areas of Labor’s new initiatives. They stated that they would cut down the growth of the Public Service. That was what they stated before the last election. Since the election, they have constantly hinted at making cuts in taxation but they have never stopped talking about new areas of expenditure. It seems to me that this is a game that members of the Opposition play. They go around the countryside saying: ‘We are going to cut back on expenditure’. When someone asks: ‘What about defence?’, they say, ‘Oh, yes, we will increase expenditure on defence’. When someone else asks: ‘What about private schools?’, they say: ‘We will give extra money to the category A, B and C schools’. Now, members of the Opposition have criticised us very severely for deferring the abolition of the means test until April, a mere 8 months. We were told that this was a shocking indictment of the Government. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) was one of the most vociferous. So it must be obvious that the Opposition would continue our program of abolishing the means test. Honourable members opposite have talked about a new pension for widowers. This is quite an admirable objective and I hope this Government will be able to provide this. But that is a new area for which we have not been able to find funds at this stage. We are told that the Opposition would implement that policy. At least, the Opposition moved an urgency motion on this subject matter not so long ago. We are told that the superphosphate bounty must be restored.

Mr Sullivan:

– Hear, hear!

Mr COHEN:

– An honourable member opposite says ‘Hear, hear!’. We are told that the petrol price equalisation scheme will be reintroduced. When we talk about these things we must realise that the amounts involved are not chicken feed. Every one of these items involves an expenditure of somewhere between $2 5 m to $70m. We are told that more money will be made available to the States. There will be more money-

Mr Sullivan:

– Tell us about the bludgers.

Mr McVeigh:

– Are you going to pay the bludgers more?

Mr COHEN:

-Somebody has left the barn door open again. We are told that more money will be made available to the States. The States have been loud in proclaiming that the Australian Government has cut back their expenditure. This is quite untrue because they have received more money under this Government than they have ever received before, and for all sorts of measures. But if this 8 per cent cut in expenditure across the board is implemented, let us see what would be the position in regard to Queensland. Queensland would lose $75m per annum in grants made to it from the Federal Government. Would not Mr Bjelke-Petersen love to hear that just before the State election? But if the Opposition is ever returned to power, it will chop back the grants to the Queensland Government by $75m.

We hear that the States are screaming because they do not have enough money for roads. Members of the Liberal and Country Parties protest that we have not given the rural areas money for roads although we have a new national highway which, incidentally, traverses country areas because that is the only way it can join cities. However we are told that there will be more money made available for roads and more money for oil search subsidies when a coalition government is returned to power. The Leader of the Country Party (Mr Anthony) asked a question about the oil search subsidies this morning. Of course this is a game that honourable members can play when in Opposition. They can have a marvellous time wandering about the countryside being all things to all men. They can offer tax cuts here -

Mr Sullivan:

– That is what you are doing.

Mr COHEN:

-Yes, we are doing it. We have had to cut out some of the benefits and members opposite know what those are. They are the ones about which members opposite have been screaming- investment allowances, oil search subsidies and the superphosphate bounty. That is where the money comes from and I have indicated on what it is being spent. The difference is that members opposite are in Opposition and have the luxury of being able to be all things to all men. Last week I asked a question of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) in which I referred to Mr Russell Prowse who, I think, is the Assistant General Manager of the Bank of New South Wales. Certainly he is the bank’s public relations man. I understand from a good authority that this gentleman was one of the banking men who worked hard to defeat the Chifley Government in 1949. Now, he clearly has the same job of attempting to destroy the Whitlam Government.

Mr Russell Prowse was far more specific in detailing where he believed cuts should be made in expenditure. I know that he has close contacts with the Liberal Party. In his program he did not suggest an 8 per cent across the board cut in expenditure. He said that $700m should be chopped from expenditure on education. Just a mere $700m! That would cut the existing program in half. He suggested pruning expenditure on urban development by $395m. That is an interesting proposal since we are spending only $393m on urban development. He will cut such expenditure by $2m more than we propose spending. The whole urban development program would go if he had his way, but clearly this is an area marked for the axe. He would cut expenditure on culture and recreation by $50m. It is obvious that cuts would be made in culture and recreation, urban development and education. There cannot be the increases in expenditure or the resurrection of all the benefits that I listed earlier while at the same time a nice neat cut across the board is made in other expenditure. It is perfectly obvious that those are the areas whence money would come and all the new initiatives of this Government in the urban field - (Quorum formed)

It is perfectly obvious that members of the Opposition cannot take the facts as they are being put before them. They are enjoying the luxury of being in Opposition. No one listens to them much anyhow so they can run around the countryside saying what they like. The fact is, however, that they will have to face the same situation as they did in the last election when day after day they saw their vote obviously drifting away as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) and the Leader of the Country Party got into an unholy mess trying to work out which cuts could be made in expenditure.

The Australian people are growing used to and becoming familiar with the Government’s new programs relating to schools, pre-schools, kindergartens, health centres, hospitals, sewerage, drainage, sports areas, sports amenities and art centres. They did not have these provisions when the previous Government was in office. Now they know that if a Liberal-Country Party government is returned they will lose those benefits they will start to get angry. Members opposite will get into an awful mess in an election campaign trying to justify their views.

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

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– It is obvious that the Government does not take this matter of public importance very seriously. Had it done so it would not have had the honourable members for Casey (Mr Mathews) and Robertson (Mr Cohen) debating it. Interestingly enough, even though a quorum was called the 3 principal architects of deprivation and dislocation- interesting words in a matter of public importance raised by a Government supporter because if any government should recognise its ability to deprive the average Australian of the possibility of work and improved standards of living and dislocate the Australian economy it is this Government- the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), the Minister for Overseas Trade (Dr J. F. Cairns) and the Treasurer (Mr Crean) did not bother to come into the chamber. The Prime Minister no doubt was busy planning his latest jaunt at enormous expense to the nation; the Minister for Overseas Trade no doubt was trying to find out what has been going on in the past couple of weeks while he was away- is he to be Treasurer in the next day or two or has the ‘Save Frank Crean Committee’ been able to stave off the day?- and the Treasurer probably decided that the best thing was for him to lose interest because his days are numbered even if he survives in the short term.

This Government has achieved a record in inflation, unemployment and a lack of confidence in the Australian community. In less than 2 years a prosperous, developing country has been brought to near disaster. At the end of 1 972 inflation was below 5 per cent; less than 2 years later it is more than 20 per cent. At the end of 1972 employment opportunities were growing and developing; today the nation is facing, at the very least, a quarter of a million unemployed by the end of January and a situation likely to be substantially worse. Of course, all this started within days of Labor achieving office. We had the heady days of revaluation and of tariff cuts, of bringing in the 1973 Budget with continued business bashing and of increasing government expenditure in 1973. When, at that time, it was obvious there was a need for restraint, Government expenditure was increased from $ 10,000m to $12,000m. What was the result of the 1973 Budget as we moved into 1974? There was rapidly growing inflation, substantial unemployment and a large credit squeeze which the Government was able to bide by deceit during the 1974 election. So, extraordinarily, we moved to the first Budget of 1974-the September Budgetin which expenditure was increased from $12,000m to $ 16,000m and the Treasurer was saying: ‘We are going to increase public expenditure because there is a slack in the private sector of the economy’.

Mr Whan:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The honourable member has not yet referred to the contents of this matter of public importance. He seems to be way off the subject and I draw your attention to this point.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin:

-I must rule that point of order out of order. The House is debating a fairly wide and embracing subject and the honourable member seems to be traversing it.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Within a few short weeks of this infamous September Budget we had figures revealing that by the end of October there were 1 90,000 unemployed in Australia and inflation was running at more than 20 per cent. This was within a few weeks of that first Budget. We then saw the second Budget- that is, if these proposals can be referred to by that title. As the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) said, it was the retreat from Moscow. It suddenly dawned on the socialists that if they want social reform and if they want to afford to pay for it they must have the private sector doing very well. That section of the Australian community which generates the real wealth must be doing well in order to pay taxes. We saw the Government, from the Prime Minister downand apparently in a speech yesterday even the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron)- appreciating the significance of private enterprise. What has the Labor Government done since it has proved itself completely unable to manage the economy? It has looked naturally to the Liberal policies that have been enunciated for months previously by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) and his senior colleagues. The Government stole those Liberal policies and reduced both personal and company taxation by approximately the amount that had been recommended for some time by the Opposition. It moved to try to get some impetus back into the housing industry. How serious the situation is in the housing industry in all States, particularly in Queensland! This Government has taken panic decisions to head off what will be a undesirable desirable result in the State elections. The credit squeeze was lifted. The Prices Justification Tribunal was asked: Please take into account a company’s profitability. It dawned upon the Government that it is important that companies must make profits and must return an adequate dividend on the capital that is empowered. We found in the second Budget that the estimated domestic deficit had gone to $ 1,300m, but the Government just cannot look at things month by month as it has been doing now for nearly 24 months. There is a future to be taken care of. I do not think it will be the responsibility of this Government because it will not be in Government again to produce another Budget unless it produces another one in the early months of next year. Having now grasped the significance of private enterprise surely this Government can appreciate that if you wish to have substantial employment and a substantial economy, you must contain inflation. The right honourable member for Lowe (Mr McMahon) mentioned that the Prime Minister at the Premiers Conference, the Treasurer in his July miniBudget and Dr Cairns in July all spoke of the need for Government restraint. The survey of Australia of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development states:

The available evidence suggests that the change in the rate of inflation has been the greatest in those countries where the growth rate in the share of public expenditure has been most rapid.

Surely this is a simple lesson that this Government can learn. I suggest to honourable members opposite that they read the report of the Committee for Economic Development of Australia, entitled ‘The Control of Inflation.’ They would get some desirable assistance from it. In an editorial after the last Budget the ‘Sydney Morning Herald ‘ stated:

The Government which is appealing to all for incomes restraint- for self-denial, tax cuts notwithstanding- itself absolutely refuses to exercise any restraint whatever in a spending program. The medicine being prescribed as sauce for the electoral goose is to be spared the Canberra gander. This is worse than inequitable. It is inflationary lunacy.

The Government and its speakers have misrepresented the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch). He referred to the increase in growth in Government expenditure being 25 per cent, not 32.4 per cent. That is a reduction of 5.5 per cent, not an across the board reduction of 8 per cent. The Australian nation will not take lightly the continual misrepresentation of this matter. There are substantial areas where Government expenditure could be cut. One could look at the Petroleum and Minerals Authority decisions. One could look at the Pipeline Authority decisions. One could start with the extravagance and management of so many sections of the Australian Government. The Government has ruined the economy, so at enormous expense it is trying now- I think not very successfully- to introduce regional employment development schemes, assistance schemes and national employment and training schemes. An army of public servants is running all over the country, to the backblocks of every electorate, trying to talk to local authorities and trying to explain to local authorities what all these massive schemes are. Having now grasped the significance of private enterprise those opposite should try to learn something about management and about stopping extravagance and looseness in the Australian economic community. When demand inflation picks up next year and the Government is forced to steal this last Liberal policy it should have the courage and the honesty to admit it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin)Order! The discussion is concluded.

page 3646

STATES GRANTS (ABORIGINAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1974

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

This is the eighth States Grants Bill in relation to Aboriginal affairs to be introduced into the Australian Parliament since the Australian Government entered this field after the referendum in 1 967. Previous Acts have carried the title ‘States Grants (Aboriginal Advancement) Act’, but the title of the present Bill demonstrates the Australian Government’s wish to move away from the patronising attitudes connoted by the use of the term ‘advancement’. This Bill provides for a total of $40.79m to be paid to the States in 1974-75 for the purpose of financial assistance in relation to Aboriginal people. This amount represents an increase of $7.54m or 26 per cent over the funds of $32.25m provided to the States for this purpose in 1973-74.

As honourable members will know, my predecessors developed the practice of using the second reading speech for this Bill as a kind of annual report on the Australian Government’s work in Aboriginal affairs. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs is now preparing a report on the activities of its first 18 months, and intends to follow this with regular annual reports. I do not propose, therefore, to set out in this speech details of programs other than those related to the States Grants, but to speak briefly about the Australian Government’s general policies and approach in this field. I seek the agreement of the House however, to the incorporation in Hansard of several tables similar to those of previous years.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin:

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

Mr BRYANT:

– I thank the House. Table 1 sets out the broad purposes of the proposed payments to the States, and the increases in the 1974-75 proposed payments as compared with the 1973-74 programs. Table 2 sets out the grants to the States over the six year period 1968-69 to 1974-75. Members will notice that by far the largest single increase in grants to the States ($ 12.8m) occurred in the first year after the Labor Government took office.

Honourable members will also notice that an increase of $400,000 is provided for Queensland in this BUI. The House will be aware of the intransigence on the part of the Queensland Government in respect of the Australian Government’s attempts to achieve a collaborative approach to Aboriginal affairs throughout Australia. A large measure of co-operation has been achieved with all other States. Not only have the Queensland Premier and the Minister for Aboriginal and Island Affairs refused to cooperate, they have refused even to participate in discussions on matters of mutual concern to the Queensland and Australian Governments in the Aboriginal affairs field. In the light of this attitude, the Australian Government has decided to make funds available under this legislation to the Queensland Government only for programs for which an unavoidable commitment has been entered into.

The Australian Government will ensure that additional programs in Queensland will be carried out through local Aboriginal community organisations, the Australian Department of Aboriginal Affairs and other instrumentalities. We will ensure that the Aboriginals and Islanders of Queensland are not disadvantaged by this decision and we believe that, because the Australian Government’s approach is to involve Aboriginals to the maximum extent possible in matters affecting them, this decision will ensure greater benefit in the long term to the Aboriginals and Islanders of Queensland.

Payments to the States are one pan of the Australian Government’s total effort in respect of Aboriginal affairs. This financial year a total of $163.6 18m has been allocated for direct Australian Government expenditure on Aboriginal Affairs. This represents an increase of 66 per cent over the $98.69m actually spent on Aboriginal affairs during the financial year 1973-74. Of this year’s funds, $ 126.4m will be spent through the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, either directly in the Northern Territory and elsewhere, or through grants to the States.

The balance will be expanded by other departments such as the Department of Education for study grants and secondary grants and special programs in the Northern Territory, by the Department of Health in the Northern Territory, and the Department of Labor and Immigration under its employment training scheme. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard another table, Table 3, showing how the $163.6 18m being spent this year by the Australian Government is to be allocated.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin:

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

Mr BRYANT:

-The increased budget for Aboriginal affairs reflects this Government’s efforts to free Australia from the social tensions which issue from poverty, social injustice, and inequality. More specifically, expenditure on Aboriginal affairs reflects this Government’s commitments to increase the general wellbeing of the Aboriginal people. The Aboriginal population is increasing at a rate considerably higher than the Australian average and it is essential that the problems besetting Aboriginal Australians be tackled with determination through large scale programs.

In summary, the policies of the Australian Government in respect of Aboriginal people might be described as seeking: to encourage and strengthen the capacity of Aboriginals to manage their own affairs and to increase their economic independence; to enable Aboriginals to have a real freedom of choice about their life style and the extent to which, particularly in the more remote communities, they maintain their traditional customs and culture- a freedom which can be exercised to the extent that communities have local authority, in particular through land ownership; to make equality a reality for Aboriginal Australians by working to overcome those handicaps which generally face them in fields such as housing, health, education, employment and civil liberties; in doing this, to help Aboriginals themselves to provide services designed to overcome handicapsfor instance through Aboriginal housing societies, medical services and legal services; and to act in the closest consultation with Aboriginal communities and individuals at both the national and the local levels.

The pattern of Australian Government expenditure is changing to reflect these goals. Funds provided for direct grants to Aboriginal communities have been substantially increased, reflecting the Government’s determination to deal direct with Aboriginal groups, and enable them to set their own priorities and manage their own affairs. Many of the programs now being funded by direct grant to Aboriginal communities and organisations and to local government bodies would formerly have been included in grants to the States, and this should be borne in mind when comparing the annual increase in funds provided to the States.

The Australian Government never intended the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to assume wide functional responsibilities for Aboriginal affairs. It has always regarded the provision of services such as health, housing, education, employment, legal aid and others to Aboriginals as being the responsibility of functional departments and authorities. The role of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs is to stimulate and support the extension or the accommodation of existing services to Aboriginals, and to ensure that special services and programs are provided for Aboriginal people where necessary. Payments to the States should be seen in this context. It is not the Australian Government’s intention to assume permanent responsibility for the activities of State departments in fields such as health and education in respect of Aboriginal people. Rather, our intention is to help responsible departments make up the backlog caused by past neglect or indifference. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Killen) adjourned.

page 3649

ABORIGINAL LOANS COMMISSION BILL 1974

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The Bill is an important one. Its purpose is to replace the Aboriginal Enterprises (Assistance) Act 1968, under which the Capital Fund for Aboriginal Enterprises was established, by an Act providing means of making loans to Aborigines both for enterprises as in the past, and for housing and for personal purposes as denned in section 24. Thus, the Bill seeks to establish 2 funds -an Aboriginal Enterprises Fund and an Aboriginal Housing and Personal Loans Fund. It is intended that both funds be controlled and administered by an Aboriginal Loans Commission comprising a board of 5 Commissioners, at least 2 of whom are required in the legislation to be Aboriginals. The Commissioners, who would serve on a part time basis, would be appointed by the Minister for periods not exceeding 5 years. The Commission would be constituted as a corporation with perpetual succession and would be subject to the direction of the Minister on matters of policy.

The Aboriginal Enterprises Fund continues the scheme established in 1968 whereby the Capital Fund for Aboriginal Enterprises may make loans to Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders to start or develop business enterprises which have prospects of success. I draw the attention of honourable members to the annual report on the operations of that fund for 1972-73 which was tabled in Parliament. I should emphasise that the capital fund has not been a ‘hand out’ operation but has provided loans on reasonable terms to Aboriginal men and women who have sought to improve their economic circumstances by their own effort. The same concept would apply to the fund now proposed. The present capital fund is administered by the Minister as a corporation solely for that purpose. Under this Bill, the Board of Commissioners would administer the fund. It is proposed initially to appoint two or three leading financiers and businessmen, as well as at least 2 Aborigines, to the Board of Commissioners.

The establishment of a fund from which to make loans direct to individual Aboriginals to assist them to obtain housing is intended to encourage Aboriginals to become home owners. Few Aboriginals are able to provide homes of their choice for their families because they are unable to obtain finance from existing sources. Housing finance would be available to Aboriginals who could service the necessary loan repayments and maintain their homes. These would, until the loans are repaid, be subject to mortgage to the Commission. Only a minority of Aboriginal householders may be able to afford home ownership, even under the favourable terms of this scheme, but the need for such a scheme has been apparent for some years and it is hoped that increasing numbers will be able to buy their own homes with help from the Housing and Personal Loans Fund.

Few Aboriginal householders are able to obtain loans for the purchase of items such as household furniture and refrigerators, because they cannot establish to the satisfaction of the usual lending institutions that they are acceptable credit risks. The availability of personal loans to Aboriginals who are able to service the repayments could provide the means, in our credit orientated society, for many to attain the standard of living enjoyed by other Australians.

Personal loans would be available for the purchase of essential household effects including appliances, floor coverings, tables, chairs, beds and bedding. They would also be available to assist with payment of medical, dental, funeral and educational expenses. The purchase of motor vehicles would also be financed from the Fund where the Aboriginal breadwinner’s employment opportunities would be enhanced. It is proposed initially to direct the Commission to apply a general rate of 5 per cent per annum when assessing applications for loans for enterprises and for personal loans. The rate of interest payable on housing loans would not exceed the rate, as provided from time to time in the housing agreement with the States in relation to home builders account moneys. The current rate is 5% per cent per annum.

With respect to housing, I propose to ask the Commission to consider utilising relevant services of the proposed Australian Housing Corporation, the proposal to establish which was recently announced by my colleague, the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Les Johnson). The Bill provides that the staff of the Commission will be public servants and this will mean that the Department of Aboriginal Affairs will service the Commission. In view of the current restrictions on staff growth in the Public Service, it is possible that the extent to which the functions of the Commission will be capable of performance in the early stages may be limited. Nevertheless I hope that the Commission will be able to give some emphasis to the provision of housing loans within the limited scope in which it might initially be constrained to operate. It is intended, however, to direct the Commission to examine other ways in which, for example, housing loans may be made to Aboriginal organisations on a ‘wholesale’ basis, to enable those organisations to provide loans to individuals. I commend the Aboriginal Loans Commission Bill 1974 to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Killen) adjourned.

page 3650

WOOL INDUSTRY BILL (No. 2) 1974

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 amend the Wool Industry Act in accordance with decisions of the Government which were announced by the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) on 27 August. Members will recall that during August the Government reviewed the then existing and anticipated circumstances of the wool market and made one of the most important decisions in respect of the wool industry that has been made for many years. In brief, the Government guaranteed the availability of sufficient finance to the Australian Wool Corporation to operate a minimum floor price for wool equivalent to 250 cents per kilo clean for 21 micron wool sold during the 1974-75 season. In response, woolgrowers agreed to contribute a levy of 5 per cent of the proceeds from wool sales in 1974-75 to establish a fund to make good any losses incurred as a result of wool purchases by the Corporation. Under the Wool Marketing (Loan) Act 1974, the Government has already provided $150m. to finance the Corporation’s floor price activities. This amount is in addition to a previously existing appropriation of $ 13m and commercial loans drawn by the Corporation to the extent of $34m covered by a government guarantee of repayment.

Evidence of the Government’s determination to support the wool industry during the present period of weak demand for wool is clearly seen in these actions. Not only has the decision to support a minimum price in the market during the season prevented a collapse of wool prices, but the assurance that the floor will be maintained is providing both woolgrowers and wool users with confidence in the future of the industry. In announcing the Government’s decision on the support of the wool market, the Minister stated the intention of the Government to assist the Corporation in operating the floor price, and in its general activities in the market, by providing it with adequate powers to manage the supply of wool offered for sale, and by widening its trading powers.

The Minister also announced that attention would be given to the possible restructuring of the board of the Corporation to provide appropriate improvements, where necessary, having regard to the additional powers to be conferred on the Corporation. This Bill provides for those matters foreshadowed by the Minister. I turn now to the main provisions of the Bill.

Market Support Fund

The Bill contains detailed provisions to govern the use of the 5 per cent marketing levy contributed by woolgrowers during the 1974-75 season. In accordance with the wishes of the industry, the relevant provisions have been so drafted as to ensure that the proceeds of the levy ‘and their use will be separately identified and accounted for. To this end the levy and all revenue from it will be channelled into a special fund to be established by the Australian Wool Corporation and known as the Market Support Fund. As announced when the decision to introduce the levy was taken, the object of the levy is primarily to provide funds for meeting any losses incurred as a result of maintaining a floor price in the wool market this season. However, since such losses, if any, cannot be determined until after the end of the season, the Bill provides that the levy funds may be put to other uses in the meantime for benefit to the industry.

Specifically, it is provided that moneys in the Market Support Fund may be used by the Corporation during the season to purchase wool under the reserve price arrangements, to pay advances to growers the sale of whose wool has been delayed by the Corporation’s supply management, or they may be invested. Income from investment of Fund Moneys will be paid into the Fund, as will interest on advances made to growers, less administrative expenses incurred by the Corporation in connection with those advances. Also allocated to the Fund will be an amount representing an appropriate charge for interest where money from the Fund is used by the Corporation to purchase wool. As well as maintaining a floor price in the wool market, the Corporation will also continue to operate flexible reserve price arrangements when the market is above the floor. It would be neither practicable nor desirable to differentiate between them for accounting purposes, and accordingly the profit or loss from this market support role will be determined over the total reserve price activity.

Since revenue and expenses in respect of advances to growers whose wool has been delayed from sale will play a pan in the financial result of the Corporation’s marketing operations over the same period, they will be also taken into account in the determination of profit or loss. If a loss results, it will be met from the Market Support Fund. If, on the other hand, a trading profit eventuates, it will be dealt with as profit made in other periods, namely, to help repay any past losses which had been met by the Government, as a reserve against future losses, or for other purposes approved by the Minister for Agriculture and the Treasurer. Any balance remaining in the Fund after losses or profits have been dealt with will be kept as a separate reserve and used for purposes determined by the Minister for Agriculture after consultation with the Australian Wool Industry Conference.

Supply Management

The Bill strengthens the hand of the Australian Wool Corporation in ensuring the regulation of the flow of wool on to the market in keeping with demand. Whilst the Corporation already participates in the determination of wool auction sale rosters and the scheduling of offerings, it does not have power to control the quantity of wool offered for public sale. A new provision explicitly confirms the right of the Corporation to withhold its reserve price protection in situations in which it believes deferment of all or part of a proposed offering should be made, but contrary to the Corporation’s wishes, the offering is not deferred.

Extension of Trading Powers

Amendments are proposed in the Bill to enlarge the specific trading powers of the Corporation. The present powers of the Corporaton in this area were originally designed principally to enable it to dispose of the wool purchased under its reserve price operations, and, although they extend somewhat beyond this, they include restrictions which hamper the Corporation in some transactions. The new provisions will enable the Corporation to be empowered to engage in a wider range of trading activities. The precise extent to which the Corporation will be able to exercise its enlarged trading functions will be a matter for approval by the Minister for Agriculture. Subject to this approval, the Corporation is being authorised to trade not only in wool but also in wool products, to supply wool for Australia’s foreign aid programmes, and to process wool and manufacture wool products, or to commission such work.

These are very wide powers and hence the necessity for some ministerial control over thenuse. It is not envisaged that the Corporation will use all of these powers immediately, but rather as and when circumstances warrant it. The legislation therefore provides a framework for approval to be given to the Corporation to engage in particular forms of trading activity appropriate to the needs and best interests of the wool industry and in accordance with any guidance provided by the Minister for Agriculture concerning the exercise of those powers. Transactions that could be undertaken, for instance, may involve sales of wool on a forward basis as forward selling involves a risk due to market price fluctuations, the Corporation is being empowered to buy and sell wool futures with a view to reducing that risk. The exercising of this power is also to be subject to the approval of the Minister for Agriculture.

Preparation of Wool for Sale

A provision is included in the Bill to enable the Corporation to withhold reserve price protection from any lot of wool that has not been prepared and presented for sale in accordance with standards approved by the Corporation. This is intended to discourage careless classing and presentation for sale, and to ensure that the

Corporation is not obliged to support bad preparation of wool.

Terms and Conditions of Sale of Wool

The Corporation is being authorised to restrict its reserve price operations to those sales where the terms and conditions of acceptance, offering and sale have its approval. In this way the Corporation will be able to exert a stronger influence than at present over such matters as, for example, selling charges.

Membership of Corporation

In keeping with the increased powers and responsibilities of the Corporation, its membership is being increased by adding another member with special qualifications to the existing 3 members of this category. This enables a wider range of expertise and experience to be available to the Corporation.

Method of Appointment of Corporation Members

At present, the members of the Corporation representing woolgrowers are appointed on the nomination of the Australian Wool Industry Conference. This requirement is being maintained, but provision is being made for the members to be selected by the Minister for Agriculture from a panel of names submitted by the Conference. This provision will bring the Wool Corporation into line with similar provisions for the selection of grower representatives on the Australian Meat Board. Provision is also being made under which the Minister for Agriculture may request the Conference to submit additional names to the panel. A further amendment provides that the 4 woolgrower members and the 4 members with special qualifications will retire by rotation. This will be achieved by making two of the initial appointments in each category for a term of 2 years and 2 for a term of 3 years. In this way the retirements will be staggered to avoid the bulk of Corporation membership retiring at the same time. The object is to retain a nucleus of experienced members on the Corporation at all times.

Consultation with Trade Unions

The Bill introduces a requirement for the wool Corporation to consult with the trade unions concerned before taking action likely to affect the conditions of employment or the demand for labour in the wool industry. The Corporation already follows a usual practice of consultation with unions on relevant matters but the amendment now formally requires such consultation.

Minor Amendments

Included in the Bill are several minor amendments which are either complementary to the major provisions or are designed to clarify and harmonise other provisions of the existing Act where experience in administering the Act has shown this to be disirable. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Killen) adjourned.

page 3653

STATES GRANTS (SCHOOLS) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 16 October on motion by Mr Barnard:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I would not like to transgress against your gentle nature and I hope, therefore, that you would find it a tolerable irrelevance on my part if I say to the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley) how glad I am to see him back from his travel abroad and to see him looking fit. It is only a lay assessment of his health but I hope that it sustains and encourages the honourable gentleman in some small measure. This is a Bill to amend the States Grants (Schools) Act 1972-73. It is described compendiously as increasing the financial assistance payable to the States in relation to schools. I regret that the Minister was not here to present this Bill himself because if he had done so the House would have been spared what I would describe as a rather graceless speech made by the then Acting Minister for Education, the Minister for Defence (Mr Barnard). The Minister’s colleague when he made the second reading speech said amongst other things:

It will be interesting to discover the attitude of the Opposition to this Bill.

I am prepared to concede that the very great part of political conflict is, as the term would imply, of a combative nature but there are some occasions when I would hope that some measure of generosity of attitude could pervade. I regret that the Acting Minister for Education had to resort to what I describe as a rather fatuous observation in order to sustain a partisan attitude which in terms of this year, I suppose, one could describe as almost having been forgotten. The present legislation provides for a further $64.47m in recurrent grants to schools and $ 14.43m in capital grants to schools up to the end of 1975. 1 say quite explicitly on behalf of the Opposition that we support the Bill and it would be absolutely incredible if we were to do anything else. Hence my expression of utter astonishment that the

Minister for Defence, as Acting Minister for Education, should say: ‘It will be interesting to discover the attitude of the Opposition to this Bill ‘.

For the sake of the convenience I trace what one could describe as the fountain of origin of this Bill. I suggest that it is to be found in a report delivered to the Minister for Education by the Schools Commission in August of this year and, for the sake of brevity and, I hope, convenience and clarity, I refer to some observations of the Commission with respect to recurrent programs. The Commission said:

The evidence that has been made available to the Commission in respect of the rate of increases in running costs suggests that unless supplementary recurrent funds are provided, resources available in many schools will not reach the level which the Government set as its objective, even if there is continuity of effort by States and the private sector.

That is a sentiment with which I wholeheartedly agree. The Commission went on to observe:

Indeed it has been submitted to the Commission that some non-government schools may suffer an actual reduction in the level of services offered. Restitution of the intended value of Australian Government grants will afford relief to such schools. The Commission will address the longer term issues of viability and financial effort in its first triennial report next year.

This is the principal assertion made by the Commission. It said:

By taking into account actual cost increases which have taken place since the Interim Committee made its calculations and by making a provision for future increases, the Commission has assessed that the unexpended portions of the 1974 recurrent grants should be increased by some 17 per cent and the 1975 grants by some 2 1 per cent. It will be appreciated that these percentages do not represent annual rates of price movements but rather the estimated rates required to maintain the originally planned program momentum. A finite supplement to the recurrent grants is considered to be appropriate at this time pending the development of an index of school operating costs, which will be of assistance in making allowances for reasonable increases in running expenses in a manner compatible with national economic policy.

I apologise to the House for having read those 3 paragraphs of the report. There is a measure of tedium associated with reading anything, even from a report with sentiments of which we find ourselves in handsome agreement.

I want to put to the Minister and to the Government 2 theses this afternoon. The first is that the Government makes a corporate error of judgment if it imagines that it will solve a problem by establishing a commission. The second is that the Government makes a corporate error of judgment if it takes the conglomerate of funds made available for education purposes throughout Australia and says: ‘Ergo, the problems are being solved’.

I turn to the first thesis. The history of the establishment of the Schools Commission is well known to most of us who sat in the last Parliament. It may not be well known to the House or to the country that the original proposal for a schools commission was made by a man who stood at this dispatch box in 1945, and that was Sir Robert Menzies, speaking then as the Leader of the Opposition. I think that the Minister for Education is one of the few among us who was here in that day. My recollection is that he participated in the first major debate on education in this Parliament, together with the late John Dedman. I return to the thesis I am putting. In the Karmel report reference was made to the desirability of preserving decentralised attitudes towards education throughout Australia. That was one of the contentions made by Karmel and his colleagues. Yet, I suggest to the Minister, we stand in very real danger of the Schools Commission being developed in such a way that it is no longer an advisory body to the Department of Education but could be a rivalling body to the Department of Education. I would like the Minister to take some cognisance of that.

I hesitate to give the slightest sense of approval to the Schools Commission developing into another great department of State looking out upon the entire Australian scene and taking the view that all virtue of assessment of the problems of education in Australia can be made by the Schools Commission. I illustrate that proposition very simply by recalling the occasion when a gentleman in Queensland said that all housing standards throughout Queensland- design and everything else- should be identical, until it was pointed out to him that if he built a particular type of house in Brisbane and then put it at Cloncurry the ants would eat it in a couple of years. That is the sort of concept I have in mind. People are different throughout Australia. They have different problems, and I would hesitate to give the slightest approval to the Schools Commission assuming an attitude that it could judge for all manner of problems and for all portions of the country.

The second observation I should like to make about the Schools Commission is to refer to the questionnaire which has been sent out and about which I have not the slightest doubt in the world that my friend, the Minister for Education, has had some observations made to him by various educationalists throughout Australia. This questionnaire runs to some 4 1 pages. I am told by one headmaster that he will have to provide 3,364 answers. The same gentleman contends that one question will call for 1,640 answers. It is an extraordinary questionnaire if those contentions are true.

What I put to the Minister is this: If all of this information is needed today, is not the inference available that the original judgment made by the Schools Commission with respect to its activities throughout Australia was in error? I put to the honourable gentleman that 2 inferences are available. One is simply that the Commission did not have sufficient information at the time when the judgment was made. If that inference is not to be supported, one asks the further question: Why the need for this information? May I say to my honourable friend, not in any sense of being difficult, that there is a very real sense of apprehension held by many educationalists throughout Australia as to the true purpose of this questionnaire. I state it as an expression of opinion which has been put to me. In short, I wish to know: What is the policy behind it? I say to the honourable gentleman that some short declaration of policy by him when he comes to reply or to sum up on the second reading debate with respect to what is the aim would be most welcome and could well quell concern and allay fears which exist.

Mr Beazley:

– The National Council of Indepenent Schools approached me through 2 persons about confidentiality. It was not suggesting that there ever has been a breach of confidentiality. I will be tabling tomorrow in the Parliament the questionnaire plus an instruction about confidentiality. They have been informed that I will be doing so.

Mr KILLEN:

– I am delighted to hear that. All of the Council’s associates may not know. But with great respect, I do not think it disturbs the argument that I have been putting quite without any heat or unpleasantness.

Mr Beazley:

– I could not imagine a person giving 1 ,600 answers to a question, but never mind.

Mr KILLEN:

– Well, we have all had to confess errors in the past. Who knows, the honourable gentleman may yet have to be put in that position. It will be a spectacular performance, but one which all of us nevertheless will enjoy.

The second observation that I make about the questionnaire is that Mr Scutt, the Secretary of the Schools Commission- and I hope he does not accept this as any offence on my part- in a letter sent to school principals says:

The document enclosed has been prepared with the advice of representatives of non-government school organisations, but the Commission assumes full responsibility for it.

My information- and I put it in no dogmatic sense- is that that is not quite true. There was a consultation but suggestions relating to the character of questions, which were made by representatives present, were with one exception not agreed to. I put my views on the questionnaire and on the Commission to the Minister. I know the Minister only too well to know that he will not dismiss them lightly or in any irreverent sense, but that he will consider the implications of seeing the Schools Commission seeking to dwarf, as it were, in influence the Department of Education and also to control any temptation by the Schools Commission to take the view that it is responsible for the direction in some manner of infallibility of all education throughout Australia.

The second thesis to which I turn, before the sitting is suspended, is the question of money. May I say to the Minister that I agree wholeheartedly with him in his approach with respect to schools. I am speaking now about buildings, bricks, timber and what-have-you. Some of the schools that I have seen throughout Australia do not encourage the slightest measure of pride in me at all; indeed, the contrary, an infinite sense of shame that we have tolerated many of them. As far as providing schools throughout Australia up to a reasonable standard- and the concept of a reasonable standard will be understood by all honourable members- this is a concept that those of us on this side of the House wholeheartedly agree with, even though we may disagree on some of the methods employed. But with respect to recurrent grants, I invite the Minister and the House to agree to this proposition: It costs in general terms the same to educate a lass attending, say, a little convent school at Cunnamulla in south-west Queensland as it does to educate a lass at Rockhampton, at Carnarvon, at Albury or wherever it may be, in general terms. This is where I believe the Government has made a fundamental error in approach to the issue of education.

I acknowledge the initiatives which the Minister has taken and the deep sense of commitment that has been associated with the enterprise in which he has been involved. But I yet hope that I can persuade him to accept the view with respect to recurrent grants that there is a very real crisis facing schools throughout Australia and that some of the non-government schools are in a position of almost total collapse. May I say for myself, as one who has had a rather curious background of education, that I would fight like the devil against seeing introduced into this country a State monopoly of education. I see a tremendous virtue in diversity and I see tremendous virtue in encouraging those who by dint of vocation give over their lives to the purposes of education. For me it is an article of simple but nevertheless of deep personal faith that parents have the right to choose where their children are educated. But I say to the honourable gentleman that, with respect to a number of schools in Australia, today to the extent that those schools are in financial difficulty because of the level of recurrent grants that that right of choice is being taken away from them to that extent.

May I give the Minister one simple illustration of what I regard as the odd manner in which some of the schools have been categorised. My attention has been brought to a school at Bondi. It is the Rabinovitch Yeshiva College. This is classified, I understand, as a Category A school. I am further informed that the school is housed in the basement of a synagogue and in some old cottages which are undergoing conversion. It is a very small school. Most of the students attending it are children who come from families of modest circumstances.

Mr Beazley:

– I have actually visited the school.

Mr KILLEN:

– I am indebted to the honourable gentleman for his intermention. I am sure that those associated with the school would be indebted also. But just to sum up on this one point, I am putting to the honourable gentleman and to the Government that no matter where a youngster is educated in Australia, at a government school or at a non-government school, there is a basic involvement in recurrent grants as distinct from per capita grants. I find myself in almost complete coincidence with the honourable gentleman with respect to building. But we would do a country a service if we ignored the fact that schools in ultimate terms are made up not of buildings but of students, of parents and of teachers. This to me is the area of difficulty that I see, with a greater sense of alarm, the country in this respect being thrust into.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr OLDMEADOW:
Holt

– I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. My speech follows that of the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen). It is always a pleasure to follow him. He made several points about which I should like to make brief comments. Firstly, I am naturally delighted that the Opposition is supporting the States Grants (Schools) Bill, as I really expected it would. The honourable member expreseed concern that the

Schools Commission might develop in such a way as to rival the Department of Education. I do not share this concern. As I look at the Schools Commission and the way it has been established, I see Dr McKinnon as its chairman and its full time and part time members as being experts in their field. Terms of reference have been carefully given to this statutory body and its responsibility is very clearly through the Minister to the Parliament.

I remind the honourable member for Moreton that the State governments and the systemic schools, the Cathlolic education authorities, play a very significant role in the decision making process, in deciding where the money will be spent. When talking about recurrent grants the honourable member pointed out that a number of nongovernment schools are facing a real crisis at this time. Althouth I would agree that nongovernment schools are facing some crisis in relation to finance, I stress that it is my experience in my own electorate that the parish schools and the regional colleges I have visited are delighted that at this time they are receiving much more in the recurrent expenditure area than they have ever received before. This does not mean of course that their financial problems have disappeared overnight, but they are much better able and much better equipped financially to meet problems than they have ever been before.

The reasons for the Government introducing this Bill are clear. The Government recognises the unexpectedly high cost increases in the provision of education facilities. We, as a government, are determined that the program of upgrading government and non-government schools as envisaged in the Karmel report should not be slowed down. I would suggest that this Bill is further evidence of the priority that is being given by the Government to equality of education for every child in the Australian community. The Schools Commission has recommended that additional sums be added to the grants to the States to restore the original purchasing power to the grants provided for these programs. This legislation makes available a further $64.47m in recurrent grants and $ 14.43m in capital grants up to 3 1 December 1 975. Of this total figure of $78.9m government schools will receive $47.43m while non-government schools will receive $26. 18m. Additional allocations will be given to programs which apply to both government and non-government schools. It will be in this financial year that the full impact of the Karmel program will be felt.

As is known, last year’s Budget provided for only 6 months of spending under the 2 year Karmel program. The first 6 months have rightly been described as a gearing up period. The bulk of the total amount, more than $785m, will be available to be spent in this financial year. I want to stress several points. The first is that the Karmel program was always seen, I think, by Professor Karmel and the original committee, certainly by this Government, as a topping up exercise for us to lift standards where they were down- in many cases they were at a very low level- to what was regarded as a reasonable benchmark. The underlying assumption was that this money should be directed towards increasing expenditure in schools and not be in substitution for continuing efforts by the States and non-government school authorities. I emphasise that it was to increase expenditure on schools, not to substitute funds for what the States were paying and which they must continue to provide. To this end the States were asked: to continue to allocate to the construction and equipping of schools the same percentage of their total capital expenditure from works and housing program which had been achieved in average of the 3 financial years up to 30 June 1971 - and- to the operation of their schools the same percentage of their total current budget expenditure (excluding expenditure in respect of business undertakings) as had been allocated in the financial year 1971-72.

It is my contention that some of the State governments are not honouring this agreement. If my contention is correct it is clear that this program for schools, embarked on by the Whitlam Government, will be watered down. If this is so, the responsibility for this fact must be accepted by the appropriate State governments.

The second point I make is that it is almost impossible to find out where Karmel money is being spent. In my own home State of Victoria I know only too well from personal experiences the difficulties one encounters when one tries to find out to where is the money going. In a desperate attempt to find an answer to this question in my own electorate I have written to all principals in the area and gradually some sort of picture is emerging. But I stress that even here there are numbers of schools which tell me that they are unaware of the sources from which the money comes, whether it is State government money or money funded through the Karmel program.

The question I would pose is: Why is there this close secrecy? One can only assume that the Victorian Minister for Education is determined that credit should not be given to the Whitlam

Government for doing what Liberal-Country Party governments should have done many years previously. The Victorian Government is claiming credit for initiatives that rest fairly and squarely with this Government. I could cite numerous instances where the State Minister for Education has announced some upgrading of a particular school or some capital works program but never has there been any mention of the fact that the funds that have made this possible have come from the Australian Government.

It is interesting to note the new found interest of the Opposition parties in education. It is well known that in the last 2 years of the LiberalCountry Party rule, 1971 and 1972, the previous Government spent about $112m on education. In 1974 and 1975 this Government will spend more than $785m on schools under the Karmel program, and that is only one aspect of the total education picture. I think honourable members will recall that during the May election campaign this year the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) spoke of cuts in expenditure in the public sector. When pressed to explain where these cuts would take place, a figure did emerge, and that figure was $260m. It has since been denied that in fact this is the amount by which expenditure in the public sector would have been cut.

Today, as a matter of public importance, the honourable member for Casey (Mr Mathews) brought up the point that was made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) when he talked of an 8 per cent cut across the board. It is interesting to reflect that the Opposition spokesman for defence in this House some few months ago spoke of increased expenditure in the defence field if the Opposition parties were to come to government. Out of all this one can only assume that the Opposition parties would favour cuts in expenditure in education, and one can assume also that these cuts would be fairly massive. This assumption seems to be supported by the recent statement made by Mr Russell Prowse, who is a spokesman for the Bank of New South Wales and who appears also to be a spokesman for the Liberal Party, in which he recommended a $700m cut in education expenditure. I would remind the House that just $785m is the total amount to be spent on education over 2 years. That is the total Karmel program. If the cut in expenditure of some $700m about which Mr Prowse talks was allowed to take place, in fact this would mean the complete emasculation of the education policy. In view of all of these sorts of statements that have been made, there is no doubt in my mind that if the

Liberal and Country parties had been returned to government in May a Bill such as the one we are considering now, which is taking account of the spiralling costs in the community so that we can be sure that schools will get what it was intended they should get following the Karmel report, would not have been introduced.

Mr Killen:

– Not true.

Mr OLDMEADOW:

– I can see the honourable member for Moreton shaking has head and saying that this would not be true. From all the statements that I have collected together and all of the talk of cuts in public expenditure- the evidence is there- I can only draw that assumption, because never has the Opposition clearly stated in what areas these cuts will take place. The Whitlam Government has stated very clearly that spending in the field of education is a top priority.

The final matter I wish to raise, which is of deep concern to me, is whether or not the Victorian Government will be able to spend the increased financial allocation to capital works provided under this Bill. I believe I have good reason for concern. The experience I gained from a long period of teaching in the Victorian Education Department made me well aware of the outmoded central administration of that Department and the way in which it deals with capital works programs in government schools. For years I have been critical, and highly critical, of the duplication which takes place between the Public Works Department and the Building Branch of the Education Department. There seems to be a fear of allowing private contractors to act in the business of building schools. Heaven knows why this should be so, because the little experience that the Victorian Government has had in relation to this matter should convince it that allowing private contractors to undertake this work would speed up the spending of the money that has been made available. I think it was the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley) who made reference to this matter on the weekend when he mentioned the case of the Prince’s Hill High School which the Public Works Department calculated would take something like 5 years to build. Private consultants were called in and the job was done in 2 years.

The inevitable result of all this has been a clogging up of capital works. The Victorian Education Department simply is not geared administratively to handle programs of the magnitude that are required in 1974. There is a desperate need there for streamlining. Let me cite but one example. An amount of $ 10m has been made available to the Victorian Government through the Schools Commission for expenditure on capital works at disadvantaged government schools. To date only $400,000 of this money has been spent. This means that only 4 per cent of the total allocation has been spent If we look at the overall picture for Australia, we see that something like 18 per cent of the money allocated has been spent The Catholic education authority in Victoria has spent well in advance of this figure. I am genuinely concerned as to whether in fact the Victorian Government is sufficiently streamlined to be able to cope with handling the sort of money that is being made available to it in the capital works field. I remind honourable members of disadvantaged government primary schools in my own electorate at Doveton, Doveton West, Doveton North, Dandenong South and Westall. I know the needs of these schools because I have visited a number of them. It will be a tragedy if the Victorian Government fails to provide to these schools money to upgrade their facilities. If the Victorian Government fails to provide the money there will be only one reason for it, and that reason is not that money is not being made available by the Australian Government The money has been made available. Only 4 per cent -

Mr Hewson:

– That is a lot of hoo-haa

Mr OLDMEADOW:

-The honourable member for McMillan has said that it is a lot of hoo-haa. I would remind him that with almost 12 months gone only 4 per cent of the money allocated has been spent. Another 96 per cent of that money is still to be spent. It is my hope and my desire to see that money spent.

Mr Hewson:

– Mine too.

Mr OLDMEADOW:

– I know it is the honourable member’s hope, but it is not a lot of hoo.haa. We are at the half way mark and only 4 per cent of the money has been spent. We know that there is a danger that the money will not be spent, and the reason for this is the clogging up that takes place in the Victorian Education Department.

Mr McKenzie:
Diamond Valley · ALP

– The children suffer.

Mr OLDMEADOW:

-The children suffer, as my honourable friend says. This new initiative on the part of the Australian Government will be welcomed by those interested in improving both the quality and the availability of education to all Australian children, irrespective of their financial circumstances, their parentage, their religious beliefs or where they live. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr STALEY:
Chisholm

-We are discussing the States Grants (Schools) Bill which makes grants to the States for recurrent and capital expenditure in education. Before getting on to the main themes of the Bill I would like to ask the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley) why it is that in at least one State, the State of Victoria where the State’s priorities committee on building projects recommended to the Schools Commission as early as March this year figures which were, I understand, approved by the Schools Commission, no money has yet come through to the schools. Why is there this delay in the money coming through from Canberra? We hear a great deal about how the States and the schools do not spend the money that Canberra lavishes upon them, but what I would like to know is why this money has not yet come through to the schools even though, as I understand it, it was approved as early as March of this year.

This Bill gives one an opportunity to discuss the funding of schools, and in particular independent schools, in this country, by the socialist Government. The socialist government made its intentions in education, in one particular area, clear with the introduction of the recurrent per capita grants system which had so many flaws in the actual formula that many Australians were led to conclude that it was indiscriminate and unjust inasmuch as the formula for grants to pupils was based on schools rather than students; it was based on the needs of schools rather than on the needs of parents.

Mr Beazley:

– May I ask you about your earlier statement?

Mr STALEY:
Mr Beazley:

– Was it an independant school you referred to that did not receive its capital grant?

Mr STALEY:
Mr Beazley:

– Their capital grants are approved by a priorities committee of their own body and when the priorities committee makes a recommendation to me, I sign immediately.

Mr STALEY:

-I understand that there are recommendations going back to March which were approved by the Schools Commission and no money has come through.

Mr Beazley:

– They are not approved by the Schools Commission. They are approved by me.

Mr STALEY:

-You have not approved them then.

Mr Beazley:

– I have approved -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that the Minister answer these questions in his reply.

Mr STALEY:

– The Minister wanted to answer them now.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I think that it would be better if he answered them in his reply; otherwise we will have a ridiculous position.

Mr STALEY:

– My point on the main theme is that the injustice which was done to many parents by the nature of the categorisation of schools and the sort of assistance which parents and pupils received from the Government has now been followed up by further moves and threats of moves which dismay utterly many parents who seek an independent education for their children. In the light of the record bout of inflation which Australians face, in the light of the still increasing tax burden which falls on parents, notwithstanding the talk of tax cuts, Australians who are in receipt of wages and salaries will pay more tax this year than they did last year, despite the fact that, of course, there has been a reduction in the rate of taxation at a single level. Of course, the point is that such people receive more money and pay a higher rate of tax.

With the rising costs of running schools, in particular where the salaries of teachers have risen properly and remarkably in recent years and where there is higher inflation in building costs, parents face the threat that they will not be able to pursue for their children the interest which they have displayed in an independent education. The threat of a complete phasing out of aid hangs over the heads of many parents and schools as long as the Government persists with its present policy with respect to State aid. I give credit to the Minister for Education for fighting in Cabinet against the phasing out of all aid to some parents. I give credit to him for fighting for the Opposition’s proposition that there should be some direct aid for every pupil in this country. But I give no credit whatsoever to the Government for its chip-on-the-shoulder policy of singling out a few schools for special maltreatment because they are regarded as ‘wealthy schools’.

The point is that thousands of parents slave to send their children to these schools. I understand that the income of parents cannot lead one to the conclusion that all parents who send their children to these schools are wealthy. Simple observation of the position draws one to that conclusion. I understand from facts established last year that the average income of fathers who sent their children to independent schools in Victoria during 1973 was of the order of $12,000. The average income of parents who sent their children to schools with lower fees- typically, of course, the Catholic parish schools- was much lower. The average income of fathers who sent their children to these schools was well under $9,000 last year. I understand that almost half of all the fathers who sent their children to independent schools in Victoria last year were in receipt of incomes of under $10,000 a year. Such people hardly could be called the very rich. In these days, they could hardly be called the rich.

Certainly, there is a small number of very rich parents who happen to choose to send their children to these schools. However, other parents are very rich because they do not send their children to these schools. Such parents are getting richer every day. They have more disposable income to spend on holidays, boats, Christmas presents and the like. But the fact is that most parents slave and struggle to give their children an education of their choice. They go without themselves because they believe in education. Such parents should be greatly encouraged -

Mr James:

– Poppycock.

Mr STALEY:

-They should not be attacked. It is the view of the socialists that parents who invest in the education of their children should not be encouraged. What I have said was just described as poppycock.

Mr James:

– They do not go without.

Mr STALEY:

-We hear the honourable member for Hunter saying that parents do not go without to send their children to independent schools. That proposition does not even need to be examined to be seen to be incorrect. Thousands of parents throughout this country go without in order to send their children to the school of their choice. It is now abundantly clear from the ferocity and the regularity of the socialists’ attacks on the independent schools that they have one ultimate aim and one aim alone: They aim to destroy the independent schools of Australia. I do not put the Minister for Education in this category. We hear the socialists say that they are against monopolies in the business sector. But if we turn to education, we see that they are in favour of monopolies- a Government monopoly in education. They say that they believe in freedom, but they are destroying freedom of choice in education. Of course, they do not do it directly. They have enough sense not to shout their aim from the rooftop. They seek to destroy these schools by facing the parents who send their children to them and the schools with an economic impossibility.

The latest actual blow was the drastic reduction of the maximum taxation deduction for education expenses from $400 a year for each child to $150 a year for each child. That blow hits those parents who avail themselves of the opportunity to give their children a free education as much as it hits those parents who avail themselves of the opportunity to send their children to an independent school and therefore give them a costly education. It hits the poorer taxpayers hard and it hurts the large families most of all. The Henderson interim report on poverty makes it quite clear that the large family in Australia tends to be more likely to be in poverty than the smaller family. It is precisely the large family which is hurt most by the reduction of the education allowance from $400 a year to $150 a year.

Let us take the position of a person who was in receipt of $ 1 50 a week last year. Let us say for argument ‘s sake that such a person in receipt of $150 a week last year had 2 children at secondary school. With fees and taxes up dramatically because his income is up- I repeat again that the talk of tax deductions through the year is nonsense; more taxes are being paid because incomes have increased- and the predictions of the amount of further increases of fees are quite horrific, and with education deductions down, that taxpayer will have to find an extra $1,330 for extra taxes and extra school fees just to keep his 2 children at independent schools next year. The extra income will be only $200 or $300 more than that, therefore leaving an amount of $200 or $300 to pay for all the other escalating expenses in these times of high level inflation. This burden is frightening many parents and potential parents who are sending or who wish to send their children to independent schools.

From a check that I made at a number of schools in Melbourne it is clear that probably thousands of parents have already cancelled or deferred the enrolment of their children to start at the independent schools in future years. This, of course, places a colossal extra burden on the public sector of education, a feature which is overlooked by those supporters of the socialist Government who seek to destroy the independent schools of Australia. Probably thousands have cancelled or deferred enrolments. For instance, in the case of one large school in Melbourne it has already had this year- all, of course, in the last few weeks- 121 deferrals or cancellations and 27 withdrawals of students who are presently enrolled but who will not be able to continue in the school next year. Another school has had 60 deferrals or cancellations. Yet another school, which takes a significant number of boarders, has had 64 deferrals or cancellations of students who are enrolled to start in the future and 40 withdrawals of students who are presently in the school. So thousands have cancelled future enrolments and hundreds are to withdraw pupils at the end of this year all because people are frightened of the cost problems which face them and not because they have taken a deliberate decision to send their children to a government school for other reasons. The cost problems make it impossible for them to continue to send their children to schools of their choice. This is especially hard on country people and on boarding school students.

The latest blow is the threat of the abolition of the tax deduction for school building appeals. This blow, coming on top of all the other Government policies, will be absolutely “ devastating. I understand that on the basis of the way these schools are financed, the abolition of the tax deduction for building appeals for these . schools could mean that within 10 years the great majority of independent schools in Australia would simply cease. They would have to go out “ of business if the suggestion lurking within the Government- the suggestion of a recommendation that tax deductions for school building appeals would be abolished- became a fact. The Treasurer (Mr Crean) answered a question on this matter the other day. He made it plain in his answer that he would not give any promises beyond this income year. Of course the real reason he would not give any such promise was that he will not be Treasurer beyond then and the Labor Government will not be in power beyond that time. Nevertherless it was significant that he refused to give any promise for the future on this question of tax deductibility for gifts to building appeals for schools.

In the past- over the last 15 years or soindependent schools have relied greatly on raising from old boys in the community very substantial amounts for building works. One large independent school in Victoria in the last 15 years or so through building appeals has raised approximately one-third of the total cost of the buildings in that school. However it is significant that in the future it will have to rely so much more than in the past on raisings from the parent body and from friends of the school. These schools do not get the government help that other schools get and, of course, the parents are paying higher and higher taxation and cannot pay higher fees. Consequently this source of funds will be greatly threatened to the point where it could be almost extinguished. I think it fair to say that if tax deductibility did not exist the independent schools would barely be able to build.

All this adds up to a most alarming situation for those people who believe in freedom of choice. Parents simply do not have freedom of choice. At this moment in Australia’s history governments should be seeking constructive ways of extending freedom of choice to parents instead of taking it away from those who presently exert it. We should seek imaginative and novel approaches to the funding of education, perhaps through tax credits, perhaps through voucher schemes and perhaps through other techniques to see that the freedom of choice is extended right throughout the community instead of shrunk to a smaller and smaller segment of the community. It is not beyond the wit of man to discover ways of extending this sort of genuine freedom of choice right across the community. That is a burden which ought to fall upon government. It ought also to fall upon the Liberal Party. We should seek constructive ways of extending freedom of choice instead of narrowing it just when people are crying out to have a say in their own affairs.

Mr Beazley:

– You might persuade the New South Wales Government to multiply its recurring grants by six.

Mr STALEY:

– I would want to persuade all governments in Australia to seek new solutions in the interests of the pupils of this country and in the interests of the self-determination of parents. The way in which education is let lie by so many parents is something that we should all regret. We should seek ways of involving parents in decisions about the funding of their own children’s education and about the futherance of the education of their choice. It is only when we seek out these novel ways of doing this that we will genuinely extend freedom of choice to all parents. Clearly it is nonsense to suggest that at the moment parents do have a freedom of choice. It is equally noticeable that the choice which they had is steadily drying up in the face of the policies of the socialists.

Mr REYNOLDS:
Barton

-I rise to support this Bill. It seems to me that the Liberal Party- I do not know about the Country Partyhas learnt very little in its 2 years in Opposition regarding the matter of education. The honourable member for Chisholm (Mr Staley) still seems to have the same old obsession with an interest in the A category schools. I do not blame him one iota for being concerned about children from any sector of life or socio-economic circumstance. I have no particular illwill about his feelings for those children we have designated as A category school children. What I am concerned about is why it is that over the years when the Liberal-Country Party Government was in power it did not have the same obsession about the thousands of schools scattered throughout Australia that existed in absolute educational poverty, as I would call it. I refer to government and non-government schools. I urge honourable members to look at schools not only in the cities but also in regional towns. I urge them to consider the situation of the convent schools as well as local public schools that exist in small country towns. Unfortunately such conditions still exist. The Government cannot remedy the situation in 2 years. I ask Opposition members to consider the kind of teachers such schools had and the lack of proper professional education provided. Why were they not obsessed in all those years with spending millions to do something about those schools? There seems to be this obsession about those people who are most able to help themselves and little regard for the vast majority who are least able to help themselves- those, who by chance of birth, happen to be born into poor families and, therefore, born with a lifelong, in many cases, lack of opportunity.

Having said that, I should like to draw the attention of the House to the Budget Speech for this year, 1974-75, and particularly to Statement No. 3 which accompanied that Speech. It shows that in 1973-74 the non-government schools in the States, not including those in the Territories for which very liberal grants have been made, received $70m. I speak in round figures. This year they received $ 121m. I see that the honourable member for Chisholm (Mr Staley) has left the House now. He made his speech, offered his criticism, but he is not here to hear the rebuttal and the exposition of what this Government has done. From $70m to $ 1 2 1 m is, in my quick arithmetic, an increase of $5 lm or about 70 per cent for non-government schools. Admittedly State schools received more because we had to try to rectify the disproportionate help that was being given previously under a Liberal-Country Party regime.

I am glad to see that the honourable member for Chisholm has returned to the House. I will pay him that tribute. He said not one word about the Government of that time giving in massive proportions grants for scholarships to those who were best able to engage coaches so that their children could get secondary scholarships, as they then were, university scholarships or other tertiary scholarships. The vast majority of these scholarships went to the children of the richest parents in the community. All these things went on. It is no wonder that anyone who accepted for 23 years that kind of attitude would find it somewhat difficult to accept the attitude of another government with a completely different perspectiveone that is concerned for all those children who by accident of birth were born into poverty, near poverty or less opportunity. As a government, we feel that we must try to rectify that circumstance of birth by making sure that resources go to those children. We had debate after debate in which it was argued that you could not have a needs priority or set up indicies of need to cater for these people. We have proved that we can. It is not perfect, but it is at least a start and it will be improved as the Schools Commission goes about its work. There is no coincidence in this whole context.

In June of this year I was in England for 3 weeks leading a delegation. The Conservative Party in Britain was advocating a reduction in the compulsory school leaving age. Fancy reducing it when you should be increasing it! By reducing the school leaving age from 16 years to IS years what did it produce but a cutback of all those children who were, in its view, unnecessarily going to school, who ought to know their place in life, who ought not to be aspiring to some higher status. I do not say this in bitterness but it does get me when I find people so preoccupied with a small segment of the community that has been disaffected. The honourable member for Chisholm talked about children who have no freedom of choice. I remind the honourable member and any others who think like him that during their regime a lot of Catholic convent schools went out of existence and a lot of these schools that remained in existence were not able to obtain trained teachers. Many of them had to use people who had no professional qualification whatsoever for teaching. That did not happen in the last 2 years. This has been going on for quite a number of years. This Government is concerned with all children. We are not buying into the old debates about State aid and State rights. We are concerned about helping both State governments and non-governmental education authorities to provide a decent education for all children and to give every child, whatever his limitations or his brilliance, an opportunity to expand that talent to its maximum level in accordance with the child ‘s own motivation.

In my speech on the Budget I referred to some of the things that we are doing for nongovernment schools. This Bill is not concerned with what we are doing here in Canberra or what we are doing in the Northern Territory or any other place, but what we are doing for both government and non-government systems in the States. In the Budget this year the provision for State education was increased- last year there was a big uplift- by 137 per cent, which is a pretty big amount even allowing for inflation. That is what this Bill is specifically about- to take note of inflation and to uplift the recommendations of the Schools Commission. The amount of money that we give to the States for government and non-government schools will go up from $161m last financial year to $399m this financial year. As a former teacher and lecturer in a teachers college, I know that money is not education. It is what one makes it do, the resources one can create, the experimentation and the research into content, organisation and administration of education that really matter. It is what goes on inside the bricks and mortar that are so important. This Government is not unmindful of that. It is particularly mindful of it in the various research facilities that it has set up both as a government in its own right and in the facilities that it is making available to State governments, to the non-government school authorities and to individual teachers and groups of teachers, such projects as the wonderful innovations program.

I understand that over 1,000 applications have been made already for grants under the innovations program. Already $3. 3m has been allocated of the $7.2m that has been made available for that program in the 2 year period, 1974 and 1975. Let me mention some of the matters for which it has been allocated. I think I ought to say this because a number of teachers are still unaware of the facilities that are being provided by this Government. Teachers are not aware of it and I do not think that some of the State education authorities are doing very much to help them become aware of it. I must make that unfortunate statement. One of the grants that were made available recently was $60,000 for a pilot program by the Catholic Education Office in Victoria to assess the efficiency of a staffing scheme which increases pupil-teacher ratios but at the same time increases the availability of paraprofessional staff. The Victorian Catholic Education Office receives also in this series a second grant of $38,000 for a project involving liaison between the government and Catholic education systems on implementation of programs involving both systems and joint use of facilities. This is not the old ranting about State aid and so on that we had previously. This is a genuine attempt to do something for the education of all children and for all people throughout their lives. But this Bill and the Schools Commission naturally are concerned with primary and secondary education. Under the innovation program a grant of $30,000 has been made for a language enrichment program at the Essendon Technical School, and there is a grant of $20,450 to develop a South Australian rural property for a school. These are new approaches. Honourable members opposite talk about freedom of choice. By this kind of research, we are trying to extend and enrich the choices that are available for individuals in both government and nongovernment schools. Almost every education expert who has visited this country has commented upon the dulling, deadening uniformity of our education in Australia. Let us not kid ourselves. The private schools did not introduce anything different from what was done in government schools, simply because they were bound down by the external examinations for which all pupils had to sit. They were slaves to the one education examination system. There was little diversity of approach in the content of curricula, administration and teaching methods in the private system as against the government system. This Government has given impetus and encouragement to individuals and groups to experiment with new systems and make new approaches.

We are moving out of the old system of external examinations. Taking a sample of a child’s work at the end of the year and saying that it represents his ability as displayed over the whole year’s work is like taking a patch of soil out of a paddock, analysing it and saying that it is representative of the soil content of the whole paddock. It is just as invalid to take a sample of a child’s work by means of a two or three-hour examination paper at the end of the year, under most pressing circumstances, in a situation of anxiety, and saying that that examination sample is representative of what that child has been able to do throughout the year. We are getting right away from that. That is why we are looking at the whole situation and spending so much money on experimentation.

I will not have a chance to talk about all the things I would like to speak about but I wanted to mention the substantial increases the Government has made available and innovations that have occurred. One of the things with which I was particularly impressed in the educational budget is the provision for disadvantaged schools. I made some reference to this at the beginning of my speech. Disadvantaged schools exist in both the non-government sector and the government sector. There are plenty of them- all too many of them. It will take some years to remedy that defect. The Schools Commission recognises this, and that is why it said that some schools that are already established, that have plenty of facilities and a high pupil-teacher ratio, will have to wait a while. We do not want to debar them from any help at all, and we are not doing so. Children who attend these schools still attract certain taxation concessions, they are still in the field for scholarships, and they have free access to all tertiary education if they are able to get enrolment in tertiary institutions. We are saying to those schools that have fairly adequate facilities: ‘Wait a while until those educationally dispossessed children have had a chance to catch up’.

That is why we went into this matter of categorisation and that is why many nonsystemic private schools are in G and H categories. Under this Government four or five times as much is being spent on each student as was spent under the previous Government. The ratio might be even higher than that. So in this Budget disadvantaged schools are getting a special amount over and above what is given to all other schools. The amount allocated to disadvantaged schools as defined will be increased fourfold as against last year’s allocation. I understand that about 800 schools are designated as disadvantaged schools. We all know this. We see them in the suburbs. We see the dingy walls. We see the unpainted walls, the walls that have not been painted for over 20 years. We see the small playgrounds. We know of the high turnover of teachers who resist staying in dingy environments and who seek to move on to other schools. These schools are all well known to us. We are trying to do something over and above the ordinary so that they can catch up.

We are also concerned about schools for handicapped children. Over the years these schools have had to conduct fetes substantially to finance themselves. Schools for the mentally and physically handicapped should have been taken over as a government responsibility long ago. At least the offer ought to have been made to them. This Government has enabled the States to make an offer to those schools that if they so desire the State school system will take them over and will accept responsibility for them. To be quite frank, I am surprised that many of the special schools and schools for the handicapped have not as yet taken up the offer. I am not too sure why they have not. I think they may be a little appehensive about what it will involve, but I hope they will soon recognise that it will be to their advantage. I am glad to know that two of these schools in my electorate are in the process of taking up the offer by the State to take over financial responsibility for their upkeep. The State will be recompensed by the Australian Government through the Schools Commission. The Minister for Education (Mr Beazley) has told me that he expects that about 50 per cent of these schools will ultimately take up the offer. I do not know why a lot more of them will not do so. When they get over their qualms about what might be involved I hope a lot more of them will take up the offer.

I could say many other things. I applaud, for instance, the amounts of money that are being made available to the various schools to be spent at their discretion. Whereas a few years ago a headmaster may have had $200 granted to him by the State to spend on the school at his discretion, I am told that these days they have up to $3,000 to $4,000 coming principally out of Australian Government funds. This is giving much more freedom of choice than had ever previously been heard of. This Bill increases the amount of money that will be available to both government and non-government schools and will take account of cost increases that have occurred since the Schools Commission made its recommendations a year ago.

Mr FISHER:
Mallee

-In few other areas of State or Federal Government responsibility has the burden of the effects of inflation been more pronounced than in the area of education. Overall expenditure by all governments on education has shown a dramatic increase over recent years in a genuine endeavour to meet and improve the quality of educational opportunities for all students. There has been doubt for some time now in my mind as to whether the increases in the past 18 months have been as effective in maintaining the momentum in educational expansion as the amount of money being made available implies. I believe it is also becoming evident that greater emphasis has to be placed not just on our expenditures but also on the effects of forms of education upon individual students because of the fact that today they are moving out into a slack labour market and still have to compete for orthodox and stereotype employment.

In August the Schools Commission presented to the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley) a report which showed that supplementary grants were now needed even though it is only months since allocation arrangements were made. I think speakers on the other side of the House have missed the real point of this Bill. It is a supplementary Bill that is needed because of the effects of inflation and cost increases upon the programs of the Federal Government to assist primary and secondary schools through both State government and Federal government initiated programs. It is quite obvious that the diminishing purchasing power of grants has frustrated plans to expand and improve educational services. For some time now many schools and advisory councils have been expressing grave concern to me at the protracted delay in alterations or new building programs. In the electorate of Mallee, for instance, improvements that have been talked about and approved in principlein fact in some cases tenders had even been called- were recently frozen by the Victorian State Government owing to a lack of finance. There have been delays in alterations to an administrative area, a humanities complex and art rooms at the Kerang High School, while in the same town construction of a new arts and crafts centre at the primary school was stopped. A similar situation developed at the Swan Hill High School, where a much needed library block was delayed. These works will probably now go ahead, but new tenders must be called for the works. Of course this will result in further delays.

In all schools affected by delays the staff and the students have suffered poor working conditions for a long time and it is a credit to the teachers that they have not added to the problems by causing industrial unrest. The specific examples I have given are not isolated instances but are examples of what has been quite common througout Australia and throughout the State of Victoria, where in recent months numerous projects have had to be frozen. Recriminations have been flowing backwards and forwards between the State and Federal governments. Concerned people in my electorate have been continually asking me to establish at what government level the blame could be laid. I am not interested in establishing fault.

What does concern me is that the supplementary finance is now being made available and can be used to continue the necessary programs. The honourable member for Holt (Mr Oldmeadow) made quite an issue of the fact that the State governments were not spending the finance available. Whilst I acknowledge the increased amounts of money that have been made available by the Federal Government I think it is fair to recognise at this time the problems of all our State governments because of the slack economic conditions. Within the building industry problems have arisen in providing the services necessary to use the money that is available. However, one thing of which we can be quite certain is that inflation has pushed up building costs, particularly in rural areas, by up to 80 per cent. Administrative and salary costs are also now claiming an ever-increasing percentage of the education estimates, leaving a smaller percentage of the total to be spent on improving our facilities and the quality and efficiency of our systems.

As pointed out, this legislation makes available $64.47m in recurrent grants to schools and $ 14.43m in capital grants up to 31 December 1975. Of those sums government schools will receive $35.6m in recurrent grants and $ 11.83m for capital purposes. Non-government schools will receive an additional $23.67m towards recurrent costs and $2.5 lm for capital expenditure. It is interesting to note that $8.29m will be added to programs which apply to both government and non-government schools. It is also interesting to note that the Interim Committee in framing its financial recommendations for the 1974-75 biennium made some allowance for price rises. It pointed out quite correctly that, in the interests of consistency and in the absence of acceptable measures of rates of increase in primary and secondary education costs, provision must be made for inflation, but no authority could be held responsible for the drastic effect of the Government’s policies upon our economy. Not only has the value of our dollar been reduced to a shadow of its former self; there has also been an attack by the Government on private enterprise particularly in an environment of tight credit, which is driving construction firms out of business or into inaction. The Schools Commission has the administrative responsibility for those programs supported through the States Grants (Schools) Act 1972-73. It has therefore recommended to the Government this supplement to the funds currently provided so that the achievement of program objectives will not be impaired by the huge reductions in the purchasing power of the original grants.

How often since this Government has been in office have we seen ad hoc decisions taken without any apparent consultation or economic reasoning. It is therefore refreshing to be able to read in the report of the Schools Commission the actual criteria on which it bases its new assessments. I feel that these should be placed in Hansard. This would at least assist from a Federal member’s point of view in any future protests from schools if this Government allows inflation to continue out of control and takes measures that further weaken the purchasing power of our dollar. The Commission believes that in the present circumstances and given the nature of school budgeting any favourable adjustments to recurrent expenditure grants to schools should take into account all costs increases that have occurred since the dimensions of the Government’s program were first determined, and should also provide for future increases.

Payments should be made, the Commission says, in such a way that schools receive the benefit of the supplement at the time the expenses are incurred. By taking into account cost increases which have actually taken place since the Interim Committee made its calculations and by making provision for future increases the Commission has assessed that the unexpended portion of the 1974 recurrent grants should be increased by some 17 per cent and the 1975 grants by 21 per cent. The Schools Commission said that it will be appreciated that these percentages do not represent annual rates of price movements but are rather the estimated rates required to maintain the momentum of the originally planned program. A finite supplement to the recurrent grants is considered to be appropriate at this time pending the development of an index of school operating costs which will be of assistance in making allowances for reasonable increases in running expenses in a manner compatible with national economic policy.

The Commission went on to say that it is important that the method used be publicly known, for although all running cost increases which have occurred over the past 18 months have been incorporated in the supplementary recurrent grants calculations, such may not be the case over the next 18 months. It said that to the extent that educational costs increase at a rate greater than the rate of general cost increases considered tolerable by the Government, the aim of restoring the intended purchasing power of recurrent grants will not be completely achieved though the recommendations contained in the report. The Commission hoped, however, that a spirit of restraint would prevail among those who are influential in educational decision making in order to contain the rate of inflation in the school sector. The Opposition supports the Bill. The ravages of inflation are having a detrimental effect upon the works programs far in excess of the percentage increase of this supplementary grant. A Bill relating to universities has also been introduced into the Parliament to give supplementary assistance in that area.

Mr Beazley:

– Do you realise that Karmel had already allowed a compounding inflation factor of 6 per cent and this picks up on top of that?

Mr FISHER:

-That is correct. If we are to obtain value for the large increases in educational spending by all our State governments and the Federal Government in the long term the diminishing power of our currency must be controlled and productivity must rise in our service industries. I was very interested in some of the comments made by the honourable member for Barton (Mr Reynolds). I have said that I have no hesitation in acknowledging the extra financial assistance that is being made available by the Federal Government to the State education systems and directly, but I point out to him that it is the poor non-government schools that are feeling the pinch at present. I draw the attention of the Minister for Education to a question asked by the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Hewson) of the Minister for Defence (Mr Barnard) when he was Acting Minister for Education during the absence of the Minister. The honourable member asked about the announcement of building grants on 22 September of $1.5m for disadvantaged Catholic schools in 3 States. He stated that the amounts allocated were identical with those indicated to the applicants several months previously which had not then been received. The honourable member wanted to know whether those grants were one and the same allocation and if so, whether they were to have been made from last year’s Budget.

If this is the case, will there be another similar grant this financial year, and when will it be announced? If there is to be only one grant allocated, is the Minister prepared to make a supplementary grant to cover the cost of bridging finance used in anticipation since the allocation was announced and to overcome the loss in the value of inflationary costs in the building industry? This is one area where the Opposition has very real concern. Many schools which have been advised of grant allocations have gone ahead in anticipation and are running themselves into quite large overdrafts. They are desperately in need of the money they are expecting. If the construction industries can get an injection of confidence and incentive to meet the heavy demands being made upon them in all areas of activity, and particularly in education, we will see a tremendous benefit deriving from the increases in expenditure being made by all our governments.

I think it is very proper at this stage to point out that State governments are, from their own resources, accepting a major share of the financial responsibility towards the provision of educational services. There would be few State governments which are not spending from 40 per cent to 50 per cent of their total budgetary expenditure on education and one wonders how far a State government can go with its limited resources towards meeting the needs of our education system. I believe that in Queensland nearly 90 per cent of total expenditure on education is met by the State Government while 7 per cent comes from the Schools Commission. The Opposition- and, as I am speaking for the Australian Country Party, particularly the Australian Country Party- supports this BUI.

Mr McKenzie:
Diamond Valley · ALP

– It was interesting to hear the remarks of honourable members on the other side of the House. The honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) spent a good deal of his time talking about inflation while the honourable member for Chisholm (Mr Staley) tried to make out a case for nongovernment schools as though they were particularly disadvantaged by this Bill. In fact the figures in the Budget statements show quite clearly that talk of this nature is completely off key. For instance, the Opposition when in government provided in 1972-73, the last year for which it drew up the Budget, $47.8m. The next year, the first year of the Whitlam Labor Government, $70.2m was provided and the estimated expenditure for this year is $ 120.9m. Honourable members can easily see that these increases are far in excess of increases through inflation.

The honourable member for Mallee did not mention that under the Liberal-Country Party Government country areas were not provided with funds by way of assistance for isolated children. This Government has provided a substantial amount of money in this area and this year has provided $ 1 1 .6m.

Mr Fisher:

– Why do you need a supplementary Bill if it covers inflation?

Mr McKenzie:
Diamond Valley · ALP

-This is part of a continuing program and this money is provided in the Budget. The Government has introduced this Bill to provide the necessary money for the States. Any talk about not keeping up with inflation is just so much hogwash.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Haw, haw!

Mr McKenzie:
Diamond Valley · ALP

– The figures are there. The ‘haw, haw’ from the other side does not take account of the facts. I wish honourable members opposite would talk facts when they talk about inflation. The honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) in his remarks before lunch said that he saw great virtue in diversity of education and I agree entirely with him. He went on to say that parents should have the right to choose. Again I agree with him. However, I point out to the honourable member for Moreton and to honourable members generally on the other side of the House that the right to choose is also qualified by the ability to choose. There are many parents who might like their sons and daughters to have the advantages that some other children have. They might like their children to go to Melbourne Grammar or to Tinturn or to any of the other well known schools around Australia, but they have not the wherewithal to spend on that. A lot of these parents are prevented from exercising the choice they would like to exercise because of the expense involved. This Government’s policy is aimed at breaking down the financial barriers which so often have meant that children have been denied a full and proper education.

The honourable member for Barton (Mr Reynolds) was a teacher and so was I. I have mentioned before in this House the terrible conditions under which some children in Victoria and all over Australia suffer because proper educational facilities are not provided. If there is one thing I and other honourable members on this side of the House are sure about it is that money which is provided in this Bill and in the Budget introduced by the Treasurer (Mr Crean) will enable an improvement to be made. This Bill updates the provisions contained in the States Grants (Schools) Acts of 1 972 and 1 973 and is in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report of the Karmel Committee. The honourable member for Holt (Mr Oldmeadow) mentioned these figures before, but I think they ought to be mentioned again. The Bill provides an additional $64.47m in recurrent grants and $ 14.43m in capital grants. Government schools will receive $35.6m in recurrent grants and $1 1.83m in capital grants while non-government schools will receive an additional $23.67m in recurrent grants and $2.5 lm in capital grants. Then there is the other amount that the honourable member for Holt mentioned- $8.29mwhich will be provided for both government and non-government schools.

It is important that the programs which this Government has initiated be maintained in the face of cost increases. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that if the Opposition parties were in a position to implement their proposal that Government expenditure be cut by 8 per cent, the amount made available to schools and pre-schools and for child care facilities would be cut by approximately $44.43m. The honourable member can check this by doing a simple percentage calculation. The amount provided for special groups such as Aborigines, migrants, soldiers’ children and isolated children, will be cut by $5.46m and if the amount payable to colleges of” advanced education and teachers’ colleges were included in the 8 per cent, expenditure in these areas would be cut by $25.6m. Honourable members can easily see that after making allowance for expenditure not directly related to primary and secondary schools the amount by which expenditure is proposed to be cut is about equal to the amount provided under this Bill.

The fact remains, however one looks at the figures and whatever arguments one puts forward either against or in support of what this Government is doing, that this Government is providing a great deal of money that was not provided before and the amount being provided does take account of inflation. The Government is providing the basis for a real improvement in educational standards in this country. One would think that if money is being provided to the States- as it is- the States would be a little less parsimonious in the things they do. It has come to my attention recently, in a letter written to me by one of my constituents, that the Victorian Government .is interpreting the regulations on confinement leave in a very restrictive way. The teacher who wrote to me is expecting her first child early in May and because of the interpretation being put on the regulations she will be required to retire on 1 January 1975. This means that she misses out on a substantial amount of holiday pay which would otherwise be due to her. The various teachers unions have taken this matter up with the State Department of Education but so far with very little success. The present problems and the present conditions are these: A woman teacher must cease work 4 months before or, if the approval of the Minister is given, 2 months before the expected date of delivery. Up till now the approval of the Minister has always been given but at the moment it is being denied. Before the Minister can exercise his discretion in this matter a woman must have a medical certificate saying that she is fit to work for 2 months more and a letter from the principal saying he wants her to continue teaching. The Minister for Education in Victoria, Mr Thompson, is refusing to exercise his discretion. This attitude is not even in accordance with the regulations that are otherwise applied in Victoria, because the Victorian Public Service Board regulation on maternity and paternity leave states:

A female officer or employee who produces to the Permanent Head a certificate of a legally qualified medical practitioner stating that she is pregnant and specifying the day on which it is expected that she will be delivered-

shall be required to take leave as follows:

for a period commencing six weeks prior to the expected date of delivery . . .

I will not read out the whole regulation, but honourable members can see that if these provisions were applied the situation would be much less restrictive than it is at present.

The Technical Teachers Association of Victoria, for instance, has taken the matter up with the Victorian Minister. The Association wrote to the Acting Minister for Education, Mr Dixon, putting the following matters to him:

  1. The practice of your Department in refusing pregnant teachers to avail themselves of their sick leave credits when suffering from sickness or illness associated with or arising from pregnancy.
  2. The practice of your Department in writing to teachers’ medical practitioners without their knowledge or authority, seeking additional details relating to cause or nature of illness.
  3. The failure of your Government to grant female teachers confinement leave on full pay and male teachers similar provisions to enable them to properly care for their family during the absence of the mother while awaiting and following the birth of an additional child.

This may seem to be a small matter. But the woman teacher who raised this matter with me had a large number of sick leave credits. She had had very little time off work over a number of years. It seems to me to be a poor state of affairs when a State Government which is being supplied with additional funds from the Australian Government should seek to interpret the regulations in this sort of way.

This Bill provides additional finance to do the sorts of things which this Government has set out to do. I draw to the attention of honourable members also the article which appeared in the’Australian Financial Review’ today. As the time for debate is limited, I do not intend to go into that matter. But I invite honourable members to read the article which appears on pages 1 and 4 of that newspaper, setting out some aspects of the situation that is occurring with respect to State government expenditure on education. It is most difficult for the Australian Government to know precisely what is happening with the funds. We feel a responsibility to provide money for the education of children at the primary and secondary levels and also in other areas at all levels. We shall continue to provide that money. It is useless for the Opposition to say as it so often seems to say that inflation is eating up the money provided. The Opposition has only to do a few simple arithmetical sums to see that this Government is providing money which was not provided before and that the children of Australia will benefit.

Mr HOWARD:
Bennelong

-The purpose of this legislation is to facilitate the provision of supplementary funds for programs administered by the Schools Commission. The House should be indebted to the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) for bringing the debate back into perspective. In no sense does this Bill initiate new programs. In no sense does this Bill in reality represent the provision of additional financial support for education. It merely provides a statistical hedge against the ravages of inflation which have occurred in this country since the adoption of the original recommendations of the Karmel report

The Opposition supports the legislation and compliments the Government on recognising the need to provide these additional funds. No better basis for the argument that I have just put can be found than in the report by the Schools Commission to the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley), who is at the table, on supplementary funds for programs administered by that Commission. The report at page 3 states:

The evidence that has been made available to the Commission in respect of the rates of increases in running costs suggests that unless supplementary recurrent funds are provided, resources available in many schools will not reach the level which the Government set as its objective . . .

I have quoted from paragraph 10 of that report. Paragraph 1 1 is relevant to some of the remarks that have been made by the honourable member for Chisholm (Mr Staley) and honourable members opposite, particularly the honourable member for Barton (Mr Reynolds). This paragraph makes most interesting reading, which I commend to all members of the House when making a sober consideration of the position of non-government schools. Dealing with the problems faced by the non-government school sector, paragraph 1 1 states:

Indeed it has been submitted to the Commission that some non-government schools may suffer an actual reduction in the level of services offered. Restitution of the intended value of Australian Government grants will afford relief to such schools.

In other words, the effect of the funds to be made available by this legislation will be to prevent a decline in the actual level of services provided by schools in the non-government sector.

When we consider this legislation, we ought to recognise it for what it is, that is, a piece of necessary economic support for the provision of educational facilities in Australia. No doubt exists that the volume of money which has been spent under the programs of this Government has been quite considerable. I join with other speakers on both sides of the House in paying a proper tribute to certain aspects of the Government’s programs and to the energy with which they have been pursued by the Minister at the table. There are differences of emphasis concerning the provision of education facilities in this country, as there are differences of approach, a great many related to the attitudes of the 2 sides of this House to schools in the non-government sector.

I think that the time has long since passed when we ought to recognise that, in relation to the period spanned by compulsory secular education in Australia, it is only a very short time since any recognition was given to the principle that governments ought to help independent schools. In fact, it was only a mere 1 1 years ago when the first substantial assistance was given to non-government schools in the State by a Federal government. That there should be such differences of emphasis perhaps is understandable. I do not deny that in crude money terms this Government has made considerable volumes of funds available to schools in the nongovernment sector. I do not deny that; the statistics prove it. What I put to the House is that the methods which have been chosen to channel funds into the non-government schools sector are being greeted with increasing concern and suspicion by those who operate the schools in the non-government sector. To some extent, even the statistics could be a little illusory. This legislation seeks to provide $64.5m to supplement the program for both government and non-government schools.

Mr Beazley:

– It is recurring.

Mr HOWARD:

-On a recurring basis- yet, in the same breath, the Government is taking back an education concession which is worth at least $30m annually, also on a recurring basis.

Mr Beazley:

– And then giving it back again with the tax cuts, and so it goes.

Mr HOWARD:

– With respect to the Minister’s interjection, we have no control over the appropriation of the tax cuts towards education expenses. At least if the Government accepts as a priority the expenditure of a certain sum of money on education, and works towards that priority by the provision of tied funds and also the provision of specific taxation allowances, it can be sure that the funds reach the purpose for which they have been allocated. But if those funds are just made generally available, we have no guarantee that they will wind up being used for education purposes. So, lest any honourable member is carried away at the financial largesse proposed by this Bill, I think the House should recognise firstly that the legislation provides an adjustment in respect of inflation and that, measured against the value of allowable taxation deductions for expenditure on education, which taxation concession has been withdrawn, this legislation represents in reality a provision of an additional $30m only. It is not all that generous, although I compliment the Government on making the money available.

In the few moments remaining to me in this debate I wish to correct one impression which was created by Government speakers. This is in respect of the attitude that the honourable member for Chisholm takes towards nongovernment schools. I suppose it is too much to hope that we will ever be able to lay the ghosts of the various myths that surround the attitude of people on different sides of the House towards non-government schools. I suppose it is too much to hope that every time a member of the Opposition defends non-government schools we will not get from people on the other side of the House the shrill catch-cry that we are interested in only category A schools and that we are interested only in the abodes of the privileged and wealthy.

If I can be forgiven for being parochial for a moment, I think it is worth reading an extract from a letter I received only yesterday from what could never be categorised as being an A category school, the parish school of the Holy Spirit at North Ryde in my electorate. Over the hand of the secretary of the Holy Spirit Parents and Friends Association there is a very feeling criticism of the reduction of the taxation deduction for education expenses from $400 to $ 1 50. It is worth reading some of the sentences because they come very close to the point. Do not forget that this is not an area that votes 70 per cent Liberal; it is an area that at the last election voted 55 per cent Labor. So I think some of the marginal seat holders on the other side of the chamber might listen to this. The letter states:

We consider this decision to be both discriminating and grossly unfair to parents with children attending nongovernment schools. Secondary education, with its low means test for school scholarships, will now become almost an impossibility for the average wage earner. Parents with large families are particularly badly affected by this decision, coupled with the lack of any child endowment increase.

So there is a sense of grievance felt throughout the non-governmernt school sector towards this reduction in the taxation allowance for education expenses. It is not confined to the abodes of the so-called privileged but extends throughout the entire community. Whilst I join with my colleagues on this side of the House in supporting the legislation and in commending the Government for recognising the need to provide supplementary assistance, I ask the House to bear in mind the necessary limitations and qualifications that I have expressed in respect of the provisions of this Bill.

Mr McVEIGH:
Darling Downs

– It is appropriate in this debate once again to cast our eyes towards the hills of principle rather than look down on the valleys of convenience. I want to put quite clearly the position of the Australian Country Party in the area of education. We believe that every child, irrespective of his or her colour, creed or standing in life is entitled to a share of the Commonwealth taxation pool for his or her education. We believe that the present system of education policy under the control of the Australian Labor Party wherein it wants to give finance on the basis of iron-fisted control is too high a price to pay. Our system of education endeavours not only to mould the hearts and minds of young Australians on a basis of improving their educational and emotional development in life but also to equip them adequately to learn how to live. That has been the core of our educational policies.

As one of the previous speakers in this debate emphasised, it is part of our philosophy that it is the inalienable right of every parent in Australia to decide what type of education his or her child shall receive. It is eminently feasible to advance the proposition that it would be better for the Australian Government to give grants straight out to the States to allow them to dictate how that money shall be spent than to follow the present course of giving the money to them with very specific recommendations and with strings attached as to how it shall be spent. In Queensland, notwithstanding the moves that have been aimed to control that magnificent Premier, the Honourable Joh Bjelke-Petersen, the major share of financial responsibilities -

Mr Young:

– How did he spend more money on education?

Mr McVEIGH:

– Can you not keep quiet and learn something? You have a head like a hub cap. Consequently you think you are a big wheel. In Queensland 93 per cent of the estimated expenditure from Consolidated Revenue on education will be financed from State Government resources and the balance of 7 per cent will be financed by the Schools Commission. In effect, $213,998,000 will come from the Queensland Government and $16,450,000 will come from the Schools Commission. Obviously the Commission’s financial assistance scheme supplements to a degree the initiatives taken in this field by the State Government.

Some recent comments by people who are unfairly opposed to the magnificent work of the National-Liberal coalition Government of Queensland in education would convey the impression that the State Government has not maintained the level of its spending on educational services which existed prior to the introduction of the Schools Commission funding scheme. One can only suggest that these comments have been inspired by inexpert reports and ill-considered speculation. Obviously this is not the position at all and a proper analysis would satisfy even the most jaundiced critic that the Queensland Government is not only maintaining its impetus but is also upgrading its own spending quite substantially.

One of the reasons that we find it necessary to introduce this new legislation, as was described in the second reading speech of the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley), is the rapid increase in inflation. That has been a deliberate result of the Australian Labor Party’s fiscal and monetary policies, and its complete inability to cope with even elementary economics. The school children of Australia are the ones who have to suffer insofar as there will be fewer new classrooms built and fewer innovations and facilities available for them.

It is interesting to note some of the increases in costs that have occurred in school building over the last 12 months. The cost of building a science block has increased by 61 per cent to $140,000 from last year’s price of $87,000. Post-primary school libraries have increased in cost from $99,000 to $148,000, an increase of 48 per cent; and the cost of a 3-storey classroom block has increased from $730,000 to $840,000, an increase of 15 per cent. These are the reasons why it is necessary to introduce supplementary legislation such as this, notwithstanding the fact, as the Minister pointed out in the debate a few moments ago, that inbuilt in the original proposition was an allowance for an inflation rate of 6 per cent per annum. We find now, with inflation running close to 22 per cent per annum, that it is necessary to increase the amount of money available in the area of education.

It is appropriate also to point out in this debate the magnificent improvement in the education system in Queensland following the moves taken by the Queensland Department of Education. In the 12 months to August 1974 the number of teachers increased by 991, or 7 per cent, to 15,043. We now find that the ratio of teachers to students is 1:25.5 in the primary schools, 1:16.6 in the secondary schools, and 1:7.5 in the special schools. When compared with the statistics that were made available some 2 years previously these figures represent a remarkable increase.

I want to comment in this debate also on what will happen to many children following the decision of the Labor Government to reduce the concessional income tax deductions for educational expenses. This is a most underhand attack on children from certain sections of the community. I refer to the children of people who, through their circumstances and through no fault of their own, are obliged of necessity to send their children to boarding schools. I had to smile to myself at some of the remarks of some of the academics who sit opposite. It is all very well for them. I know that you are different from them, Mr Deputy Speaker, because you have gone off the bitumen occasionally, but some of these fellows have lived on the bitumen all their lives and they cannot appreciate the fact that children in the bush, who surely make up the heart of this nation, have to be sent to boarding schools. If they do not go to a boarding school, there is no school available to them. The parents of these children are being savagely affected because the educational allowance has been reduced from $400 to $150. 1 seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a table which shows the effect that this reduction in the taxation concession will have on various families. The table is based on a family with the wife not working and three children all dependent and attending nongovernment schools. Income rates are those applicable at I July 1974.

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

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

Mr McVEIGH:

-I thank the House. These children have to be looked after. Surely it is reasonable to request the Government to look once again at the desirability of reintroducing a maximum educational tax deduction of $400 for each child.

I want to make one final comment in this debate, as I have been advised that it must be curtailed in a few minutes. I make a special plea to the Minister to consider giving extra financial assistance to boarding schools situated in rural areas. These schools have to contend with the added difficulty of attracting staff to them because of the difficulty that the members of the staff have in finding jobs for their children in rural areas. Also, the staff of these schools are faced with extra costs due to the cost of transport being added to every item which is brought in. Additionally, because these schools usually cater for specific children from farming areas, it is most desirable to have included in their curricula special courses designed for the boys and girls who will return to rural areas either as members of the Public Service or as people engaged in primary industry. It is absolutely essential that these children have the opportunity of pursuing an agricultural type of education, bearing in mind that the farmer of the future will be a business man, an economist and a philosopher.

The Australian Country Party supports the concept of assistance being given to counter the effects of inflation. I want to emphasise once again our deep political and philosophical belief that it is the responsibility and the right of every parent to choose the type of education that his child shall receive, and it is the Government’s responsibility to give to each child in this country a per capita contribution to help him or her meet his or her educational requirements.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Minister for Education · Fremantle · ALP

– in reply- I seek leave to table for the information of the House, since it was referred to by the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen), the Schools Commission’s questionnaire to non-government schools of October 1974, the letter which accompanied it from the Schools Commission, the explanatory notes which accompanied it from the Schools Commission, and an instruction concerning confidentiality which I have sent to the Schools Commission today.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr BEAZLEY:

-Since it is relevant to the debate and pursuant to section 8 of the Independent Schools (Loans Guarantee) Act 1969, I seek leave also to table a statement containing particulars of guarantees that have been given under this Act during the year ended 30 June 1974 and payments made under any guarantee given under this Act.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr BEAZLEY:

– A good many hares have been started in this debate for me to pursue. I find that I am expected to debate the Income Tax Assessment Act with the honourable member for Chisholm (Mr Staley), the Victorian Education Department’s leave regulations for pregnant women with one of my colleagues, and, with a number of gentlemen opposite, including the honourable member for Moreton, the questionnaire which the Schools Commission has sent out not in relation to the legislation before the House but to help it formulate its triennial recommendations for 1976,1977 and 1978.

The honourable member for Moreton did say that a rather heartbroken headmaster had told him that to one question, which I can only presume to be question No. 18, there could possibly be 1,600 answers. I think the questionnaire has 40 items about each teacher. If a headmaster had 40 teachers on his staff, 40 times 40 is 1,600 all right. But I would like the honourable member to note the onerous things that must be put in the questionnaire. The questionnaire asks the teacher to state his position on the staff. If he is headmaster, he is number one. So he has to put down the figure one. To the question of whether he is a religious or lay teacher, he simply has to write ‘R’ or ‘L’. So he had to put down ‘R’. In stating whether a teacher is male or female, he writes ‘M’ or ‘F The next question is: ‘Age in years’. He would write ‘50’. In answer to the question: ‘Years of teaching’, he would write ‘20’. In answering the question: ‘Years teaching in the present school’, he would write ‘12’. The answer to the question : ‘Full or part time’ would require the writing down of ‘F’ or ‘P’. To answer the question: ‘Primary or secondary or both’, he would write down ‘P’, ‘S’, or ‘B’. I do not think honestly that this represents a very onerous obligation on the part of the headmaster concerned. I am not deriding the honourable gentleman’s informant but I did have the distressing picture of an unfortunate headmaster sitting down and writing 1,600 essays. I did not realise that he would be writing ‘P’, ‘S’ or ‘B’, or his age, or the number of years that he had been teaching.

I really do find it odd that I am accused of wanting to destroy the non-government schools, and I am unable to find out why when we are discussing a Bill which is concerned with government and non-government schools the debate is always on the non-government schools and never on a category of non-government schools in desperate need. I am not able to work out from honourable gentlemen opposite what they think about the State of New South Wales. The honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) was telling the House of the distressing condition of non-government secondary schools in the State of New South Wales. The reason for this situation is that the State of New South Wales gives schools at the secondary level precisely nothing in the way of per capita grants. Next year the New South Wales Government will give them $25 for each student. In neighbouring Queensland next year the schools will be getting $132 a head. The Canberra Grammar School this year is getting $ 128 a head, but this is in our State capacity and not in our Karmel grant capacity. This situation is creating a very serious crisis in non-government schools, but these distress letters that we get, whether they are from Catholic, Anglican or any other type of school, invariably come from the State of New South Wales because the State of New South Wales, which has had a long term Liberal Government, acknowledges no obligation towards them.

I am also philosophically not able to ascertain from honourable gentlemen opposite whether they believe that the Commonwealth should be totally responsible for non-government schools. If so, in 23 years of office, they never assumed that position themselves. There is one category of non-government schools for which I assume total responsibility. These schools are never mentioned because they are the schools of the most abjectly poor children in this country. I refer to the mission schools in the Northern Territory. This talk we hear about the Federal Government trying to gain control of schools amuses me. I have never written one letter of instruction to a non-government school in my 2 years as Minister for Education. What we do is use the State governments as post boxes. We make a grant to the State government which makes grants on to non-government schools with no instructions except, of course, the implicit one contained in the Act that the money has to be spent on education and not on riotous living.

We have changed the policy in regard to teaching subsidies for the mission schools in the Northern Territory since the beginning of this year. The subsidy is now the equivalent of a salary payable by the Australian Government for a similar Public Service position as the position the teacher in the mission school holds plus the appropriate district allowances. This is going the whole way in totally assuming the burden of paying the schools. I will give honourable members the figures: Hermannsburg, which is a Lutheran mission school, receives $206,000 a year recurring; Santa Teresa, which is a Roman Catholic School, receives $173,000; Bathurst Island school receives $235,000; Daly River, also a Catholic school, receives $114,000; the Port Keats school receives $238,000; Elcho Island school, which is run by the United Church, receives $271,000; and Lake Evella school receives $45,000. Although those schools are now being totally financed- some would argue that this ought to happen in regard to all non-government schools- their independence is in no way infringed.

Of course, I have long ceased to be surprised. I have approved of a capital grant of $660,000 for a particular school and that school has since received another $240,000. But in between the making of the 2 grants a pamphlet was produced by the headmaster of the school stating how I was supposed to be trying to destroy his school. I just give it away. After all, there was an ecclesiastical instruction, a copy of which was sent to me, urging certain schools to send back the money, which is not consistent with the position of desperate need which I know does exist in many of the schools. Apparently it is quite impossible for this matter to be taken out of the realm of suspicion and controversy. After all the whole question of religious schools has been in a state of suspicion and controversy in Australia since about 1870. This is a tragedy. I do not have the slightest desire to control them. We are trying to maintain the purchasing power of their grants by this legislation in precisely the same way that we are trying to maintain the purchasing power of the State schools grants.

I should like to draw the attention of the House to one thing: A great deal has been said about the former $400 tax concession. I point out that a widowed pensioner would have got back 400 times nothing. At least under legislation that we have introduced, we are trying to grant to every person with an income below $3,500 a year who has children in fifth form or sixth form an amount of $450 next year and $304 this year.

Mr Anthony:

– But what about the taxation rebate?

Mr BEAZLEY:

-I am not talking about tax. What I find much more worthy of respect is a system of rebate on fees because income tax concessions have never assisted the poor. If a person is too poor to pay tax, that person will receive nothing. I cite the case of this celebrated widow which is always being cited and who does exist. There are widowed pensioners who pay $400 in school fees and who get back nothing in the form of a tax concession under any system. The Treasurer (Mr Crean) announced that he proposes to reduce taxation by $259 a year for people in receipt of a taxable income of $6,000 a year. To relate that to the educational concession of $400, 1 point out that a person would have to be paying tax at the rate of 64c in the $ 1 to receive the full education concession, which would mean that that person would be in receipt of a taxable income of $20,000 a year. So the table which the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) had incorporated in Hansard has not taken into account the changes in the tax system. However, I do not want to pursue all these items.

I want to say this for the sake of the honourable member for Bennelong who was proving, what I at any rate would never have disputed, the nature of this Bill: In order to offset recent cost increases and thus maintain the purchasing power of the original financial recommendations of the Interim Committee of the Schools Commission, the Government agreed to supplement both recurrent and capital funds made available to schools through the programs of financial assistance administered by the Commission. This approval necessitates amendment to both the States Grants (Schools) Acts of 1972 and 1973. Even this principle of indexation and adjustment is not new. It is merely applying to the Schools Commission what has always existed in relation to the Universities Commission and the Commission of Advanced Education where, under all governments, to allow for inflation the triennial grants to colleges of advanced education or universities have been adjusted. Now we are adjusting the biennial grants. The States Grants (Schools) Act of 1973 makes recurrent grants available to schools for the biennial biennium 1974 and 1975. There are no recurrent elements remaining in the 1972 legislation, but there are capital elements remaining in it. In point of fact, in the case of non-government schools we have had to increase the capital grants for libraries by nearly $3m to maintain the purchasing power of the building grants for what was left under the old programs of 1972. To arrive at an appropriate order of escalation for funds the likely cost movements in teachers’ salaries, auxiliary staff wages and salaries and other operational expenses were first determined. This was done by taking the known rates as at December 1973 and increasing these by 10 per cent to arrive at the rates likely to prevail at December 1974 and by increasing to actual 1973 rates by a further 10 per cent to the rates then prevailing and likely to prevail at December 1973.

The Interim Committee of the Schools Commission had based the recommendations on 1972 data with a yearly inflation factor of 6 per cent compounding annually. Accordingly, it was necessary to reduce the projected 1974 and 1975 rates to the extent that these already contained such inflationary elements that had been allowed for already by Karmel. The capital aid to schools in Australia flows through programs of financial assistance administered under both the States Grants (Schools) Act of 1973 and the former Government Schools Act of 1972. The 1973 Act makes funds available for 1974 and 1975 while the former appropriates moneys for the whole period from 1972 to 1978. However, under the 1972 Act only those funds made available in the 1974 to 1975 biennium have been supplemented. Under the 1973 Act, as with the recurrent items, only those capital funds to be expended between July 1974 and December 1975 are to be supplemented. I do not argue that this is a new grant. I would concede to the honourable member for Bennelong, and I would never have dreamt of suggesting otherwise, that an attempt is being made, as it will be made by other legislation which will be introduced in regard to universities and colleges of advanced education during this week, to maintain the purchasing power of the original grants. But it is a necessary action. I am glad that apparently the whole House will agree to this legislation. I hope that the legislation will be agreed to in another place. There will be some predicaments for schools if it is not agreed to. The legislation provides that the grants for all categories of schools will go up. At the secondary level in the category of schools in which there is the greatest need, the grant will increase to $264 per capita under the so-called Karmel grants adjusted upward next year. Others will increase by not so much, but the grants for all schools, including category A schools, will be increased. It is disturbing that this charge should be made that the Government wants to destroy non-government schools. To begin with, we get a lot of statements that seem to me to get the whole thing into wrong perspective. For instance, the critics of this legislation talk about it as subsidising religion. The States certify to us that certain schools are schools and that they are efficient and we make grants to them as schools. This is a States Grants (Schools) Bill, not a States Grants (Churches) Bill, a States Grants (Bishops) Bill or any of the things that half the controversy might make one think it is. It is the State certification of these places as schools that is decisive and in all cases the grants are made to schools.

Some comment has been made about whether money has become available or not. The honourable member for Chisholm (Mr Staley) complained to me about money having been approved to a particular non-government school and not being sent. I wish the honourable member would give me the name of the school. I do not expect him to stand in the House and breach the confidentiality of his representations but I cannot chase ‘X’; I would like to know the school about which he is complaining. There are some schools which received offers in April as a result of March recommendations and which have not yet received their money. This has happened because the schools have not yet produced their plans. The building plans and the procedure to go ahead attract the finance. As a result of what the honourable member for Chisholm has said, I am causing all these schools to be checked individually. Payment is made within a week of receipt of plans. If the honourable member for Chisholm has details we will check on the delays immediately but I suspect that that is the point. I still do not blame the schools concerned because they may not have realised what is necessary. I hope to be able to table in the House tomorrow the actual rate at which the money is being spent.

Some people speak as though when a State is not spending very quickly, shall we say, twice its grants for disadvantaged schools, there is a plot against them and the Commonwealth is not releasing funds to them quickly enough. The plotting is very patchy because some have received about 44 per cent of the money that is available to them over the 2 years, which is almost keeping up with the period of time, and some have received 4 per cent. In general, it is the non-government education authorities which appropriate their money and spend it faster than others. I suspect, without being able to prove it, that sometimes the problem lies not with the education departments but with the public works departments. In any event, education departments are pretty fast at spending their recurring funds for disadvantaged schools. They appoint staff, provide equipment and so on but when it comes to building that is another matter. When it comes to actually building there seem to be problems and bottlenecks. I do not want to comment on them but, after all, both sides of the House had joint legislation- the triennial grant of $46m, which was originally $36m but to which we added $ 10m, for technical education over the last 3 years. Of this amount $7m was not spent and this amount therefore goes on top of the Kangan money that will be included in legislation very shortly. Some of the States have encountered problems of expenditure. Personally, we hope that the States will be able to appropriate all the money that is being made available and make it available in the interests of the children.

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 Beazley) read a third time.

page 3675

EXPORT FINANCE AND INSURANCE CORPORATION BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 30 October on motion by Dr J. F. Cairns:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr ANTHONY:
Leader of the Australian Country Party · Richmond

-The Bill before us, the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation BUI, is one that the Opposition supports. The amendments proposed will extend the operations of the Export Payments Insurance Corporation, which was created by the previous Government and slowly built up to become an important adjunct to export performance by both primary and manufacturing industries in Australia. During the period in which I was responsible for this legislation I was able to have amendments accepted to establish credit provisions for exporters. This was of use to those who wanted to export large capital goods outside the country. In this legislation there is a proposal to set up an export finance section of the Corporation, for which the Government will be making funds available. The Bill provides for capital of $50m, of which $5m will be made immediately available. This facility is needed, I believe, to match faculties available in other countries. Canada, Japan, the United States of America and New Zealand have organisations which provide export finance and our exporters run into difficulties when they find that preferred credit is available from these countries because of lower interest rates and there is not the facility in Australia for them to have access to these credit arrangements. Therefore, they tend to lose business or they are not in such a good position to get business.

I believe the BUI has been looked at by the private banking sector and, whilst it has some reservations about it, I think the fact that there are some clauses in the Bill which give a degree of protection against this becoming a general banking function should alleviate any fears it may have. The clause which says that, first of all, exporters must apply to the normal banking institutions for funds before they can appeal to the Finance Corporation is a wise one. It is very similar to the provision that now rests with the Development Bank legislation. Also, it has been made quite clear by the Government- I hope it will stick to the commitment- that the Corporation will not be a bank as such but will be an organisation to provide finance to make package credit arrangements with private banking organisations and the merchant banks so that exporters may have available to them the preferred form of credit when it is necessary to use it.

Certainly, in Australia today every effort has to be made in encouraging our export industries. We are running into a difficult balance of payments position. We see our reserves running down. They have gone down by over $ 1 ,000m in the last 1 8 months. It is the trend, however, that is causing a good deal of anxiety. AH the portents are that our reserves will continue to run down and there does not seem to be anything in sight to stop the process. With capital inflow tending to dry up, with imports running at a very high rate and with our invisibles getting higher, our overseas reserves must tend to become more delicate in the long run. We will have to do whatever we can for the great farming industries and the mining and manufacturing industries which export to try to reverse this situation.

I am pleased to see that the Minister for Overseas Trade (Dr J. F. Cairns) is sitting at the table today. Our pseudo-Treasurer has been overseas trying to solicit funds. He has been busy wooing the Wall Street capitalists to try to get desperately needed funds for the Australian situation. 1 know it must hurt him to have to soil his pocket with some of this filthy capitalist money from places such as America, but I guess any port in a storm is all right. Some people ride hard before a fall. Pride is very important, but for other people. If necessity is the order of the day the Government says: ‘We will get the money wherever we can to try to remain in office’. I think it is quite obvious nowadays, with the present Government, that if we are to keep up the high rate of development in this country and to maintain high living standards- and certainly high employment rates- we will need a degree of overseas funds. Really it does amaze one on this side of the House to see such an ardent socialist going to a country like America, begging for money, carrying his bag around in the hope that somebody will put something in it. We are all very anxious to see just how much will be really available when the times comes. We keep hearing very optimistic statements that hundreds of millions of dollars, billions in fact, are available for investment. We want to see whether these investors really have confidence in this country under a Labor administration to continue investing as they did previously. But that is getting a bit wide of the Bill.

There is a great need for a build-up of our overseas reserves, and exporters must be encouraged. Last year was a pretty bad year for giving encouragement to the export industries. The 3 devaluations, which were quite unnecessary, really bruised the export industries and confidence was substantially dashed. On top of that we had the indiscriminate across the board cut in tariffs. I think all of us would like to see tariffs as low as possible. Some of them no doubt had not been reviewed for a long period of time and for them an across the board tariff cut probably had some economic virtues. But for industries which had been examined only recently, or for great industries such as the motor car industry, or for the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement or the agreements we had with the less developed countries, the consequences were quite devastating. Of course we are now reaping the harvest of those inappropriate government decisions and we must find a way out by encouraging more exports. The sort of legislation that we are considering will have quite a bearing, I think, on encouraging the sale of some manufactured goods overseas. But it is very much in its infancy. To start it off with $5m is just a drop in the ocean, but it is in the right direction. The Opposition approves of this sort of measure for developing export finance arrangements.

The deteriorating balance of payments situation is highlighted very clearly by the September quarter figures for this year in which we see a deficit of $620m. This represents a trade deficit of $145m. It is the first trade deficit recorded in 6 years and represents a rise of $340m in the overall deficit when compared with the June quarter. These are very worrying figures because the trend is getting worse and worse as every quarter goes by. Despite the record prices that we are receiving for some of our exports, the September quarter showed imports coming in at the rate of $2,086m. If this trend continues Australia will lose the advantageous position it has had as a trading nation around the world. Not only do these figures show a disturbing pattern in Australia’s trading position, but also they explain the reason for the high unemployment which we are experiencing at present in industries affected by the indiscriminate tariff cuts which I have mentioned. Of course, the drop in our overseas reserves is one of the prime reasons why we are suffering very severe credit difficulties in this country. We cannot have a drop of $ 1,000m in overseas reserves in a period of 12 months without that having its impact. Virtually it means a drawing off of $ 1,000m from circulation in our community. Whilst the Government tries to bolster the community by Treasury bonds and by creating more liquidity by Government spending, this situation will be offset all the time while our reserves continue to go down. What is necessary and needed urgently in this country today is to encourage people in all the export industries to have confidence in themselves to invest and to expand the rate of production. Until the Government recognises this and until it recognises that the mining industry and the great agricultural industries play an important part, along with the manufacturing industries, we will have continuing economic troubles in this country. I wish the Government’s indication to help by this legislation in setting up a finance section of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation could be reflected also in its attitude to some of the other industries.

I think the Government has shown very little aptitude, indeed a great deal of inexperience, in handling trade negotiations. During the recent visit of the Japanese Prime Minister the Government really did not take advantage of the opportunity to press the Prime Minister of Japan on reciprocal trade arrangements. I think the Japanese gained considerable advantage out of those discussions by obtaining access to Australian uranium- which I would never want to hold back from them- but I would think that we are deserving of special consideration in relation to our beef exports to Japan. We have been one of the big exporters of beef to Japan. We have been providing 90 per cent of their requirements.

It is as obvious as day follows night that as the years go by Japan will be looking to Australia for more and more beef. We have been responding by developing our production and the size of our herds to meet markets such as the Japanese market. But just to have the door closed and then simply to express concern to the Japanese Prime Minister, without getting the slightest indication that Japan is prepared to open the door in the near future or to discuss a rearrangement of its own domestic marketing situation, I think is a pretty harsh way to treat what has been a good partner as far as international negotiations are concerned.

I would have thought that if there had been preliminary discussions at an official level on this whole mutual trade arrangement between Japan and Australia, with special reference to uranium and beef, which were the 2 big questions when the Japanese Prime Minister came here- apart from the motor car industry, and even the problems there are small compared with those of the beef industry of Australia- that a satisfactory solution should have been found. But of course the Government bungled the whole thing. It just did not have any policy relating to uranium and it left it right until the eve of the Japanese Prime Minister’s visit here, desperately working until the early hours of the morning, to try to devise a policy. How can we put ourselves in an advantageous negotiating position if we wait until the eleventh hour to know what stand we will take?

Mr Lusher:

– And the Japanese knew it.

Mr ANTHONY:

– As the honourable member for Hume well knows, we lost the advantage and the Japanese capitalised upon it. While we went round and round in circles trying to come to some firm conclusions, the Japanese continued on their course knowing full well that at the last minute Australia had no option but to give them practically what they wanted. I bring out these points because really our balance of payments should not be in the deteriorating situation that it is. It is quite clear that the Government’s lack of experience and its acquiescence -

Mr Cohen:

– That is a good word for a country lad.

Mr ANTHONY:

-Yes, it is. It is probably a bit too big for a city slicker like the honourable member for Robertson. The Government’s acquiescence to the pressures of the consuming public has undermined the operations of the export industries of this country. The only reason the Government devalued the Australian currency was to try to muffle the wage increases which it was giving to the trade union movement of the country. Of course the Government thought that the export industries could continue to survive even though they were robbed of hundreds of millions of dollars, if not thousands of millions of dollars, by a 25 per cent revaluation against the United States dollar and the Japanese yen. But of course the chickens are starting to come home to roost. The Government has undermined our capacity to earn foreign exchange and to attract overseas interests to invest in this country so that high economic activity can be continued. As a result, unemployment has developed. I only hope that there will be a complete reversal of all the Government’s policies relating to export industries before long if we are to get ourselves out of the quagmire that we have got ourselves into at the moment with abnormally high interest rates, with inflation robbing people of their savings and with unemployment getting considerably worse.

Having said those things, I support this legislation. I hope it is administered as wisely as the former Export Payments Insurance Corporation arrangements were. EPIC was an organisation that had the respect of everybody in business and commerce throughout the country. I give the Minister for Overseas Trade (Dr J. F. Cairns) credit; I do not think he ever criticised the operations of EPIC. He saw it as a very valuable adjunct to overseas trading. I see this new provision of export finance as an equally valuable further step in a Government form of assistance for private enterprise and for export arrangements.

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 Dr J. F. Cairns) read a third time.

page 3677

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendments:

Loans (Australian National Airlines Commission) Bill 1974.

Loans (Qantas Airways Limited) Bill 1974.

Airline Equipment Bill (Loan Guarantee) 1974.

page 3677

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 22 October, on motion by Dr J. F. Cairns:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Dr J F Cairns:
Minister for Overseas Trade · LALOR, VICTORIA · 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 the Bill, I suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill, the Customs Tariff Bill (No. 2), the. Customs Tariff Bill Validation Bill (No. 2) and the Excise Tariff Bill 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, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of the 4 Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

-Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering these measures? There being no objection, I shall allow this procedure to be followed.

Dr EDWARDS:
Berowra

-There are 4 Bills before the House now on which the Minister for Overseas Trade (Dr J. F. Cairns) has suggested a cognate debate. My primary interest is in the Customs Tariff Bill 1974, the broad purpose of which is to pass into true law, so to speak, and thus establish in a consolidated new schedule of tariff rates, all the tariff changes implemented by the present Government since it took office. The Customs Tariff Validation Bill (No. 2) 1974 is a supplementary machinery measure. The other 2 Bills are of a quite different character, being concerned in the main with the Government’s budgetary program. They are the Customs Tariff Bill (No. 2) 1974 and the Excise Tariff Bill 1974. They will implement increases in customs and excise, duties, on imported and locally made goods respectively on potable spirits and manufactured tobacco products.

As I said, the last 2 Bills I have mentioned are concerned with the Government’s budgetary program. They are not my words but those of the Minister for Overseas Trade in his second reading speech on the Customs Tariff Bill (No. 2) 1974. How exquisitely apt they are. The House will note that the Minister did not refer to ‘the’ Budget changes in these duties as would have happened in earlier years, but rather to the changes made in the course of the Government’s budgetary program. The word ‘ program ‘ is right. We have had not one Budget but 3 Budgets. On 23 July, we had Budget Mark I-a fizzer. On 17 September we had Budget Mark II, which set up the massive transfer of resources from a dispensable private sector- that is the Government’s view- to the all favoured Government sector. Last week on 12 November, we had Budget

Mark III. It reassured the country- dare we believe it- that ‘profit’ is not a dirty word and that the private sector is not, after all, dispensable but indeed, on private investment, to use the words of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), ‘our economic growth and our continued prosperity greatly depend’. How often have we on this side of the House enjoined that thought on the Government. Then of course there have been all the huffings and puffings of the Treasurers- the official Treasurer, the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean), the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden), not to mention the Prime Minister himself. Indeed, to use the Minister’s words again, it is all part of the budgetary program. After all the convolutions and somersaults, the 20 per cent plus inflation and the 3 per cent plus unemployment are getting worse and will continue to do so because key elements of a proper overall economic program are still missing.

This brings me to the heart of the matter. The very customs and excise Bills before the House are designed to enact into law higher duties on spirits, cigarettes and other manufactured tobacco products. Higher duties on John Citizen’s drinks and cigarettes at the very time when the major thrust of the Government’s policy, as propounded by the Prime Minister last week, is to seal the social compact with the unions.

Mr Adermann:

– Shame !

Dr EDWARDS:

– Shame, as my colleague the honourable member for Fisher says. The thrust is to persuade the wage and salary earner to reduce wage and salary claims in response to, as the Government proposes, tax cuts to take effect from January. Would not actual falls in the prices of the things the wage and salary earner buys be more persuasive? Yet the Government is passing these laws to legalise increased charges. Could anything underline more clearly the inconsistency and ineptitude of the Government’s policy? I appeal to the Minister and the Government, putting all political points aside: What does $100m extra revenue from these increased excise and customs charges on spirits and tobacco products mean when the Government is contemplating running a Budget deficit of the order of $ 1,300m- and an even higher annual rate of deficit- next year? Does this revenue really matter? Surely what is important is the striking of a direct blow at inflation, by reducing some prices by calling off these higher charges and perhaps making reductions in other areas of indirect taxation, thus sealing the social compact. I appeal to the Government even at this stage to rethink the matter and perhaps withdraw and amend these Bills. This part of the Government’s budgetary program, as the Minister expressed it, is a bit too inconsistent to be acceptable. It really is a bit thick.

I turn to the Customs Tariff Bill, the main purpose of which is to pass into true law, so to speak, as distinct from their temporary validation, the customs tariff decisions of the present Government since its taking office. As well as the tariff changes for particular products or industries these decisions include 2 broad measures affecting a wide range of industries, namely, the July 1973 25 per cent across-the-board tariff cut and the revised and expanded system of tariff preferences for imports from the developing countries. It may be noted in passing that one clause of this BUI, in accordance with more acceptable current usage, provides for the use of the term ‘developing countries’ in preference to ‘underdeveloped countries’.

The 25 per cent across the board tariff cut was a major component of the Government’s economic policy in 1973. It ranked with one, the revaluation of the Australian dollar, second the credit squeeze and record high interest rates implemented on 9 September 1973, unparalleled in the severity of their impact from about April of this year, and third with the big spend up on government account outbidding the private sector for resources, or also with the abolition of the investment allowance and other measures, as a major body blow directed at the private sector of the Australian economy, at the confidence and activity in the private sector.

A new line is being put out by the Government to the effect that not only inflation but also the alarming and accelerating rise in unemployment is a world disease; that they are not the Government’s fault; and that every country is suffering in the same way. That is rubbish. The Government knows it to be untrue and I am confident that the good sense of the Australian people will prevent their buying it. Australia, largely insulated from the effect of the quadrupling of oU prices, and given the Government’s revaluation of the Australian dollar, partially reversed on 25 September, has been largely protected from the main international forces making for inflation. Yet Australia’s inflation was at the rate of 16.4 per cent up to the September quarter last, at an annual rate of 20 per cent plus in the quarter itself, and is expected to be higher on today’s figure for the current quarter. Australia is up in the high inflation league with the resources poor, non-oU producing countries of the world, and it ought not to be there.

As to our high level of unemployment, it has resulted from the credit squeeze, the tight money situation and record high interest rate, as they have impacted on the building industry in particular and the private sector of the economy generally, also from the flood of imports stemming from the 25 per cent across the board tariff cut, plus the very large and unduly prolonged revaluation, and a variety of other measures on which I will not elaborate. These moves, which reflect the anti-business and anti-profit stance of the Government, have brought on a level of unemployment even now in excess of 200,000 persons and unhappily bound to get worse before it gets better. It may be- and this is a matter of the gravest concern- that the trend of world economic events, notably the oil price situation and the slow progress to date of the massive international process of readjustment to that situation, is towards a world recession which could be more severe than we have known since the great depression. This may impact on us at about the middle of next year. Let us hope that the world has the good economic sense to find its way around that situation. But in the meantime unemployment in this country, as also inflation for the major part, is home grown. It is the result of the disarray on economic matters and the plain bad economic management of this Government.

As to the tariff cut before the House I quote from my speech on the Industries Assistance Commission Bill on 18 October 1973. 1 stressed that this is not the son of treatment that this side of the House would wish to mete out to industry, and I said this:

I only give this warning: As the world boom reaches its peak- it may have already done so- there will be a flood of imports and a setback to industry in this country of very significant proportions and that will be a major contributing factor to the stagflation . . .. which will in due time inevitably be the outcome of the policies of this Government. Meanwhile the damaging effect of this measure will be on business confidence and the long term forward planning by industry on which the thrust of continued sound economicgrowth depends and on which many of the proposed policy objectives of the Government depend.

Now, belatedly, a major objective of the Government’s measures of 12 November is ‘to restore business confidence’. That is the expression used by the Prime Minister. ‘Restore’ is the appropriate word, after the Government has done so much to undermine business confidence. The Government I fear will find that this same confidence- this intangible but vital factor in the sound functioning and development of the economy- once it is struck down by the succession of body blows administered by this Government is, unhappily, not so easily restored.

I suspect that in reply the Minister for Overseas Trade will accuse me of exaggerating the effect of the across-the-board tariff cut-there was also the revaluation of the Australian dollar, now partially reversed, and in some respects it had an even greater impact. I will readily concede that the tariff cut was one body blow, and the revaluation was another body blow to many industries. In stages the exchange rate for the United States dollar went from about US$1.16 for $A1 to US$ 1.49 for $A1. A product imported from the United States valued at US$100 would have gone from a landed price of $A86 to $A67. Assuming an applicable tariff of 25 per cent, $2 1 would have been added to the $86, the original landed price, giving $ 1 07. At the new lower price of $67, $17 would be added giving a landed price of $84. After the revaluation and still with the tariff, we would thus end up with a landed duty paid price less than the original landed price of the product without duty. So, in short, the effect of the revaluation would have reduced the protection in effect to minus 2-plus percentage points.

This is the rub. Albeit the Government has partially restored the exchange situation by the 12 per cent devaluation- it is wrong to see this as restoring the tariff cut, as some of the Press persists in seeing it, it was restoring, partially, the revaluation- the adverse effect persists and in some cases is permanent. Firms so affected should, it seems to me, qualify for structural adjustment assistance in the same way as firms affected specifically by the 25 per cent tariff cut. Yet, as I understand it, adjustment assistance to such firms is being refused. That is a specific matter which the Minister, if I can attract his attention for the moment, might look into. Meanwhile the general problem is the impact of prolonged changes in the value of currency on the protection afforded national industry. If after prolonged inquiry it is decided that protection of X per cent should be afforded an industry and then this is nullified in whole or in part by an upvaluation of the currency, where does the industry stand? I say this to the Minister: In some form or other it may become necessary to ‘index* the tariff schedule for currency changes, to use that ‘in’ word. That is a large issue and I do not press the matter further at this stage.

I refer next to the extended system of tariff preferences for developing countries whereby as from 1 January this year imports from developing countries receive a tariff preference in the form of a reduction of 10 percentage points from the rate applicable to imports generally. I take this opportunity to stress that the original system of such preferences- generalised non-reciprocal tariff preferences to developing countries- was instituted by the Liberal-Country Party Government in 1964 and approved by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in 1965. In doing so the former Government was ahead of international initiatives in that area and alone among advanced or developed countries. So this is an initiative which derived from this side of the House and which, therefore, broadly we strongly support.

Nevertheless there can be difficulties. While agreeing that indigenous industries in particular in developing countries should be given encouragement to increase their exports in this way, care needs to be taken in looking at the impact on Australian industry. As I have said on a previous occasion, there is a very real possibility that this preference to developing countries will be used by developed countries to avoid the incidence of tariff duties through subsidiaries established in developing countries to take advantage of the preferences so accorded. For instance, major Japanese competitors could operate from Hong Kong, Singapore or Indonesia and United States companies from Latin America and the Philippines. So it is important that this aspect of a general policy with which this side of the House is in sympathy be kept under review.

Some of the difficulties which can arise are illustrated by the Tariff Board report on the printing industry, action on which is being taken in this legislation. The system of preferences to which I have referred was instituted on 1 January and, as I recall it, the Government’s decision in relation to the printing industry was announced on 4 January. That was in accordance with an investigation, in this case by the Tariff Board, the predecessor of the Industries Assistance Commission, which took place over a period of upwards of 4 years preceding the lodging of the Tariff Board report in question. After all that time and all that deliberation the Tariff Board recommended and the Government accepted in certain key areas a tariff of 35 per cent. When the Government looked at this report the question of the preference to developing countries came up and despite the fact that the origins of competition in certain key areas, are specifically referred to in the report as being countries which would be classed as developing countries, the duty recommended by the Board was reduced by the 10 percentage points in question from 35 per cent to 25 per cent. I instance this as a way in which the policy, which broadly has the support of this House and which this side of the House initiated ahead of international initiatives in the area and alone among advanced countries, needs to be implemented carefully in view of the effect on Australian industry. I think it is correct though to say that subsequently this matter was looked at and the rate changed back to 35 per cent after departmental investigation.

Speaking in general terms, much is made of the importance for their development of expanding the trade of developing countries. ‘Trade not aid’ was once quite a slogan. Of course the main thrust of that was not marginal expansion of the developing countries’ manufactured exports, which have been expanding rapidly anyway, but the attainment of higher stabilised prices for developing countries’ commodity exports. The gains from higher oil prices is the outstanding example- though the resource poor among the developing countries are made worse off than ever, and the importance of aid, especially food aid, is thereby underlined. It must be said that at the recent Rome food conference the Government, on the face of it, put up a good show but the follow up to that is that the time will come when it has to deliver the goods. Then the Government’s anti-rural policies- the abolition of investment allowances and of tax incentives to develop new land, and the proposed abolition of the superphosphate bounty-will tell. The sorry facts of the aid record of the Government are that it has discouraged rural production in a hungry world and it can muster only 0.6 per cent of the gross national product for aid, and that includes the specific obligation we have to Papua New Guinea.

I turn in the remainder of the time left to me to the Government’s tariff policy, if there is such a thing. To my knowledge there is nowhere any clear statement of it What we do have is a clear commitment by the Prime Minister to tariff ‘reform’ in some sense. As he himself put it, he is ‘a strong Rattigan man’.

Mr Corbett:

– He was.

Dr EDWARDS:

– He was. We will have to see what the change amounts to. If we ask what this means, on the evidence of a large number of the Tariff Board and Industries Assistance Commission reports listed as the basis of the actions we are passing into law under this legislation, especially those dealing with the more substantial areas- for example, the consumer electronic equipment report and the domestic appliances report, not to mention the motor vehicles report which is not the subject of the present Bill- the policy amounts to this: That as quickly as possible the rate of protection for as many industries as possible should be brought to the one level, namely, 25 per cent or thereabouts. It is an approach clearly associated with the so-called ‘points of reference’ of the former Tariff Board, and the so-called low point, a rate of 25 per cent, is to be the target going rate for as many industries as possible. The policy, as a practical industrialist might sum it up- though this is a bit oversimplified but much to the point- is that ‘what industry cannot survive at 25 per cent is dispensable’. It is not difficult to see that the brunt of the thinking behind this policy- as quickly as possible to reduce as many tariff rates as possible to the uniform low rate- is the pursuit of, and I quote from the Board’s annual report, ‘efficiency in the use of resources’. This is economic efficiency rigidly and narrowly conceived- witness chapter 5 of that report together with the minimum regard to the significance of external effects and decentralisation referred to in Appendix 5.1 and Appendix 5.4 respectively. The Opposition would wish to see these things weighted differently.

Thus, in referring to ‘external effects’, I mean for example the importance of an industry for Australian research and development and Australian technological know-how. Speaking to the Customs Validation Bill on 9 April last I stressed that in this technological age the importance of a viable electronics industry to the future of Australia was strongly supported by the Opposition Parties. I raised the question- and the Opposition would have few doubts as to the answerthat the viability of the electronics industry, including its capacity to maintain a nationally independent program of research and development, was dependent on an integrated operation combining a thriving consumer product division with production for the so-called professional market. So, in looking to a balanced and sound industrial base, the electronics industry is an industry which should have a key place in the Australian industrial structure. But this is just the sort of industry, especially at the consumer end, which is most vulnerable to overseas competition, and vulnerable in a way in which industries such as the brick, beer and bottle industries, viewed by the Commission in its latest report as good candidates for absorbing resources, are not. Those industries do not need to supplicate, to seek or to cry out for adequate protection. What has to be considered however is what is important for Australia’s long term future.

This is neither the time nor the occasion to pursue these matters in depth. But, in my view, this narrow economic approach apparently espoused by the Industries Assistance Commission is not a valid nor in the long run a feasible substitute for a national industrial policy directed towards the broadly based national growth, the geographical spread of industrial activity and the development and possession in Australia, in reasonable degree, of the technology and know-how of modern industry- in short those objectives long espoused for a variety of non-economic as much as economic reasons in this country and supporting the traditional Australian purpose of fostering a diversified broadly based dynamic manufacturing sector.

I would like, if there were time, to put all that into strictly economic terms. But I conclude by saying that all this is not to suggest that changes in tariffs and some restructuring of industry should not be made. Let me stress, as I have done in the past, that the previous Government did not rest content with the level of tariffs. It was the previous Government, to make only this one point, that instituted the systematic review of the tariff and enlarged the resources of the Tariff Board to do so. What it does mean is that what changes would result in an improvement in the use of the nation’s resources in accordance with our national objectives is a complex issue not to be determined by reference to a theoretical uniform standard. In particular, Australians are committed- and the Government should remember this- to a big Australia, a diversified Australia, with a broadly based dynamic manufacturing sector.

As categorically as I can, I aver that the Liberal and Country Parties in this Parliament are unequivocally so committed. The alternative, to which, I suspect, the IAC would direct us, is an Australia with perhaps a somewhat higher income per head but less industrialised, more heavily dependent on its rural and mining export industries, and on imports for much of its manufactures. I repeat that this is not the sort of Australia that Australians have traditionally opted for and not what the majority of Australians want today. This issue- and the issue of a national industrial policy which is bound up with it- is a key one for Australia’s development. The Government, as I have said previously, has in this matter put the cart before the horse. It has proceeded to knock down Australian industry without any clear view as to what will take its place. We have witnessed the Exodus before the Genesis- that is, widespread and increasing unemployment with no clear view of where the unemployed are to go. Belatedly the Government has appointed the Jackson Committee and hopefully it will indicate a clearer course. And perhaps the decisions on the motor car industry and the textile industry announced last Tuesday night presage a more reasonable approach and a stay of proceedings until the Jackson Committee reports. It is greatly to be hoped that that is the case.

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

Mr ADERMANN:
Fisher

-These Bills tell a strange story. We see in them a number of changes of direction and a number of changes of emphasis. We even see reverses. When they are taken in conjunction with the Budgets- and I use the plural- we do see a very strange story.

Dr Edwards:

– At least 3 Budgets.

Mr ADERMANN:

-The honourable member for Berowra says: ‘At least three’. Perhaps he has forgotten the fourth Budget. There was the Budget that never was. It started off as a tiger but something happened to it before it came into this chamber.

The good thing about all this is that the most recent Budget at last recognises that profit hath virtue and that the private sector does provide significant employment. One of the dangers, particularly in an economic climate such as we have today, is that an alteration in excise duty, because excise duty rises, must be inflationary. Demand cannot be stimulated by increasing prices, and you raise prices by increasing excise. Prices are not reduced by increasing excise; they are raised. So we have seen by this exercise not an onslaught on inflation but a slide from one form of inflation into another. We have gone from demand inflation to stagflation to cost push inflation This very evening, the evening newspapers tell a horrifying story. The Sydney ‘Sun’ has the headline ‘Up 25 Per Cent-Inflation Blow’. The Sydney ‘Daily Mirror’ states: ‘New Inflation Blow- 30 per cent! ‘ No doubt the Government would prefer the Sydney ‘Sun’ to the Sydney ‘Daily Mirror’. But the situation is an alarming one.

I do not want to speak at any great length because some of what I would say on these Bills is related to customs matters and I will have the opportunity later, in considering a Bill which will be debated this evening, to deal with those matters. Although a cognate debate is being held on these Bills, they deal with a number of different matters. If plenty of time was available to the House, perhaps it would have been better to talk about those matters which arise from the recommendations of Industry Assistance Commission and Tariff Board Reports separate from matters relating to excise and customs tariffs. But we will not take issue on that point. We do not want to do that. Perhaps I will have a little more time in the subsequent debate to talk about them.

Let me deal with the 25 per cent across the board tariff cut. I am pleased that the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Mr Enderby) is in the House this evening because I wish to raise one problem in respect of which, Mr Minister, I honestly cannot obtain an answer. I hope that that answer can be provided. The 25 per cent tariff cut was one of the most industry-destroying and confidence-destroying measures that ever came into this House. It probably gave rise to such things as the NEAT and RED schemes and structural assistance. We do not knock these, but I am afraid that they savour of a bandaid being applied to something of a mortal wound.

It was this 25 per cent tariff cut which made an attack on particular industries. One industry in my electorate was a clothing factory of 25 years’ standing which employed up to 70 people. I battled hard to save it. The Minister for Manufacturing Industry said: ‘Well, anybody affected under this 25 per cent tariff cut decision is entitled to structural assistance ‘. We had a look at it. Where the scheme fell down a little bit was that the person who established that industry did not want to auction his plant. He did not want to sell. He thought that perhaps there might be happier days in the future and that something he had given his life to build and which was employing people might be able to operate again, so he did not want to auction his plant. Anyway, what was the good of doing that? Who in that depressed industry would want to buy it? So he asked me what he could do and I have passed on to the Department of Manufacturing Industry a query about the structural assistance that is offered to industries affected by tariff schemes. I have asked: When a man desires to start again and feels that by doing so he will provide employment and productivity that he provided previously, what happens to the plant and the vehicles that he has on lease?

This is a problem and I hope that the Department is looking at it. A lot of machinery is on lease and a lot of the vehicles are on lease. The lessees do not want to sell them. They are not saleable. They may not in the future be able to operate them again, but they have lease payments to meet. Where do they stand? Is there any room in the structural assistance scheme for these people to meet the lease payments? If not, it is deficient. I hope the Minister can give me an answer because I have not been able to get one.

I endorse what was said by the honourable member for Berowra. I refer again to some very wise words that he spoke in this House on 9 April 1974 on the Customs Tariff Validation Bill. These words were prophetic, were they not? He said:

What I think is essential to Australian secondary industry is a clear understanding of the Government’s policies in respect of tariffs. One fears that the tariff pressure and the uncertainty to which I have referred are pan and parcel of the veritable onslaught by this Government on secondary industry.

That has been the problem. One Budget destroys confidence and another one stimulates it a bit and another destroys it again. We have a remarkable see-saw and I acknowledge that is so. But business confidence needs restoring. I appeal to the Government to take not just part of what the Opposition has been saying in an isolated fashion. These ad hoc decisions- this up and down business- have not led us anywhere except to such headlines as we see in this evening’s newspapers. Business confidence does need restoring. It has been hit by excise payments, revaluation and now at least the Government has listened to my friend from Berowra and has devalued, although it was a little late.

Business confidence needs restoring because business has faced a wages and prices explosion and a credit squeeze. It took the Government a long time to admit that there was such a squeeze. Business lost liquidity and that causes a failure in business confidence. Interest rates have soared. Business is fairly resilient; there is no doubt about it. But I appeal to the Government to be sincere about this matter because it will be effective in reducing unemployment and in making inroads into inflation. It is the story of productivity. That surely is the key to this whole issue. Therefore, we must look to the restoration of business confidence. I close my remarks with the appeal that was made by the honourable member for Berowra. Surely we can make that appeal again. This is what business is saying: “Time is catching up on this Government and it is time for a clear statement of its tariff objectives and for a removal of the uncertainties under which industry has to operate ‘.

The Opposition will not oppose or obstruct these Bills. It is most necessary that they be introduced and implemented immediately. Their validation takes place some considerable time later. Of course nobody should try to defeat Bills which have operated for a long time because there would be chaos if they were defeated. Therefore, we are not opposing or obstructing the Bills. Much of what I proposed to say the honourable member for Berowra has said. We have put these points to the Government. I hope that the Minister for Manufacturing Industry can help me with the inquiry I raised because I should like to send the answer back to my electorate tomorrow.

Mr GILES:
Angas

-I wish to refer in particular, amongst these Bills which are being considered cognately, to Customs Tariff Bill (No. 2) 1974 and Excise Tariff Bill 1974. It seems to me that those are the Bills concerned with the excise rates on the brandy industry. It was drawn to my attention a few minutes ago that in a speech made the week before last to a farmers group the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) said:

I am happy to let the facts speak for themselves.

This is to a rural audience. He continued:

I hope you will be happy to listen to them. I put it to you that no government has done more for farmers than my -

And he went on in that vein. I wish to deal today with at least one area- I believe there are others- where the primary producers are far from happy with the performance of this Government.

I refer first of all to a letter I had from a friend of mine who has invoices showing the increasing costs of brandy in a 13-month period. For reasons that are best known to him- he probably runs a hotel or an eating house- he buys his brandy in 5-gallon lots. The figures he gives are as follows: On 26 June 1973- that was immediately prior to the 1973 Budget-for his 5-gallon pack he paid $49.40. On 1 May 1974-tnat is after the 1973 Budget-he paid $85.45 and on 1 November 1974-after the 1974 Budget and after the mini-Budget- he paid $125 for similar lots. The price rose from $49.40 to $ 1 25 for his 5- gallon pack of the same brand of brandy. I must be quite honest and say that I cannot find precisely the same proportion of increases in the charges per bottle of brandy over the same period, but he has the invoices for these particular increases.

Let us couple those figures with the grower returns. Under South Australian legislation to set up its Prices Commission it is provided that an average figure for the growers to receive for the varieties of grapes used in brandy production is $70 a ton. At the same time the Federal Government with the excise on the brandy produced from one ton of grapes takes approximately $1,200. Let us hark back to the Prime Minister’s statement. A lot of grower groups in my electorate and in other places as well are livid with rage at this wide disparity between the $70 the growers receive and the $1,200 that the Government is currently taking. I have made that point before in this House and I make it again because I find that wherever I go even amongst some of my friends they do not realise that this is the situation. They do not realise the fury of that section of primary producers which is languishing due to a variety of actions.

It might be proper to inquire into why they are languishing. Firstly, they applied for tariff protection some time ago against the increasing percentage of imported ‘brandy’ coming into Australia. A Tariff Board report was brought down on this matter. I do not wish to grind this point unduly but I think that without any question it would have been the worst Tariff Board report that was ever brought down. The growers found that the whole of the Board’s remarks were really based on the supposed fact that there was a surplus of brandy production over requirements in Australia. It is a mystery why sales or apparent local market, plus export, figures for any given year were matched in this Tariff Board report against production for the same year. It seems quite easy to establish that in a growing population and in a growing market situation there was just no relevance between matching with that figure as against the other figure.

Section 1, sub-section (ii) on page 5 of the report refers to the fact that brandy is held in bond for a minimum of 2 years from the date of production before it can be sold. That, to my mind at any rate, is a tacit assumption that in a moving situation one cannot look at the year of production and prophesy into the future that there is an over-supply situation in the brandy industry. Of course, in fact that is precisely what finally transpired. It was only a few months ago that I read in a newspaper that an amount of dried grapes, I presume of inferior quality, had been released for spirit production. If ever there was certain proof that the Tariff Board report was totally wrong, it was the need to do that. I suppose one could take into consideration the unfortunate fire at the biggest distillery in Australia, Berri Co-operative Winery and Distillery, and say that that could have meant a shortfall in brandy production, but even that is not the whole truth because a lot of that brandy was scheduled over a period of years for sale into the market place. So I just draw attention- I hope properly and politely- to that particular Tariff Board report on the brandy industry and to the fact that when that industry applied for some protection against the inroads being made at that time the Board was, I think, open to a lot of question as regards its accuracy of reporting. I say that quite politely.

The current situation, therefore, is that there is a shortage of brandy within the industry. There is a shortage of spirit for the making of fortified wines. We now have the position where the Prime Minister, when opening the Kaiser-Stuhl Wines extensions about 6 months ago in my electorate, advised all grape growers to get out of the field of dual variety grapes and into growing the types of grapes that would make dry whites and dry reds. I presume that he is entitled to his opinion, but this argument totally ignores the traditional role of dual variety grapes in irrigation areas. Apart from the fact that they yield better and pay better for those who grow them, which is an attractive thought to those who plant grapes for this purpose, traditionally over many years the dried fruit industry has been founded very largely on varieties such as gordos and sultanas. In my electorate the dried fruit industry is languishing, and the Industries Assistance Commission is in a proper old tangle at present, I believe, because it cannot indeed find one farm in South Australia in my electorate which consistently grows only grapes for dried fruit purposes. So we have this fruit salad situation and the flux situation in which, depending on seasonable demand for which is, so is dictated the direction in which those dual varieties go. With more modern technology a lot of these dual variety grapes have a proper and, I think, a permanent role in the wine industry. It is quite improper for people to denigrate, for instance, the new fruity gordo being produced at the Berri winery. I hear within the wine industry that this could well make a name for that particular area, because it is such a fine product of its type by any world standards. So there is one new outlet for dual variety grapes, in the particular variety of gordos

The Tariff Board deals with dual variety grapes on page 1 1 of its report. The implication in the report appears to be that all such grapes produced above that amount required for wine are made into brandy. There is no evidence that this is so, and I say that for the sorts of reasons that I have just described. The report also says that there is a standing need for grapes for this purpose. On the other hand, it was very interesting to read recently that an amount of dried fruit grapes was allowed for the production of spirits, as I have already mentioned. So, on the evidence of the figures that I have already read to the House on retail costs and on the evidence of the amount of return the grower gets for his commodity as against the 94 per cent, which I think is the greater amount the Government takes off for the same tonnage of grapes, the problem quite clearly is that at present the industry is being squeezed out of existence.

The House has heard me speak before about the brandy industry and particularly those private companies which are involved in the production of brandy. I have mentioned them by name on many occasions. The one that is most seriously hit would be St Agnes Wines Pty Ltd of Renmark. This is a case of a private company still trying to find more than Sim over a phasing-in period of years to pay off a matter that properly should not conform to this particular debate, namely the effect on its stocks as held of the Government’s revaluation action. Let us have a look at this situation. It is this type of action that hits the brandy industry more than any other side of the industry because the maturation period is longer. The average maturation period is just on 3 years. But for a quality brandy product the maturation period is infinitely longer. So these private companies have to find their amounts of $lm or whatever it may be in times like this for that purpose.

As well as that, oyer this period of 13 months, as I described in quoting the retail prices, the Government’s rake-off through excise has gone up by 178 per cent. So these private companies have to find that amount. As well as that there is the equalisation of the brandy excise as against those of its Australian built competitors. I can understand, I suppose, why people could think that that is a good idea. But it is well estabished that the rum industry, as a by-product of the sugar industry, is of no particular or real importance to the sugar industry. The vodka industry or the whisky industry is of no real importance to the grain producers of Australia. One could go even further and say that the beer industry of Australia is of no real importance to the entire grain growing industry.

Mr Wentworth:

– Do not go too far.

Mr GILES:

– The honourable member suggests that I have gone too far. But even if we get off grains and concentrate on barley, the implication in the average year of the beer industry to the barley industry is not very great, and it is becoming less as more and more of a demand occurs for grain as a foodstuff, as a stock feed, rather than for other reasons. But that last point, I suppose, is not as valid as the first one. The point is that this Government and, I believe, the Tariff Board in its report, were grossly culpable in failing to realise that the outlet for people growing grapes in these areas is not the grape consumption market in Australia; it is entirely the market for wine and brandy. It was for that very logical reason that in many years gone past this advantage was given to the brandy industryalbeit a marginal, one- over and above that onus of excise applied to other Australian spirits.

Let me follow this up. I accept now that the Minister for Overseas Trade (Dr J. F. Cairns), who is at the table, does not follow the impeccable logic that I have tried to put to the House. If he does not, that is fair enough. But even then the brandy industry has been hopelessly disadvantaged. I would remind the House of the remarks I was able to make during the consideration of the Estimates a little while ago. I mentioned that the industry itself had written to the Government asking that 2 points be considered prior to the introduction of the last Budget. I wish to refer .to only one of them at this stage. The first point is this:

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

Imported Brandy Customs Tariff Item 22.09.120-S6.19 per litre alcohol.

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

Difference in favour of Australian produced Brandy- $0. 1 9 per litre alcohol.

This position was arrived at on what was supposed to be a level argument. When making this comparison of the differential applying in relation to brandy, the attention of the Government should be drawn to the difference in the rate of customs duty and excise duty applying in the case of imported whisky and Australian produced whisky. The difference in the duties works out to 66c per litre alcohol in favour of Australian produced whisky. The industry has not been slow to pick up in the re-juggling of the excise figures the fact that the Government not only has removed what I think was a proper advantage for the people in the brandy industry who produce the raw material and who have no other outlet for it but also, having supposedly equalised the position, the Government gives Australian brandy an advantage of only 19c per litre alcohol over its imported competitor. I repeat that in the current situation the Australian whisky industry has been given a 66c competitive advantage over its imported counterpart. So no matter which way we look at the position, the juggling of the figures to produce what the Government thought would be equal treatment for the brandy industry in Australia has resulted in its receiving unequal treatment.

I say again that the Government must do more than say that it will look at the position. Senator

Wriedt says: ‘We must have a look at this total taxation on the industry. It is obviously not good enough ‘. I think that he stated that 7 months ago. The industry has played very fair with the Treasurer (Mr Crean). It has gone about making its submissions on this matter very quietly and in a low key way. I have gone very quietly about the job of trying to make the Government see some sense in this matter. But the time has been reached at which the industry is heartily fed up. Those engaged in the industry do not know whom to see any more. Nobody will listen. People nod their heads wisely and nothing happens. Recently, the Government took action to try to cut down company tax and personal tax in an effort to inject some funds into the private sector. It did this so that there could be some room and encouragement for investment. But this has not happened in this industry and this is one of many industries in which it is not happening. The industry now needs real help. In a year or two it will probably be far too late for many private companies that have been hopelessly disadvantaged while, one cannot help but say, these decisions have been forced on them in a situation which encouraged growth and the quality production of their brandy. That situation now no longer applies. I think that it is beyond belief that one industry should be so discriminated against.

I remind the House that I speak for the industry. I suppose that 99 per cent of the brandy produced in Australia is produced in my electorate. You will forgive, me, Mr Deputy Speaker, if I rather tend to grind the point because of that. But not only do the actions of the Government discriminate against my electorate. It is very easy also to ponder whether they do not discriminate against the entire State of South Australia. Although the honourable member for Wimmera (Mr King) reminds me of a small case where I am wrong, 1 believe that 99 per cent of the brandy produced in Australia is produced in South Australia. In addition to that, I state that with the effect this legislation in regard to the excise on brandy is having, it goes without saying that the Government is penalising the total Australian brandy industry for the very reasons that I have put forward. If the Government penalises that industry, it does not penalise just the people who work in the factory as is the case in the breweries. Its actions go right back to the people who grow the grapes and who, according to the figures that I have produced for the House today, are being disadvantaged.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– The whole of the Government’s economic policy is now in tatters and not least its tariff policy. The tariff policy is tremendously important. I believe that the Government’s action on tariffs, which is before us now, has been one of the main causes of the catastrophic unemployment which we are now suffering and which now comes over us in even greater waves.

Last week the Prime Minister (Mr Whilam) speaking in relation to textiles and the motor industry, indicated some retreat. But it was a retreat too late and not a retreat which will help the people who are unemployed by reason of the Government’s muddling.

I ask the question: What has happened? I take the words of the Prime Minister which he uttered on 23 September last- only a few weeks ago- as evidence of what has happened. He said:

I am a strong Rattigan man. I believe that Rattigan is the most rationalising force in the use of the nation’s resources that any of us have known.

He castigated the nervous Nellies, the people who would be unemployed as a result of the application of the Rattigan policies. This was what the Prime Minister said and this is the nerve of the tariff slash- this unwise tariff slash- which is evidenced in the Bills before the House. There are some people- I am not one of them; but I know there are many- who believe that we should reduce tariffs and should rationalise industry, even at the cost of some unemployment and some further dependence upon imports. That may be so and I am not going to take argument now on that main point. But what is abundantly clear is that such tariff slashing can be successful carried out, if at all, only in a bouyant economy in which there is alternative employment for people who are displaced by the squeezing out under the Rattigan principle of what are described as inefficient industries.

The Government’s great mistake has been that it tried to combine tariff slashing with a credit squeeze. This cannot be done unless the degree of unemployment that we see in Australia today is countenanced. Whilst this tariff slashing at times when the economy is buoyant is not something that I would have done- I know that many people would advocate this- the Government has tried to slash tariffs at a time when it was also applying a credit squeeze. People were left unemployed. The nervous Nellies- the people whom the Prime Minister covered with ridicule, these unfortunate unemployed- had nowhere to go. They had no other employment. Their industries closed down because of a rising flood of imports and there was no alternative employment available for them. This was the great mistake of the Government. I repeat that it tried to slash tariffs at a time when it was also squeezing credit. As a consequence unemployment emerged in a way which the Government had not anticipated.

Certainly, it had anticipated a small amount of unemployment. This was pan of its policy, although it denied this during the Federal election campaign in May. But it was part of the Government’s policy to have a small amount of unemployment. However, I do not accuse the Prime Minister of deliberately contemplating the wave of unemployment which his policies have caused.

What do we have now? We have stop-go in excelsis on the tariff front as well as on every other economic front. I can remember how a few years ago the then Opposition castigated us as the Government for what was called stop-go and was only a moderate acceleration or braking of the economy. But today, stop-go in the strictest sense is a grim reality for the Australian people. What does this add up to? It adds up to a greater inefficiency than any that the Government set out to cure. At least the people who were in the textile, shoe and motor industries were producing something, even if they were producing it without the full efficiency the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) wants to require of them. They were producing and adding to the national wealth. But if they are sitting down doing nothing- if the lathes and the looms are idle- is that not a far greater inefficiency? The inefficiency of unemployment is a degree worse than any inefficiency the Prime Minister wanted to deplore when he called himself a Rattigan man. Furthermore, we have created for business a climate of uncertainty. Nobody knows what the Government is going to do or fail to do next. This climate of uncertainty adds to the recession; it adds to all our economic disabilities.

We have used up our overseas reserves. I do not refer only to the comparatively small matter of a fall of $ 1,000m or so in our overseas reserves; what I refer to is far more important, and that is the fact that the continuing credit balance on current account which we left when we went out of office in 1972 has been dissipated and Australia is now, on current account, going into the international red. That stands to the discredit of this Government. The use of our reservesthe use of the favourable position which we in the Liberal and Country Parties had built up and left to the Government in 1972- is now not available. The Government has destroyed that favourable position.

Dr Edwards:

– Dissipated it.

Mi WENTWORTH- Yes, dissipated it entirely. I do not accuse the Prime Minister of evil motives although I think he can perhaps be reprimanded for saying things in the May election campaign which he knew to be untrue. But we pass that over. It is muddle and incompetence rather than evil motivation that one charges against the Prime Minister, because the Prime Minister is personally responsible for this policy. It is in black and white in the speech that he made on 23 September. It is there verbatim. It is his personal responsibility. It was he who mocked at the nervous Nellies- they now seem to have been the prudent people. It is now seen that the Nellies really had something to be nervous about because many of them are now walking about without a job and without the prospect of a job for many months. This is what this Government has done to them.

No, I do not accuse the Prime Minister in this matter of having done it deliberately. I think he meant to have a small amount of unemployment. He did not realise it was going to get out of hand in the way it has done. But I think it a little ungenerous of him to deny what he had done. When this was brought to him in the House at question time he said: ‘I did not say these things’. That was- I do not say it was a he, I say it was untrue. The Prime Minister had forgotten because -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! I think the honourable member for Mackellar would appreciate the fact that in this House it is also unparliamentary to say *I do not say it was a he’. I suggest that the honourable member does not proceed with that line of comment.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Very well Sir, I will not, but what I will say is that the Prime Minister denied in this House something which was true and proveable. His words are on tape. I have deposited a copy of that tape in the Parliamentary Library. It is there and everybody can hear that what the Prime Minister said in this House, when he denied that he had uttered these words, was, in point of fact, untrue. I have described this as a Freudian lapse of memory. He does not want to face the reality of what he has done. The Prime Minister does not want to contemplate the misery of the unemployment which his Government has caused and his mind retreats from it. This is a normal psychological mechanism. His mind retreats from the reality and he forgets his own part in it as the prime mover. But I do not accuse the Prime Minister of having caused this unemployment deliberately.

I am not so sure about the Minister for Overseas Trade (Dr J. F. Cairns). I say this because I have looked at the things he said before he was a Minister and the things he did while he was still on the back bench of this House. If he was sincere then, and I would say that he was sincere, the Minister for Overseas Trade is now out to destroy the Australian way of life. He is a destroyera hidden destroyer perhaps- but if we are to take at face value the things he said before he was a Minister, that man, if he was sincere when he became a Minister, would, under cover, without letting it be known what he was doing, have gone out to destroy the Australian economy and create the unemployment which would bring the revolutionary situation which he himself says he desired or said he desired- because those are his own words. He is a revolutionary. He believes in smash and if he can deceive people into thinking that here is a moderate man who sympathises with and understands the businessman’s problems- he is an able man who does understand- I wonder what are his motives. I look at what he said before he was a Minister and I pay him the compliment of believing that when he said these things before he was a Minister he was sincere and meant what he said.

So I am not certain about the Minister for Overseas Trade. It may be that while he has been pretending all the time to be in favour of higher employment and cutting back the recession and things like that, under cover he has been deliberately nudging unemployment on because unemployment would fit into the pattern of the kind of things he wanted and said he wanted before he became a Minister. So I am not certain about him. I know he is an able man. I know he is a very plausible one. I know that many businessmenI think more fools they- take him at his face value. He can go to them. He can say to a big firm: ‘Look, by my contacts I can get you contracts and opportunities which are worth a million dollars to you’. And what he says is true. He can give them a contract or a contact which is worth a million dollars. They say to themselves: ‘What does it matter? We are practical businessmen. All we think about is that million dollars’. But I wonder whether the Minister for Overseas Trade while he is doing this has still got his mind fixed on the same kind of objective which he had and declared before he became a Minister, because if he was sincere then he must be false now, and if that is so he is sucking in the businessmen not only to their peril but to the peril of the whole of Australia. I can remember, and I quote again, the words of Lenin. These would be very well known to the Minister. ‘When the time comes to deal with the capitalists they will be competing between themselves to sell us the rope with which to hang them.’ I wonder whether these thoughts run through the mind of the Minister for Overseas Trade when he makes contact with businessmen and persuades them that, if they will only play along with him, he can give them something which will be to their advantage. They will be able to sell him the rope, he is buying the rope and he is offering them advantageous terms for that bit of rope.

It is incontrovertible that there is unemployment, and a coming wave of unemployment. None of us wants this. I do not believe that the Prime Minister did it deliberately. I do not believe that most members of the Government did it deliberately. To my mind it is the result of muddle and miscalculation, not malevolence. But I sometimes wonder whether, in that inner Cabinet, there may not be a voice which says it wants to end unemployment but really is out to create chaos for the Australian economy and the Australian people.

Mr KELLY:
Wakefield

-Mr Deputy Speaker, you will recall, no doubt, how many times I have stood in this House to make a plea for a more enlightened look at our system of tariff protection. It has not been easy. In the beginning it was an overwhelmingly difficult and lonely job, but gradually the economic lessons have been learned by the community as a whole and also by this House. I remember that insults were hurled across at me, I was told that I did not believe in the development of this great country of ours, and this kind of nonsense. Now there is general acceptance in the community that high protection is bought at a price and that there is no such thing as a free feed in the economic world, particularly in tariff protection. When I was first elected to this House I had a lively interest in the cost that the exporter was paying for high protection. This was the motive that led me to try to get the government of that day to look at its policies with greater clarity. This cost is generally acknowledged now. Everybody knows that the exporter pays in the end, that the cost is passed on and on until it comes to the exporter and can be passed no further. That is one thing that the House and the community have learned.

Most people know that you do not create employment by imposing tariffs. You may create employment in one sector but you tend to lose it in another. I will quote from the annual report of the Industries Assistance Commission for 1973-74, which came out recently, and I do so to make a point on the question of employment. At page 7 of the report the Commission states:

However, general measures such as fiscal, monetary and exchange rate management, are now widely regarded as more efficient instruments than the tariff for achieving macro-economic objectives, such as high and stable levels of employment.

If that was not so what kind of picture would we have? Tariffs would rise if there were a large amount of employment and would lower if unemployment fell. What kind of planning situation does this place business in? We recognise that the advantages of employment gained in one industry by protecting it are always paid for by employment lost in other industries. There are so many examples of that, that I do not have the time to take the House through them.

But the chief change that has come about in the last few years is the change in my thinkin is well as in the community’s thinking in genera-. It is now becoming increasingly recognised that a high tariff protection system warps the way that we use our limited resources. People pretend, particularly when they are making speeches in this House, that we are a country of limitless resources. But everybody knows that they are limited and limited in a way which most people do not generally recognise. The fact is that a system of high protection means that we tend to use our resources in a more wasteful way. I think that this would be better illustrated by a quote from page 18 of the Industries Assistance Commission’s annual report for 1973-74. 1 think it is one of the basic matters of economic thinking in this field and is gradually coming through to thisHouse. As paragraph 121 the Commission’s reported:

Thus if the community’s resources are to be used more efficiently, in the interests of promoting economic growth and thereby improving the well being of the people of Australia, -

That is an objective we all have- resources must be encouraged to move into activities which require low levels of assistance, or none at all. The community will then obtain directly, from local production, those goods and services for which the Australian environment and resource endowment are best suited; it will exchange its surplus production of those goods and services for that of other countries producing more efficiently the other goods and services it needs; and it will concentrate industry development in the types of production most suited to local conditions.

I repeat: Unless we have this long term objective we have no real economic planning at all. The economic use of our limited resources is one of the changes that has come over our thinking in recent years. Another one is the fact that we are growing up, and that as a developed economy a greater percentage of our work force is employed in secondary industry than is employed in secondary industry in the United States of America. One could justify high tariffs in some cases at the beginning by the infant industry argument, but I repeat that a greater percentage of our work force is engaged in secondary industry than is engaged in secondary industry in the United States of America. We cannot claim any longer that we need high tariff protection for infant industry purposes, except in a few special cases.

I do not know whether we have learned, but we ought to have learnt, that the tariff is too blunt an instrument to bring about decentralisation. There are many reasons for which I would support the movement of secondary industry away from the capital cities into decentralised areas. I think that is an objective we will have increasingly in the future. One hears it said often that tariffs should be increased across the whole of an industry in order to support one section of industry in a particular location. I think this is something that we ought to learn from the IAC report. It is a very important question and will become increasingly important in the future. At page 1 19 of the report the Commission stated:

A more appropriate method of encouraging decentralisation would be by means of subsidies which discriminate between different locations -

I emphasise ‘ locations ‘- in Australia- for example, between metropolitan areas and country areas generally, or between metropolitan and selected country areas. Attempting to promote decentralisation more indirectly, by assisting particular industries, could be much more costly.

Then the report gives examples of the textile industry to show that if one is to increase the effective rates by 10 per cent one will increase the subsidy that will go to the metropolitan section of the textile industry by $2Sm, and $5m will go to the decentralised section. The report points out that the far more effective way to do it is to subsidise this area directly rather than try to increase tariffs across the whole field. In this case many of them would encourage industry to develop in metropolitan areas which they should be encouraged to leave. I hope that point will be absorbed by us in the future, if we have not already done so. Because of the Government’s decision on motor vehicle components, the Borg- Warner company at Albury will be placed at some risk. If it is decided for social reasons of decentralisation that that company should be helped, it would be much more effective to help it in the form of a direct subsidy to it rather than spreading the benefit and the cost across the whole industry.

One of the other problems that high tariff protection brings in its train and which I hope is now becoming generally recognised, is brought out with crystal clarity by the Brigden report, that famous old document published in 1929. That report stated:

The most disquietening effect of the tariff has been the stimulus it has given to demands for Government assistance of all kinds, with consequent demoralising effect upon selfreliant efficiency throughout all forms of production.

The Industries Assistance Commission report states:

The Commission believes that the warning given by the Brigden Committee in 1929 is even more relevant today.

This is the kind of thing that we ought to recognise. We are becoming a nation of leaners leaning on the government for far too many things. It has been encouraged by the system of tariff protection. People say: ‘Well, let us get a subsidy from the consumer; let us depend on that’. There has been far too much of it and it is going right into the rural sector now in a way that worries me.

The other thing that we have learnt- or I hope that we have learnt- the hard way is that we have to trade with the undeveloped countries. The ever-widening gap between them and us is something that this House ought to think about more often. In 1966 I went to a milk factory in Bombay which reconstituted Australian milk powder. I asked whether there were any problems and I was told it was impossible to get foreign exchange to buy the milk powder. In the afternoon I want to the Bombay dyeing factory and saw sheets being made. I asked the management representatives whether they had any problems with Australian trade. They said they had great difficulty in getting their goods into Australia over our high tariff wall. That brought out in a way that I have never forgotten that the very things that we are so eloquent about in helping the undeveloped countries are being deliberately hindered by policies of high protection.

The change that has taken place is the change in the thinking of the community in general and of this House in particular. We are becoming more alive to the problems of high protection. Why is it that making necessary alterations is so difficult? This brings me to the real problem. Everybody knows that what I have been saying is sensible and right and that the difficulty in the long term is to bring it about. It is much more difficult to bring about than people generally recognise. May I ask the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) a question? If I interrupt my remarks now, will I be able to continue them at 8 o’clock?

Mr Daly:

– We want to finish these Bills before 6.15 so that the Leader of the Opposition may speak at 8 o’clock.

Mr KELLY:

– I will close my remarks hurriedly by saying that recognising the economic wisdom that we are gradually acquiring in this House and recognising the infinite pain with which we have learnt our theory we are still hard up against the fundamental factor of putting it into practice. This will be far more difficult than people generally realise. We know that it is an objective towards which we have to work, but no matter which political party in government may take tentative steps along that hard path, a scream of rage will go up about the creation of unemployment and all that kind of nonsense.

Dr Edwards:

– Tentative steps are one thing; big steps are another.

Mr KELLY:

-Well, they have to be tentative steps. I know the practical political realities of it all but I want to see a continuation of increasing economic responsibility in this place so that we can encourage the slow but certain progression of the economy towards a better use of our limited resources as set out in the LAC report. I am not one of those who makes any kind of personal criticism. I pay the IAC in general and Mr Rattigan in particular a very warm tribute for having taken up this burden, unpopular though it may be, and I would not like this occasion to pass without making my stand on this matter known.

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 MrDaly) read a third time.

page 3691

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL (No. 2) 1974

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 22 October on motion by Br J. F. Cairns:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on motion by MrDaly) read a third time.

page 3691

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL (No. 2) 1974

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 22 October on motion by Br J. F. Cairns:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 3691

EXCISE TARIFF BILL 1974

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 22 October on motion by Dr J. F. Cairns:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

Sitting suspended from 6.15 to 8 p.m.

page 3691

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Ministerial Statement

Debate resumed from 12 November on the following paper presented by Mr Whitlam:

Australian Economy- Ministerial Statement, 12 November 1974- and on motion by Mr Daly:

That the House take note of the paper.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Mr Daly)- by leave- agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Right Honourable Leader of the Opposition speaking for a period not exceeding 45 minutes.

Mr SNEDDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Bruce

– Last week we had Labor’s third Budget in 4 months. It came in the twenty-fourth month of the Whitlam Government. In those 2 years this Government has changed Australia from having one of the lowest inflation rates in the world to having one of the highest. Labor has wrecked our proud record of having one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world. Australia’s unemployment rate is now being compared with the traditionally much higher rates of the United States of America, Canada and some European countries. Labor has wrecked business confidence. It has set back our great mineral and energy industries. It has seriously depressed investment and has set back our long term growth. Labor has wrecked the housing industry. Housing completions this year will fall 50,000 short of our needs. Labor has pushed interest rates to their highest level in our history. From one of the best managed economies in the Western world ours has become one of the worst. For the 6 months since the May election this Government has failed to take the economic decisions required to avoid the current crisis, the economic measures consistently pressed by the Opposition.

Here is the Labor record since last May, the countdown to the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) made last Tuesday night. Six months ago during the election campaign Australians were told that the Labor Government’s policies were working, that inflation was falling and would continue to fall.

Mr MacKellar:

– Only Whitlam can reduce inflation.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Only Whitlam can reduce inflation. We were told that only Whitlam could reduce inflation by one-third. We were told that only Labor could reduce the interest rates on housing by 3 per cent. We were told that tax cuts were economic vandalism. Five months ago on 7 June the Premiers were told that it was time for restraint and that government spending needed to be cut back. Money for the States was slashed resulting in both Liberal and Labor State governments imposing new and inflationary taxes.

Mr Hunt:

– The States were tricked.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The States were tricked. The Prime Minister told the Parliament that his Government would reduce inflation to 8 per cent in a year. Four months ago we had a miniBudget. The Government put up cigarette and petrol prices. Out went the means test and the child care program. Honourable members will remember that on that night the Government benches were as empty as they are tonight. On that occasion they were empty because Government supporters were still in Caucus deciding whether they would let the Treasurer (Mr Crean) say what he intended to say. Tonight the benches are empty because Labor is the wrecker of the economy. It created inflation and unemployment and does not have any prospect of permitting university and high school students to find vocation work or of enabling school leavers commencing their work careers to find employment.

Three months ago the Prime Minister told us that there would be no unemployment. He said that at the very time that the Minister for Labor (Mr Clyde Cameron) was actually predicting that unemployment would be very high. But that did not stop the Prime Minister from saying:

Does anyone really believe that the Australian Labor Party which owes its existence and survival to wage and salary earners would pursue policies designed to put those people out of work?

Today there appeared in the newspapers an advertisement which proudly proclaimed to the whole world that unemployment has been a natural consequence of the attack by the Labor Government on inflation. Labor chose the option of unemployment.

Two months ago we had the Budget that now lies in tatters. The Prime Minister wants the Treasurer to be made the scapegoat. He wants to throw the Treasurer out together with the Budget. Honourable members should remember that this discredited Budget was termed the Cairns Budget when it was thought to be a good one. It was named after the man who is or was to be the next Treasurer. I think our actions have saved Frank Crean as Treasurer. Whether we have been right or wrong in our judgment as to his economic capacity I leave open to question, but as a matter of honour we acted properly. That is not what the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister (Dr J. F. Cairns) did in relation to their colleague.

One month ago the consumer price index figures for the September quarter confirmed that inflation was running at 20 per cent. I am informed that the Press report tonight that inflation as measured by the consumer price index for the December quarter will have climbed to 30 per cent. Two weeks ago the October unemployment figures confirmed that we are in a recession and that unemployment is now the highest since World War II. One week ago we witnessed the degrading spectacle of the Prime Minister’s apologia of defeat and mistaken policies, the greatest that has ever been made by any Australian Prime Minister. Yesterday he fatalistically accepted unemployment and recession for Australia without giving a tinker’s curse about it. One newspaper said:

Rarely, if ever, has a Prime Minister had to make such a frank and public admission that the Opposition was right and that his Government’s policy had been wrong.

Labor’s economic policies have been irresponsible

Mr Innes:

– That is rubbish.

Mr SNEDDEN:

-That is Ted. Labor’s economic policies have been irresponsible, confused and wrong. Four great mistakes of domestic policy have led directly and inevitably to the present situation. They are the explosion of government spending beginning in 1973 and continuing through 2 Budgets; the explosion of wage rises triggered by the pace-setter principle for the Public Service last year; the 25 per cent across the board tariff cut; and the savage and prolonged credit squeeze with its cruel interest rates. These are the 4 home grown mistakes. They were deliberate acts. By them this Government has created the twin tragedies of mass unemployment and uncontrolled inflation.

One of the Government’s former advisers has written that each of those decisions was taken by the Labor Cabinet against official advice. Both the Treasury and the Reserve Bank were opposed to this Government’s attitude to government spending. The Treasury bitterly opposed the pace-setter principle. The Government’s freewheeling approach to wage rises was equally opposed by the Treasury. It fought against the 25 per cent tariff cut and the Reserve Bank is aghast at the credit squeeze and the high interest rates. The Opposition warned of these consequences and events have confirmed everything we said. As the results have unfolded the Government has gone from bad to worse. We now have the most serious economic deterioration in this country since the Depression. The Opposition ‘s mid-year economic review was released on 5 July and this is a quotation from it:

The economy is now reaching a turning point in the level of real activity. This prospect may be disguised by the continued expansion of money incomes as a result of the severe inflationary process now being experienced. Nonetheless, the prospective stagnation in real activity looms as a policy issue of major significance containing every threat of severe stagflation. Moreover, should this have continued depressing effect upon investment outlays, already apparent, then the costs of this outcome will be felt for years ahead.

And so it will be. We will be working without men and equipment in the plants and factories. Our productivity cannot rise in those circumstances. This is what we said in July. We warned of the rising unemployment crisis unless immediate action was taken.

It has taken the Government 4V4 months and 3 Budgets since then to act at all. In Labor’s latest Budget announced last Tuesday the Government finally recognised, at least by word, the importance of free enterprise. After 2 years of attacks on business and industry, after 2 years of measures aimed at knocking its growth, after deliberate destruction of incentives, after attacks on any profit, after crippling its capacity to invest, after chopping confidence to a 45-year low back to the Great Depression, the Government says that the private sector is important, profit is good and businessmen are honest and honourable. It has taken the unemployment of 190,000 people, registered, as well as the number of those unregistered, to bring these fools to this conclusion. Last week’s measures do not go anywhere near far enough to solve the twin problems of inflation and unemployment. I now set out once again the measures which need to be taken. They are not measures which can bring about an overnight recovery. Such a mess has been made that that cannot be done. Labor’s management has created such a bitter mess that it will be a very sad unemployed Christmas which faces a quarter of a million Australians. If present policies continue there will be a faster rise in prices in the future.

I turn now to the correct economic strategy. The basic economic strategy which the Opposition has advocated remains valid. I ask leave to incorporate in Hansard 2 sections of the speech which I made in reply to the Budget on 23 September in this House setting out this strategy. The 2 sections are ‘National Objectives’ and ‘ The Correct Economic Strategy ‘ -

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Is it not already in Hansard?

Mr SNEDDEN:

– They are to be found in Hansard at pages 1712 and 1713.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Then why do you want to put it in again?

Mr SNEDDEN:

– All right. If the Government does not wish to see the lesson that was read to it then, so be it. We know its capacity to understand.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted for the incorporation?

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– No. They are already in Hansard.

Mr SNEDDEN:

-I will briefly summarise the measures we have advocated. They are:

First, a $ 1,000m cut in personal income taxes; second, cuts in some indirect taxes aimed at directly reducing some prices; third, a reduction in the Government spending increase announced in the Budget from 33 per cent to 25 per cent; fourth an instruction to the Reserve Bank to ease monetary policy, to inject adequate liquidity into the economy and cash flow for business, which will establish the conditions for a fall in interest rates; fifth, a decision publicly stated setting out the future course of monetary policy; sixth, abolition of the variable deposit requirement and an end to the prohibition on short-term capital flows; seventh, a flexible exchange rate with the development of a foreign exchange market; eighth, investment incentives to restore business investment in new plant and equipment in manufacturing, tertiary industries, mineral industries and the rural industries; ninth, a complete review of the activities of the various Government bodies regulating business, including the Prices Justification Tribunal, the Industries Assistance Commission, the Trade Practices Commission, the Arbitration Commission, the Parliamentary Prices Committee and the Committee on foreign takeovers; tenth, restoration of the authority of the Arbitration Commission and a more responsible approach to wage claims generally across the whole labour market.

The somersaults of last week on tax cuts and foreign investment mean the adoption of a small part of our policy. We welcome them, but as the Government scored only two out of ten we can hardly give it top marks of the class. We cannot get very excited about it The Government still has adopted only the easy and politically popular parts of our policies. It has not faced up to the hard parts. It still does not understand the consequences of continuing with its present spending spree. It cannot be emphasised enough that the overriding need is for policies which tackle both inflation and unemployment Policies directed at one of these problems but which neglect the other will not constitute a long term solution to either. That is why it is so important to give quick relief to the private sector and to provide early relief to the unemployment situation while at the same time to attack cost inflation and slow down public sector expansion. It is important to understand that the jobs that are being lost are in the private sector. When did honourable members last meet a retrenched public servant? If we are to take up the jobs we must stimulate the private sector.

The Opposition will not accept, as the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) would have it accept, the proposition that thousands of students and school leavers have to be denied employment this summer. It does not accept that this should be allowed to occur without any consideration of emergency action to alleviate this situation while there is still time. This is the attitude that this Government has taken. It is an attitude which the Opposition cannot and will not accept. The job losses and retrenchments that we now suffer have been caused by the Government’s deliberate policy to squeeze the private sector. The return to full employment will require measures to restore confidence and to push resources and cash back into private sector activity. Equally important is for the Government to realise that it cannot have this increase in private sector activity at the same time as its planned breakneck expansion of Government spending. One does not have to be an economic genius to know that an increase in Government spending 33 W per cent is a disaster.

As a matter of fact, those honourable members interjecting on the opposite side, the half dozen still there who have not crawled away with their tails between their legs, have never been invited to make a contribution to an economic debate. Not once. They cannot do it.

There is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that the measures of last week have restored businesss confidence. Companies are still critically short of liquid funds and cash flow, particularly in the manufacturing sector. Industry expansion is slowing to a complete halt. The major problem for manufacturers at present is just to survive and to generate sufficient cash to maintain a satisfactory level of operations. Because many are unable to do so, investment and employment are now declining dramatically. The ‘Financial Review’ of 14 November, for example, published a list of 27 major investment projects worth a rninimum of $50m which had been abandoned or postponed in the fortnight immediately preceding the Government’s economic statement. It pointed out that since the beginning of September more than 150 projects worth well in excess of $300m had been cancelled or postponed. In addition many other companies such as AO, Carlton and United Breweries Ltd and Repco to name just three, have shelved expansion plans. The serious downturn in investment was confirmed at the weekend by the release of the September quarter figures for new capital expenditure which show a downturn in real investment activity. It is that downturn in investment activity which lies at the very heart of the retrenchments and the unemployment that we have in Australia today.

Inflation is a major problem for companies. One reason for the failure of the Prime Minister’s statement to generate any renewal of business confidence was its total failure to act against inflation. The effects of inflation work not only through the impact of cost increases but also because funds have simply not been available to match the inflation- expanded need for working capital. This is needed to give capital investment capacity. If prices of goods into a factory and wages at a factory are escalating at 20 per cent, unless the money supply expands at 20 per cent there will be a credit squeeze. Two areas of policy which have had a direct and adverse impact on private industry and therefore on jobs have been the credit squeeze and the proliferation of Government authorities regulating business activity. It is to these 2 areas that I now turn.

The extent of the Government’s total irresponsibility in the implementation of monetary policy is illustrated by the seasonally adjusted growth rate of the money supply since is came into office. In the first 3 quarters of 1973, the Government allowed the money supply to grow at an annual rate of between 20 per cent and 30 per cent at a time when the economy was fully employed. This was highly inflationary and was totally irresponsible. I ask for leave to incorporate in Hansard a table which illustrates the extent of monetary contraction.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I thank the House. The table demonstrates that money ‘narrowly-defined’ (Ml) showed in the December quarter of 1973 a growth of 0.7 of 1 per cent, in the March quarter of 1974 a zero growth, in the June quarter of 1974 a minus 10.5 per cent- that is a declineand in July-August of this year a decline of 15.4 per cent. Is it any wonder that there has been a credit squeeze the like of which we have never known before? The table shows that the growth rate in the seasonally adjusted money supply has actually been negative, or very close to zero, for much of this year, during a period in which costs and working capital requirements have risen sharply. This has been accompanied by interest rates which have been the highest in Australia’s history.

Even in the past 2 months, when monetary policy was supposedly eased by releases from statutory reserve deposits and the provision of a special facility to the trading banks, it is clear that the liquidity situation has not significantly eased. Weekly figures of the Reserve Bank’s balance sheet indicated that these releases had simply gone back into the Reserve Bank as banks either purchased Government securities, principally Treasury notes, or repaid their lender of last resort loans to the Reserve Bank. The money base did not expand. These figures revealed that the monetary base which determines bank lending was in fact continuing to contract.

This was a situation about which I became increasingly concerned. It led me to send a telegram to the Governor of the Reserve Bank. I did so on Friday, 8 November 1974. That telegram reads thus:

Analysis of Reserve Bank’s Weekly Balance sheet over past two months indicates a net contraction in the monetary base at a time when Government has been claiming an easing of credit.

It is clear that releases to the banking system have not increased general liquidity as banks have found it necessary to repay their loans outstanding to Reserve Bank and to replenish their holdings of Government securities.

Figures show that since September you have sold over $300m of Government securities which appears to be main reason for contraction in monetary base.

You would be aware the impending company tax payments will result in Government financial transactions imposing further contraction on liquidity.

I would appreciate early explanation as to why you have been contracting monetary base at a time of normal seasonal expansion and at a time when an easing of credit squeeze needed to revive private sector investment and employment opportunities.

What action do you propose to offset effect of quarterly company tax payments.

Will you consider action to ease LGS ratio.

Will you provide me with more detailed break-up of Other Liabilities and Loans Advances and Other Assets in your weekly balance sheet.

In seeking this information, I recognise fully the danger of excessive stimulus at this time, but am very concerned that no effective action has yet been taken to ease the credit squeeze of recent quarters. While the credit squeeze continues more unemployment will occur and investment will contract.

I sent a copy of the telegram to the Treasurer.

On the same day, that evening, I received a reply from Sir John Phillips, the Governor of the Reserve Bank. He said:

In reply to the specific questions in your telegram of today’s date:

The ‘ monetary base’ has recently been expanding, not contracting. Banks, for example, tend to hold their increased liquidity in Treasury notes and other short-term Government securities.

That is the very point that I was making. The telegram continues:

  1. Banks have been asked to expand their rate of lending to meet the basic immediate needs of the economy.
  2. If further action is needed to support bank liquidity, various ways of achieving this will be considered.

It is high time that they were considered. The telegram continues:

  1. Regret that information about detailed break-up of items in weekly balance sheet is confidential.

I did not regard that reply as satisfactory in any way. Investment in Treasury notes does not inject money into the private sector. It is quite clear that liquidity has been kept excessively tight even in the last 2 months. This, combined with the effect of the quarterly company tax payment, has put many companies in a critical cash position. Two points need to be noted about this aspect. There are very, very many holders of Government bonds who have been locked into their Government bonds because the value of those bonds has declined as a result of the rise in interest rates. The second point to be noted is that company tax this year involves a great majority of companies paying tax for 5 quarters. Companies will actually pay this year company tax of 59V4 per cent and to reduce company tax by Vh per cent from 59% per cent to 57 per cent is precious little advance on the liquidity of companies.

The Prime Minister stated last week that the Governor of the Reserve Bank had written to the banks asking them to increase appreciably their rate of new lending. This is welcome, but much overdue. It is very interesting to note the relationship between the time of my telegram to the Governor of the Reserve Bank and the statement by the Prime Minister. This action will mean nothing, however, unless the Reserve Bank is instructed to increase its buying of bonds. This is what is necessary to put liquidity into the economy. The Reserve Bank must buy bonds. By buying bonds, the yields will come down and the whole interest rate structure can fall. We then will get an easing of interest rates.

The Government should urgently make a major policy statement setting out the future course of monetary policy. In that statement, it should be made clear that the growth of the money supply will be more steady than has occurred in the past 2 years. If this Government can ever bring itself to take a realistic and responsible attitude to incomes restraint- restraint across the whole range of incomes- monetary policy could be aimed at accommodating income and price rises within specified guidelines.

For a long time, the Opposition has been calling for a complete review of the many Government regulatory bodies. The activities of these authorities are at present totally unco-ordinated. Their activities have contributed to the downturn in business confidence. They have been acting in opposite directions to each other. They have hindered and delayed business decisions. This raises a very interesting point with respect to the Industries Assistance Commission. That Commission in a submission to the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration points out that there is: … a large and increasing number of statutory bodies working in related areas of social and economic policy- with: . . . conflicting results.

The Industries Assistance Commission goes on to propose to the Royal Commission that the Government, which has now been in office for 2 years, should develop a: . . . common and explicit framework of policy objectives.

It is an incredible thing that a government could have been in office for 2 years without doing so. But it is not surprising that we have the results we have today in the absence of it. The Prime Minister has now made so many about-turns that he must be feeling really quite giddy. He made yet another one last week on the role of the Prices Justification Tribunal. Remember these words from the Budget Speech:

The Government expects the principle burden of restraint to fall on upper-income groups, particularly through the impact on profits of the operations of the Prices Justification Tribunal.

That was just 2 months ago. Now the Prime Minister has changed his mind- a violent somersault. He has decided that profits are important after all. He has written a letter which the Tribunal President has condescended to regard as just another submission. Amendment of the Prices Justification Tribunal Act is essentially required to set out the policy the Tribunal is to follow; it cannot just be left to the President and the myriad of staff now being recruited to that body. If the Government really has changed its policy this is the way to give it real meaning. I would be interested to know what Government supporters and the Caucus Economic Committee would do about guidelines which state to the Prices Justification Tribunal: ‘Profit is honourable. Profit is not a dirty word. ‘ Would they support it?

The main element of last week’s new fiscal package was of course the cuts in company and personal income tax. The Opposition welcomes both, although I reiterate that the primary need in respect of companies is to generate sufficient cash flow to finance new investment projects and working capital requirements. In that respect the company tax cuts are not anywhere near adequate. The rationale of the personal income tax cuts, according to the Prime Minister was to ‘attack inflation by reducing the pressure for wage increases through a substantial improvement in after-tax take-home pay next year.’ This could and should have been done immediately after the election. In that time, to use the quarter to quarter comparisons so dearly beloved of the Prime Minister during the election campaign, inflation has doubled. The LiberalCountry Party economic policy released prior to the May election stated:

Tax relief is needed to help break the vicious spiral of wages and prices produced as wage earners seek to maintain their living standards in the face of the double squeeze of prices and taxes.

The Prime Minister called that statement economic vandalism. On 6 May in a prepared speech that he delivered on national television he rounded it out. These were his words on that occasion. Referring to the Opposition, he said:

They have promised to cut taxes. Imagine it! Cut taxes to fight inflation.

Yet on Tuesday night of last week he came in and said that this is the way he will do it. After wasting 6 months, after inflation has reached at least 20 per cent of or possibly 30 per cent a year he surrendered to Mr Hawke and the trade union movement. He has finally accepted the Opposition’s proposals on taxes. The office of Prime Minister has never been more demeaned than it was the other day when the Prime Minister went to call upon the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions to get his instructions. It reminds one of Arthur Calwell sitting in the bushes outside the Kingston Hotel waiting for his instructions. On that occasion, of course, the faces were unknown; on this occasion the face is only too well known.

In one respect the tax cuts must remain a matter for concern. Very little real relief has been given to those earning above average weekly earnings. The Government’s proposals for indexation are also aimed against this income group. Many trades employees fall into this category, employees who are represented by powerful trade unions. The failure adequately to compensate them in the tax area must raise doubts as to whether they will co-operate in any wage restraint program, yet wage increases won by them would flow on right across the whole wage structure. Of greater importance is the Government’s failure to reconsider its own spending program. That is the major reason for the failure of the statement made last Tuesday to result in any upturn in business confidence. Until the Government adopts this vital part of the Opposition’s economic armoury it will have no basic solution to the inflation problem. If inflation is allowed to continue unchecked or if it is allowed to accelerate again after a temporary decrease next year which could happen although I doubt it- even worse economic crises face us in the future. The Opposition dismisses the argument that spending cuts would cost jobs. Jobs can and should be restored by stimulating activity in the private sector. As one economic writer put it in the ‘Australian’ on 14 November.

One just simply cannot have the strong and growing private sector that Mr Whitlam said he wanted on Tuesday and at the same time have Government spending grow very rapidly. The cake does not expand that quickly.

This is the hard part of the Opposition ‘s program which the Government refuses to adopt. This is the politically tough decision that a responsible government would take. The $ 1,000m reduction in spending I have argued for would make the increase over last year 25 per cent instead of the proposed 32.4 per cent. It will require right across the board economies. Almost every area will have to be slowed down, not of course by a uniform figure. Such higher priority areas as education, social security and health would be slowed down less than others. For example, cuts in social security benefits would just not be possible in conscience or in equity. But pipeline dreams, new cities, the myriad of commissions, inquiries and task forces, the wastage of money on advertising Medibank should be closely inspected. The failure to offset the tax cuts by lower government spending means that the projected Budget deficit is now a frightening S 1,800m plus, as agreed by the Treasurer last week. That is, we are in the red and deeply in the red. The sum of $ 1,850m is a bigger amount than any Treasurer previously even imagined, let alone achieved. The domestic Budget surplus is $ 1,300m, which is 6 times greater than the highest ever previous domestic Budget deficit of $215m in 1972-73. 1 seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table from the Commonwealth Statistician which shows the Budget deficits and domestic deficit over the past few years.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I thank the House. For the first 6 months of this year the domestic deficit will be running at a level of over $2,000m. These figures are frightening. If the projections turn out to be right we will have a combination of renewed inflation and increased interest rates next year which will make what we have at present look like kids’ stuff. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table which compares the acceleration of inflation of major Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I thank the House. This is a most interesting table. It completely refutes any arguments that may be made by the Government that inflation or unemployment in Australia today is imported. It is an absurd proposition which nobody will believe. It is a propaganda line which will be run by the Government. But the OECD torpedoes its arguments because it has put down in the table which I have now incorporated in Hansard the average rate of inflation for a dozen or more countries between 1961 and 1971. The table then shows the increase in inflation for the 12 months to April 1974. It then gives the ratio between the present rate of increase in inflation and the long term average. I am sad to say that Australia is at the top of the list. It has the biggest ratio of increase in inflation to the long term average of any country in the OECD.

Australia’s unemployment rate also has risen more markedly than that in any other country. While other major economies are having unemployment problems, the fact is that only in Australia is the unemployment rate so markedly above the long term average. In the United States, for example, the present unemployment rate of 6 per cent is marginally above the long term average unemployment rate of 5 per cent in that country. New Zealand has managed to maintain both full employment and a significantly lower inflation rate than has Australia. But here, under the fumbling, bumbling, back and fill directionless leadership of the Whitlam Government, the unemployment rate is already twice our long term average and will go higher. The second point is that under the Liberal and Country Parties Australia’s economic performance was consistently outstanding when compared with other countries. Our average inflation rate of 3 per cent, combined with a 1 Vi per cent unemployment rate, was equalled by few, if any, other Western countries.

Thirdly, it is an acknowledged fact that Australia- has not suffered a fraction from the energy crisis which has so beset all other countries in Europe and Japan. We have not had to contend with that. Our exploration effort while we were in Government resulted in our being 70 per cent self sufficient in oil. That self sufficiency is now threatened. Under the administration of the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) oil exploration has come to a halt. Esso-BHP’s Bass Strait field, which currently satisfies 65 per cent of our demand, will be very dangerously depleted by 1980. It is doubtful that economic coal liquefication processes so beloved by the Minister, can be developed by then. This further failure of the Labor Government adds a further note of uncertainty to our longer term economic prospects. Fourthly, Australia’s economic deterioration can be attributable directly and concisely to the clearly identifiable errors of domestic economic policy adopted by the Labor Party. They are the result of Labor’s irresponsibility, Labor’s errors, Labor’s indecision, Labor’s incompetence.

In this statement I have set out the dimensions of this Government’s massive economic failure- a failure of domestic economic management which has led directly and inevitably to the tragedy of Australia’s economic crisis today and in the coming months. The Prime Minister says that we face a recession worse than that in any period since the great depression. But he says it fatalistically as though we just must accept it and live with it. There is still time to take action to prevent it. There is still time to stop unemployment rising to the levels to which inevitably it will rise. There is still time to provide in the private sector for the creation of jobs so that school leavers and ternary students can get employment.

Once again in this statement I have set out the Opposition’s positive policies in detail. If the Government had displayed the common sense to adopt these proposals at the time of the last election Australia could have been spared the economic misfortune from which we are now suffering. The Opposition takes no pleasure in setting out the detail of today’s crisis or in warning that worse is yet to come. What we condemn with the strongest force and emphasis is that this nation has been so needlessly, so negligently and so deliberately plunged into economic crisis by the combination of incompetence and blind adherence to a worn out philosophy of socialism. This

Government has assaulted the welfare and the prosperity of the Australian people. It has harmed the Australian future by its foolish action and it has blighted the careers of tens of thousands of Australians, young and old. There are many people who for the whole of their lives- I refer to the new generation coming on- will be seriously socially and economically affected by the actions of this Government. For that it can never be forgiven and it can never be forgotten. It is the Government which chose unemployment as its option.

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) proposed:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question is: ‘That the debate be now adjourned’. Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no. I think the ayes have it.

Opposition members- The noes have it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is a division required?

Opposition members- Yes.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Ring the bells. (The bells being rung)-

Mr Daly:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. I point out that the speech of the Leader of the Opposition tonight was made by arrangement so that he could reply to the speech of the Prime Minister, and the fact that the Opposition has called for a division on this question is an infringement of the arrangement made.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The Chair is only following a request for a division. I have called for the bells to be rung.

Question put:

That the debate be now adjourned.

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

AYES: 61

NOES: 55

Majority……. 6

In division:

AYES

NOES

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Ordered that the adjourned debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

page 3700

CUSTOMS BILL (No. 2) 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 22 October on motion by Dr J. F. Cairns:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr ADERMANN:
Fisher

-The Customs Bill (No. 2) implements 2 amendments of consequence. The second reading speech of the Minister for Overseas Trade (Dr J. F. Cairns) indicated these quite clearly. I comment first on the second of the amendments. Actually, this Bill and these amendments follow a High Court ruling in what has become known as, I think, the Sarah Coventry case. This case relates to duty payable on goods imported into Australia and the value of those goods for the purpose of levying duty. The basis of valuation has always been that the value of the goods shall be that at which such goods would be sold or offered for sale in their country of origin. Where such goods were not sold or offered for sale in their country of origin or where no basis of such value could be readily ascertained, a construction or some ministerial discretion has operated. This has always been so. However, as a result of this High Court decision this procedure would be disallowed and the basis of valuation would thus have to be the price which was charged to the importer by the exporter. If the importer happened to be a subsidiary of the exporter or if there was some association or special arrangement between buyer and seller, this could conceivably alter considerably the rate of duty charged. Thus the purpose of this Bill is to validate the procedure which has long operated and to give some discretion to the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Murphy) where such conditions operate.

I have been approached by people who have said that it is always dangerous to give discretion to the Minister. I suppose this is a matter that is always controversial. I believe that where a Minister does have discretion in such cases as these he ought to build up some sort of case history of decisions that he has made. This at least would give industry some basis on which it could reasonably make some judgment. We accept that this was the position which operated under our own governments, and that it has operated since. The Bill contains some retrospectivity but at the moment that applies merely to a short period because there was no retrospectivity the night that it was introduced. The retrospectivity has operated only for the period since the introduction of the Bill. That is how far back it goes. I would like the Minister to assure us that retrospectivity will not operate in other ways. I would like him to assure us that it would not go back for a very long period so that the valuation for duty on a certain item could be brought up a long time after the decision was made. I would think that the retrospectivity should not go back beyond 12 months if such a decision were necessary.

I thank the Minister in the other place, Senator Murphy, for advising me of the intent of this Bill and of its proposed introduction in its drafting stages. We readily see its necessity and its purpose. Our own governments worked under this principle. This Bill will merely validate something that has happened for quite a long time. I welcome something else contained in the Bill. I refer to the announced review of the Australian customs valuation system. I wish to comment further on an aspect of parliamentary procedure as to how duties are legislated which, I think, is relevant to this Customs Bill that is before the House and relevant to the proposed review of the Customs Bill which the Minister has mentioned. There is always some difficulty in having sensible and meaningful debate on customs and excise duties which are levied. I say this not as a criticism because I do not know just how the positions could be altered. I say that only as an observation.

The Minister for Customs and Excise has offered me every facility in my capacity as the shadow minister and except for his refusal to give any details of Australian publications which are in receipt of the book bounty, he has generally given me most of the information that I have requested. But customs Bills which levy new imposts or implement changed duty rates are traditionally introduced into this chamber late in the afternoon. That is at the end of the day’s trading and this procedure is necessary to prevent any unscrupulous profiteering out of any changes. The changes are also kept under the greatest confidentiality until their announcement and they operate then from the very next morning. Thus, in my capacity I am not, and I concede possibly I should not be, given any notice until the announcement is made and then we can only seek an adjournment of the debate. It is usually not for some months that any validation is made and debate is called on. Thus, even if the duties are quite unappreciated by the Opposition- if we do not approve of them at all- they have, in fact, been operative and collections often made for some considerable time even before any debate occurs in this House. Because of the obvious impossibility of reversing every transaction, the Opposition has no real course but to allow the validation. It could not responsibly nor reasonably do anything else. This is not confined to the practices of this Government; it has always been so. Perhaps it cannot be done in any other way. But I feel the observation is valid. It creates that unfortunate position and the system renders debate on these types of Bill somewhat- ineffective because we are talking about excise and duties that have been levied and changed quite some considerable time before.

The other amendment which is proposed by this Bill is related to the qualifying criteria for goods partly manufactured in New Zealand. This is a result of an agreement between the New Zealand and Australian Governments. The 3 alternative qualifying criteria were enumerated by the Minister. The first is that not less than one half of the factory cost is to be represented by New Zealand and/or Australian labour and materials; the second is that for goods of a class or kind not manufactured in Australia not less than one-quarter of the factory cost is represented by New Zealand and/or Australian labour and materials; and the third is that not less than three-quarters of the factory cost is represented by New Zealand and/or Australian and/or United Kingdom labour and materials. The first remains unaltered and that is quite clear. The second, which is the basis of this amendment, allows the Minister to vary this criterion as he deems appropriate. Thus, again, it is not really within the province of the Opposition to obstruct such amendments because they are obviously the subject of inter-governmental discussion involving both Australia and New Zealand.

Perhaps the Minister might consider the observation and the implementation of the legislative process relative to customs and excise duties. Perhaps he could make them the subject of his thought and perhaps members of the Opposition could too because it would make such debate more meaningful if we were talking about excise duties and customs duties at about the time they were implemented. At least if the validation procedure followed more closely on the particular statement by the Minister in this House we could have a more relevant debate and the Opposition could make observations which were more pointed and not outdated. I know that the Government when in Opposition would have struck the same difficulty. I do not have the answer but perhaps together we might find it if we try.

Also relative to the Customs Bill which we are now discussing, I was very interested to read another announcement today that there will be a tightening of admission of goods into Australia under the by-law system. Of course, under the

Act goods allowed in under by-law are allowed in duty free or at reduced duty. I was very pleased indeed, after many representations on behalf of the citrus growers, to learn that citrus juice is not going to be allowed in under by-law. A request was made to allow a tremendous quantity of citrus juice to come in under that by-law. That is the content of the Bill and the purpose of the amendments. The Opposition does not oppose the amendments and has no wish to obstruct the passage of the Bill. Therefore, it intends to vote for the Bill.

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 Dr J. F. Cairns) read a third time.

page 3702

NORTHERN TERRITORY (STABILIZATION OF LAND PRICES) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 16 October, on motion by Dr Patterson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr McLEAY:
Boothby

-This is a Bill for an Act to stabilise the price of land in the Northern Territory which is required or likely to be required in connection with urban development. The Opposition is opposed to the Bill and as an amendment to the motion: ‘That the Bill be now read a second time’, I move:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ‘the House, in disapproving of this Bill is of the opinion that the provisions contained in it should be referred to the Legislative Assembly for the Northern Territory to enable that Assembly to consider ways by which land prices in the Northern Territory should be stabilised, but requesting that any lands acquisition proposals which might be included in legislation to be considered by that Assembly should protect the rights of private land owners and occupiers and be on just terms’.

The Opposition believes that this Bill clearly demonstrates the very significant differences between the philosophies of the Australian Labor Party and of the Liberal and Country Parties. In spite of all the election propaganda about the Labor Party’s concern for people, this Bill reveals that Labor cares nothing about preserving the rights of the individual. Labor in government has no genuine respect for State or local government authorities and is intent on grabbing all real power for itself as the centralist authority. The Liberal and Country Parties believe in cooperation, not confrontation, with the State governments but above all else we believe in the freedom and dignity of the individual. We reject the socialist big brother concept of government by the Labor Party as exemplified in this Bill and we note the double standards and broken promises which flow from it.

I draw to the attention of the House the third paragraph of the second reading speech of the Minister for Northern Development and Minister for the Northern Territory (Dr Patterson) and quote from it because it leads up to the first aspect of the legislation to which we object. It reads:

Because the provisions of this new legislation, which will apply only to the Northern Territory, modify some of the provisions of the Lands Acquisition Act - ‘Modify ‘ is the key word - which applies throughout Australia, it is not considered appropriate that the modifications should be brought in by way of a Northern Territory ordinance but rather they should be brought in by way of a Federal Act through this Parliament as companion legislation to the Lands Acquisition Act itself.

To say that the provisions of this Bill ‘modify some of the provisions of the Lands Acquisition Act’ is the understatement of the year. This Bill removes from the Lands Acquisition Act the rights of an individual who disputes a particular government action from referring that action to an independent legal authority. Surely it is the basis of all justice that if individuals or individuals and governments cannot agree on a matter then there is always a supreme court or, finally, the High Court available to settle the issue. I return to the Bill and quote clause 10 (7). Clause 10 relates to the development of land. Mr Speaker, it is our intention tonight, if it is possible in the time that is available to us, to push this Bill to a vote. I am not sure how many honourable members on either side of the House are likely to be speaking, but I understand that the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) will be speaking. If so, there should be time for us to bring the matter to a vote. Clause 10 subclause (7), which deals with developed land, states:

The Minister may, in his discretion, grant or refuse to grant an applicant approval for the purposes of this Act to carry out development of land.

This means that if the Minister or his officer chooses to go to a farm, a block or some sort of land in this area under discussion, the Minister can in total discretion grant or refuse to grant an applicant for the purpose of this Act approval to carry out building, to dig a dam or do something of this sort. The applicant, the owner or occupier of the land, has no right of appeal to any other authority. That is the first of the 2 clauses to which we object very strongly.

Clause 12 sub-clause (8) deals with the determining value factor of this legislation. I will not read through the whole clause because it is very long, but the pan that concerns us is that pan that spells out what happens when a piece of land has been valued by the Valuer-General and the applicant, owner or occupier is dissatisfied with the valuation, because of a lack of any right of appeal. Sub-clause (8) states:

A determination made by the Valuer-General in accordance with this section-

is final and conclusive;

shall not be challenged, appealed against, reviewed, quashed or called in question in any court or in any arbitration under the Lands Acquisition Act; and

is not subject to prohibition, mandamus or injunction in any court on any account.

These are the 2 areas that concern us most seriously. To think that some person on the authority of the Minister can go all over another person’s land and value it and that that person in the event of not being satisfied with the valuation has no right of appeal is, we believe, intolerable and not consistent with British justice. The Minister in his second reading speech said that this Bill modified some of the provisions of the Lands Acquisition Act. I have looked at the Lands Acquisition Act and I should like to compare the new Bill that we are debating tonight with the existing Lands Acquisition Act which it is supposed to modify.

There are five distinct sections which deal currently with the rights of a person to appeal to a higher authority in the event of dissatisfaction with proceedings under the Lands Acquisition Act. The first one is section 13 sub-section ( 1.) of the Lands Acquisition Act which deals with the rights to determine the basis of compensation. Once again I will not read through the whole section, but just the relevant portion, which states:

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where land is acquired under this Division, the High Court or the Supreme Court may, upon the application of the Commonwealth or any other person interested, make such orders as it thinks proper . . .

That is the first example of the present Act giving a person the right to appeal to a higher authority. Section 21 sub-section (1.) of the present Act deals with proceedings where a claim is rejected. It states:

Where a claim for compensation has been rejected by the Minister, the claimant may bring an action against the Commonwealth in the High Court or the Supreme Court -

Mr Hunt:

– What clause is that?

Mr McLEAY:

-This is section 21 sub-section (1.). I seek to make the point that the statement by the Minister that this Bill seeks to modify the present Lands Acquisition Act is totally false. In fact it is a completely revolutionary process. I have referred to 2 examples where the present Act gives a claimant the right to appeal to a court. There is only one in the Bill that the Minister seeks to have passed tonight.

Section 28 sub-section (1.) deals with the proceedings for determination of compensation. I quote briefly from this section. It states:

Where, in the case of a claim for compensation which has been accepted by the Minister-

A period of 3 months has elapsed since the claim was made, but the compensation has not been determined by agreement;

The section then deals with other examples. The Act further states: … the claimant may, unless an agreement for the determination of the compensation by arbitration is in force, institute proceedings against the Commonwealth in a court of competent jurisdiction . . .

That is the third example of the rights that the present Act gives to owners or occupiers when their land is acquired or is in the process of being acquired.

The fourth example is in section 3 1 sub-section (1.). This deals with the court ensuring that acquisition is to be made on just terms, which is the expression used in our amendment. This clause states:

Where a court having jurisdiction for the purposes of this section is of opinion that the application of any of the provisions of this Act would result in an acquisition having been made otherwise than on just terms, the court may determine such compensation or make such order (whether against the Commonwealth or against another person) as, in its opinion, is necessary to ensure that the acquisition has been made on just terms.

This provision does not appear in the so-called modified Bill. The second part of this section states:

Jurisdiction for the purposes of this section may be exercised

By a court before which proceedings are instituted under another provision of this Division; or

b ) By the Supreme Court or the High Court.

Those are 4 examples which do not appear in the so-called modified Bill.

The fifth example is section 44 subsection ( 1 .). This deals with giving the court the power to order a stay of proceedings under mortgage. The relevant sentence states: … the High Court or the Supreme Court may, upon the application of the mortgagor and subject to such conditions as it thinks fit, order a stay of those proceedings . . .

None of those 5 provisions exist in this so-called modified Bill. That is the first series of reasons that we are opposed to this BUI. The only compensation clause giving the owner or occupier any right of appeal applies only to loss or damage of his land. This provision is contained in clause 7 sub-clause ( 1 ) of the BUI. In addition, so far as I can see, there is no provision to allow consents for building applications already approved when the work has not been commenced, whether it be buildings or dams or whatever. That is our first criticism. We do not believe that the compensation power sought by the Minister and the Government is proper. How would the Minister like it if such powers were directed against him and his family? How would he or any of his colleagues like to see some government official rummaging through his house, digging holes around the yard and finally recommending compulsory acquisition of his home at a price determined by some other government official subject only to Ministerial approval, with no right to appeal to the local court or any other legal authority? I am sure if this happened that we would see the Minister- certainly the Minister who normally would be operating this legislation- protesting out in the streets.

Our second principal criticism is directed against the Bill’s treatment of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. The Australian Labor Party indulges in a great deal of pious selfpraise about its establishment of a new Legislative Assembly in the Northern Territory, selfgovernment for the Northern Territory and Senate representation for the people of the Northern Territory. I think that the results of the Legislative Assembly elections a couple of weeks ago are interesting and worthy of some passing reference seeing that we are talking about Northern Territory legislation. We believe that this legislation should be referred to the Assembly.

I should like to read very briefly some of the policy of the Country-Liberal Party which won the election on Saturday, 19 October, to the total exclusion of the Labor Party. Seventeen out of the 19 members of the Assembly are members of the coalition Parties and the other two are independents. The Labor Party was annihilated. I think it is proper that we should think about Dr Letts, who is the leader of the coalition Parties in the Northern Territory, as being the equivalent of the Premier of a State. A report on his policy statement on housing and land delivered at a public meeting on 26 September states:

De Letts said that the housing shortage was a matter of real and continuing concern to the people of the Northern Territory. The Country-Liberal Party would increase the supply of serviced land for urban dwellers by accelerating the program both in government and private sectors.

The Country-Liberal Party supported the concept of a single housing authority to more efficiently take over the role of the present Housing Commission and Government Housing. Within this Authority there would be established an office to advise the public on the sources of finance, cost saving methods of construction, help in obtaining funds where necessary and would press strongly for increased financial allocations for home buyers.

Dr Letts went on to talk about the problems of town planning. He made the point that the affairs of town planning should be more open to the public and that there should be a wider representation from interested bodies. In particular he said the Country-Liberal Party would encourage the involvement of Territory women in future town planning, recognising the importance of this work in relation to the social environment. I think that it is a worthwhile policy statement from the equivalent of the Premier of the Northern Territory.

Once again as a passing reference may I say that many of us- if not every Australian- were pleased to know that an Aborigine was elected to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. I think that he was one of the first to get sufficient votes to ensure election. The Opposition congratulates Mr Hyacinth Tungatalum who now represents the electorate of Tiwi. I think that he would be interested to know what is happening in this legislation because the land which the Government seeks to acquire compulsorily includes three or four Aboriginal missions and, I believe, a portion of Bathurst Island, of which Mr Tungatalum is now the parliamentary representative. We believe that for all these reasons these matters should be referred to the local House of Assembly.

This legislation demonstrates the double standard operated by the Government. What could be more important to an elected government, that is a State government, than to make its own decisions on land use within its boundaries? The Government wants to have it both ways; it wants to be praised for giving the Territory its own Par.liament, but having done so it does not want that Parliament to have any real legislative power.

Mr James:

– That is the people. You say the Parliament; it is the people.

Mr McLEAY:

– I appreciate the interjection from the honourable member for Hunter. We are concerned because the Legislative Assembly is elected by the people and the people elected a very strong Liberal-Country Party majority. These are the views that the Opposition holds in this place and they are the same as the views that are held in that place. We wish to see that these matters are referred to the Legislative Assembly. The honourable gentleman who interjected- he did so in a supporting way, I know- is the chairman of a joint parliamentary committee which has been investigating the Northern Territory. I think that that committee should be in a position by now to make a report to the Government, to the Minister for the Northern Territory (Dr Patterson) and possibly to the Parliament. That is another reason why we think that this legislation is ill-timed. The Government has introduced this legislation and wants it passed but it has not even had the benefit of hearing the report and recommendations of the joint committee of which the honourable member for Hunter is the chairman. The committee is made up of members of the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the Australian Country Party. I appreciate his interjection.

I am reminded of 4 comprehensive reports prepared by P.G. Pak-Poy and Associates, a firm of consulting engineers. The firm prepared new and comprehensive reports on urban development in and around Darwin. What has happened about those reports? They were commissioned by my colleague the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), who was the Minister for the Interior when we were in government. I have read the reports and they are excellent. I think that it is a great shame that once again the Government has not taken any notice of those recommendations.

I do not have a great deal of time to say all the things that the Opposition has in mind about this legislation. I would like to say something about the Cities Commission. I briefly refer the House to the second annual report of the Cities Commission and the matters dealt with on page 27 which are directly concerned with the Northern Territory. The Cities Commission says that it has been assisting- I am sure it has been- the Department of the Northern Territory with the planning for urban development. The report states:

The Cities Commission is working in close collaboration with the Department of the Northern Territory, with local government bodies, and with other Australian Government agencies in Darwin and Canberra.

The Cities Commission has been in the Northern Territory assisting the Department with staff and professional advice. But the Government apparently is going to ride roughshod over whatever views the Cities Commission may have.

I that while we are talking about the Cities Commission, it would be appropriate to compare this legislation with the legislation that applies to Albury-Wodonga which is also referred to in the Cities Commission report, because I believe that there will be an attempt- if there has not been one already- to project this legislation as being similar to the Albury-Wodonga legislation. That should be nailed once and for all; there is no comparison whatsoever. I spoke to an officer of the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation at Albury on 10 October last. At that time the Corporation had purchased and settled 3,700 acres of land. It was in possession of the title for another 1,200 acres and was negotiating for 5,800 acres at Albury-Wodonga. Virtually, the Corporation was in possession of or about to possess over 10,000 acres of rural land for use as urban land at a cost of $ 18m. Some of the land was bought for $250 an acre and some was bought for up to $4,000 an acre. But the important point- I hope the Chairman of the joint committee that investigated these matters in the Northern Territory will bring this matter up within the committee discussions- is that there has been no unilateral resumption of land and no court of appeal hearing has been required because up to this date all the land has been purchased by negotiation. In relation to AlburyWodonga, a. person not satisfied with the terms of resumption of land on the New South Wales side of the border has the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of New South Wales. A person living on the Victorian side may appeal to the Victorian Supreme Court. So the Government is not even consistent in its application of these laws.

We have no shortage of advice or advisers looking at the problem of the development of Darwin, but the Labor Government apparently has no intention of taking any notice of any of them. I have mentioned that a Government appointed joint parliamentary committee is about to report on the situation in the Northern Territory, yet the Minister is trying to push this legislation through the Parliament without even listening to the views of the Government’s own members on that committee. The Opposition’s view which I am putting tonight is entirely consistent with our policies when we were in government. I wish now to refer to a statement by the honourable Ralph Hunt, the honourable member for Gwydir, made on 25 October 1972 when he was Minister for the Interior. The statement outlined proposals for the transfer of a range of functions of the Northern Territory legislature and executive. On page 6 the statement spelt out the items of legislative responsibility which would be given by us to the Northern Territory Legislative Council, as it was then, provided they were acceptable generally in the Northern Territory.

At that time the Government was prepared to transfer full authority to the Council and concomitant executive power to a Northern Territory Executive hi respect of a number of State type activities. Because time is running out I will mention briefly some of those activities. They included local government responsibilities, control of various forms of social legislation such as censorship, liquor licensing and workers compensation. I do not want to test your patience, Mr Deputy Speaker. Relevant to this Bill are electricity, water and sewerage operations, housing, which excluded Commonwealth staff housing, urban land, the acquisition, allocation and subdivision of land within the control of the Territory executive, and urban arterial roads. These functions were listed on the statement. Also to be transferred were activities related to urban traffic including motor vehicle registration and a whole list of other items.

Mr James:

– State-like matters.

Mr McLEAY:

– Yes, that is exactly the position that we were trying to create at that time. We would pass over to the Northern Territory authority in matters in which the States have authority. That is the position we are how trying to achieve. If we are attracting support from the other side of the House, there is now an opportunity to support our proposed amendment. The effect of our amendment will be simply as described by the honourable member for Hunter. We want to protect the rights of property owners and occupiers and to ensure that the elected representatives of the Northern Territory take part in framing legislative action which will affect the residents of Darwin obviously for generations ahead. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

-Is the amendment seconded?

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

– I second the amendment. In doing so I would like Government supporters to know that we in the Opposition consider that this matter should be referred to the Legislative Assembly. I remind honourable members that the matter of urban land was under offer from the previous Government to the then Legislative Council. We consider that the members recently elected- we will not go through the business of the electionshould have the right to consider this matter. They have been elected to represent the citizens of the Northern Territory in whatever legislature is established there. I support the proposed amendment and I hope that the Government will realise that by trying to force this measure through without reference to the Legislative Assembly it will create the same hostility as was created by a previous Minister when he tried the same tactic with regard to the acquisition of 32 square miles of land. He took a matter which was in the thinking of the previous Government and bulldozed it through. In doing so he made a lot of enemies in the Northern Territory. So did the Labor Government, as is clearly demonstrated by the results of the last election.

This Bill should be opposed because it is directed towards matters which should be considered by the Northern Territory people themselves. I repeat that it is a Legislative Assembly affair. I would like to know why the Government has decided to rush this Bill through this House at this time. It seems very strange because, as honourable members will realise, the Joint Committee on the Northern Territory has taken evidence, and its chairman is in the House now, nodding off or whatever he is doing -

Mr James:

– Do not be nasty. I was acknowledging what you were saying.

Mr CALDER:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I remember that the honourable member was somewhat nasty on previous occasions.

Mr James:

– When you absented yourself from the Parliament I pointed it out.

Mr CALDER:

-With somewhat relevant results.

Mr James:

– Yes. The people should know these things. You were electioneering in the Northern Territory.

Mr CALDER:

– Those are the words of the Chairman of the Joint Committee on the Northern Territory.

Mr James:

– You are provoking me.

Mr CALDER:

– Far be it from me to provoke anyone, least of all the Chairman of the Committee. I will return to the measure. The Government is pursuing it in the face of a report from the Joint Committee on the Northern Territory. Officially I know nothing about its recommendation, nor should I, but I remind honourable members that on 25 October 1972 the then Minister for the Interior recommended that the responsibility for urban land be allocated to the then Legislative Council. It would be strange for a committee to reverse a decision like that. The Minister for the Northern Territory (Dr Patterson) will be in possession of the Committee’s report. Since its Chairman is in the chamber I should say that the Committee and its staff did a very conscientious and serious job. They tried very hard indeed to get to the nub of the matter with regard to responsibility for the Legislative Assembly. There is no real criticism of the Chairman or the staff of the Committee. Stabilisation of land prices was to be the responsibility of the Northern Territory Legislative Council had it accepted the proposal made to it on 25 October 1972.

It was then under active discussion and the offer had not been refused. Like any party to a deal the Legislative Council was trying, naturally enough, to make the best possible bargain. Let it be said in this place that the proposal made by the previous Government was not refused. It has been said many times that the previous Liberal and Country Party Government made no offer or took no interest, and it is also said that if we made the offer it was refused. They were both completely incorrect. With this offer of urban land of course went the offer of the responsibility for electricity, sewerage and water services. When one is talking of urban land those are the sort of services which go with it. The matter was under active discussion when the LiberalCountry Party Government fell. When the Australian Labor Party came to office, of course, anything that the previous Government had on the stocks was not good enough despite the fact that the present Minister for the Northern Territory when that statement by the former Minister for the Interior, was made in the House said that it did not go far enough, was not made soon enough and all the rest of it. It is over 2 years since then. The then Minister, now the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Mr Enderby), did not take the matter as far as the present Minister has. The former Minister pushed the matter off onto a committee which, as I previously said, although I am a member of it, did a very conscientious and hard job. But the Minister for the Northern Territory at that time ducked the issue. He would not take the responsibility which the present Minister is taking and has taken all through to his credit. Returning to the matter which is allegedly under discussion, under section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution the Commonwealth has the power to acquire property on just terms for any Commonwealth purpose. The way I see it, this Bill seeks to avoid those just terms which operated in the Northern Territory since acquisition took place under the Lands Acquisition Act.

Mr McLeay:

– It applies all over Australia.

Mr CALDER:

– Yes, it applies all over Australia and I do not see why it should be different in the Northern Territory except possibly for the reason that the Northern Territory is considered to be a sort of trial horse or the place where you try out all the socialist policies which either work or do not work. So far as these policies have gone they do not seem to be working well. In this respect I refer to clause 12(8) paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the Bill which to my way of thinking are very dangerous portions of the Bill. Sub-clause 8 states that a determination made by the Valuer-General in accordance with clause 12 is final and conclusive, shall not be challenged, appealed against, reviewed, quashed or called in question in any court or in any arbitration under the Lands Acquisition Act and is not subject to prohibition, mandamus or injunction in any court on any account. For heaven’s sake! What is the Government trying to do to us in the Northern Territory? It is trying to hammer us in like tacks. No one has any right of appeal at all.

Mr Hunt:

– With a sledge hammer.

Mr CALDER:

– As the previous Minister, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) says, with a sledge hammer. It was said by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitiam) that there would be an election and there would be a fully elected Legislative Assembly by the end of 1974. We have that now. The Minister for the Northern Territory has no doubt considered or is considering what executive powers this new fully elected Legislative Assembly will have, yet we find a provision like this in this Bill. It is absolutely extraordinary. The way this centralist Government is going it would appear that it does not wish to give any responsibility to the Northern Territory legislature whatever. This provision in the Bill prevents any determination being challenged or appealed against. It is quite inexplicable and I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us what he understands by it.

Mr McLeay:

– It is a new form of totalitarianism.

Mr CALDER:

– Yes, it is being tried out, I am sure. This is to be the plan for the rest of Australia. I do not think it will work. In fact, I am sure it will not. Surely it is basic that a person who has his land taken from him has the right to appeal to a court or to some authority. Yet here in the Bill it is stated that he has no such right whatever. It is dangerous for there to be no right of appeal against a decision made by one manthe Valuer-General or whoever. If this is not a bid for a socialist centralist takeover I do not know what it is. Under clause 13 (2) there is to be set up an entirely different standard of valuation from that which was originally in use under the Lands Acquisition Act. It is contrary to the intention of the Constitution to legislate to deprive people of those just terms which are mentioned in the Constitution and to which I have referred. There should be just terms and a right of appeal. The Minister in his second reading speech said:

The purpose of this Bill is to provide legislative authority to stabilise the prices of land in the Northern Territory required … in connection with urban development. The area of greatest interest in the Northern Territory is the general area within a radius of 96.3 kilometres of Darwin . . .

It was mentioned by my colleague the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay) that this 96 kilometre radius of Darwin will take in Nguiu on Bathurst Island. It could go very close to taking in Picataramoor, which is where the forestry industry is located, and it will take in all of Wagait. As these are very considerable areas of land I ask the Government: Is it intending to ride roughshod over the Aborigines in these areas and has any consideration been given to this matter? We might ask the recently elected member for Tiwi, who happens to live at Nguiu, what he thinks about it. I am certain that he will have something to say in the Legislative Assembly, if for no other reason than that, as it has been laid down in the Bill, it will be a doctrinaire approach to acquiring this land and there wil be no right of challenge. There is an area within a radius of about 60 miles of Darwin referred to as being for urban development. What investigation has been done and what is intended to be done with this area?

I would now like to refer to the past performance of this Government in land acquisition in the Northern Territory. We had a fairly farcical display over land which was under consideration by the previous Government. Legislation concerning it was forced through although the Opposition opposed it in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. It was forced through in a fit of mad pique by the then Minister regardless of the feelings of the people. I would hope that this does not happen again. I am certain that the present Minister for the Northern Territory is of greater calibre than the former Minister who made such a mess of the administration of the Northern Territory.

This Bill provides initially for a declaration of an investigation area in which persons authorised by the Minister may carry out investigations on private land to determine its suitability for urban development. The period of investigation may be at any time up to a maximum of 2 years. What will happen to these people in the meantime? What happened to those involved in the 32 square mile land acquisition scheme? How much land in the 32 square mile land acquisition scheme turned out to be suitable? At that time I had people pouring into my office asking what was happening about that acquisition. They had been told to sell their land, sell their houses, sell their chicken farms or whatever they had. They received no compensation at that time. They had to leave their businesses with virtually nothing in return.

With respect to this legislation, I ask: Will the Government go about this matter in exactly the same way as it acted in relation to the 32 square mile acquisition scheme? Let us face the fact that that scheme was a shambles from start to finish. If that happens this time, the people of the Northern Territory will be incensed. They will be further incensed because the matter has not been referred to their elected representatives. This is the reason why the Opposition has moved its amendment and why we disapprove of this Bill. The Northern Territory has a fully elected Legislative Assembly. It will have an Executive with certain powers. Those powers are to be recommended by the Joint Committee on the Northern Territory and will be what the Minister sees fit to allow the Legislative Assembly. I would suggest that the members of that Assembly are a team of the most competent men and women. We are objecting to this legislation being introduced into this House with the purpose of passing it through this House and the. Senate without any reference whatsoever to the Northern Territory elected representatives or to the people of the Northern Territory. Why establish a Legislative Assembly if it is not to be used? That is what I want to know. This matter should be put to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly.

Mr HUNT:
Gwydir

– I am surprised that members of the Government are not defending their position in relation to this Bill. I am surprised also that the Government should proceed with a Bill of this nature, particularly in view of the fact that, under legislation which the Minister for Northern Development and Minister for the Northern Territory (Dr Patterson), who is at the table, was responsible for, we witnessed the conduct of an election in the Northern Territory to return 19 members to the new Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. That Legislative Assembly has not yet had powers conferred upon it. Indeed, we are awaiting the report of the Joint Committee on the Northern Territory before the Government considers the range of powers that this new Assembly should have.

For the record, I wish to read the first part of the terms of reference that were contained in the motion carried by the House of Representatives appointing the Joint Committee on the Northern Territory. That motion reads:

  1. 1 ) That a Joint Committee be appointed-

    1. to examine and report on measures that might be taken in the long and short term to provide the Northern Territory with responsible self-government in relation to local affairs- including appropriate divisions of legislative and executive responsibility at the National and Territorial or other level- having regard to:
    1. the Government’s wish to establish a fully elected Legislative Assembly for the Northern Territory by 3 1 December 1 974;
    2. the relationship that will need to exist between a local executive and the National Government;
    3. the size, composition and diversity of interest of the population of the Territory including the special difficulty of providing for effective participation by the Aboriginal people in a political system which is alien to their traditional culture;
    4. the extent to which the people of the Northern Territory wish to accept greater responsibility for its government;
    5. any other special considerations which the Committee considers relevant to its conclusions;

    6. vi) financial arrangements, and

    7. b) to inquire into and report on such matters relating to the Northern Territory as are referred to it-
    1. by the Minister for the Northern Territory, or
    2. by resolution of either House of the Parliament.

While I was Minister for the Interior, the last thing that I would have done with regard to the Northern Territory would have been to introduce Bills for Acts relating to such matters as urban land and other aspects as I would have regarded these matters as falling within the Statelike responsibilities of the then Northern Territory Legislative Council. In fact, I am sure that our Government would not have tried to steamroll over the responsibilities of the elected people of the Northern Territory in the manner in which this Government has attempted to do so in the last 18 months.

If this is to be the pattern and the way in which the Northern Territory is to be treated I forecast that members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly could well do more than walk out of that Assembly as former members of the Northern Territory Legislative Council did in other years. Just how long are the people of the Northern Territory going to stand for this sort of treatment by this Government? In fact, I think that the vote that we witnessed in the Northern Territory where in the 19 electorates, all contested by the Australian Labor Party, the Labor Party did not win a seat- 17 seats were won by the Country-Liberal Party candidates and 2 were won by Independents-

Mr McLeay:

– It was a complete annihilation.

Mr HUNT:

– As the honourable member for Boothby has said, it was a complete annihilation. But the people did not act in this manner without some good reason and some good cause. I do not really think that it was a vote of no confidence in the personality of the present Minister. In fact, I have always had the feeling that the Minister was fairly highly regarded by most people in the Northern Territory. But the Minister is trying to administer the Northern Territory within a hopeless framework in which other government departments are trying to rape his Department of its powers. This is not a new process. I can assure the House that when I was Minister for the Interior I had the experience as well of other departments trying to pull the rug from under my feet. This has gone on to the point where I think the Minister must stand up, fight and be counted for the sake of the people of the Northern Territory.

On 25 October 1 972,I made a statement in the . House of Representatives outlining proposals for the transfer of a range of functions to the Territory legislature and executive. I propose to read a section of those arrangements and proposals, or powers, that were considered at great length for two or three years by way of joint discussions between various Ministers and representatives of the Northern Territory Legislative Council. That part reads:

Subject to general acceptance in the Northern Territory, the Government is prepared to transfer full legislative authority to the Legislative Council and concomitant executive power to a Territory Executive for the following State-type activities:

Local Government responsibilities and functions, and the following forms of community services

Libraries

Fire Brigades

Building standards

Bus services

Cemeteries

Inspection of scaffolding and machinery

Control of the following forms of social legislation

Workers compensation

Gambling

Liquor licensing

Censorship

Consumer protection

Rights of women

Rights of minors

Daylight saving

Control of firearms

Crown Law functions to lower court level including criminal law administration but excluding the Supreme Court and control of companies.

Electricity, water and sewerage operations

Housing (excluding Commonwealth staff housing )

Northern Territory Public Service-

Treasury

Personnel administration

Police

Printing Office

Prison administration

State-type taxation, such as-

Stamp duties

Succession duties-

And now we come to the important one, urban land. Under the heading ‘Urban land’ the functions proposed are:

Acquisition, allocation and subdivision of land within the control of the Territory Executive and urban arterial roads

Urban traffic including-

Motor vehicle registration-

And so I could go on. We made that offer on 25 October 1972, not because we were nearing an election but because the time-table that it took to conduct the discussions fell within that period. We were awaiting a reply from the Northern Territory Legislative Council to that proposal. There was an election, honourable members might remember, on 2 December and the then Government was defeated. As a consequence a move was made to set up a joint committee to examine the form of executive responsibility to be transferred to an enlarged Legislative Assembly. I do not want to debate the rights or the wrongs of this principle or the way in which we may try to stabilise land prices. I do not think that matters. It does not matter to me.

The Government is rushing headlong in characteristic style to administer the land by legislation passed through this Parliamentlegislation that should fall directly within the responsibility of the Legislative Assembly in the Northern Territory. I know that land availability and land prices are a very real problem in and around the city of Darwin. There has been a shortage of serviced land for some time. I well remember the attempt to try to overcome this by the Brinken development and other programs the former Government was trying to get off the ground, getting private enterprise involved to speed up the provision of serviced land. I am also well aware of the enormous areas of land in Darwin occupied by the Department of Defence- by the Royal Australian Air Force, by the Army and by the Navy.

A number of inter-departmental committees met with a view to trying to come to some arrangement to release a lot of this land that was tied up by the Service departments, but I assume that this investigation has not been proceeded with. I think it is a great pity that it has not because some of the choice residential land in Darwin is now occupied by some of the Service departments. As the honourable member for

Boothby said, this Bill is clearly designed to sidestep the provisions of the Lands Acquisition Act, under which land must be acquired on just terms. Where is the protection for the existing land owners? Are they not entitled to a fair go? Are they not entitled to just terms? If they own a block of land of 20 acres or 2 acres or an acre, does that mean that they have to be subject to penalty? Does it mean that they are not entitled to just terms? Does it mean that that sort of land should not be purchased under the terms of the existing Lands Acquisition Act for a Commonwealth purpose?

The appeal provisions under this Bill are nowhere near as fair to anybody who might wish to appeal as are those under the Lands Acquisition Act. The Government has run away with its land grab schemes, so much so that not many areas throughout the Commonwealth today want to be designated as growth areas- not a great number. A great number of areas were looking at their own centres a couple of years ago as being likely growth centres, but not a great many are doing so today. Rumour has it- I do not know whether it is true- that the Albury-Wodonga plan is on the verge of a breakdown. I am told that no fewer than 20 separate authorities and bodies have their fingers in the pie of development. Confidence in the area is apparently falling rapidly and Albury-Wodonga will not get off the ground unless there is confidence within that area by private enterprise because it will be built with private capital. Surely the Government, with its social welfare scheme, will not be able to generate the sort of capital that is necessary to dig trenches, to build drains, and to service blocks of land. I am told- I do not know whether it is true- that Victoria is on the verge of withdrawing from the Albury-Wodonga proposition.

I feel sorry for the Minister for the Northern Territory because I think he has been forced into this ugly position that he is in in which he has to take action to try to push through legislation at a time when the Joint Committee on the Northern Territory has not tabled its recommendations and when the Government has not determined what powers will be vested in the 19-member Legislative Assembly which the Minister was responsible for establishing. I support the amendment.

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

– The Government does not accept the amendment. The main purpose of this legislation, which of course is concerned with the level of land prices in the Northern Territory, is to attempt to stabilise land prices to a degree so that people in the Northern Territory, particularly those who want to build houses and to build business enterprises, will be in a position not only now but also in the future to have access to land at fair and reasonable prices. The experience of the Northern Territory up to the present has been that it has been virtually a speculator’s paradise, particularly around Darwin, as we have seen by the tremendous increases in land prices in recent years.

Mr James:

– Are there many absentee landlords?

Dr PATTERSON:

– Yes. In fact, one of the great problems still is to find out who are the owners of some of this land. Some of the land was freehold tided to people a very long time ago and it is not easy in some cases even to find the owners of some of this land. The principal objective of the Bill is to try to remove the speculative content from acquisition costs so that the public can secure land in the Northern Territory eventually at reasonable prices.

Most of the discussion tonight took place around clauses 12 and 13. One allegation made by all the speakers from the Opposition was that the Government is trying to bypass the new Legislative Assembly. In fact when this Bill was first introduced on 3 April there was adverse comment within the Northern Territory by members of the Australian Country Party in the Legislative Council to the effect that the Government was attempting to bypass the Legislative Council, as it was known at that time. It was also claimed that the Government was trying to acquire all, or certainly much, of the freehold land within a certain radius of Darwin for future use by the Government. These claims were refuted because neither of them is correct. Honourable members will need only to look at clause 13 (2) of the Bill to appreciate that to achieve a process of stabilised land prices which may show speculative increases due to government announcements on decisions relating to urban expansion requirements it is necessary to declare areas. When this land is acquired the provisions of the Lands Acquisitions Act are modified to the degree set out in clause 13. Because a Federal Act- an Act which is relevant to this Parliament- is being modified and because the Government’s objective in this legislation is so intimately related to the acquisition provisions, it is obvious that the Federal legislation is necessary. That is the reason for this particular Bill being debated and considered in this Parliament rather than exclusively in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly.

Clause 12 provides for the determination by the Valuer-General of the Northern Territory of a value factor which represents the variation in the value of land between the date on which the investigation area was declared and the date on which the land was acquired. The determination of the value factor requires a tremendous amount of expertise, and the person most suitable to determine the value factor is, of course, the Valuer-General. He is a competent person. He is trained in this field. He is an expert. For that reason the Government takes the view that because this is a highly complex matter, because it has to be determined by experts, it should in fact be determined by the best expert in the Northern Territory taking into account all of these factors in determining the value factor. Under the provisions of clause 12 the ValuerGeneral in fact shall determine the percentage increase or decrease, between the date on which the land declared was put within an investigation area- that is, the area is declared at a particular point in time- and the date on which the land was compulsorily acquired, that has occurred in the value of the land not subject to this Act. The Valuer-General will furnish a copy of his determination to the Minister who shall then furnish it to the land owner.

Clause 13 of the Bill sets out how the compensation for land compulsorily acquired is to be assessed. In short, when the Government and the land owner cannot agree as to the amount of compensation, the amount should be fixed by an arbitrator or a court. This is explained in the following manner: The value of the land at the date on which the land was declared to be within an investigation area, plus or minus a percentage increase as determined by the Valuer-General, plus damage for severance, plus an amount for authorised improvements, but may not include any increase in value arising out of the proposed development by the Government. As the amount of compensation, in cases where the Government and the land owner cannot agree, is to be assessed by an arbitrator or by a court, there is no necessity to make provision for any appeal against that announcement. The land will be acquired under the Land Acquisitions Act. Generally, except as mentioned above- that is in relation to the clause with which I have just dealt- the compensation will be assessed in the same manner as under that Act.

Great play has been made of the words ‘just terms’. The point I want to make to the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder), the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay) and the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) is that under section 5 1 of the Constitution this clause relating to ‘just terms’ was inserted specifically to protect the rights of the States in relation to land acquired. It does not apply to land acquired within the Territories, and this is the thing which must be borne in mind. The meaning of the words ‘just terms’ as they apply under the Constitution is quite different from the way in which they apply under the relevant Act to land acquired within the States. Apparently what is being made out by honourable members in this debate is that, in summary, we are bypassing the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. I have explained the reason for this. The Bill we are considering modifies a Federal Act and the place to modify any Federal Act is in this Parliament. The second point has been made in the debate concerns the value factor. The value factor will be determined by the Valuer-General, who is a recognised expert in this field, taking into account all the components, including when the land was first declared and investigated and when the land is to be acquired, if at all. A determination is then handed down by this expert in relation to the value factor for the acquisition. For those reasons the Government does not accept the Oppostion’s amendment.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr McLeay’s amendment) stand part of the question.

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

AYES: 61

NOES: 52

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Motion (by Dr Patterson) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr McLEAY:
Boothby

-At no stage in the speech of the Minister for the Northern Territory (Dr Patterson) did he deal with the points that we made about a person having the right of appeal. In particular, we referred to clause 10 (7) and clause 12 (8). Clause 12 (8) states:

A determination made by the Valuer-General in accordance with this section-

is final and conclusive;

is not subject to prohibition, mandamus or injunction in any court on any account.

We believe that the Minister should have answered our request that there be a right of appeal. He has not. I simply wish to place that on the record.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 3713

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 16 October, on motion by Mr Clyde Cameron:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Wannon

– It is necessary to understand the background of what might appear to be a simple, technical measure if one read carefully the second reading speech of the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron). But the background to this amendment to the Stevedoring Industry Act goes back to 1956.I think that in those circumstances it is necessary to look at the history of what happened in those times and at the legislation that was introduced. Generally speaking, the Stevedoring Industry Act is intended to give waterside workers a monopoly of coverage of stevedoring operations in most Australian ports. The present Act, without this amending Bill, by and large achieves that with very few exceptions- exceptions which are covered in the present Act.

It should be noted that section 39 (1) of the Act provides that in such ports persons not registered as waterside workers are not to be employed as waterside workers. Section 41 of the Act provides that only persons registered as employers of waterside workers at a port with the Australian Stevedoring Authority may engage a person for employment as a waterside worker for work in stevedoring operations on a wharf or ship at that port. I think that it is necessary to look at the definition of a waterside worker and the list of exemptions in that definition. We are concerned with paragraph (n) of section 7 which gives the exemptions from the definition of waterside worker. The present paragraph (n) states: persons in the regular employment of a person engaged in an industrial undertaking, being persons whose duties include the performance of stevedoring operations in connexion with that undertaking.

That is the exemption that has operated since 1956. The effect of paragraph (n) is that these employees neither need to be registered as waterside workers nor to be members of the Waterside Workers Federation and the employer does not need to be registered with the Authority.

This paragraph was inserted in the Act in 1956. The circumstances were well explained by the then Minister for Labour and National Service, Mr Harold Holt, during the second reading debate. I think it is worth quoting the following passage from what he then said:

Certain stevedoring work is to be excluded from the operation of the Act. Although this work will not be on a considerable scale, I think the desirability and importance of the Government’s decision in this regard will quickly become evident to honourable members. At the present time, certain employers have exemption from provisions of the Act. Some of these exemptions date back many years, and are provided for in awards of the Arbitration Court. The exemption granted to the Electrolytic Zinc Company of Australia Limited, at Risdon, in Tasmania is a case in point. The circumstances are, usually, that the employer unloads or loads cargoes directly from or into ships at wharves associated with the employer’s works.

I ask the House to note those words ‘at wharves associated with the employer’s works’.

Debate interrupted.

page 3713

ADJOURNMENT

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! It being half past ten o’clock and in accordance with the order of the day of 1 1 July I propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr Daly:

- Mr Speaker, I require the question to be put forthwith without debate.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 3713

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Wannon

- Mr Speaker, I was asking the House to note the words of the then Minister for Labour and National Service, in particular the words ‘at wharves associated with the employer’s works’ because those words have a significance which the present Minister for Labor has overlooked. Mr Harold Holt continued:

Tasmanian members will be aware of the problems that have emerged in relation to the Bell Bay aluminium works. The performance of waterside workers there has been one series of acts which, put at their best, can only be described as calculated to force up the price of Australian-produced aluminium.

At that point Mr Barnard interjected: ‘There are faults on the other side, too ‘ and Mr Harold Holt continued:

That may well be so, but I think that the honourable gentleman, who represents the constituency in which Bell Bay is situated will find that most people, whatever their general views may be, would be strongly in favour of the proposals that I am outlining here.

Later he said:

It is obviously more preferable from a practical point of view, to have working with the company people who, as occasion requires, can be assigned to its stevedoring operations, rather than go through the complicated manoeuvre of bringing men miles across water by launch to do a job, and then returning them. If one wanted a convincing reason why that is desirable, the history of Bell Bay provides it a thousandfold.

It was on the basis of working practicality, as the then Minister indicated, that the present provision of paragraph (n) was introduced into the Act, largely so that companies that are operating ports in isolated centres around Australia loading and unloading an occasional cargo, most of which is associated with their own particular undertaking and some of which might be general cargo for a hospital, an hotel or a general store also operating in the same general locality, could use their own labour. The exemption was a sensible one introduced to make sure that labour could be used efficiently and so that there would not have to be a register of waterside workers for a situation where there was only one ship in a port every two or three weeks or, alternatively, that waterside workers had to be flown in to a remote port or, as the then Minister said, taken across the sea to the port for the loading or unloading of a ship, because that obviously would be an uneconomic proposition.

Having given that background to the general exemption in paragraph (n) I should like to come to the speech of the Minister for Labor and Immigration because in 2 points he made an error in his second reading speech. On this occasion it was a prepared speech and I can suppose only that the error was one that was not accidental, as might have happened on as earlier occasion when there was some doubt as to whether the speech was wrong or the Bill was wrong. But if we can assume for a moment that the speech is intended to be correct, I think we can assume also as I will demonstrate, that the Bill as presented to this House is incorrect. The Minister, quoting the former Minister for Labour and National Service, said:

Paragraph (n) was introduced into the legislation in 1956 and was intended to cover situations where the employer used his regular employees to unload cargo directly from or into ships at wharves associated with the employer’s works-

If the Minister had wanted to quote accurately the former Minister for Labour he would have ended his sentence there but he did not do so and added a further clause as follows: and where the cargo was to be used in or in connection with an undertaking of the employer.

That was never in the original sense of paragraph (n). If it were to become the sense of the present amendment to paragraph (n) it would cause havoc in many wharves around the Australian coast. I can only assume from discussion between many people and officers of the Minister for Labor and Immigration that that is not the Minister’s intention because there are a large number of ports around the Australian coastBell Bay would continue to be one as are Whyalla, Gove, Weipa, Groote Eylandt, Ardrossan, and Port Lincoln, to name a few- where the company concerned generally uses its own facilities and its own labour to load or unload ships when there is not a register of waterside worker labour. The company’s labour loads or unloads ships and whatever general cargo might be mixed in with the company cargo coming in or out of the company’s port. The general cargo might be supplies for a doctor, for the local hotel or for the local store, all associated with the town or settlement established as a result of the company’s operations or mining operations. If there had to be established a register of waterside workers to cover the situation of a ship every 3 weeks or a ship every second week, or alternatively if people had to be flown in or out from another more significant port where there was a permanent register of waterside workers, obviously the total operation would tend to become inefficient.

On that basis the Opposition would oppose that extension of the amendment which has been moved by the Minister for Labor and Immigration. However, the Minister says that that is not his intention; that his only intention is to cover a barge operation in the port of Darwin where an undertaking has been established, allegedly using the cover of paragraph (n), and where the barge operation in itself is not an* industrial undertaking of a kind which I have mentioned in these other ports but which, coming in under cover of paragraph (n), has been allowed to operate and is therefore operating really in defiance, as the Minister would suggest, of the amendments carried in 1956. If that is all the Minister wants to do, the Opposition would have some sympathy with him because it is recognised as a de facto situation and as a legal situation that long since the Waterside Workers’ Federation has been given, with some minor exceptions, a monopoly of waterside worker labour. But the Minister’s amendment goes far beyond that although the Minister does not say so, and since it does go far beyond the Minister’s stated intention I hope that the Minister will accept amendments from the Opposition which will draw back his amendment to meet the situation he outlined in his second reading speech and which will not allow his amendment to be extended far beyond his stated intention.

I am certain that the Minister would not want to introduce into this House a piece of legislation which was not in strict conformity with his second reading speech and would not want the amendment, which for a second time might have been incorrectly drawn by the draftsman, to go far beyond his own stated and factual intention. The amendment, as I will demonstrate when I speak to the Opposition’s amendment presently, certainly does that to this extent. But there is another area where the Minister’s second reading speech is factually at fault. I have indicated how he added his own clause to Mr Holt’s second reading speech in 1956, adding the words ‘where the cargo was to be used in or in connection with an undertaking of the employer’. I have demonstrated how those words are impractical and unreal and were never intended because the then Minister for Labour and National Service only used the words:

The circumstances are, usually, that the employer unloads or loads cargoes directly from or into ships at wharves associated with the employer’s works.

That is quite a different situation covering, as I said, supplies for the doctor, the local hotel, or the local general store, all of which would be supplying people working at the undertaking concerned. I am prepared to accept that the Minister does not intend that his amendment extends as far as it would in fact extend. But there is another piece of the Minister’s second reading speech which is odd. The Minister had 2 second reading speeches. One was handed out and the other was the speech recorded in Hansard. The one that was handed out was more accurate than the one that was, in fact, spoken in the Parliament. The one that was handed out ended in this way:

I -

That is the Minister- might also add that in moving this Bill the Government has consulted with the principal parties associated with the industry.

The Minister did not try to suggest that the parties concerned had agreed with the amendment. He did not try to suggest that they had not opposed the amendment or proposed alternatives.

When he came to the second reading speech in the Parliament, as opposed to the second reading speech that he handed out, he added on the words ‘they concurred with what has been proposed by the Government’. On the information available to me that is certainly not true for the reasons that I have outlined would enormously increase the costs in a large number of ports- I have indicated some of them- on the Australian coast where there just is not work for a permanent register and where it would be utterly impractical, as I am sure the Minister would realise, to bring in waterside worker labour for one ship a fortnight or one ship every 3 weeks, sometimes having to fly them in and fly them out, or take the n in, as the former Minister for Labour and National Service said, across the sea.

If the Minister intends the Bill to cover only the barge operation in Darwin, that is one thing and we will look at it separately. But to cover the situation which I have been indicating we would be proposing that the word ‘performing’ in the third line of the proposed new paragraph (n) should be replaced by the words ‘whose duties include’. That amendment will be moved in the Committee stage. On advice available to me that will enable the situation to remain as it has been in ports outside Darwin, largely company ports, where it is important in a high cost situation to have an efficient use of labour as I am sure the Minister for Labor and Immigration would readily recognise. At this point it is nothing to do with the rate at which particular people or particular unions might load or unload ships. It is a question of whether labour at a certain point- at Gove, Weipa, Groote Eylandt, or Bell Bay- can be used effectively and without a waste of time. The words proposed by the Opposition would certainly achieve that

I am prepared to recognise that this is simply a technical oversight as far as the Minister is concerned and as far as the drafting of the legislation is concerned although, knowing some of the discussions that have gone on between officers of his Department and some other people, one might wonder whether it is a technical oversight.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Do you think the officers are crook?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I would not think that at all. I just wonder- no doubt the Minister would be surprised if I was not wondering- at the ultimate intention in this particular area. As I always do, I am giving the Minister the credit of whatever doubt there might have been in my mind. I am in a generous mood tonight and I hope that the Minister will not spoil it.

We are concerned about another area. For the last 12 years a barge operation has been working in the port of Darwin. Whether it was originally intended that this barge operation should be able to work with Transport Workers Union labour as opposed to the equivalent of the North Australian Branch of the Waterside Workers Federation labour is perhaps immaterial, but the operation has been working in a certain way for 12 years. There has been difficulty. There has been tension between the Transport Workers Union and the North Australian Branch of the Waterside Workers Federation in the port of Darwin and it would be an unhappy circumstance if the Minister’s amendment was to re-awake that tension and cause industrial difficulties of a kind that have been present in the past as a result of a demarcation dispute largely between 2 unions. The barge operation has been working. One of the significant companies has been bought on behalf of Aborigines by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. They now own 70 per cent of it. It services remote coastal settlements which have little or no other means of transport. Transport costs are already very high. Again there is the question of the efficiency of that operation because it might be a case only of whether one union can load or unload barges more effectively. It might also be a case of whether the people employed in the barge operation can be fully employed if they have not available to them at the same time the work of loading or unloading the barges in the port of Darwin. I think the Government ought to consider this pretty carefully.

In addition I hope that the Minister has not forgotten that in recent legislation in which he had the utmost co-operation from the Opposition in this House and in the Senate, legislation that was passed in relation to the Moore v. Doyle situation and which has been dear to his heart, although perhaps it should have been delayed until the Minister had reported back to the House on certain matters, power was given to the Arbitration Commission to demarcate in an industrial dispute between 2 unions. The Arbitration Commission was given that power only 2, 3 or 4 weeks ago, if the legislation has been proclaimed. I think it would be unusual if the Minister has not achieved that proclamation, because he is an energetic person. It would be odd, I think, to pass legislation which took that power out of the Commission’s hands in relation to a particular instance. That is precisely what this legislation would seek to do in relation to the port of Darwin and the barge operations concerned. This legislation seeks to do* in this instance what the demarcation power given to the Commission would have allowed the Commission to do in more normal circumstances. But the Minister is not prepared to wait to give the Commission a chance to use its new-found power. He wishes to step in in a situation which is almost certain, because of Government legislative action, to lead to very considerable industrial dispute, not between labour and management but between the Transport Workers Union in the Northern Territory and the Waterside Workers Federation in the Northern Territory, as there has been a very substantial dispute in the past.

I believe, because the Minister or his Government has the worst industrial record of any government since 1929, that he would not wish to do something that could add to that record of dispute. Therefore I would hope that he would thank the Opposition for bringing forward an amendment that would avoid the prospect of further disputes occurring in the port of Darwin in relation to this issue. I hope therefore that the Minister will accept a second amendment, the effect of which would be bringing in the new definition as an operative factor from the date of royal assent to the new legislation but that the new definition would apply only to future operations which have not yet begun and would not apply pre-existing operations which have been in existence for a considerable period of time.

I think this is a reasonable way of meeting the objectives of the Minister. It recognises that there may well have been a loophole in the 1956 legislation. It means that the Opposition is saying in relation to future operations that that loophole ought to be overcome but that the Minister ought not to seek to pass legislation that would have a retrospective effect; that would have an impact on inter-union relations and the operations of a company that has been going forward and making very useful service to many remote settlements in the Northern Territory during the last 12 years. An additional factor is that the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, on behalf of the Aborigines, has bought 70 per cent of the largest operator in this area. These are all matters which I earnestly hope the Minister will take into account when the Opposition moves its amendments in the Committee stage. We will not be voting against the second reading of this Bill. We will certainly be voting for both of our amendments. If the ecumenical spirit with which I have spoken on this legislation is not followed by the Government in the Committee stage we will certainly have to consider our position on the third reading. I would hope that it would not be necessary to do that.

Debate (on motion by Mr Daly) adjourned.

page 3717

ADJOURNMENT

Cardinal Mindszenty

Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I call the honourable member for Mackellar. In view of what he said this morning he may make his speech sitting down.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I shall be quite happy to stand, Mr Speaker. I feel quite strong. This city has welcomed many distinguished and powerful men, but there is within its boundary tonight a man who is not only distinguished but who is also a spiritually powerful man and a man whose presence I think we should note. That man is Cardinal Mindszenty. He is a man who, through his courage, is notable throughout the world. Cardinal Mindszenty was imprisoned first by the collaborators of the Nazis because in Hungary, where he was the Bishop of Veszprem, he defended the Jews. His first imprisonment was therefore at the hands of the Nazis. When the communists overran Hungary in 1949 he was imprisoned by them because he stood up for the freedom of the church. He suffered torture and was imprisoned, as I have said. His cause was taken up in this House at that time by members on both sides. I have looked at Hansard. On 9 February 1949 Mr Harrison asked the then Minister for External Affairs, Dr Evatt, a question about this matter in which Dr Evatt replied very favourably. On 1 March Dr Page asked the then Prime Minister, Mr Chifley, a similar question and Mr Chifley supported Cardinal Mindszenty. On 16 March the present member for Wilmot (Mr Duthie) asked Mr Chifley a similar question. On 21 June the present Minister for Education (Mr Beazley) asked Mr Chifley a similar question and in each case generous support was forthcoming. May I quote what Dr Evatt as Minister for External Affairs said at that time. He said:

Cardinal Mindszenty of the Roman Catholic Church and a Bishop of the Lutheran Church were imprisoned, and in Bulgaria,15 Protestant pastors were brought to trial. That matter was put on the agenda of the Assembly, not because those individual cases would normally be of international concern, but because it was felt strongly that, in the guise of administering criminal law, actually what was being attemped in those States was interference with fundamental freedoms- in this instance freedom of religious worship.

I think I have demonstrated that the cause of Cardinal Mindszenty is one which would be supported, I would hope, by both sides of the House. Cardinal Mindszenty came to Canberra this afternoon. The honourable member for Lyne (Mr Lucock) and I met him outside Canberra and we saw him to the Archbishop’s house where he is staying. I understand that tomorrow evening he is to be entertained in this House. I say that this man is worthy of every kind of support because he withstood torture and imprisonment first by the Nazis- I am not certain of the date- and then by the communists in 1949. He was freed briefly in 1956 at the time of the Hungarian uprising. Then for 1 5 years he was held in confinement in his own city in a diplomatic post.

This man has withstood a tremendous amount. He is 82 years of age now and understandably is somewhat frail, but he is still alert and still able to bring to us the message of resistance to communist oppression, whether it be on the religious or the secular side because that oppression is anti-religious as well as being a repression of all the things which we consider to be human freedoms. I think that we should mark the fact that the communists have endeavoured to subvert the churches within their own jurisdiction. The churches have manfully withstood them, but the communists have contrived to put up puppet priests and puppet bishops who have been the tools of communist policy. These must be rejected, but what I suggest to this House is that we should be taking more interest in these things, and we should inform ourselves of what is happening behind the Iron Curtain to those who profess religion of any kind, but particularly, of course, the Christian religion.

Surely we do not need a Solzhenytsin to tell us what is happening. Surely we can see for ourselves, and we should require the communist powers to give us the same freedom to make inquiries within their borders as we accord to their agents to make inquiries within our borders. Surely if we are honest about this- I say this with some kind of reluctance because I would say it of the past Liberal Government as well of the present Labor Government- we will admit that we have not been sufficiently interested in this matter. We have not seen that the balance is held evenly and that we are entitled to the same access in Russia or any other communist country as we give to them in Australia. Why should we not be concerned with the persecution of religion, whether it be the Christian or the Jewish religion, or the Catholic or the Protestant religion. Why should we not be concerned with the persecution of religion inside the Communist border? Surely the Government should be able to bring friendly pressure on the Communist countries and say to them: ‘Look, you are signatories to the declarations of the United Nations. Why are you violating your pledges?’ Why do we in a cowardly way simply sit silent while these things are happening- and they are happening. There is incontrovertible evidence that inside these Communist countries religion is subject to the strongest and the most stringent persecution. There is evidence, and we should be following it up and seeing that the evidence is made available to the Australian people and the people of other countries in the free world so that they can assess for themselves the validity of Soviet protestations as to whether they are adhering to the treaties of the United Nations. Surely this is a very simple thing. Surely we should be taking some kind of initiative in this matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! It being 1 1 p.m. the House stands adjourned until 12 noon tomorrow.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 3719

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Censorship: Films and Television Programs (Question No. 166)

Mr Lloyd:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Media, upon notice:

  1. ) How many (a) films and (b) television programs have been censored in any way because of sex or violence since 2 December 1972.
  2. How many minutes have been deleted in each category on the grounds of (a) sex and (b) violence.
Mr Morrison:
Minister for Science · ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) (a) The censorship of films imported for use in the cinema and on television, and programs recorded on videotape imported for television, is carried out by the Film Censorship Board. The operations of this Board fall within the ministerial responsibility of the Attorney-General.

Television programs produced and shown by Australian stations are subject to provisions in Television Program Standards laid down by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board for which I have ministerial responsibility. The relevant standards specify certain times during which young people are likely to be viewing and programing shown during these times must be appropriate for this type of audience.

The Broadcasting Control Board, therefore, in exercising its censorship power under Section 101 of the Broadcasting and Television Act, does so in order to establish whether a program or portion of a program is suitable at all for television, or whether it is suitable for a particular time of transmission having regard to the nature of the known audience at the time.

  1. Since 2 December 1972, 31 separate Australian produced programs have been subject to censorship by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board because they contained elements of sex or violence which were considered to be contrary to the Board ‘s Television Program Standards.

    1. (a) 36 excisions, totalling approximately six minutes, were made from television programs by the Board because of sex; and

  2. 16 excisions, totalling approximately T-h minutes were made from television programs by the Board because of violence.

As I have indicated above, for the most part, these cuts were made to render the programs concerned suitable for times of presentation when the audience was likely to contain large numbers of young viewers.

Importation of Animal Semen (Question No. 183)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. How much animal semen has been imported from those countries free to export to Australia in each of the years since the ban was lifted.
  2. How much semen has been imported from each breed in those countries.
  3. How much semen has been directed to each of the companies approved to receive this semen from Customs.
Dr Everingham:
Minister for Health · CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP

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

My Department does not have figures for bovine semen imported prior to the calendar year 1969. However, doses of bovine semen imported in the calendar years since 1969 have been as follows:

1969,9,363; 1970, 68,648; 1971,211,050; 1972,340,283: 1973,823,556.

  1. Complete information regarding breeds has been kept only since 1972, and for the financial year 1973-74 doses of semen approved were as follows:

No bovine semen has been imported from the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands.

  1. All semen consigned to Australia is addressed to the owner, care of the Chief Quarantine Officer (Animals) of the State into which the semen is imported.

Semen is released by Customs only to the Chief Quarantine Officer (Animals), whose responsibility it is to check the consignment against approvals given by the Australian Department of Health, Canberra, and the appropriate health certification.

Provided all documentation is in order the semen is released to the approved importer. The importer then distributes the consignment in accordance with orders secured. Neither the Chief Quarantine Officer (Animals) nor this Department keeps a record of the final destination of semen. This can be obtained, should the need arise to control a disease outbreak, from the detailed records of AI centres and distributing firms.

Department of Education: Inter-departmental Committees (Question No. 296)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. Does his Department maintain a recordof interdepartmental committees in which it participates.
  2. If not, then how is he aware of all the interdepartmental consultations in which his Department is involved through inter-depanmental committees.
  3. Will he ensure that such a list is in future available to him.
Mr Beazley:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 ), (2) and (3)I refer the right honourable member to the Prime Minister’s answer to question number 964 on the 1973 Notice Paper (Hansard, 27 September 1973, pages 1714-1715) in which he drew attention to the impracticalities of attempting to list all the consultations in which departments are engaged with other departments. My Department keeps me properly informed of all important developmentsthis is a satisfactory procedure for the purposes of my Ministry.

Australian Film Commission (Question No.515)

Mr Giles:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Media, upon notice:

Is it the intention of the Government to incorporate all the Tariff Board recommendations of 30 June 1973 (entitled The Motion Picture, Film and Television Programs Report) in any legislation setting up an Australian film industry.

Mr Morrison:
ALP

– The Minister for the Media has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

As announced on 10 December 1973, Cabinet agreed to the drafting of legislation to establish an Australian Film Commission.

This decision incorporated acceptance of the principal recommendations made in the Tariff Board Report on Motion Picture Films and Television Programs. It did, however, reject the Tariff Board recommendations to establish a pool buying’ system for television programs and to restructure the exhibition sector of the industry.

A Bill giving effect to Cabinet’s decision has been drafted and is before the Parliament at this time.

Cabinet also approved of my recommendation that an Interim Board of the Australian Film Commission be established to advise me on policy matters associated with the formation of the Commission and to carry out some of its preliminary tasks. I have appointed this Interim Board, with wide representation from throughout the Australian film industry, and it has begun its consideration of matters necessary to the earliest possible establishment of the Commission.

Department of Agriculture: Research and Development Staff (Question No. 870)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many officers or employees of the Department of Agriculture or of authorities under the Minister’s control are employed on research and development work.
  2. Where are they employed.
  3. What is the nature of the work being undertaken.
  4. What is the total expenditure per annum in maintaining this research and development program.
  5. Who decides the nature of the programs or projects included in this research and development work.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

(1)368.

(2)

(3)

Industry No. 5 (Fisheries) Division- Research into economic and biological aspects of the Australian fishing industry.

Forestry and Timber Bureau- Research into silviculture, forest management and forest protection; collection and distribution of forestry information; publication of reports and bulletins dealing with forestry; collection of statistics and information regarding timber supplies and requirements in Australia and formulating programs in respect of the supply, production and distribution of timber in Australia and the importation and exportation of timber into and from Australia.

Bureau of Agricultural Economics- Establish the facts relevant to the economic situation in rural industries in Australia and to analyse and interpret this data using economic, econometric and other techniques, as well as automatic data processing procedures. The results of research are described and interpreted for use in rural policy formation.

Australian Wool Corporation-

  1. Economic research concerned with the demand for wool, marketing methods, wool production and wool harvesting;
  2. Technical research and development of improved raw wool handling, selling, transportation and distribution procedures;
  3. Research and development work in the field of new and/or improved wool products and manufacturing processes, evaluation of wool blend performance, research into promotion methods and market development

Australian Meat Board- Economic and technical research related to the livestock and meat industry.

Australian Dairy Produce Board- Investigations into ways of:

  1. Improving the technical aspects of supply/marketing co-ordination involving product and packaging standards; sampling and testing procedures; assessment of analytical data; storage and transport requirements.
  2. Design and operation of sampling and testing programs to ensure maximum conformance of product quality characteristics to buyer’s requirements at minimum cost to the industry.

Australian Dairying Research Committee-

Co-ordination of research activities relating to production, processing and nutrition research; analysis and interpretation of survey data; provision of advice and assistance to industry organisations relating to marketing including promotion and trends in demand for dairy products.

Australian Wheat Board- Undertakes research into:

  1. Marketing- including research into wheat quality as it related to various overseas end uses and individual requirements; also includes forward wheat varietal breeding requirements.
  2. Pest control and all other matters relating to the care and preservation of wheat and problems involved in the large-scale storage and handling of wheat.

Australian Canned Fruits Board- Statistical research into aspects of production, marketing and prices, including those of competitive products overseas, of canned fruits.

(5)

Industry No.5 (Fisheries) Division- First Assistant Secretary and Assistant Secretaries, Policy and Operations.

Forestry and Timber Bureau- Director-General in conjunction with Director, Forest Research Institute and

Officer-in-Charge, Forest Resources Development Section.

Bureau of Agricultural Economics- Director of the Bureau who is responsible to the Secretary of the Department for the overall performance of the Bureau.

Australian Wool Corporation- Out of the total annual expenditure on research and development about a half is financed from the Corporation’s own resources and the rest from the Wool Research Trust Fund. The Corporation’s research program is framed in consultation with research advisory committees on economies, textile and objective measurement. The provision of funds for that part of the program which is covered by the Wool Research Trust Fund requires the approval of the Minister for Agriculture.

Australian Meat Board- The Board decides on programs or projects.

Australian Dairy Produce Board- The Assistant General Manager (Technical Development) under the direction of the Board and General Manager, and in consultation with appropriate industry organisations.

Australian Dairying Research Committee- The nature of the Dairying Research program is decided by the Committee subject to the approval of the Minister for Agriculture.

Australian Wheat Board- Administrative control over expenditure of funds and decision as to research priorities is maintained by the Board, based on technical advice from the Research and Development officers.

Australian Canned Fruits Board- The Board decides on the nature of research projects.

Government Publications and Inquiry Centres (Question No. 893)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Media, upon notice:

  1. How many Government publications and inquiry centres were there prior to 2 December 1972.
  2. Where were they located.
  3. How many Government publications and inquiry centres are in existence at the present time.
  4. Where are they located.
  5. What is their purpose.
  6. How many Government employees work in each centre.
  7. How many inquiries are received daily, on average, at each of the centres.
Mr Morrison:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) There were no Government publications and inquiry centres as such prior to 2 December 1972. However, there were four Publications Sales Offices, at that time, under the control of the Department of the Treasury, located in the following cities:

Sydney- First Floor, Bank House, 3 15 George Street

Melbourne- 347 Swanston Street

Perth- Fourth Floor, Commonwealth Centre, 1 St George’s Terrace

Canberra- 1 13 London Circuit.

  1. Six including 1 mobile.
  2. Sydney-309 Pitt Street.

Melbourne- As above.

Perth- Ground Floor, Mt Newman House, 200 St

George’s Terrace.

Canberra- As above.

Adelaide- Ground Floor, Industry House, 12 Pirie Street.

Mobile- Based on Canberra and operating in New South Wales.

  1. To provide for the Australian public convenient access to publications and general information concerning the Australian Government; to provide, in answer to inquiries, factual information concerning the policies, decisions and activities of the Australian Government, departments and authorities, and the sale of publications handled by the Australian Government Publishing Service.
  2. Sydney, 6; Melbourne, 3; Perth, 5; Canberra, 4; Adelaide, 5; Mobile, 3.
  3. Sydney, 49; Melbourne, 160; Perth, 44; Canberra, 53; Adelaide, 63; Mobile, 32.

Western Australia: Aboriginal Student Grants (Question No. 954)

Mr Bungey:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. How many students in Western Australia were receiving grants under the Aboriginal Secondary Grants Scheme as at 30 June 1974.
  2. How many students receiving the grants (a) live at home and (b) board away from home.
  3. What procedures are followed by the Department to ensure that allowances for uniforms and textbooks and the living allowance are used for their intended purposes.
Mr Beazley:
ALP

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

  1. 1,887.

  2. Of these 1,887 students:

    1. 1,161 live at home;
    2. 726 board away from home.
  3. Procedures have been developed by my Department for the administration of the Aboriginal Secondary Grants Scheme to ensure as far as possible that the allowances payable are used for their intended purposes.

Education Officers of my Department visit schools which have grant holders enrolled in order to maintain contact both with students and with school principals and teachers. Supervising school staff are kept informed of the requirements expected of grant holders to satisfy the payment of allowances under the Scheme. Where problems occur, students and parents are counselled concerning their responsibilities and obligations. In the very rare cases where counselling fails, provision exists for the transfer of payment of the textbook and uniform allowance to someone other than the parent.

My Departmental officers are assisted in the administration of the scheme through contacts developed and maintained with officers both of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and State Departments who work with Aboriginal communities.

Western Australia: Aboriginal Student Grants (Question No. 955)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many students in Western Australia were receiving grants under the Aboriginal Study Grants Scheme as at 30 June 1974.
  2. At what educational institutions were they enrolled.
Mr Beazley:
ALP

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

  1. The information collected by my Department about the numbers of students receiving grants under the Aboriginal Study Grants Scheme covers total numbers for the periods 1 January to 30 June and1 July to 3 1 December each year. During the former period in 1974, 187 students in Western Australia received grants under the Aboriginal Study Grants Scheme.
  2. The educational institutions at which these students were enrolled are as follows:

Animal Diseases: Contingency Plans (Question No. 1103)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

What contingency plans have been prepared to combat an outbreak of the following diseases in Australia: (a) foot and mouth disease, (b) rabies, (c) blue tongue and (d) Newcastle disease.

Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

The Australian Agricultural Council (on which the State Governments and the Australian Government are represented) adopted contingency plans to combat any outbreak of foot and mouth disease, blue tongue and Newcastle disease as follows:-

Foot and mouth disease- at the 76th meeting of Council held in February 1970.

Blue tongue and Newcastle disease- at its 82nd meeting held in August 1972.

Copies of these plans can be made available on request from the Secretary of the Australian Agricultural Council, Australian Department of Agriculture.

In relation to the disease rabies, a draft contingency plan has been considered by the Commonwealth and States Veterinary Committee of the Australian Agricultural Council and the Veterinary Public Health Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council. The draft plan will be put before the full Councils shortly.

Department of the Media: Civil Defence Exercises (Question No. 1139)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Media, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the answer to question No. S48 (Hansard, 19 September 1974, page 1621) in which the Prime Minister indicated that the form and frequency of exercises in Government Departments in civil defence preparedness are as determined by individual Departments, on what dates in the last 18 months have exercises of this nature been conducted in the Department of the Media.
  2. Which officers and employees took part.
  3. How many officers and employees took part.
  4. What was the purpose of each of the exercises.
  5. Does the Minister accept that this is an area where the Australian Government can give a lead to other employers.
Mr Morrison:
ALP

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

  1. 8 February 1974.
  2. The officers and employees of the Australian Government Printing Office.
  4. The exercise was to evacuate the Australian Government Printing Office to evaluate the efficiency of procedures in the event of fire.
  5. See the Prime Minister’s answer to question No. 1 130 on 17 October 1974 (Hansard, page 2583).

Food Testing: Co-operation between Departments (Question No. 1206)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. What co-operation and co-ordination exists between his Department and the Department of Science on food testing generally and mercury levels in fish in particular.
  2. What co-operation or co-ordination exists between his Department and State Departments of Health in this area.
  3. Is there unnecessary duplication between his Department and these other Departments in food testing.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. Co-operation and co-ordination on food testing exists between my Department and the Department of Science in that the Australian Government Analyst of that Department provides a total food analytical service for all Australian Government Departments. Typical of the service provided to my Department are the analyses being carried out at present by the Australian Government Analyst as part of the National Health and Medical Research Council’s surveys on pesticide residues and metallic contaminations in foods and on the microbiological status of foods. Some determinations of mercury levels in fish are included in the former survey.
  2. Co-operation and co-ordination in this area exists between my Department and the State Departments of Health through the food committees of the National Health and Medical Research Council, particularly the Food Analysis (Reference) Sub-committee and the Food Microbiology (Reference) Sub-committee.
  3. There is no unnecessary duplication in food testing between my Department and any other Department.

Television Programs (Question No. 1217)

Mr Kerin:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Media, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that on Saturday, 21 September 1974. all four Sydney television channels televised live the Rugby League football grand final from the Sydney Cricket Ground between Canterbury/Bankstown and Eastern Suburbs from 2.30 p.m. to 4.30 p.m., thus depriving viewers of a choice of program during that period?
  2. If so, will the Minister state how this occurred, and will he take the necessary action to ensure that viewers retain a choice of programs at all times and not be subjected to a complete monopoly of any one event, sporting or otherwise, excepting, of course, one of national importance or emergency?
Mr Morrison:
ALP

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

  1. Yes. However, it must be remembered that the four Sydney stations transmit different programming for a combined total of some 20,000 hours each year, and the period of two hours on 2 1 September, during which there was no alternative programming for those not interested in the grand final, falls into its proper perspective.
  2. Under the provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act, two independent statutory bodies, the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the Australian Broadcasting Control Board are charged with certain programming responsibilities. The Commission is required to televise adequate and comprehensive programs, while the Control Board has the authority to ensure that adequate and comprehensive programs are provided by commercial television stations.

Whilst there are no provisions in the Act to compel national and/or commercial television stations to provide a choice of programs during a given viewing period, I agree this is desirable.

In this particular case the Rugby League Grand Final is an annual event, and this year it seems that all Sydney television stations considered that the match had generated considerable public interest. Following successful negotiations with the New South Wales Rugby League, therefore, Channels 2, 7, 9 and 10 televised the match live from the Sydney Cricket Ground.

Fair Rent (Question No. 1300)

Mr Street:
CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

  1. When can the lessor apply for a re-determination of the fair rent under the Landlord and Tenant Ordinance 1949-1973.
  2. Is the fair rent determination retrospective to the date of the letting.
  3. 3 ) If the lessor faces increased mortgage payments, is this grounds for a variation of the fair rent; if not, why not.
  4. From what date does a re-determination of rent apply, i.e. the date of the original letting, or the date of the original determination.
  5. If the re-determination applies from the date of determination, can this mean waiting m excess of 12 months without variation in rent.
  6. How many lessors were waiting for a determination for (a) less than one month, (b) between 1 and 2 months, (c) between 2 and 3 months, (d) between 3 and 4 months, (e) between 4 and S months, (f) between 5 and 6 months and (g) more than 6 months, between date of letting and date of fair rent determination, for houses let after 1 August 1 973.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

  1. A lessor or a lessee may apply for a variation of a determination of the fair rent after the period specified in the determination has ended or, where no period has been specified, a period of twelve months has elapsed since the determination was made. In a number of specified cases, set out in sub-section 32(2) of the Ordinance, an application for a variation of a determination may be made within these times.
  2. Yes, but only where the application is made by a person who became the lessor of the premises after 9 August 1973 and the premises were not leased on 1 January 1973. A determination of the fair rent made on the application of a person who was the lessor of the premises on 9 August 1973, has effect on and from 9 August 1973 provided that the premises were not leased on 1 January 1973. A determination of the fair rent of premises that were leased on 1 January 1973 has effect on and from the date, not being a date earlier than the date of the application, fixed by the Rent Controller.
  3. An increase in mortgage payments is not one of the grounds specified in the Ordinance on which an application may be made to vary a determination within the relevant period. Similarly, in the absence of rent control, if there were a lease agreement between a lessor and a lessee, it would be most unusual for increased mortgage payments by the lessor to be grounds for varying the rent specified therein during the term of that agreement.

However, when varying determinations after the relevant period has elapsed, the Rent Controller is required to have regard to the matters set out in section 20 of the Ordinance. These matters include ‘the rate of interest charged upon overdrafts by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia’ and ‘any hardship which would be caused to the lessor or lessee or any other person by the making of an order increasing or reducing the rent of the premises including ( but without linking the generality of the word ‘hardship’) any loss which might be imposed upon the lessor by an order fixing the rent of the premises at an amount less than the lessor’s liability under a mortgage of, or contract of sale in respect of, the premises . . .’. The Rent Controller, however, does not consider himself bound to give these two paragraphs of section 20 any particular weight when arriving at a rent which is fair as between the lessor and the lessee.

  1. A variation of a determination, pursuant to section 32 of the Ordinance, has effect from the date, fixed by the Rent Controller, not being a date earlier than the date of the application for variation.
  2. See answer to question (4) above.

  3. The number of applicants for determinations of a fair rent for houses which have been fair rented since 1 August 1973 and before 1 October 1974 who were waiting, between the date their applications were lodged and the date the fair rent was determined, for the following periods was:

    1. less than one month, 357;
    2. between 1 and 2 months, 1,337;
    3. between 2 and 3 months, 533;
    4. between 3 and 4 months, 123;
    5. between 4 and 5 months, 1 9;
    6. between 5 and 6 months, 10;
    7. more than 6 months, 5.

Confucius Plaque at the United Nations (Question No. 1318)

Mr Wentworth:

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

  1. Will the Minister ascertain whether a plaque in honour of Confucius was removed from the United Nations Building in New York last September.
  2. If the plaque was removed, what are the full circumstances under which this occurred, and what pressure was brought upon the United Nations authorities to permit this somewhat unusual action.
Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. An inscribed marble plaque which was given to the United Nations by Taiwan in April 1968 was on display outside the delegate’s lounge on the second floor of the United Nations building until September 16 this year when it was removed.
  2. The removal of the plaque followed a decision by the Secretary-General of the United Nations in August that the marble plaque would no longer be displayed because it was United Nations policy only to exhibit gifts from member governments.

Inflation (Question No. 1350)

Mr Lynch:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice:

Will he provide the details which form the basis for his apparent judgment that the present levels of inflation and unemployment are primarily derived from the structure of the Australian economic system rather than from the Government’s economic policies.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

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

The Government’s economic policies are formulated within the frame work of Australia living as a member of the western world’s economic and political community. As such” government policies are constrained by the activities of the rest of the world and by the desire of the overwhelming majority of Australians to live within the present democratic free enterprise framework.

World inflation was building up as early as the mid 1960s with the United States involvement in Vietnam leading to an American balance of payments deficit which added to the reserves of the rest of the world. This situation was subsequently exacerbated by all countries simultaneously refloating after the breakdown of the Smithonian Agreement in 1971 when there appeared to be a danger of a serious loss of business confidence. The reflation together with a number of crop failures and other developments affecting commodities led to the ‘commodity boom’ and inflation was further fuelled by the rise in oil prices at the end of 1973 and beginning of 1974. Demand inflation has recently steadily given way to cost inflation as trade unions have striven to maintain and increase their real incomes in the face of past and anticipated inflation.

Unemployment is a by-product of the fall-off in world demand which is occurring simultaneously with inflation. It is partly caused by Governments acting to restrain the overheating of their economies- a feature of which is inflationand is aggravated by balance of payments problems resulting from the oil price rise.

Governments can follow deflationary monetary and fiscal policies in the hope that unemployment will reduce inflation. From the analyses of other economies it is clear that such policies have either ceased to work or work only with very high levels of unemployment. We would therefore regard massive deflation and monetary restrictions as highly irresponsible. We could also through the use of tariffs attempt to increase domestic employment or ‘export unemployment’; this sort of beggar-thy-neighbour policy if followed by all countries would, as in the 1930s, rapidly lead to a collapse of world trade.

The Government’s strategy is to deal with unemployment and inflation in a way which minimises hardship to all concerned and which does not involve the adoption of irresponsible or draconian measures.

Voluntary Organisations: Federal Headquarters (Question No. 1436)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Media, upon notice:

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

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

  1. None.
  2. See(l).

Department of Northern Development: Financial Assistance to Voluntary Organisations (Question No. 1439)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Northern Development, 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.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) No voluntary organisations have requested financial assistance from the Department of Northern Development for the establishment or maintenance of federal headquarters.

Whales (Question No. 1469)

Mr Mathews:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, upon notice:

  1. Can the Minister confirm the validity of the International Whaling Commission figures which state that 4 undersized sperm whales, 3 female and I male, were taken by the Cheynes Beach Whaling Company of Albany, Western Australia, in 1973.
  2. Was a penalty, as allowed under the regulations of the Whaling Act I960, setting limits on catch size, imposed on the company.
  3. If no penalty was imposed on the company, what were the reasons, required under the Act, as to why the whales were killed.
  4. If fines were levied, to what purpose was revenue gained from the fines put.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. The four undersized whales represented less than one half of one per cent of the total catch for that year.
  2. In view of the reasons given in (3) below no penalty was imposed on the company under the Whaling Act 1960. However, the catch bonus ordinarily paid to the gunners was withheld in each case.
  3. Individual reports in respect of each undersized whale were received from the gunners concerned and forwarded to the International Whaling Commission.

Reasons given in the reports were:

  1. Disposal of a wounded whale.
  2. Deflection of harpoon from a whale of legal size.

  3. Two incidents involving the gunner’s error of judgment due to heavy sea conditions.

    1. See (2) above.

National Rural Advisory Council Members: Mileage Allowance Payments (Question No. 1481)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, upon notice:

Will the Minister consider payment of a mileage allowance to members of the National Rural Advisory Council when travelling to meetings with farmers groups in their own States.

Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

I have approved appropriate mileage allowance to be paid to members of the National Rural Advisory Council for use of their private vehicles in their capacity as members of the Council.

Overseas Visits (Question No. 16S7)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Which Minister is responsible for the overseas visits committee.
  2. What is the current establishment and staff of the committee.
  3. 3 ) What was the establishment and staff of the committee on 2 December 1972.
  4. What is the purpose of the committee.
  5. When was it established.
  6. What are the names of the officers presently on the committee.
  7. How many submissions for overseas visits by each department or statutory authority have been examined by the committee in each of the last S years.
  8. How many overseas visits have been made by public servants in each of the last S years.
  9. What percentage of these visits have been made by (a) first, (b) second, (c) third and (d) fourth division officers.
  10. What is the percentage increase in the number of overseas visits by public servants in each department in each of the last S years.
  11. How many public servants have made overseas visits on official business in each of the last S years.
  12. What is the percentage increase or decrease in the number of public servants who have undertaken overseas visits on official business in each of the last 5 years.
  13. What was the total cost of overseas visits by public servants on official business in each department or statutory authority in each of the last 5 years.
  14. What is the percentage increase in the total cost of overseas visits by public servants on official visits in each of the last S years.
  15. Does the committee submit a report to the Government.
  16. How many submissions for overseas visits have been rejected by the committee in respect of each department or statutory authority in each of the last S years.
  17. What percentage of submissions for overseas visits by each department or statutory authority have been rejected by the committee in each of the last 5 years.
  18. Who has the final responsibility for approving an overseas visit by public servants.
  19. Can the overseas visits committee overrule the recommendation of a Minister in an individual department.
Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The Special Minister of State.
  2. to (19) These questions should be directed to the Special Minister of State.

Ministerial Press Releases (Question No. 1629)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How are copies of Ministerial press releases circulated.
  2. To whom are they circulated.
  3. How many copies are circulated in total.
  4. What is the total annual cost, including salary and administration charges, in producing and distributing Ministerial press releases.
  5. How many public servants in his Department are involved with the distribution of press releases.
Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Copies of press releases issued by the Prime Minister are distributed by hand to the Press Gallery from the Prime Minister’s Press Office, by distribution from the Ministerial Document Reproduction Unit and by publication in the Australian Government Digest.
  2. There is a list of people who regularly receive copies of the Prime Minister’s press statements and this list is constantly changed. In addition, a large number of copies of press statements are distributed in response to people calling in, or writing in, on a casual basis. Broadly, however, statements are issued to all Members and Senators, media organisations, Government Departments, Embassies, political party organisations, business organisations, libraries and individuals from whom requests are received.
  3. The number of copies circulated depends to an extent upon the particular subject matter of the statement, but in general statements are sent regularly to about 1,200 addressees including Members of Parliament and Government Departments.
  4. Part of the cost of producing and distributing press releases for the Prime Minister is included in costs relating to salaries and administration of the Prime Minister’s Office. Other costs are borne by the Ministerial Document Reproduction Unit, which is part of £he Department of the Media. The costs attributable to Ministerial press releases have not been separately identified and it is therefore not possible to give a precise answer to this part of the right honourable member’s question.
  5. None.

Radio-Activity (Question No. 683)

Mr Garland:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. What were the levels of radio-activity detected by measurement equipment under the control of the Australian Government in each month of the last 10 years.
  2. Is it possible to distinguish the country or region of origin of such fall-out material.
  3. If so, what percentage of detections is identified as being from each country of origin.
  4. How does the radio-active strength compare in each case with (a) natural background, (b) chest X-rays, (c) teeth X-rays and (d) increased radiation to travellers in aircraft flying at the usual height of approximately 30,000 feet.
  5. Is it considered that any Australians have suffered illeffects from radiation from the sources in part (3) or that it will affect unborn Australians, if so, would he indicate precisely how this conclusion has been reached.
  6. As chest X-rays are compulsory for residents of the Australian Capital Territory, has any detailed evaluation been made of the benefits to be achieved on the one hand and the possible risk on the other; if so, what are the precise findings of this evaluation.
  7. Will he ensure that the answers to the above questions are in simple, unambigous language, capable of being understood by those not trained in the connected sciences.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) To set forth the measurement results referred to in part ( 1 ) of the question would involve several hundred tables each with its own explanatory notes. The honourable member is therefore referred to the measurement results set forth in the following publications for the period up to and including 1972:

Strontium-90 in the Australian Environment During 1 964. W. Fletcher, W. J. Gibbs, J. R. Moroney, D. J. Stevens and E. W. Titterton. Australian J. Sci. 28, 417-424 (1966) May.

Concentration of Caesium- 137 in Australian Milk During 1964. R. J. L. Alsop, J. Bonnyman, D. W. Ream and J. Molina-Ramos. Australian J. Sd 28, 69-71 (1965) August.

Strontium-90 in the Australian Environment During 1965. W. Fletcher, W. J. Gibbs, J. R. Moroney, D. J. Stevens and E. W. Titterton. Australian J. Sci. 29, 319-325 (1967) March.

Concentration of Caesium- 137 in Australian Milk during 1965. J. Bonnyman J. C. Duggleby, J. Molina-Ramos and D. K. B. Sewell. Australian J. SCi. 28, 411-412 (1966) May.

Strontium-90 and Caesium-137 in Some Australian Drinking Water Supplies- 1961 to 1965. J. Bonnymar and J. Molina-Ramos. Australian J. SCi. 30, 171-172 (1967) November.

Concentration of Caesium-137 in Australian Rainwater During 1964 and 1965. R. J. L. Alsop, J. Bonnyman J.

Duggleby, J. Molina-Ramos and D. K. B. Sewell. Australian J. SCi. 28, 4 1 3-4 1 7 ( 1 966) May.

Fallout Over Australia from Nuclear Weapons Tested by France During July 1966. W. J. Gibbs, J. R. Moroney,

J. Stevens and E. W. Titterton. Nature 212, 1562-164 (1966) December 31.

Fallout Over Australia from Nuclear Weapons Tested by France in Polynesia from July to October 1966. W. J. Gibbs, J. R. Moroney, D. J. Stevens and E. W. Titterton. Australian J. SCi. 29, 407-4 16 ( 1967 ) May.

Iodine-131 Levels in Milk in Australia During the Period July-December 1966. J. Bonnyman and J. C. Duggleby. Australian J. Sci. 29, 402-406 (1967) May.

A Report on the Meteorological Aspects of Radio-active Fallout over Australia from the 1966 Nuclear Tests at Muroroa Atoll. G. Trefry and F. Callus. Bureau of Meteorology Meteorological Study No. 17, (1968) September.

Strontium-90 in the Australian Environment During 1966. W. Fletcher, W. J. Gibbs, J. R. Moroney, D. J. Stevens and E. W. Titterton. Australian J. Sci. 30, 307-313 (1968) February.

Concentrations of Caesium-137 in Rainwater and Milk in Australia During 1966. J. Bonnyman J. C. Duggleby, J. Molina-Ramos and I. C. Paterson. Australian J. Sci. 30, 3 13-3 16 (1968) February.

Fallout Over Australia from Nuclear Weapons Tested by France in Polynesia During June and July 1967. W. J. Gibbs, J. R. Moroney, D. J. Stevens and E. W. Titterton. Australian J. Sci. 30, 2 1 7-222 ( 1 967) December.

Iodine-131 Concentrations in Australian Milk Resulting from the 1967 French Nuclear Weapons Tests in Polynesia. J. Bonnyman and J. C. Duggleby. Australian J. SCi. 30, 223-226 (1967) December.

The Concentrations of Radio-active Isotopes in the Australian Surface Air During the Period May 1965-December 1967. J. Bonnyman, J. C. Duggleby and J. Molina-Ramos. Technical Report CXRL/9 (1 968) October.

Strontium-90 in the Australian Environment During 1967. W. Fletcher, W. J. Gibbs, J. R. Moroney, D. J. Stevens and E. W. Titterton. Australian J. SCi. 31, 174-179 (1968) November.

Concentrations of Caesium-137 in Rainwater and Milk in Australia During 1967. J. Bonnyman, J. C. Duggleby, J. Molina-Ramos and I. C. Paterson. Australian J. Sci. 3 1 . 180- 183 (1968) November.

Fallout Over Australia from Nuclear Weapons Tested by France in Polynesia from July to September 1968. W. J. Gibbs, J. R. Moroney, D. J. Stevens and E. W. Titterton. Australian J. SCi. 3 1 , 383-388 (1969) May.

Iodine-131 Concentrations in Australian Milk Resulting from the 1968 French Nuclear Weapons Tests in Polynesia. J. Bonnyman and J. C. Duggleby. Australian J. Sci. 3 1,389-392 (1969) May.

Strontium-90 in the Australian Environment During 1968. W. J. Gibbs, W. K. Matthews, J. R. Moroney. D. J. Stevens and E. W. Titterton. Australian J. SCi. 32, 238-244(1969) December.

Concentrations of Caesium-137 in Rainwater and Milk in Australia During 1968. J. Bonnyman, J. C. Duggleby, J. Molina-Ramos and I. C. Paterson. Australian J. Sci. 32, 244-248 (1969) December.

Concentrations of Caesium-137 in Rainwater and Milk in Australia During 1969. J. Bonnyman J. C. Duggleby, J. Molina-Ramos and I. C. Paterson. Search I, 160-163 (1970) October.

Strontium-90 and Caesium-137 in the Australian Environment During 1969 and Some Results for 1970. Defence Standards Laboratories Report AWTSC No. 2, May 1971.

Fallout over Australia from Nuclear Weapons Tested by France in Polynesia from May to August 1970. Defence Standards Laboratories Report AWTSC No. I, February 1971.

Strontium-90 and Caesium-137 in the Australian Environment During 1970 and Some Results for 1971. Defence Standards Laboratories Report AWTSC No. 4, September 1972.

Fallout over Australian from Nuclear Weapons Tested by France in Polynesia from June to August 1 97 1 . Defence Standards Laboratories Report AWTSC No. 3, December 1971.

Fallout over Australia from Nuclear Weapons Tested by France in Polynesia During June and July 1972. Defence Standards Laboratories Report AWTSC No. 5, October 1972.

If any of these publications is not available to the honourable member in the Parliamentary Library, my Department will be able to supply him with a copy should he so desire.

Summaries of measurements of fall-out recorded by the Australian monitoring system in 1973 have been submitted to the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR). I understand that the Minister for the Environment and Conservation will be tabling a copy of those measurements in the near future together with a copy of the measurements to date of fall-out recorded in 1974, which are also to be forwarded to UNSCEAR

and (3) The questions which the honourable member has asked relate to the past 10 years. In that period, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States, all signatories to the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty of 1963, have not carried out any nuclear weapons tests in the atmosphere. On the other hand, France has conducted such tests in Polynesia in 1966, 1967, 1968, 1970, 1971, 1972 and 1973 and has conducted a further series of such tests in Polynesia this year. The People’s Republic or China carried out nuclear weapons tests in the atmosphere, over the mainland, in each year from 1964to 1974.

There are no simple means for identifying the radio-active components of fall-out with the country conducting the nuclear test However, complex analysis of the data obtained from the Australian Government fall-out monitoring programs and of data published by other countries permit an apportionment of the radio-active materials deposited on

Australian Territory to be made between the various countries which have carried out nuclear weapons tests in the atmosphere.

The following Table gives the apportionment of the shortlived radio-active materials (typified by iodine-131 ) and of the long-lived radio-active materials (typified by stron-tium-90 and caesium- 137) deposited on Australian Territory in each year for the 10 year period 1964 to 1973 inclusive.

For the past 10 years, it has not been possible to separate the fractions of long-lived radio-active materials deposited on Australian Territory from nuclear weapons tests carried out in the atmosphere by U.S.S.R., U.K. and U.S.A. prior to 1963. Accordingly, the percentage of the total long-lived radio-active materials deposited on Australian Territory for each of the past 10 years, and arising from the nuclear weapons tests in the atmosphere by U.S.S.R., U.K. and U.S.A. are grouped together in the above Table.

  1. In part 4 of his question, the honourable member uses the words ‘radio-active strength’; I presume he means ‘radiation dose’. It is important to emphasise that the sources of radiation dose to which he has referred are not, for a number of reasons, strictly comparable.

Since natural, background radiation is a component of man’s environment, he has been continually subject to radiation exposure from this source. On the basis of the assumption made by the International Commission on Radiological Protection that the risk of inducing disease or disability increases with the radiation dose accumulated, it follows that radiation exposure from fall-out is not something to be compared with background radiation as if it were separate. Fallout adds to the dose already received from natural background radiation.

Chest X-rays (I presume X-rays undertaken in tuberculosis control programs were meant), dental X-rays and aircraft flights also add to the total dose but they are all controllable sources of radiation dose and, as such, can be subject to an evaluation of their benefits relative to their detriments. The decisions whether to suffer exposure are made by the persons or governments concerned and, as a result of an evaluation of the benefits and detriments involved. Moreover only a part of the Australian population is subject in any year to radiation doses from these three sources. In contrast, fall-out over Australian Territory from nuclear weapons tests is an uncontrolled source of radiation doses, and it subjects the whole of the Australian population to such doses. The following table of doses is to be read in the light of the foregoing observations. So that the radiation doses in the table can be looked at on a common scale, they are best expressed in man-rads, that is the product of the average individual radiation dose from the source and the number of persons actually exposed. The basis information for the calculation of radiation doses in man-rads is only available for the year 1970 with respect to all sources referred to by the honourable member.

For the entries in the Table relating to nuclear weapon tests, the radiation doses are those due to the accumulated deposit of long-lived radio-active materials up to and including 1970, from all atmospheric tests, together with those doses due to the short-lived radio-active materials deposited from tests carried out in that year.

  1. It is considered that the Australian population has suffered ill effects from radiation from the sources in part ( 3) of the question and that it will affect unborn Australians. Very summarily stated, the grounds for this conclusion include the following.

Present scientific knowledge indicates that radiation doses to organs and tissues of man result in deleterious effects. The effects which arise may be somatic (effects in the individuals exposed to the radiation dose) and genetic (effects in the hereditary material of man). Somatic effects include leukaemia and other malignancies of organs and tissues. There are data which indicate that embryos are more susceptible 10 injury by ionizing radiation than adults, the injuries manifesting themselves as developmental abnormalities and malignant changes. Radiation exposure of human populations can be expected to bring about some increase in deleterious genetic mutations which can be transmitted to the offspring of exposed persons and to future generations.

Estimates can and have been made stating in numerical terms the somatic and genetic consequences for populations as a result of fall-out. The honourable member is referred in this connection to the speech by the Attorney-General in the International Court proceedings for Interim Measures of Protection in the Nuclear Tests Case; the record of the proceedings was tabled in Parliament on 12 December 1973 and the reference is to pages 158-159. The Attorney-General pointed out that, while estimates can be made, there are some uncertainties as to the limits of danger, but that the uncertainties as to the limits of danger to populations, in terms of lives lost or damage of the future generations harmed, only serves to make the danger graver.

  1. Yes. Evaluation of possible benefits and risks associated with the mass X-ray survey in the Australian Capital Territory was provided by the Prime Minister on 17 May 1973 (Hansard, House of Representatives, p.2357) in reply to the honourable member’s question No. 443.

The findings were that the benefits would outweigh the risks.

The actual benefits derived from the Australian Capital Territory survey in 1973, where 68,569 persons were screened instead of the anticipated 75,000, were discovery of-

  1. 13 cases of unsuspected active tuberculosis rendering the persons concerned a danger to their contacts and the public health;
  2. 220 cases of inactive tuberculosis previously unknown and considered to be in need of regular follow-up to check against possible reactivation of the disease;
  3. 301 other significant pulmonary and cardiac abnormalities, previously unknown, including 21 tumours of the lung and mediastinum in urgent need of attention; 127 cases of chronic bronchitis and emphysema; 50 cardiac abnormalities: 24 intrathoracic cysts, goitres, and coin lesions: 7 cases of sarcoidosis; 8 cases of pneumonitis.
  4. I will explain on request any terms which may be obscure in this reply.

Public Service: Libraries (Question No. 904)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many librarians are employed in the departments or authorities of the Government.
  2. What staffing is provided in the library of each department or authority.
  3. Are efforts taken to avoid duplication across departments in information storage and retrieval; if so, how is this done; if not, why not.
  4. Has the Public Service Board recently conducted an examination of information storage and retrieval of all government departments and authorities.
  5. If so, when, and with what result.
  6. If not, will he discuss with the Chairman of the Public Service Board the need for such an inquiry.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

– The Public Service Board has supplied the following information for answer to the right honourable member’s question:

  1. and (2) At 31 December 1973 241 librarians, 4 librarians-in-training and 240 library officers were employed under the Public Service Act. Details are shown in the following table.

In addition to these staff, a number of clerical assistants are employed in departmental libraries in support of the librarians and library officers. It is not possible, however, readily to extract from departmental statistics the numbers of clerical assistants so employed.

There are no central records on library staff employed by authorities. Because of the magnitude of the task that would be involved in collecting information from individual authorities, I am not prepared to authorise its collection.

  1. to (6) The Government recognises that information is an important national resource which needs to be utilised with responsibility and in the most efficient way possible.

The Government has therefore initiated studies of future national needs for information services. For example, following presentation of a report on the investigation of the national need for scientific and technological information services (STISEC), the initial development of such services, within the National Library, commenced in 1 973-74.

The Government has allocated an additional $1,025,000 over the next two financial years to enable the National Library to undertake a program of extensive consultations and studies on the possible development of an Australian Library Based Information Service (ALBIS).

In addition, action is already proceeding to implement some of the recommendations of two other major reports in this field. I refer to the report by Dr Kay Lamb on the future development of the Australian Archives tabled on 7 March, and the report by a committee chaired by Professor L. F. Crisp tabled on 17 July 1974, on the scope for greater coordination of official statistics.

The latter committee was asked to advise on the general principles and administrative arrangements that would enable the Government to co-ordinate more effectively datasystems serving related areas of social and economic policy, to develop a broad strategy for co-ordinating Government statistical systems and to avoid duplication and fragmentation of these systems.

It is not intended, at this stage, that the Public Service Board should conduct further investigations into information storage and retrieval while the implications of the various recommendations are being examined.

Ministerial Councils-Contact with States (Question No. 41)

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

– The following information is supplementary to that contained in my answer on 3 October 1974 (Hansard pp. 2233-9) to Mr Snedden:

Standing Committee on Agriculture

The composition of this committee includes representatives of the Department of Northern Development and all the State departments responsible for agriculture.

Fisheries Council

The composition of this council includes the Minister for Science.

Standing Committee on Fisheries

The composition of this committee includes the representatives of all the State departments responsible for fisheries.

River Murray Waters (Question No. 1203)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for Environment and Conservation, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has the Government any evidence to prove that there will be no additional pollution to the Murray River as the Albury/Wodonga growth centre develops to reach its 300,000 population target.
  2. Will he give an undertaking that his Department will ensure that water quality in the Murray River will be regularly monitored below Albury/ Wodonga.
  3. What authority will be charged with this responsibility, and will its findings be published regularly.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) No. However in 1973 the Cities Commission engaged the consultants, Gutteridge, Haskins and Davey to carry out a study with the aim of ensuring that existing quality of the River Murray is not deleteriously affected by the Albury/Wodonga growth centre but is maintained for both the various human requirements, and for the riverine ecology. It can be confidently predicted that as a result of the study, waste and sewage treatment and urban drainage systems will be implemented such that the Albury/Wodonga growth centre will not have any significant adverse effects on water quality in the River Murray.
  2. Water quality monitoring of the River Murray is the responsibility of the relevant State Governments. However, the honourable member will also be aware that in the recent budget an amount of $332,000 was allocated to the States as the first pan of a two-year water quality monitoring program. As well the Water Quality Committee of the River Murray Working Party has been asked to submit recommendations as to the location and nature of a comprehensive monitoring network for the River Murray. The report of this Committee is expected towards the end of the year and is also expected to make certain recommendations as to the administrative arrangements for the carrying out of this monitoring.
  3. See (2)

British Subjects: New Visa Requirements (Question No. 1290)

Mr Garland:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

With reference to his press statement No. 292 of 1 August 1974, what is the meaning of the reference to the new visa requirements in the fourth paragraph, for all persons entering Australia from the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand and Fiji, that it will also provide a manpower control, which has been absent in the past.

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

Because of historical associations, British subjects of European origin have been able to enter Australia quite freely without visa control. A large proportion of these people have entered the work force on arriving here. Thus we have had a situation where it was not possible to relate either the numbers or the occupational pattern of this free-flow movement to the realities of the Australian labour market. The new requirements will ensure that the entry of this class of migrant, in common with all others, will be considered against a background of Australia ‘s long term labour needs. This is of course as much in their interests as it is in the interests of the Australian community including those migrants already here.

Fire Fighting Procedures (Question No. 1 142)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Northern Development, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the answer to question No. 548 (Hansard, 19 September 1974, page 1632) in which the Prime Minister indicated that the form and frequency or exercises in Government Departments in civil defence preparedness are as determined by individual Departments, on what dates in the last 1 8 months have exercises of this nature been conducted in his Department.
  2. Which officers and employees took pan.
  3. 3 ) How many officers and employees took pan.
  4. What was the purpose of each of the exercises.
  5. Does he accept that this is an area where the Australian Government can give a lead to other employers.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) No exercises in civil defence preparedness have been conducted by the Department of Northern Development in the last 18 months.

The Department, nevertheless, is very concerned with the question of the preparedness and safety of its staff in the event of fire or other emergency. It has appointed Departmental officers to act as wardens on the three floors it occupies in CAGA Centre, Canberra City, and has issued instructions to all staff with the object of minimizing the danger of loss of life and injury in emergencies.

The Department has consulted with the Canberra Fire Brigade and the Department of Services and Property regarding emergency procedures and is appreciative of the advice and assistance it has received. In addition, valuable information concerning Are and other emergencies was obtained from a recent seminar of ‘Fire in High Rise Buildings’ organised by the Australian Fire Protection Association with the approval and co-operation of the Australian Government at which an officer of the Department was a delegate.

The Department of Services and Property proposes to call a meeting of the various Australian Government and nongovernment tenants of CAGA Centre for the purpose of coordinating emergency procedures on a building-wide basis. No doubt the question of the form and frequency of exercises in civil defence preparedness will be raised at this meeting. (2), (3) and (4). See (1) above

  1. See answer to question No. 548 referred to above.

Postal Services (Question No. 1316)

Mr McLeay:

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

  1. 1 ) What are the procedures adopted by the postal services for the delivery of mail to (a) Government departments and ( b ) private persons who have changed their address.
  2. When did the Stamp Duty Office at 283 Queen Street, Melbourne, leave that address, and what is happening to mail still being sent to that address.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
Special Minister of State · KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. The Department’s policy in regard to changes in address which occurred prior to 1 October 1973 was to redirect mail, without charge, for a period of 6 months, with an extension of one month if the addressee requested it. After the redirection order expired, any further mail received was liable to be returned to the sender. However, when an addressee’s new address was known to delivery officers, delivery was attempted.

Revised procedures were adopted in February, 1974, and have been applied to changes in address which have occurred since that time, following the introduction of a fee for the redirection of mail on 1 October 1973.

When an addressee, including a government department, changes his address permanently, mail is redirected by the Post Office if the addressee so requests and pays the prescribed monthly redirection fee. The period for which redirection is provided is determined, therefore, by the addressee. If the redirection order is not renewed at the expiration of the period paid for, any further mail received for delivery to the addressee at his former address is, as a general rule, delivered to that address, unless the new occupant instructs the Department to the contrary in which case mail is returned to the sender. Nevertheless, when an addressee ‘s new address can be recalled by delivery staff, delivery is attempted.

  1. The Stamp Duty Office in Victoria moved from 283 Queen Street, Melbourne, in November 1971 and a redirection order took effect on 30 November, 1 97 1 . No request for an extension of the redirection period was received at the end of 6 months, but under the procedures outlined above some mail addressed to 283 Queen Street recieved since the end of May 1972 may have been returned to the sender. In this particular case a large amount of mail is sent to the Stamp Duty Office and special sorting arrangements apply in the City Section at Melbourne GPO. For this and several other addresses to which a large volume of mail is directed, the sorting arrangements take little account of the detailed address and by far the bulk of the mail would be taken in direct bags straight to the Stamp Duty Office. It is thought therefore that only very occasionally would the formal redirection procedures be applied and letters addressed to 283 Queen Street returned to the sender.

Grants to the States: Average Wages Formula (Question No. 1336)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the South Australian Premier’s recent disclosure that, for the purpose of the formula for adjusting financial assistance grants to South Australia, an estimated 25 per cent increase in the level of average weekly earnings has been adopted in lieu of the previous 20 percent.
  2. Did he advise the Premier of this change.
  3. If so, why has the change been made.
  4. Is it his intention to revise the formula for determining the receipts component of the 1974-75 Budget; if not, why not.
Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) I am not aware of the specific disclosure referred to by the honourable member, but I understand that this matter was raised during a debate in the Legislative Council of the South Australian Parliament.
  2. and (3) I wrote to all Premiers on 3 September 1974 informing them, inter alia, that the assumed increase in average wages for the year ending March 1975 used for the purpose of calculating estimates of the financial assistance grants in 1974-75 had been increased from the previous figure of 20 per cent to 25 per cent.

The change was made because it was believed that the figure of 20 per cent which had been previously used in making estimates of the grants underestimated the likely increase in average wages in the period concerned. I might mention to the honourable member that, when the figure of 20 per cent was conveyed to the States, it was emphasised that it was not to be taken as a firm estimate of the likely increase and that it was not necessarily that to be used in calculating the Budget estimates of the grants.

  1. No. There are differences in coverage and the time period between the average weekly earnings used for the purpose of calculating estimates of the financial assistance grants and for determining the Budget receipts.

Australian Public Service: MANDATA (Question No. 1320)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Who will determine what information is stored on MANDATA.
  2. Will public servants have access under certain conditions to the information that is stored in this computer system.
  3. If so, how will this access be made available.
  4. Who will decide which Departments and under what conditions access will be granted to the MANDATA system.
  5. Will organisations or individuals outside the Public Service have access to the MANDATA system.
  6. If so, who will determine the conditions of this access, and what provisions will be made to safeguard the right to privacy of individual public servants.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

– The Public Service Board has supplied the following information for answer to the right honourable member’s question:

  1. The Public Service Board; but in close consultation with participating departments and a specially established consultative group representing staff.
  2. Yes, but only in respect of information pertaining to himself or herself
  3. While not yet finally determined, it is expected that when MANDATA is fully operational, information stored about an officer, with certain exceptions (e.g. details of selection test scores) will be provided to the officer periodicallyprobably annually- and also on reasonable request, generally in printed form.
  4. All Departments are expected to participate; each participating Department will have access to MANDATA, but such access will be restricted (by mechanisms built into the system) to those areas of stored data for which each is directly responsible; the Public Service Board will also have access (yet to be fully defined) necessary for performance of its Service-wide responsibilities.
  5. Not directly. Aggregated statistical information only will be provided, as at present, to organisations and individuals having a serious and legitimate interest in the particular information.
  6. The Public Service Board; but provision of such statistical information will be strictly in accordance with accepted principles which ensure the rights to individual privacy are preserved.

Special Consultant on Community Relations: Terms of Appointment (Question No. 1343)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What annual salary and expenses are payable to the Government’s special consultant on community relations, Mr Grassby
  2. What is Mr Grassby’s entitlement to (a) offices, (b) staff, (c) travel and (d) entertainment.
  3. On which dates did Mr Grassby (a) cease to be Minister for Immigration and (b) accept appointment as a special consultant.
  4. What was the cost of Mr Grassby’s use of Government cars during 1973-74.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The Special Consultant on Community Relations, Mr Grassby, is being paid salary at the rate of $25,000 per annum plus an allowance of $1,200 per annum. When travelling on duty involving absence from Canberra overnight he is paid travelling allowance at the rate of $3 1 per day.
  2. Mr Grassby has been supplied with office space in the Administrative Building; his staff consists of an assistant, a steno-secretary and an office assistant; he is entitled to first class fares by the normal means of transport when travelling away from Canberra; he is entitled to use Commonwealth cars in capital cities in connection with the performance of his duties; he is not entitled to any entertainment allowance.
  3. (a) Mr Grassby ceased to be Minister for Immigration on 12 June 1974. (b) He commenced duty as Special Consultant on 2 September 1974.
  4. Approximately $5 1 ,100.

Voluntary Organisations: Federal Headquarters (Question No. 1427)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Prime Minister, 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 Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) I am informed that my Department has no knowledge of any requests of this nature.
  2. See(l) above.

Australian Government Hospitals (Question No. 1S08)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Was he able to announce at his press conference immediately after question time on Tuesday 22 October 1974 that the Premiers of New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland had not accepted his hospital proposal.
  2. Was he unable to provide this information in reply to a question I had asked earlier that day; if so, why.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. By the very nature of my answer to the honourable member it will be apparent that I took the question without notice to mean that I was being asked to publish the text of the letters I had received from the Premiers, to which I replied in the negative. At my press conference I was asked to give indications about the States’ reaction to my proposal to which I was able to respond.

Ms Elizabeth Reid: Report on Overseas Visit (Question No. 1663)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has Ms Elizabeth Reid submitted a report to him following her visit some time ago to the United Nations and other countries.
  2. Has he decided, before receiving the report, that it will not be made public; if so, why.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable members question is as follows:-

  1. Yes.
  2. ) Yes. Private staff do not make public reports.

Public Servants: Interstate Trips (Question No. 1665)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. How many interstate trips were made by public servants in each Department in each of the last S years.
  2. What was the total cost of interstate trips undertaken by public servants in each of the last S years.
Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and ( 2 ) I cannot see how the information sought could serve any useful public purpose and to compile it would involve time and expense that I am reluctant to authorise.

Nuclear Non-Prolif feration Treaty (Question No. 1231)

Mr Snedden:

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

  1. Since ratification of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, what inspections have been conducted or what other arrangements have been settled or entered into with respect to the development of nuclear energy technology in Australia.
  2. What further action is proposed pursuant to ratification.
Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. Arrangements:

    1. 1 ) After ratification of the NPT on 23 January 1973 an agreement between Australia and the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) was signed on 10 July 1974 to provide for implementation by the .IAEA of the safeguards required by the NPT.
    2. At the same time a protocol to the U.S.A.IAEAAustralia Safeguards Transfer Agreement was concluded to provide for the suspension of trilateral safeguards on U.S.- supplied nuclear material while NPT safeguards were applied. Australia’s other bilateral partners (Japan and Canada) did not require such provisions.
    3. Australia and the IAEA have agreed on detailed specifications for application of NPT safeguards in Australia.
    4. Australia, in company with Norway, U.S.S.R., U.S.A., U.K.., Denmark, Canada and Finland, informed the IAEA on 22 August 1974 of certain procedures it would apply to exports of nuclear materials and equipment to states not party to the NPT in order to meet the requirements of Article III of the NPT.

  2. Inspections:

    1. Under the then still current Trilateral Safeguards Agreement with the U.S.A./IAEA safeguards inspections were conducted between 23 January 1973 and 10 July 1974 on 16 February 1973, 9-10 April 1973, 29 October to 2 November 1973, and 13-15 May 1974.
    2. Following 10 July 1974, i.e. under the Australian NPT Safeguards Agreement, the IAEA carried out a safeguards inspection on 2-5 September 1974 to verify the initial inventory of nuclear material declared by Australia under its NPT obligations.

  3. Further action: *

All formal requirements to fulfil Australian obligations under the NPT have been met. Under the safeguards arrangements regular inspections will continue. Under Article

VIII (3) of the NPT, Australia will participate in a conference to review the operation of the Treaty, with a view to assuring that the purposes of the Preamble and the provision of the Treaty are being realised.

Representation of the Australian Aircraft Industry at the 1974 Farnborough Air Show (Question No. 1080)

Mr Anthony:

asked the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Why was the Australian aircraft industry and his Department not represented at the Farnborough Air Show in 1974.
  2. Was an invitation extended to Australian industry and the Australian Government to be represented.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The Australian aircraft industry was represented at the 1974 Farnborough Air Show: the Ikara anti-submarine weapon system and the Turana target aircraft were displayed by our U.K. agent for these products-Hawker Siddeley Dynamics. The Nomad aircraft was not exhibited at the 1974 Farnborough Air Show, but this is not expected to adversely affect the sales position. A prototype was displayed at Farnborough in 1972. The next appropriate step in the sales promotion program will be to display and fly a production version of Nomad. The first opportunity to do this at an international air show will be in Paris in June 1 975 and my Department has this possibility under serious consideration.
  2. An invitation to exhibit was received by the Government Aircraft Factories.

Department of Customs and Excise: Civil Defence Exercises (Question No. 1135)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the answer to question No. 548 (Hansard, 19 September 1974, page 1621) in which the Prime Minister indicated that the form and frequency of exercises in Government Departments in civil defence preparedness are as determined by individual Departments, on what dates in the last 1 8 months have exercises of this nature been conducted in the Department of Customs and Excise.
  2. Which officers and employees took part.
  3. How many officers and employees took part.
  4. What was the purpose of each of the exercises.
  5. Does the Minister accept that this is an area where the Australian Government can give a lead to other employers.
Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– The Minister for Customs and Excise has provided the following information for answer to the right honourable member’s question:

  1. During the last 18 months, building evacuation exercises have been conducted on the following occasions:

Victoria: 1 1 April 1973; 22 February 1974; 7 October 1974.

Queensland: Ann Street premises, monthly; Eagle Street premises, annually- October.

  1. –

Victoria: Laboratory Staff.

Queensland: Ann Street premises, Landing and Boarding Sections; Eagle Street premises, Inland Services Section.

(3)-

Victoria: 90 officers.

Queensland: Ann Street premises, 18; Eagle Street premises, 52. (4) To familiarise officers with the procedures to be adopted in the event of a building evacuation being necessary.

Yes, and in fact, measures are being taken within the Department to ensure that appropriate procedures are drafted so that staff, and any members of the public in the building at the time, are evacuated in an efficient orderly manner in the event of any emergency.

In certain offices wardens have been appointed, and have been briefed in respect of their duties.

In Canberra, preparations have involved the appointment and initial equipping and briefing of the wardens arranged in consultation with the Canberra Fire Brigade. Considerable planning has been undertaken in respect of the evacuation procedures which apply to the Barton Offices occupied by the Department.

These preparations have been held in abeyance pending the transfer of some officers to the Trade Group Offices and the relocation of officers. These preparations will be completed and implemented when these transfers are completed in the near future.

To this end, recently the officers attended a seminar organised by the Australian Fire Protection Authority and discussed, among other matters, evacuation procedures and the training of staff for emergencies such as fire, arson and bomb threats.

Nuclear Safeguards: India (Question No. 1177)

Mr Peacock:
KOOYONG, VICTORIA

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

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to reports that the United Kingdom, the United States of America and the Soviet Union have agreed to a nuclear embargo on India.
  2. If so, can the Minister say whether these reports are accurate; if so, what are the details of the agreement.
  3. Does the Australian Government support the agreement.
  4. Can he say whether other countries have formally associated themselves with this arrangement; if so, will he list the countries that have done so, indicating the means by which each has done so.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. A report carried in ‘The Australian’ on 13 September 1 974 contained inaccuracies and distorted the arrangements. Details of the arrangements are published in an International Atomic Energy Agency information document, INFCIRC/209 issued on 3 September 1974, which is available in the Parliamentary Library. Australia was one of a number of countries which were involved in achieving this improvement in international nuclear safeguards arrangements. The initiative was not directed specifically at any country but the arrangements agreed will apply to India in the same way as they will apply to other importers of nuclear materials and equipment.
  3. Yes.
  4. See answer (2).

Defence Reserve Force Pay (Question No. 1279)

Dr Forbes:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has the Government under examination the question of whether Army Reserve pay should continue to be tax free.
  2. If so, when will a decision be made.
Mr Barnard:
Minister for Defence · BASS, TASMANIA · ALP

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

  1. 1 have asked the Committee of Reference for Defence Force Pay, which is considering Reserve Force pay and certain related matters, to include in its consideration an assessment of the effectiveness of tax exemption in terms of the attraction and retention of Reserve personnel.
  2. When the Committee’s Report is received the Government will consider the matter. At this stage, however, I am unable to say when a decision will be made.

Australian Capital Territory: Housing Authority (Question No. 1303)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

When will he announce the establishment of a Housing Authority for the A.C.T.

Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

This matter is still under consideration, no firm decision has been reached.

Canberra: Collection of Rubbish (Question No. 1403)

Mr Garland:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

  1. Have there been, or are there, difficulties in the efficient and tidy collection of rubbish in Canberra.
  2. If so, what were or are those difficulties.
  3. Are the existing arrangements considered to be satisfactory.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Approximately 12 months ago during the third year of a five year contract difficulties were experienced by Hallwel Waste Disposals Pty Ltd in maintaining the level of service previously provided: i.e. two clearances weekly from each household, often of two bins.
  2. The difficulties involved missed collections on scheduled days particularly in the newer suburbs. The collection of waste is contingent on the availability of an adequate and reliable work force and the serviceability of equipment. For a period of about five months the waste collection contractor experienced difficulty in obtaining sufficient drivers and loaders to man his equipment. Equipment also remained inoperative allegedly because of a shortage of mechanics and spare parts in the Canberra area and in other parts of Australia. The service deteriorated for a time, but now appears to be reasonable.
  3. Yes. In the past six months, the majority of suburbs in Canberra have received the specified two collections per week although not always on the scheduled days.

At the present time the contractor provides about 100,000 services a week while recorded complaints arising from this service average about 65 per week. This represents a complaint ratio of .065 per cent which is about the same percentage existing during the initial stages of the contract.

Untidiness in city streets may be aggravated by some careless manhandling of bins but other significant causes include marauding dogs and the people who persist in setting out cartons or plastic bags of rubbish which the contractor is not obliged to clear.

Department of the Capital Territory: Employment of Social Workers (Question No. 1406)

Mr Street:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

  1. How many social workers does his Department employ.
  2. ) How many social workers are there in the A.C.T.
  3. What is the function of each of the Governmentemployed social welfare workers.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

  2. Social Workers are employed by a number of Government Departments and private organisations in the A.C.T. Some of these are employed in the provision of direct casework service to the public whilst others are involved in national welfare policy and program matters. My Department does not have statistics on the total number of Social Workers in the A.C.T.
  3. Social Welfare Workers employed by the Department of the Capital Territory are involved in the following functions: General family casework; adoption, preventive and remedial work with juveniles, including services to the Children’s Court and supervision of probationers; adult probation and parole services; foster care; child care; and institutional services. Questions relating to the functions of Social Welfare Workers employed by other Government Departments in the A.C.T. should be referred to these specific Departments.

Voluntary Organisations: Federal Headquarters (Question No. 1432)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What voluntary organisations have requested financial assistance from the Department of Customs and Excise for the establishment or maintenance of a federal headquarters.
  2. What has been the response to the requests.
Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– The Minister for Customs and Excise has provided the following information for answer to the honourable member’s question:

No moneys have been paid by the Department of Customs and Excise during the past five years to voluntary organisations for the establishment or maintenance of federal headquarters. Also there is no record of a request for financial support being received during that period.

Voluntary Organisations: Federal Headquarters (Question No. 1440)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for the Northern Territory, 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.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) No record is held in the Department of the Northern Territory of any application by a voluntary agency for financial assistance to establish or maintain a federal headquarters.
  2. See(l).

Voluntary Organisations: Federal Headquarters (Question No. 1450)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, 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 Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. Nil.
  2. Nil.

Rhodesians: Entry to Australia (Question No. 1475)

Mr Hyde:
MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that the refusal of the Government to allow Rhodesian passport holders to enter Australia has resulted in the Rhodesian Country Women’s Association delegation missing the Associated Country Women of the World’s Triennial Conference.
  2. Is it also a fact that one coloured Rhodesian lady was denied the opportunity of attending on a scholarship.
  3. Can he say whether a motion was moved by a Canadian delegate and carried by the Conference to the effect that future conferences would only be held in those countries where all members can be represented.
  4. What are the reasons that make the current Australian attitude to such matters in the best interests of either Australian or the Rhodesian indigenous population.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. and (2) It is a fact that the World President of the Associated Country Women of the World was informed by letter of 5 April 1973 by the then responsible Minister that to permit a Delegation from Rhodesia to attend its 14th Triennial Conference would be contrary to the spirit and objects of the relevant U.N. Security Council Resolutions concerning Rhodesia.

    1. 3 ) No information is available on this.
    2. The purpose of the U.N. Security Council Resolutions on Rhodesia is the welfare of the presently disadvantaged coloured majority of that country’s population. These Resolutions have received the support of successive Australian Governments.

Stirling Range National Park: Army Exercise (Question No. 1480)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What was the nature of the Army exercise held in the Stirling Range National Park, Western Australia, on 1 1 and 12 September 1974.
  2. Were consultations held with the National Parks Board of Western Australia prior to the exercise, to ensure unique flora in the park was not damaged.
  3. Will he investigate the feasibility of transferring such exercises to other areas outside of a national park.
  4. What other national parks or flora and fauna reserves in Australia are used for military exercises.

Mt Barnard- The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) The Army exercises conducted in the Stirling Range National Park on II and 12 September 1974 involved elements of the Special Air Services Regiment and an Infantry Company. The exercise was designed to practice the techniques of surveillance, ambush and counter-ambush procedures.
  2. Written permission from the National Parks Board of Western Australia was obtained prior to the exercise. Permission was granted subject to restrictions imposed on the use of existing roads and vehicle tracks for Army vehicles and which prohibited digging or the destruction of flora and fauna.
  3. In the interests of training efficiency and economy it is not feasible to travel to distant areas when suitable terrain to which approved access may be granted is closer and particularly suited for a required phase of training.
  4. The National Park of Cradle Mountain, Lake St Clair, Tasmania, has been used by soldiers at the request of the State National Parks and Wildlife Service for assistance with works projects. The National Fitness Council accommodation at Mount Field National Park, Tasmania, is sometimes used by cadets.

Liquor Ordinance 1929 (Question No. 1531)

Mr Street:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Are several licensees under the Liquor Ordinance 1 929 about to be prosecuted by the Crown for what appears to be a minor breach of an old condition of their licences, namely, of selling less than 2 gallons.
  2. As this condition no longer applies in the States of Australia, will the Government consider amending the Ordinance to allow single bottle sales from bulk wine depots.
  3. If the existing Ordinance cannot be amended speedily, will he arrange to have the charges withdrawn, in view of the inequity of the situation applying to licensees in the A.C.T. compared with those in the States.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

  1. and (3) Charges were laid against four licensees for selling liquor in less than two gallon lots but action has been taken to withdraw the charges.
  2. The Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly has under consideration a new Liquor Ordinance which will allow single bottles sales by liquor stores.

Ministerial Councils: Contact With States (Question No. S3)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice:

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

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 ), (2 ), (3 ) and (4)1 refer the right honourable member to the Prime Minister’s reply to Question on Notice No. 41 (Hansard, 3 October 1974, pages 2233 to 2239).

Inventors Assistance Scheme (Question No. 430)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, upon notice:

Does the Government intend to establish an invention development corporation or commission; if so, when.

Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

The right honourable member will be aware that on 28 October 1974 I announced a major Government assistance scheme for Australian inventors. An amount of $228,000 has been made available in 1974-75 to provide advice and assistance to individual Australian inventors where this is not available from existing Australian Government facilities, and to administer the scheme. The assistance given will be directed toward the early development stage of invention; that is, before the invention has been granted a final patent. Beyond this, inventions would more appropriately be taken up by other Government assistance programs, or by industry. The new program, which will commence operations in the near future, will be reviewed in three years. It is administered by an Advisory Committee responsible to the Minister for Manufacturing Industry and assisted by Panels in each State. The Government recognises the importance of encouraging the work of private inventors and will be adapting arrangements to suit needs as indicated from experience in applying the new program.

Defence Expenditure (Question No. 673)

Mr Garland:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. Did he state before the 1972 election that he would keep expenditure at a similar level to the present Government; if so, what precisely did he intend.
  2. ) has this been the result, and what in brief has been the result.
  3. What is the current level of expenditure as a percentage of the estimated current Gross National Product
  4. What were the exact words used.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) In October 1 97 1 in Brisbane I stated that the target for defence spending would not fall below the level set by the Liberal-Country Party in recent years which was 3.2 per cent to 3.5 per cent of the then Gross National Product.
  2. It is difficult to compare defence expenditures in real terms because there is no price index entirely suitable for the task. However using the Consumer Price Index it can be calculated that in December 1971 prices the 1973-74 Defence Outlay was 3.2 per cent less than the 1971-72 Defence Outlay. For 1974-75 we have at this stage only the estimated outlay at the time of budget presentation. The actual outlay will depend upon supplementary estimates in the Autumn Session which will, of course, reflect the year’s price rises. The only valid comparison between 1 973-74 Defence Outlay and 1 974-75 Defence Outlay is between the two estimated outlays at the times of the respective budgets. Again using the CP1 index, it is calculated that the 1974-75 estimated Defence Outlay in June 1973 prices, is 3.4 per cent greater than the 1973-74 estimated Defence Outlay. Thus, as well can be judged, the 1974-75 Defence Outlay is equivalent in real terms to the 197 1-72 Defence Outlay.
  3. It is estimated that Defence Expenditure for 1974-75 will be 2.77 per cent of Gross Domestic Product. An equivalent real expenditure is a lower percentage of GDP than that which applied in 1971-72 because under this Government there has been substantial real growth of the GDP.

Capital Loans for Aboriginal Enterprises (Question No. 962)

Mr Bungey:

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

  1. 1 ) What loans have been made from the Capital Fund, set up under the Aboriginal Enterprises (Assistance) Act, since 30 June 1972.
  2. To whom were the loans made and for what purposes.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply for the honourable member’s information.

  1. 1 ) Between 30 June 1972 and 30 June 1974, 266 loans to a total value of $3,474,794 had been approved from the Commonwealth Capital Fund for Aboriginal Enterprises.
  2. Capital Fund loans were made to individual applicants of Aboriginal descent and to Aboriginal communities throughout Australia to enable them to undertake viable business enterprises. The purposes for which loans were approved covered a wide range of activities including the fields of primary production, commercial enterprises, transport, manufacture, mining and building. It is not the practice to reveal details of loans made from the Capital Fund since such information is accorded the same degree of confidentiality as that between any client and his banker.

Overseas Visitors to Australia: Employment (Question No. 1053)

Mr MacKellar:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many overseas visitors to Australia were found to have taken employment in the years 1972 and 1973 and during the period I January to 30 June 1974.
  2. ) What was their nationality, and where were they born.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. and (2) Statistics have not been maintained. Information which has come to notice through the day to day activities of my Department as well as from special investigations has disclosed that a large number of people who have entered Australia as visitors have taken employment contrary to the conditions of their entry. Estimates suggest that the number could be between 30,000 and 50,000.

Illegal Immigrants (Question No. 1054)

Mr MacKellar:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many people granted authority to visit Australia during the years 1972 and 1973 and during the period I January to 30 June 1 974 are now here illegally.
  2. What is their nationality, and where were they born.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) Statistics of visitors overstaying their authorised period of entry are not available for the year 1 972 or for the period 1 January 1973 to 31 August 1973. Statistics by country of citizenship are, however, available since 1 September 1973 when the ‘Easy Visa’ system came into operation and are as follows:
  1. Statistics by place of birth are not maintained.
  2. The above figures do not include those citizens of Commonwealth countries who have not required visas for visits to Australia.

Illegal Overseas Students (Question No. 1055)

Mr MacKellar:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many overseas students are in Australia illegally.
  2. ) What is their nationality, and where were they born.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. 164, as at 31 October 1974.
  2. The nationality of these students is as follows:

Visitor Visas (Question No. 1056)

Mr MacKellar:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many persons were granted permission to visit Australia during the years 1972 and 1973 and during the period 1 January to 30 June 1974.
  2. What is their nationality, and where were they born.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. and (2) Statistics of visitor visas issued by Australian overseas posts have been consolidated only since 1 September 1972. The statistics are recorded by country of issue only (figures by nationality or place of birth are not available) and are as follows:

Canberra: Average House Prices (Question No. 902)

Mr Street:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

What was the average price charged for Government houses in Canberra for each of the last 5 financial years.

Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

Canberra: Migrant Residents (Question No. 1408)

Mr Street:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What proportion of new residents in Canberra each year are migrants.
  2. ) What is their country of origin.
  3. What is the average length of stay in Canberra of unmarried residents.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

  1. *In the five years to 1973 the proportion of new residents whose country of birth was outside Australia was as follows: 1969 18 per cent; 1970 19 per cent; 1971 13 per cent, 1972 12 percent, 1973 13 percent.
  2. *During 1973 the number of settlers arriving in Australia whose recorded intended place of residence was the A.C.T. amounted to 1,157. Their country of birth was notified as:
  1. Statistics of this nature are not kept by the Department of the Capital Territory.

Housing (Question No. 1419)

Mr McLeay:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many (a) approvals and (b) completions of living units of all types were recorded during each of the months from1 October 1 973 to 30 September 1 974.
  2. How many of these living units were built (a) for sale and (b) for rental during each of the same months.
  3. What was the average monthly cost of building the various categories of living units in the period.
  4. How many living units of all types were sold in this period and what was the average monthly price in each category.
  5. How many of these transactions were financed (a) by the A.C.T. Housing Commissioner and (b) other sources during this period.
  6. Are statistics available on these other sources.
  7. If so, are the terms and conditions of other sources comparable with those of the A.C.T. Housing Commissioner and the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation.
  8. If not, what are the differences.
  9. Are uniform charges made for the preparation of documents, etc., by all lending institutions.
  10. If not, what are the principal differences in the charges.
  11. What are the conveyancing arrangements of the Department of the Capital Territory.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

(1)-

  1. The Department of the Capital Territory does not maintain statistics of this nature.

(3)-

  1. (i)-
  1. (a)-

  1. No statistics on other first mortgage lenders are available.

    1. See 5(b).
    2. and (8) See table.
  1. For previously occupied houses.

  2. b) For houses not previously occupied, lm equals first mortgage loans. 2 m equals second mortgage loans.

    1. No.
    2. The following information relates only to the preparation of second mortgage documents by lending institutions. Building societies and finance companies generally employ solicitors to prepare the mortgage documents and the charges, which are based on a sliding scale related to the value of the property, are passed on to the borrower. Banks do not employ solicitors and make a flat charge of approximately $40. For a typical case of a property valued at $30,000, banks would charge $44, building societies $75 and finance companies $1 10.
    3. The Department of the Capital Territory has within its organisation a conveyancing sub-office, the services of which are available to all persons purchasing private dwellings using funds provided by the Commissioner for Housing. The flat rate conveyancing fee is currently $85.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 19 November 1974, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1974/19741119_reps_29_hor92/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant