House of Representatives
26 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 4019

DEATH OF MR T. W. ANDREWS

Mr SPEAKER:

– I inform the House of the death on 21 November of Mr Thomas William Andrews who was a member of this House for the division of Darebin from 1949 to 1955. On behalf of the House I have forwarded a message of sympathy to the relatives of the deceased. As a mark of respect to the memory of the deceased I invite honourable members to rise in their places. (Honourable members having stood in their places.)

Mr SPEAKER:

– I thank honourable members.

page 4019

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Uranium

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

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

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

And whereas the Maximum Permissible Inhalation of Plutonium 239 is 0.00000025 gram,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Bryant and Mr Lamb.

Petitions received.

Taxation: Education Expenses

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

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

That this reduction will impose hardships on many parents who have children attending school, whether 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 over crowded 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 their 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 1973-1974 level either by increasing taxation deductions or through taxation rebates.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Child.

Petition received.

Hallett Cove, South Australia

To the honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of residents of Hallett Cove (electors of the Division of Kingston ) respectfully showeth:

That the present buffer zone is inadequate to protect the area of great scientific interest at Hallett Cove and that housing development at present proceeding in close proximity to this area threatens the loss for all time of a feature which is unique on the continent of Australia and in the world.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that-

The Federal Government use all the considerable means at its disposal to provide an area enclosed by the present shoreline, the Hallett Cove Model Estate, the Port Stanvac railway line, Grand Central Avenue and a line extending from the end of this road, to the shoreline, to serve as a buffer zone thereby ensuring the preservation of the scientific features at Hallett Cove, and an area for community recreation.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Gunn.

Petition received.

Capital Gains Tax and Death Duties

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

That a Capital Gains Tax as another Death Duty is unjust in its application and catastrophic in its effect.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that a Capital Gains Tax be not levied in addition to Death Duties.

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

Petition received.

Australian Trade Commissioners: South Africa

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

The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that-

  1. 1 ) The presence of the Trade Commissioners to foster trade and business between South Africa and Australia can only result in the strengthening of the Apartheid system,
  2. Apartheid is a crime against humanity- a cruel and anti-democratic system for which there has been no parallel since the reign of Hitler,
  3. To vote progressively in the United Nations, against South Africa, while maintaining links which encourage investment in the exploitation of black labour, is hypocritical, and
  4. While Australians have in the past shown themselves prepared to resist oppression and injustice, they must today declare and act in solidarity with all peoples fighting for a decent and dignified life free from discrimination and tyranny.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House urge the Government to withdraw immediately the two Trade Commissions now operating in South Africa.

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

Petition received.

National Health Scheme

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

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

Australian Public Libraries

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:

We the undersigned do humbly request that the Australian Government commission an inquiry into the provision and funding of State and Municipal Public Libraries throughout Australia. Public Libraries are an essential part of the nation’s facilities for education and information, and the cultural life of the people. Organisation and financing methods to date have manifestly failed to develop Public Libraries to the standard that Australia needs, therefore it is imperative that a thorough national inquiry be conducted.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the members in Parliament assembled will press for the Inquiry into Public Libraries throughout Australia.

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

Petition received.

page 4020

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

I inform the House that the Minister for Labor and Immigration, Mr Clyde Cameron, who left Australia yesterday to attend the second conference of South Pacific Labour Ministers being held in Auckland, will return on 29 November. In his absence the PostmasterGeneral, Senator Bishop, will act as Minister for Labor and Immigration and the Minister for Transport, Mr Charles Jones, will represent the Acting Minister in this House.

page 4020

QUESTION

WHITLAM GOVERNMENT

Notice of Want of Confidence Motion

Mr SNEDDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Bruce

– I give notice that at the next sitting I shall move:

That the Government no longer possesses the confidence of the House for creating the worst economic recession since the depression of the 1930’s through its economic and administrative incompetence and mismanagement, resulting in:

Mass unemployment and social hardship;

Social division and inequality through the highest inflation for a generation:

A fall in the living standards of all Australians:

The greatest industrial unrest for a generation;

Destruction of the housing construction industry causing a massive shortage of homes:

Decline in investment in manufacturing industry with a consequent fall in productivity:

Destruction in the rural sector, both socially and economically;

The alienation of foreign investment;

Uncertainty in the Australian community through ministerial confusion of roles as exemplified in the replacement of Mr Crean

Disruption of the transport industry, especially air and sea, with particularly harsh socio-economic consequences to Tasmania;

Unnecessary confrontation with State governments thereby making a mockery’ of our system of federalism; and

The declining investment and widespread uncertainty of the resource-based industries.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

Mr Speaker, I seek leave to propose a motion that so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition moving his motion forthwith. And might we have a copy of it?

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr WHITLAM:

– I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I wish to inform the House that I accept the notice of motion given today by the Leader of the Opposition as a want of confidence motion for the purposes of standing order 1 10.

page 4021

WHITLAM MINISTRY

Want of Confidence Motion

Mr SNEDDEN:
Leader Opposition · Bruce

-I move:

When this Government came to office for the first time in 1972 nobody could have dreamed that 2 years later Australia would be in the mess that it is in today. Very many people gave support to the Australian Labor Party believing that it had some mystical formula which would bring to Australia the realisation of great ideals and that it would be a Utopia in which we lived. At the time this Government was elected to office we had in Australia an inflation rate of 4Vi per cent. We had an unemployment rate in Australia of a fraction of 100,000 people. This Labor Government came into office making grandiose promises of performance. It did not succeed in achieving any of them. In May 1974, a great number of people felt: Let them have a fair go. Let them be returned to office for a continuing period. A great number of people were not prepared to give them that fair go. The consequence was that the difference in the result of that election was a mere 5 seats, and in each of those S seats the Labor Party won by a very close margin. There was a very close margin in the voting in a great number of seats. They were very close seats and if that election had gone differently the whole future of Australia since May would have been changed quite dramatically. It would have improved. We could have been a great country today. Make no mistake about it, in the future we will be a great country. Today, there is no country in the world that has less prospect for the future than does Australia.

We have immense resources. We have resources under the ground and we have resources that are cultivated on the ground. We have a tremendous population of people who can achieve and who will achieve, given an opportunity. We have great mineral industries, great pastoral and rural industries and great manufacturing industries to develop. But all these industries today have faltered. In none of those industries is there any real sense of confidence of a future in Australia. This has been brought about by the actions of a government that really does not know what is happening. The deterioration in the economy over the last 2 years can be exemplified very easily by pointing to unemployment. When this Government came into office, unemployment was declining and it continued to decline. But today we have reached a stage in Australia at which unemployment, in seasonally adjusted terms, has reached 190,000 people. Quite clearly it has worsened markedly this month. When the figures for November come out it is beyond doubt that the seasonally adjusted figure will be well over 200,000 people. In the meantime those people who are unemployed have been cut off from their careers in the middle of their working lives. There are a tremendous number of school leavers whose first experience of employment in Australia will be to go onto the register of unemployed. Vacation workers will be looking for money to tide them over the next year. Those people will have an immense impact made upon their futures. It will live with them for the rest of their lives.

Inflation has mounted from 4Vi per cent to a level of between 16 per cent and 20 per cent, however one cares to measure it. The harm that inflation does can be measured against those people who have retired and are dependent on a fixed income, or it can be measured against those people in their forties or fifties who are paying into a superannuation scheme or for insurance policies and who know the value of that superannuation or of those insurance policies will be greatly eroded by the time the collecting period arrives at their retirement from their work.

Investment in Australia has downturned to the point where there is no investment confidence in Australia at all. The consequence of the lack of investment is that in Australia we will be working long into the future with plant and equipment that is outfashioned and inefficient. We will be working with outmoded technology. The capacity for improved productivity in Australia in future years will be very seriously handicapped as a result of the downturn in investment in plant and . equipment across the whole range of our industries, whether they be rural, mining, manufacturing or the tertiary industries. That will result in a downturn of productivity. It already has resulted in a downturn of productivity. Productivity is the magical key. With productivity we can indeed have rising living standards and rising wages without rising prices. But without productivity we cannot achieve that. The level of production in Australia in real terms will be negative this year. The Budget itself- that is the second Budget- said that there would be an increase in real terms of only 2 per cent. But as there will be an increase in the work force of 2 per cent it is clear that even the Government was not expecting any increase at all in the real level of production in Australia.

We have strikes at a higher level than they have been since the great depression days of the 1930s. And that is from a government which claims a special relationship with the trade union movement. Before the Government came into office the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) said that under Labor there would be fewer strikes. When asked how he would achieve that he said: ‘Because we have a special understanding’. A special understanding is certainly there; that is, that the trade union movement will tell the Government what to do when it chooses to. The spectacle of the Prime Minister of this country knocking on the door of the residence of the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions to get his instructions lowered the dignity of that office immensely.

The level of demand for housing is approximately 170,000 houses a year. The number of houses that will be built this year will be approximately 120,000, leaving a 50,000 shortfall in demand. From a level of 120,000 it is impossible to jump in one year to a level of 220,000, which would satisfy the current demand plus the backlog of 50,000. There is no way in which that can be done. The consequence is that young people, married, looking for houses, will not be able to obtain them. There will be a housing shortage with its social consequences. The shortage will also drive up the price of housing. What is perfectly clear is the long term economic social impact on this country is immeasurable. It will live with us for a decade. Taking housing, for instance, it will be at least a decade before we can catch up on the housing shortage. The productivity decline because of lack of investment in plant and equipment and modern technology will last for a decade. The social interruption is there, clear to be seen. The economic disruption can be measured by the downturn in all the financial intermediaries which now have no money to lend and companies unable to undertake major development projects. So the level of our export capacity will be down for another 10 years. It will take an immense time to recover.

There has been no exploration whatever for oil. When we were in government, we encouraged oil exploration. We found the supplies in Bass Strait. Without those supplies Australia would have been in the position of Western Europe, North America and Japan. Our rate of inflation would have been doubled by the energy crisis. But in Australia, because of that exploration, we are able to satisfy- what is it; the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Viner) knows-

Mr Viner:

– It is 70 per cent.

Mr SNEDDEN:

-Yes, 70 per cent of our requirements. Without that exploration incentive, we would not be able to. But the great tragedy is that, although until 1980 there will be a slight increase in the production from Bass Strait, after 1980 there can be no greater increase. At that point in time there will be a continuing demand for oil. The proportion of Australia’s needs that we can fill from our own resources will diminish. Then we will start to become subject to the. energy crisis that is building up. Not a single thing is being done about finding oil today in Australia. Every onshore rig has sailed away to another place. Even our Australian exploring companies are exploring overseas.

The erratic performance of the Prime Minister and his Ministers and the various agencies they have set up has created an immense problem in Australia. I mention first the Industries Assistance Commission. ‘Assistance’, the middle word in the title of that body, seems to have departed from the language of the findings of the Industries Assistance Commission. It is now an industries commission which puts forward proposals which cause problems for the Government in the Caucus. Nobody in private industry can have any confidence to plan for the future on the basis of a permanent tariff or of a long term tariff. The Commission has now been asked, in the most extraordinary passage of letters from the Prime Minister to the Chairman of that body, whether it will now take the difficult political decisions so that the Government does not have to take them. What an extraordinary abdication by the Government of its responsibility. The responsibility for tariff decisions must be with the Government. It must be the Government’s decision; it can be nothing else.

The Prices Justification Tribunal was set up, but given no statutory instruction whatever as to the way in which it should conduct itself. In the early stages of its operations, all it did was to approve price increases because costs had gone up. Now the Prices Justification Tribunal has acted on the basis of a profit controller and, as a profit controller, it has got into the board rooms and into management and it is deciding the way in which management should conduct its business. The ridiculous stage was reached where the Prices Justification Tribunal would not allow a price increase to compensate for increased productivity. So, the more productivity increased the less a company could put up its prices. There was no incentive whatever for increased productivity. The net result is that if the Prices Justification Tribunal is left to act as it now it acting, there will be no incentive whatever for increased productivity in Australia.

The Priorities Review Staff has been shopped around. It is now going to the Special Minister of State or SMOS as that portfolio is now called. It picks up all the bits and pieces all over the place. The Priorities Review Staff was set up originally to give advice to the Government about long term priorities. Now it is being used as a substitute for the Treasury and for the Reserve Bank as the immediate economic adviser to the Government.

Mr Hunt:

– Where does Dr Coombs fit in?

Mr SNEDDEN:

- Dr Coombs was the person who originally set up the proposals which would take away, for instance, education allowances and a whole host of other things. But the Priorities Review Staff does not have the accumulated economic experience and expertise that the Treasury or the Reserve Bank has. The Reserve Bank and the Treasury are now no longer even asked for their views.

There is no confidence in the economy or the Government’s ability to manage it. That is the major point that the person in the street identifies, the total incapacity of the Labor Party to manage the economy. The Government just does not know how to go about it. It goes in one direction and then changes course and goes in an opposite direction. Nobody can have any confidence in it at all. The great difficulty about it is that the Government is not learning. It is getting worse as time goes on. The Government still has no coherent policy as to how it will manage the economy and the way in which future policy will turn out.

I think that the Australian people are getting fed up with the idea that the Labor Party should be constantly looking for scapegoats that it can blame for the faults in the economy. Remember the days when it was the fault of the multinational corporations. The putative Treasurer, the Minister for Overseas Trade (Dr J. F. Cairns), who is sitting at the table, was in the United States the other day trying to encourage the multi-nationals to come here and help us out of our problem. Only a short while ago they were the cause of the problem. Then it was the system. It was not the Government’s lack of management but the system. If the Government cannot understand the system and if it cannot get the system to work for it in the way that we can and did, then it does not deserve to be in government. The system has been built up over generations, and the system is parliamentary democracy with the Government drawn from the Parliament, which is the Westminster system.

What the Labor Party wants to do is to govern Australia in the Labor Party Caucus room. It does not want to be bothered with coming into the Parliament. It refuses to allow debate. When was the last time that a Minister was proud enough of the policy he wanted to announce to stand up at the table and say: ‘This is the policy of the Government’ and then allow the Opposition to examine it and give a response? At question time honourable members opposite stonewall and put up Dorothy Dix questions to Ministers to bat out time after time so that the number of questions asked on average is half of what it was when we were in government. This is only to save the Government the embarrassment of questions.

There has been a deterioration of the economy worse than that in any other comparable country. Inflation has gone from 4Vi per cent to 20 per cent. What will the December consumer price index show? It has been leaked that it will show something like 7 per cent. Whether it will be that high or not remains to be seen. Certainly the fall in food prices will mean that the consumer price index will not be as high as was expected. The acceleration of inflation in Australia has been higher than in any of the countries belonging to the Organisations for Economic Co-operation and Development. My colleague, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch), made it clear yesterday that we have the highest inflation of all the OECD countries. Had we not escaped the full impact of the energy crisis we would be way out in front. We would win by a mile and receive the prize, if you can call it a prize, for having the highest inflation.

Unemployment stands at 3.2 per cent and is growing. It will grow quite rapidly. There is no doubt that in December, January, February and probably into March it will continue to grow. The Prime Minister and Dr Cairns, the putative Treasurer, have both said that it will get worse for the next 6 months and there is nothing we can do about it. What an abdication of responsibility by the 2 leaders of the Government. They are just prepared to allow it to happen as it would.

The causes of the economic crisis can be quite simply identified. Government spending and the pace setter principle in 1 973 were at the heart of it. The Government in its first Budget increased Government spending by 23 per cent. In this year’s Budget it increased Government spending by 32lA per cent on that 123 per cent. Spending has built up to the stage where we will have a Budget deficit this year of at least $ 1,850m. That means we will be $ 1,850m in the red- an overdraft, in other words.

Mr Bourchier:

– They are always in the red on the other side.

Mr SNEDDEN:

-As the honourable member for Bendigo says, they are always in the red. The wage and pacesetter principle established by the Government lifted up wages. Then the Government encouraged people in the unions to act outside the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, to put their claims by strong arm action and to put pressure on employers- to say: ‘Give us better conditions and more wages’. The employers did that and costs and prices increased. Then there was the absurdity of the 25 per cent tariff cut right across the board. We cannot really blame the Deputy Prime Minister for that decision because he was not even consulted about it. As soon as the decision was made he complained that he had not been consulted. I never heard him complain that it was a wrong decision, but he complained that he was not consulted. I doubt whether there is now a single member of the Labor Party who would not clearly acknowledge that to be one of the worst economic decisions ever taken by a government. It was taken by 3 members.

According to this morning’s Press the Australian Council of Trade Unions and all union members are concerned about individual industries that have been belted and at unemployment being as high as it has ever been in history. No member of a union has a real recollection of a higher level of unemployment. The textiles and footwear industries are affected. There are problems concerning television and radio sets. The electronics industry generally is affected, as is the motor car industry. There is unemployment in many industries. This situation all feeds back to 2 basic causes. One was the 25 per cent tariff cut and the other was the credit squeeze.

The Government cannot even act appropriately when it gets a report from the Tariff Board. The honourable member for Henty (Mrs Child) will be aware of a factory in her electorateJohns Consolidated Ltd- where a tremendous number of employees have been put off simply because of imported goods coming to Australia and undercutting Johns. Men are being put off at that plant day after day. Johns is now crippled and the Tariff Board acknowledges that imports have seriously damaged that concern. But what did the responsible Minister do? He imposed no penalty whatever on the people who were dumping overseas goods on the Australian market and crippling this industry. Add to that tariffs and the credit squeeze and that industry will go out of existence. The credit squeeze was applied in September 1973. In October 1974 the Government was given the warning: ‘Keep this on and there will be a recession in the middle of 1974’. I know the warning was given because I gave it but the Government took no notice and kept the credit squeeze on. By the middle of this year the recession had arisen. Now probably what the Government will do will be to plunge an immense amount of money into the economyinto the private sector- in a desperate effort to bolster it. At the same time, with government spending as it is, we are headed for a level of inflation which we could never have imagined in the past.

Inflation must be tackled; unemployment must be tackled. Inflation hits the poor and cuts investment, productivity and long term growth. It hits the young home buyers massively. They cannot get a house, they cannot borrow money, and they cannot pay the interest rates which are being charged. Those paying off their homes have had their interest rates raised by 3 per cent and 4 per cent. It may interest the putative Treasurer to know that every 1 per cent increase in the interest rate on mortgages means an extra $100m that home owners have to pay in mortgage repayments.

Mr McLeay:

– The Government is supposed to be a low interest party.

Mr SNEDDEN:

-That is so. It has always claimed that it is a low interest party. Students have been hit, supperannuitants have been almost wiped out, tenants are paying higher rents and the person who is making a home available as a rented home even though there is a housing shortage has to pay a 10 per cent surcharge on his income from that home. The thrifty are given no encouragement to save and as savings fall the capacity to invest decreases. Nobody is given encouragement to take out insurance policies because the Government’s taxation policies have resulted in bonuses payable on insurance policies falling to about one-third of what they were previously. So where is the incentive to insure? The small investor can have no security. Inflation is increasing at a greater rate than any return he can get from his investment. The small businessman is going out of business. He will have to pay the equivalent of 5 quarters of company tax this year, 4 weeks annual leave and a 17V4 per cent loading on annual leave.

From where are the small businessmen going to borrow money and, if they can borrow it, how can they afford to pay the interest cost on that money borrowed to keep themselves in business?

The big danger that Australia faces in 1975 is, in the first half of the year, high inflation and high unemployment and, in the second half of the year, declining unemployment and massively taking-off inflation. The result of that will be a horror Budget to make all previous Budget efforts look like kidstuff. That is what will happen if this Government continues on its erratic path. Not a single statement has been made by any Minister of this Government to say what the course of monetary policy is and what the course of fiscal policy is. Not a single Minister has said: ‘In 1975 we want this to happen’. We have not had a single statement to the effect that they want something to happen. All they say is that it is going to be bad.

Mr Hunt:

– The Prime Minister is setting up Dr Cairns.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I think that is true -the Prime Minister is setting up Dr Cairns. But Dr Cairns knows no more about how to run the economy than Mr Crean knew before him. Dr Cairns, the reluctant applicant for other people’s jobs, was the author of the Budget that lays buried with Frank Crean under the dust created by the Prime Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Cairns, wants to be all things to all men. He wants to be a left winger when he is with the left wingers, he wants to be a lover of free enterprise when he is with free enterprise, and when he is looking for money overseas he loves the multi-nationals. But let me say to him, if he is looking for Arab money to come into Australia, that what business most wants is long term money, not short term money. We do not want the Arab money to be able to be used to intimidate us in our political stance or our economic stance. The Deputy Prime Minister is the man who said in the third Chifley Memorial lecture:

No one and no government need do anything but learn to live with inflation.

He is the man who said last week that unemployment in Australia is absolutely trivial. He has said that to say that is to misquote him. If honourable members look at what he said they will find that he said that in international and national terms it is absolutely trivial. So we do not have to worry about inflation and we do not have to worry about unemployment.

Mr Peacock:

– We have to worry about him.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– We have only to worry about him. He is being backed up by the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Mr Enderby)- the brilliant fellow who said that most of Australia’s imports come from overseas. The Minister for Manufacturing Industry is the man who described manufacturers as being frightened of their own shadow. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) was the great favourite to become the new Treasurer until he got up in the Caucus and honestly said: ‘We are supervising the destruction of the Australian economy’. He ceased to be a candidate.

Mr Hayden:

– I rise to a point of order, Mr Speaker. That misrepresentation is continually made by members of the Liberal Party, despite the fact that I have corrected it in this House previously. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the ‘ dishonest statement. There is no need to misrepresent.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! No point of order is involved.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I am deeply disappointed. I had respect for the Minister for Social Security. I thought that he knew what was happening. Now he is even opting out of knowing what is happening. He is just going along with the rest and letting the situation career along. I am bitterly disappointed with the Minister for Social Security that he does not understand what is happening. He is now at the bottom of the list for the position of Treasurer and he deserves to be because he does not understand. The long term policies of the Minister for Minerals and Energy, Mr Connor, are going to leave a legacy which is going to subtract from the living standard of the Australian people for 2 generations. You cannot have 2 years of absolutely no activity in exploration. You cannot drive away confidence and then suddenly restore it. There is no way in which that can happen. The Minister did not want a uranium policy. It was only the arrival of the Japanese Prime Minister that led to that happening. If the Prime Minister did not send Mr Renouf down to the rear of the chartered Boeing jet in which they were travelling to talk to the Press he probably would not have even had the Government’s uranium policy ready for the arrival of the Japanese Prime Minister. Although Mr Renouf did not know he was doing everyone a favour in fact he did do a favour by bringing this matter to the surface. Although the Government’s policy on uranium is certainly not a complete one, we did get some approach to it, some attempt to have one.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Les Johnson) has presided over the greatest housing crisis since the War. There is a 50,000 shortfall of houses this year. The social harm that this has caused is inestimable. Every time there are new figures quoted of a low in the housing field the Minister calls for action by the Government. Anyone would think that he was not in the Government.

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the Leader of the Opposition be granted an extension of time.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The motion may not be moved until the timing light goes out. The right honourable gentleman’s time has not expired yet.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The only thing that saves the Minister for Housing and Construction from total disgrace is that he had the good sense to blame the Treasury, before the Prime Minister did, for all that is wrong. He anticipated what would happen. As a result the Minister stands up and makes these calls.

The Minister for Labor arid Immigration (Mr .Clyde Cameron) said that he would sooner resign than preside over 250,000 persons unemployed. I have good news for the Caucus- if he honours his words, probably the honourable member for Perth (Mr Berinson) will be the next Minister. (Extension of time granted) The Prime Minister has adopted a new slogan. Cars carrying the message ‘Don’t blame me- I voted Liberal’ on their rear windows have been driven around in all parts of Australia. The Prime Minister has changed this slogan. What he is saying is: ‘Don’t blame me- nobody told me’. Have honourable members ever heard such an extraordinary abandonment of responsibility? It is like a child giving an excuse for something that it has done wrong. The Prime Minister was probably overseas when the Treasury wanted to tell him.

If the Prime Minister had read the economic review put out by the Opposition on 5 July he would have seen that we warned then that prospective stagnation in real activity loomed as a policy issue of major significance containing every threat of severe stagflation. We supported that with 5 specific arguments. But the Prime Minister has been twisting and turning during the last 6 months. He has been twisting and turning since the May election. In May he said ‘Inflation is falling’. He said: ‘Tax cuts are economic vandalism’. This is what the Prime Minister put to the Australian people in the 1974 policy speech. Listen to these brilliant words, wonderful rhetoric which, no matter how good it is, does not get us anywhere because if we are failing economically people suffer for it. He said: ‘In Australia alone unemployment and inflation do not march side by side’. That was in May. Can he deny that today, as a result of the economic management of this country, inflation and unemployment do march side by side? If he is asked ‘What policy have you to prevent it?’, there is not a single document that can be pointed to which says: ‘This is the way we will tackle inflation’.

The Government puts all its hopes on wage indexation. That is the single thing it is hoping for and it is hoping that it will thereby get union support. It is the Government’s only attack on inflation, and it does not even tackle unemployment. It says that unemployment will get worse and we will have to wait for 6 months before anything can happen in relation to it. Now the Prime Minister says: ‘Don’t blame me’. I do blame him. I blame him very greatly.

Mr Killen:

– And the country does too.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– And the country blames him, as the honourable member for Moreton, Mr Killen, has said. The whole country blames him. There is no point in the Prime Minister saying: ‘I have no economic comprehension. Don’t blame me.’ There is no point in his saying: ‘Treasury did not warn me. Don’t blame me.’ He is the leader of this country, the leader of the Government. It was his responsibility to know. It was his responsibility to make sure that he was informed. But I wonder whether in fact he is telling the truth when he says that nobody told him, because I believe the Treasury did tell him; and if the Treasury did not tell him then his own Minister for Labor and Immigration, Mr Cameron, told him. I forecast in the middle of this year that there would be recession in October. Last December the Minister for Labor and Immigration, Mr Cameron, warned that there could be unemployment in 1974- his own Minister. And his own Minister, Mr Cameron, has continually upgraded the level of unemployment which he, Mr Cameron, thinks will happen; and the Minister for Labor and Immigration forecast it again in July. The Opposition forecast it in July, and on 2 July of this year Mr Whitlam said:

We are in Tact taking steps which are based upon the possibility that this- that is, a rise in unemployment- will happen.

That was in July. Today he is saying: ‘Don’t blame me. Nobody told me. ‘

We cannot even rely on the Prime Minister’s word, we cannot rely on him to state the truth today about what his belief and knowledge were in July. We have to turn back to the records and look at them. Why, it was only last week that one of the commentators here, talking about the last election, said that it all played into Mr Whitlam ‘s hands for an election in May because he, Mr Whitlam, had been warned by the Treasury in April that things were going to be bad as 1974 went on and he, the clever tactician, allowed us to go on with the election, that he really wanted one himself, and he then moved into the double dissolution because of the action the Opposition took. But the whole point of it, fed out of the Prime Minister’s office, is that he had been so clever that in April he had seen the downturn in the economy. Yet he has got the duplicity to say now that nobody told him.

Whom does he blame? He has blamed the multi-nationals, he has blamed the Treasurer. The Prime Minister has blamed the Treasurer and sacked him, after excruciating agony to Mr Crean before he was sacked. He has blamed the Treasury, he has blamed the multi-nationals, he has blamed profits, and now he has written to the President of the Prices Justification Tribunal and told him not to worry about profits. He has blamed big business, he has blamed the Press, he has blamed the unions, he has blamed the Caucus, he has blamed his own Cabinet, he has blamed the nervous Nellies, he has blamed the Senate, he has blamed worldwide forces, he has blamed the State governments. It is time he bought a mirror and looked into it.

Is it not a tragedy to think of what we should have been? Australia should have stayed at the bottom of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development inflation list, not at the top. We should have been an island of price stability. We could have matched West Germanywith inflation of 7 per cent, doubled by the energy crisis- and had inflation in Australia of under 4 per cent. New Zealand with a Labor Government has lower inflation than Australia and it has full employment. We could have been fighting off capital inflow into Australia instead of going out in a shameful way appealing for it after having abused it for so long.

Inflation and unemployment have been caused directly by policy errors of the Whitlam Government. What we could have been! The Government is being criticised not only by me, by my Party, by my coalition partners and by the Senate but also by Mr Reece, the Labor Premier of Tasmania who has said: ‘Get those hobnailed boots out of Tasmania that are walking all over me by a Labor Government in Canberra’. Mr Dunstan reckons that this is the worst Government that he has ever had to deal with. Mr Wran, the Leader of the Opposition in New South Wales, says: ‘For God’s sake, get interest rates down’, in criticising his own Federal Labor Government. The Government has taken us off the rails. We are lurching from crisis to crisis without direction. This Government is like the painting ‘Blue Poles’. No one is certain how it was put together but the creator was not in control when it happened. But it is very trendy. It was fabulously expensive, but now the shiny paint is beginning to fall off despite the desperate efforts of the back room boys to try to hold it together. In short, it is a government failed. It is a government failed which will put back for generations Australia ‘s performance.

No country has better prospects of achieving higher living standards for its people. No country in the world has a capacity to give more proportionately to less advantaged countries than we have. No country can match our resourcesour people. No country has more going for it. In the long term Australia will succeed; it must succeed. In the meantime we have to go through this rubbishy period with which we are faced, in which direction is lost, in which there is no achievement and in which incentive has gone. We have plans to get back into government and restore Australia to that great national achievement which is open for us to fulfil, and the only way in which we can do it is by having a sensible, responsible government; by giving incentives where incentives are needed to encourage the individual, because the individual has to succeed before the community can succeed. The community can succeed only on the basis of individuals making their own choice, making their own judgment, doing their own thing. The next election, whenever it may be held, will be a contest between socialism and centralism on the one hand and the burgeoning of the individual in free enterprise on the other. What should happen as a result of this motion of no confidence is that the Government ought to resign.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The right honourable gentleman’s time has expired. Is the motion seconded?

Mr ANTHONY:
Leader of the Australian Country Party · Richmond

– Yes, I second the motion. Normally I would reserve my right to speak but it is quite obvious that the Government is ducking for cover and that it intends to gag this debate as soon as the Deputy Prime Minister (Dr J. F. Cairns) has spoken. Why is the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) not here? This is the most important motion that can be moved in the House. It is a motion of no confidence in the Government. The public has no confidence in the Government today and it is about time this Parliament had the right of expressing its opinion as to whether it wants the Government to remain in office. If any of the supporters of the Government had the moral courage to express their real sentiments they would be voting against the Government today because of the deplorable situation that so many average citizens find themselves in today.

Where is the Prime Minister? Why is he not accepting his responsibility to answer for his Government? Why is he handing over that responsibility to the Deputy Prime Minister? It is because of his contempt for this Parliament. He thinks he can ride roughshod over this Parliament; that it does not matter. If members of the Australian Labor Party are starting to wonder why their rating is going down in the public’s eye, it is because of this arrogant, self-styled presidential type of Prime Minister we have today. It is about time they started to realise that if ever they want to have the chance of being in government again in the future they had better do something about the situation. The ill-feeling that runs through their Party for the Prime Minister because of the way in which he has been acting lately is something which one would not like to mention in this House. But it is there, it is obvious and we all know about it.

This Prime Minister does not seem to react to public criticism or to sensitivity. We are in this desperate situation. The Prime Minister has said in his own words that it is the worst situation that has developed for 40 years, and the President of his Party, Mr Hawke, has said that next year will be the worst year since the Depression in the 1930s. Yet the Prime Minster is not even prepared to come into the House and talk on a motion expressing a want of confidence in the Government’s management of the economy. The Government is not even prepared to allow a full scale debate on this matter in the Parliament. I ask honourable members: What sort of a Government do we have? It is deserving of the greatest condemnation that is possible when it treats this matter so lightly.

Of course, the Prime Minister is prepared to go overseas. Nobody can talk him out of his little cultural excursion overseas. It is nothing more than a cultural excursion. He cannot even get the head of his own Department to go with him. He cannot get the secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs to go with him. He had to bludgeon the secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade and the Secretary of the Department of Minerals and Energy to go with him. He has built up a team of about 35 people to go with him because he always wants to have a big team around him. If he does this, he looks more like a president. This is why he does it. He has chartered an aircraft at enormous expense. He does not worry about criticism. The trouble with the present Prime Minister is that he is not prepared to give an example to the rest of .the nation in a time of great need.

There is terrific concern about the actions of the Government. We have seen its example of giving jobs to the boys. We have seen the discontent in the Public Service in appointing political stooges to some of the highest jobs in the country. There is no doubt that there is great unrest and uncertainty and that this lack of confidence has developed in the nation. There is no integrity in the Government. Dependability and reliability seem to be going out of Government today. We seem to have left the era when stability and honesty were the important features of government and when we could take the word of the government. But today, this Government seems to pour out one statement after another contradicting itself. It does not seem to care. Today, when the Opposition moves a vote of censure in the Government, the Prime Minister does not even have the decency to come into the House to answer it.

So far as the Deputy Prime Minister is concerned, we know that it is only the end that matters for him. For him, the end justifies the means. He will contradict himself and refute statements. We have seen the nauseating experience of him going to the United States of America- to Wall Street- begging and pleading for money when nobody has been more vitriolic of these people over the years than the Deputy Prime Minister. We have very great disturbances and discontent in the defence services of this country. Some of the rumours that are from the defence Services are quite alarming. We see our defence Services running downhill and the trade unions having a greater influence on Government decisions. The members of the Australian Labor Party are nothing more than puppets for the decisions of their trade union leaders. This is not government. It is not giving leadership. This is just leading the country to anarchy which must eventually follow the high rate of inflation which we are developing at the moment.

But it is economic mismanagement that is causing great discontent. We have economic mismanagement with high interest rates, unemployment, costs and prices going up and it is becoming impossible for young people to obtain a home. The Prime Minister, through his ineptitude and bungling, has put the Government, the

Parliament and the nation in a ridiculous position. We have a Treasurer (Mr Crean) in whom the Prime Minister no longer has confidence. How can the Parliament have confidence in the Government when there is a charge that the national economy has been brought to this uneasy position because of the Treasurer, a Treasurer who still remains in office? How can we have confidence in a government when the Prime Minister leaves that Treasurer in office for some unknown time and now puts another man in his position, a man of whom he is fearful and about whom he is concerned? We have the Treasurer-designate already telling the world what is wrong with the present Treasurer’s policies and what he is going to do to fix them up. If we have to go through this ridiculous performance why is the Prime Minister not game enough, sensible enough, to get the mess straightened out quickly instead of leaving the whole country up tn the air with 2 Ministers, one whom the Prime Minister does not support and one, as I said, whom the Prime Minister is scared of?

In this whole sordid episode, which has seen the Prime Minister acting in the most shameful and reprehensible way to one of his most senior and formerly trusted colleagues, we have had a demonstration of the Government’s complete helplessness in managing its own internal affairs, let alone the affairs of the nation which are in a desperate position today and which need strong and sound leadership- courageous leadership. But we are not getting that from this Prime Minister who seems to duck the nasty problems, the difficult problems, within his own Party. How can this Parliament or this nation have any trust in a Prime Minister who has acted in such a deceitful way with such a shabby political mess as he made out of the disposing of his present Treasurer?

A month ago the Prime Minister made the socalled facetious remark about the Treasurer’s position. We all know that it was not facetious; it was a remark calculated deliberately to begin the process of undermining the Treasurer’s position. Anyone with a sense of loyalty to a colleague and any sense of decency and fair play would have had the courage to face the Treasurer man to man, but instead we have had the charade going on for weeks of the Prime Minister pretending to protect and defend the Treasurer while all the time planning to knife him in the back. The Prime Minister has deliberately misled this House and the nation. He tells us now that he decided three or four weeks ago to sack the Treasurer. Yet only the week before last the

Prime Minister stood in this House and said that everything the Treasurer had done had expressed the decisions of the Government. He made that point over and over again. The Prime Minister’s whole approach was an attempt to make the House believe that he supported the Treasurer and had no intention of sacking him.

We now know that he intended all along to get rid of the Treasurer. He did not have the courage to do it openly but he cunningly, to coin a phrase, allowed a disgusting whispering campaign against the Treasurer so that it would undermine him. Mr Speaker, this is important. In linking the Treasurer so strongly with every Government decision, in saying that there had not been one Government decision in which the Treasurer was not involved, the Prime Minister has condemned his own Government out of his own mouth. The Treasurer, according to the Prime Minister, was involved in every decision. The Treasurer has now been sacked. This is nothing less than an outright acknowledgment by the Prime Minister that the Government’s decisions have been bad decisions and that the Treasurer, who was part of every one of those decisions, has been sacrificed and has had to carry the odium for the mismanagement and the bad decisions of this Government. How can there be any confidence in the Government in these circumstances?

What finally pushed the Prime Minister to the brink after letting the Treasurer suffer such a cruel publicity campaign was the pressure that the new Treasurer put on the Prime Minister. Why did the Prime Minister move? He moved because the Deputy Prime Minister gave him the option to move or else. This has established once and for all the authority of the Deputy Prime Minister. The Prime Minister apparently will be nothing more than the titular head of this Government. In pushing the Prime Minister to the brink the new Treasurer has even more strongly asserted his dominance over the Prime Minister and has established his superiority over him. This victory by the new Treasurer over the Prime Minister has tremendous significance for this nation, for the Government and for the Australian Labor Party- significance which we will come to understand better as time proceeds.

Why did the Prime Minister decide in the first place to sack the Treasurer? The reason for the Treasurer’s sacking is the same reason that has forced the Opposition to move this motion against the Government. This Government’s economic policies have brought this nation to the edge of real disaster. These policies have brought personal disaster to many thousands of Australians, so much so that this Government is simply unfit to remain in charge of the nation’s affairs. It has proved itself unworthy to continue in that position. Any Labor member who votes against this motion and who supports the Government will be a traitor to his own conscience, knowing that the Government has caused so much economic and social disruption and destruction.

This Government has lost control of itself and of the economy. The nation is gripped by the most savage inflation we have ever seen. The Government tries, quite dishonestly, to blame the international economic climate for Australia’s domestically generated inflation. It has tried to deceive the Australian people by refusing to acknowledge our insulation from international cost rises, especially in oil, and in all the other commodities in which Australia has a tremendous price and supply advantage over other countries. Inflation is getting up into the middle 20s on a percentage scale. This is a shameful and damaging situation for which this Government must accept the major part of the blame. It must accept the blame because it lacks the courage to do the things that have to be done if inflation is to be arrested.

How can there be any confidence in a government which tries to blame the Treasury for Australia’s economic crisis? The Prime Minister’s claim that the Government did not know that things were deterioriating at such a rapid rate, because the Treasury did not tell the Government soon enough, is an admission of the Government’s incompetence. The Prime Minister must have been the only person in Australia who did not know how quickly the economy was running down and the serious situation into which we were getting. The Opposition for many months has been urging the Government to respond to the growing crisis. But we have been branded by the Prime Minister as prophets of doom and rumour mongers, even traitors.

Australia’s inflation and unemployment are largely the result of the Government’s own actions or inaction. It has worsened the situation through currency, tariff and prices action, and failed to respond to the inflation problem. Once the Prime Minister begins blaming a very responsible Department for his own inadequacies and the inadequacies of his Government, the effects on the standing and morale of the whole Public Service become very serious. The Government has shown itself to have lost control and the Prime Minister has shown, by his own admission of his ignorance of the extent of the deepening economic crisis, his unfitness to continue as Prime Minister and for his Government to remain in office. As long as this Government does remain in office, especially under a Treasurer who knows that uncontrolled inflation is the quickest way to bring about the social and economic chaos that will allow him to pursue his goal of social revolution, this nation will suffer worsening inflation.

Unemployment is reaching heights that no one thought possible in Australia. Under sound economic management it would not have happened. But we cannot have sound economic management while a socialist Government continues to pursue its philosophy in such damaging ways. We cannot have sound economic management while a socialist Government, led by a dedicated socialist revolutionary, bashes the productive sector of the economy, penalises those who save, and attacks those who invest in private enterprise. We cannot have sound economic management by a government whose record of internal dissention contradiction and instability is as bad as the record of this Government. We cannot, in the name of common humanity, allow to remain in charge of the economy this Government which is causing such massive unemployment, the most dehumanising of all human conditions in a country that normally has offered the best living conditions and the best employment opportunities of any country.

The record of this Government in economic management is a shocking one. We saw this year the most inflationary Budget imposed on an already dangerously inflationary situation. Shortly before that, we were presented with a set of measures claimed by the Treasurer to be antiinflationary and, a day later, by the new Treasurer not to be anti-inflationary. Later still we had the Prime Minister come into the House and demonstrate his abysmal lack of expertise and his utter disregard for the inflationary crisis by bringing down still further measures which can only pour petrol on the flames of any inflation that we have already. How can we learn whether the Prime Minister is genuine in his handling of economic affairs when he has not even the decency to come into this House and enter the debate? He will spend most of his time overseas jaunting around while the economy gets into a worse and worse situation.

This Government has shown that it is very brave when it comes to hijacking the sound and logical economic policies of the Opposition, but it is gutless when it comes to doing the hard things. It is easy to cut taxes, but it is hard to cut spending. This Government cannot meet the challenge. It does not deserve to remain in office. This Governmernt has forfeited the right to hold the confidence of the House and the people of Australia. Sir, we have had the example of the so-called tax cuts. They are very interesting if one looks at them closely because one will see that the tax cuts for the low income group- those below $5,000 per annum- are between 5 per cent and 6 per cent. Measured against the rate of inflation, which is running at between 20 per cent and 25 per cent, these cuts will allow for adjustment in costs in one quarter only. If one looks closely at the tax cuts one will find that those earning above $5,000 per annum- those in the bracket between $6,000 per annum and $ 1 1 ,000 per annum- will pay marginally a higher percentage of taxation on each additional $1 they earn above $6,000. So, it is deceitful and dishonest for the Government to claim that these are tax cuts.

If this Government thinks that it can get the support of the trade union movement by such a deceitful means of presenting taxation cuts, it is deluding itself. This Government is deceiving those people whom it claims to represent. The genuine trade union member today is in the earning bracket over $5,000. per annum. Yet each person earning between $6,000 per annum and $1 1,000 per annum will pay proportionally more in taxation on the money they earn in that bracket than they would previously have done. In other words, the incentive to work harder and to earn more is being destroyed by this socialist Government which wants to kill the incentive of people to save and to invest and also to kill encouragement of the private sector of the community which is so vital to the dynmamic nation that we have known in the past. This Government does not deserve the confidence of the Australian people. It can no longer blame anybody else.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

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

- Mr Speaker, it is correct -

Opposition supporters- Where is the Prime Minister?

Dr Forbes:

– The gutless wonder!

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Barker will withdraw that remark.

Dr Forbes:

– I withdraw.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– The Leader of the Country Party (Mr Anthony), in opening his speech, said that this is the most important motion which can be placed before a parliament. It is. This motion contains nothing but exaggeration, nothing but wild accusation, nothing but misrepresentation, and nothing but reckless exaggeration, all calculated to destroy confidence not only in this Government but in this nation. Unless something is done to offset it, that would be the effect it would have.

What has been said here today is based on newspaper reports, upon leaks or rumours, most of which are false. No attempt has been made to check; no attempt has been made to have any regard to the honour or responsibility on this side of the House. There have been accusations of lies told by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and others and accusations of duplicity and deceit. I have been in this House for 19 years. I know that people make mistakes, but this is not a place where lies are told and where duplicity is practised. It does not help debate on a national question of this kind to have accusations of that sort made by the Leader of the Opposition and by the Leader of the Country Party.

The Leader of the Country Party ended by saying that the Government was deliberately concerned to kill initiative and to destroy industry. But industry in this country is something upon which the great majority of workers depend. We on the Government side of the House have a loyalty to the workers of this country and we are determined to follow a policy which is in their interests. If we were doing what the Leader of the Country Party alleges we would be doing we would be failing in the trust to every one of those people who have supported the Australian Labor Party over decades and who have elected this Government to govern on their behalf. Accusations of that kind only have to be made for it to be seen how destructive and empty they in fact are.

The Leader of the Opposition during the course of his speech quoted me twice. He quoted from the Chifley memorial lecture I delivered recently. He said that in that lecture I said that no government need do anything but learn to live with inflation. I said that some people had that view, that it was a wrong view and that it should not be accepted. But he did not even read enough of the lecture to find out that I was stating a view that prevailed and was saying that this was one of the alternatives that ought to be rejected. Yesterday in the Parliament he asked a question in which he said that I had said that unemployment in Australia was trivial. He repeated it time and time again in that long question about which the Speaker even had to remark. Then when he referred to Hansard to find out what I really did say he’ said that I had said that unemployment in Australia was trivial compared with that in any other country. It is trivial compared with that in any other country. There is no other country in the world today where unemployment is less than it is in Australia.

Mr Nixon:

– What about New Zealand?

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-Except New Zealand. New Zealand is the one country in the world today where there is less unemployment. No explanation was given in this debate today of the causes of inflation or the causes of unemployment. No indication was given by the Leader of the Opposition or by the Leader of the Country Party that they even understand where inflation came from or what in fact caused it. Inflation does not just occur in a week or two or in a month or two. It takes years to occur. In 1971-72 the increase in the cost of living in this country was about 3 or 4 per cent. Since then costs have increased. Why is this so? Unless we have a proper, balanced view of what is occurring we cannot possibly either examine the situation today or arrive at a policy that will be appropriate for it. Inflation came to Australia as a result of the increase in demand for our exports and as a result of the increased capital flow that occurred in 1972-73. This was followed by a financial policy under the control of the previous Government that allowed that increased inflow of funds from overseas to have full impact upon the Australian economy.

I refer the House to the growth in money supply that occurred during that time. In 1971 the growth in money supply broadly defined in the March quarter was 7.7 per cent; in the June quarter 12.4 per cent; in the September quarter 7.5 per cent and in the December quarter 7.8 per cent. This was the time when the value of Australian exports was low. This was the time when capital inflow from overseas was fairly low. But because in 1972 there was an increase of $2,000m in the amount spent on Australian exports and an increase in the capital inflow of $3,000m, the price of foodstuffs went up, the price of meat rose. That was a dramatic factor in cost of living increases in 1973 and into 1974. At the same time the increase in money supply became a record high for Australia. Under the former Prime Minister the honourable member for Lowe (Mr McMahon), and the former Treasurer, the present Leader of the Opposition, in 1972 the money supply rose in the March quarter by 10.4 per cent, in the June quarter by 16.8 per cent and in the September quarter by 23.4 per cent. The all-time record increase in money supply was 29. 1 per cent in the December quarter 1972, under a government led by the honourable member for Lowe. The record increase in the money supply in the history of

Australia occurred in the December quarter 1972. Consequently, the forces of inflation were released and were operating in Australia before the end of 1972. The kind of price increase that prevailed in 1972 and 1973 was predetermined in that year. The point I made a few minutes ago is that inflation is not something that happens in a week or two or in a month or so. Inflation is something that operates in an economy in the course of one year and emerges in full force as time passes. It takes a year or two for this to happen. Consequently, when the Labor Party became the Government it had to wrestle with the problem of inflation.

In an economy of the kind that we have, when a government is dealing with inflation there are only limited powers and means with which such a government can operate. The Labor Government had to make certain choices that were clear. It was necessary to reduce the inflow of capital from overseas; it was necessary to increase the quantity of goods imported into Australia if demand was to be diminished and if the quantity of goods in supply was to be increased. It was impossible to increase the supply of goods rapidly enough from local production because local production at best cannot increase by more than 5 per cent or 6 per cent in a year. Consequently, we took steps to appreciate the currency; we took steps to reduce the tariffs across the board so we could get an increased supply of goods and services. In the course of 1 973 the result undoubtedly was a considerable reduction in the amount of inflation that otherwise would have prevailed. Estimates show that the amount of inflation then could have been as much as 10 per cent higher. I say that if we had had in office an alternative government drawn from the Opposition benches during that time, inflation would have been 10 per cent higher than it has been under a Labor Government. We know very well that the Australian Country Party would have resisted to the very end any attempt to appreciate the Australian dollar. It said so at the time. It did so in 1971 and 1972 and it would have done so in 1 973. The first requirement that any economic prescription would have guaranteed as a measure against inflation would have been discarded by the Opposition members if they had been in government. Consequently inflation in 1973 and 1974 would have been considerably higher than it is now.

It is all right to be critical, it is all right to be destructive and it is all right to say that everything the Government has done has been wrong, but I ask the people of this nation to think of what the alternative would have been. The alternative would have been one that this no confidence motion would have justified- mass unemployment and social hardship. The unemployment of one person in Australia is too high, and of 10 people it is too high. But we do not have mass unemployment in Australia today. If we had not begun the reflation of this economy three or four months ago, unemployment would have been considerably higher than it is now. We have begun earlier than any other country to get the economy back onto its feet and to eliminate unemployment. We have therefore considerably reduced unemployment from what it would otherwise have been. The no confidence motion speaks about a fall in the living standards of all Australians. Let us look to see what the facts really are. Average weekly earnings adjusted or deflated for changes in prices increased in real purchasing power by 3.2 per cent in the year ending June 1973 and by 3.9 per cent in the year ending June 1974. Despite the increase in the cost of living which, as I have said, would have been considerably greater under any other government, average weekly earnings in Australia have increased more rapidly than that; they increased in real terms by 3.2 per cent in the year ending June 1973 and 3.9 per cent in the year ending June 1974. So the third proposition put forward in the no confidence motion is destroyed by the statistics as they concern wages.

I ask honourable members to consider the hundreds of thousands of people who depend upon pensions for their income. During the period that the cost of living has increased under this Government by between 16 per cent and 20 per cent the age and invalid pensions in Australia have increased by over 50 per cent. Never before in the history of Australia has such a significant increase in age and invalid pensions been made as has been made by this Government. I ask the Parliament and the people what the alternative would have been. Do they imagine that if there had been a government drawn from the other side of the House average weekly earnings would have increased by more than the cost of living? I ask them to think realistically about what would have happened if we had had a government drawn from the other side of the House in these circumstances; the government would have been troubled that wage increases were too high.

What situation would we have had under a Liberal Party government in recent times? We know from experience what situation we would have had; we know what it did before. We know there would have been a wage freeze- an attempt to freeze wages and to prevent wage increases from being obtained. We know that whatever is the level of industrial disputes in Australia- any industrial dispute is unfortunatethis level is small compared with that of any other comparable country. In Europe industrial disputes are and have been one of the greatest problems of the last decade or two. We know also that should such disputes have occurred in Australia under a Liberal-Country Party government there would have been cuts in education and cuts in welfare. Does any honourable member think we would have had the development of a program in which more than double the amount in real terms has been spent on education during the last 2 years? Would we have had the area improvement programs, the health centres and the development of the health scheme? We would not. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) said that what must be done about inflation today is to cut government expenditure. No matter how much one tries to get the Leader of the Opposition into a corner he cannot deny that his policy would result in cuts not only in social welfare but also in education, health and all the other essentials that make up the greater part of government expenditure in this nation. That is the alternative people would have had under an alternative government. That is the alternative that would have prevailed had Australia not been governed by the Labor Party in the last 20 months.

Recently there has been a good deal of criticism about the change in ministerial arrangementsabout the change of the positions of the Treasurer (Mr Crean) and of myself. I remind the House and everybody else what happened in recent years. During previous governments there were 5 Prime Ministers, and everybody recalls the experience of waiting in Kings Hall to hear the outcome of the great tussle between Mr McMahon and Senator Gorton, as he then was. Under previous governments there have been 8 Ministers for Defence, 7 AttorneysGeneral, 8 Ministers for External Affairs, 9 Ministers for Civil Aviation, 7 Ministers for Shipping and Transport, 12 Ministers for Air, 7 VicePresidents of the Executive Council and 7 Ministers for Immigration. Of course, many of these Ministers, when they became an embarrassment, were appointed to positions overseas; for instance, as a High Commissioner in Malta or an Ambassador to Ireland. Senator Gair was not the first one of those. A member of this House, Mr Hugh Robertson, was one. Senator Gair’s appointment was one for which there are many precedents. Every one of those ministerial changes could have been called dramatic and traumatic and could have been exaggerated as they were today.

Both Opposition speakers in this debate made some issue of the way in which this Government is ready to discuss with trade union leaders the important matters of this nation. I make no apology for that. This Government is prepared to discuss with trade union leaders the great economic questions of this nation. We want to hear their views, we want to have those discussions and we want to have them in the open. We have met with Mr Hawke and with other members of the Executive of the Australian Council of Trade Unions as we have met with many other trade union leaders, both formally and informally, during the course of the last 20 months. We have had not only informal meetings here but elsewhere as well. We have included a great many of these trade union leaders in the industrial panels that have made an important contribution to the development and planning of industry during that time. But what would happen it there were a government drawn from the other side of the House? It would not meet readily with the trade union leaders. I understand that just before the last election Mr Lynch, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, Mr Nixon, a senior member of the Country Party, and Senator Greenwood were anxious to see Mr Hawke but were not prepared to see him in the open. They wanted to meet on neutral ground and Mr Hawke said: ‘If you want to see me come to the ACTU offices and do so’.

There is a big difference between the attitude of members of this side of the House towards the trade union movement and that of members of the other side of the House. We represent the trade union movement, among other people, in this Parliament. But honourable members opposite have fought the trade union movement, have imprisoned trade union leaders, have frozen wages and have carried out concentrated campaigns of attack upon the trade union movement. As I said a few minutes ago, if honourable members opposite were again in government that is what they would be doing.

In the course of his speech the Leader of the Opposition found it possible to make a passing reference to wage indexation. I pointed out in the debate yesterday that the Leader of the Opposition had made no more than a passing reference to indexation. His supporters have attacked indexation and said they would have no part of it. I put it to the House this way: Why do the Liberal Party and Country Party Premiers around Australia and the Leader of the Opposition here oppose what is, in fact, a just principlethe principle of cost of living adjustments applied to Australian wage and salary earners? A government that is properly governing this nation cannot possibly ignore the position of wage and salary earners when the cost of living is increasing.

A system to indexation would allow workers, without the necessity of strike or even of application, to obtain automatically an adjustment of their wages and salaries for cost of living increases. This is essentially a good principle and without the application of this principle any government would find that it would be in a position in which it would not in any way be able to receive or expect the co-operation of workers or unions in any policy directed at the stability of the economy. But this basic principle that should always underlie national policy has never been considered seriously by the Opposition. To the Opposition it has merely been the subject of a passing reference and, generally speaking, the subject of attack.

We have also been regaled today about the alienation of foreign investment. Before we became the Government we had listened to some of the best leaders of the parties in previous governments, like Sir John McEwen, who was for a long time the leader of the Australian Country Party, telling us that because of overseas investment the heritage of Australia had been substantially sold out. We recognised the truth of that and we made up our minds that we would not allow this to occur during our term of office. So we were not as the Prime Minister of the time, Mr Gorton, said governments had been known to his Government, like a puppy lying on its back having its stomach tickled by foreign investors. We decided that we would properly control and regulate foreign investment. I said in the first place that this was a necessary anti-inflationary measure. If, as the evidence showed, inflation had been substantially the result of the flood of foreign funds that were endeavouring to buy out Australia in that process prior to 1973, foreign investment had to be regulated for antiinflationary reasons. So we adopted the method of using the variable deposit ratio by which up to one-third of the foreign investment that came into Australia was to be held on deposit with the Reserve Bank. As I pointed out a few minutes ago, if actions like that had not been taken inflation in 1973-74 would have been very much greater than it has been.

In no case has the Leader of the Opposition or the Leader of the Australian Country Party, who followed him in the debate, in criticising destructively what the Government has done in the last 2 years said what he would have done in the circumstances if he had been elected to government in December 1972, had the Australian people made a serious mistake and returned him once more to government- an inconceivable situation, of course, at the time. What would they have done in 1973? Would they have done nothing about the inflow of foreign funds? Would they have done nothing about the value of the Australian dollar? How would they have dealt with the situation? Would they have done nothing to restrict bank lending following, as I have said, the period in which the increase in the money supply in 1972 was an all-time record for Australia? If they had taken those measures would they have been able to guarantee that there would be any less unemployment than there has been under the present Government? Inflation is a serious problem. Inflation cannot be dealt with without some adverse consequences. But what I say about the record of the present Government is that the adverse consequences have been far less than they have been in other comparable countries and far less than they would have been under any alternative government of this nation.

Looking at the future, neither the Government nor anyone else in this nation is helped very much by the destructive criticism, by the wild accusations and by the misrepresentations that have taken place in this debate. They have no effect but to destroy confidence in the nation. It is done purely for political reasons. Anything can be done and anything goes in a presentation of that kind, so long as those who are putting the argument have some chance of becoming the government. But that is not the way in which to govern this nation. The Government guarantees that steps will be taken to keep unemployment to the minimum and to reduce it, that steps will be taken to reduce the impact of inflation and that steps will be taken to ensure that whatever be the consequences of inflation they will be fairly and equitably shared throughout the nation.

Mr Sinclair:

– Tell that to the beef men.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I warn the Deputy Leader of the Australian Country Party.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– In respect of the beef men and others in the country, I think the record of the present Government is one of more having been done to obtain markets from overseas. The consequences of that have been shown in the level of production. When we became the Government primary production everywhere was at an extremely low level, despite the fact that the expenditure on food, particularly meat, was increasing. In fact there was a failure of any increase in production to take place.

In commodities like wheat there was in fact a fall in production from $lA million tons to 6lA million tons. During the next 12 months, partly as a result of improved economic conditions in which, for instance, there was an increase of over 6 per cent in the gross national product in the first year of the Labor Government compared with 3 per cent and 2.8 per cent in previous years, there was a dramatic increase in production. Part of that was due to the response that came from country areas. The level of production of wheat, which had been 6Vi million tons in the last year of the McMahon Government and which had been 8V4 million tons the year previous to that, became last year under the present Government 11V4 million tons. Does anyone in this country say that the wheat contracts that we were able to sign with China for 4.7 million tons had no effect on that dramatic improvement in the output of rural industry?

Looking at wool, because of excess buying by Japanese buyers last year, of which one of the consequences was a considerable increase in the amount of inflation because of the increasing costs that occurred in Australia, the wool industry found itself in difficulties this year. But there was an immediate response from the Government. We did not turn our backs on the wool industry. There was an immediate response in which we authorised the Australian Wool Corporation to buy in an attempt to stabilise the price of wool and in which we backed to the full the actions of the Wool Corporation.

In every section of the economy, wherever one looks at it, the Government has taken steps to regulate the inflationary situation without causing a recession, has taken steps to pick up the unemployment situation so that the level of unemployed does not become too great, and has taken steps everywhere to see that, whatever the consequences of that are, they are fairly and evenly distributed throughout the Australian community. Consequently we have a situation in which the average worker, despite inflation, is in a better position today than he was 12 months ago and we have a situation in which every person who lives on the age and invalid pension is considerably better off than he was 12 months ago or 2 years ago. The continuation in office of the present Government will ensure that inflation is controlled and regulated, that unemployment is prevented and that the Australian people are fairly and equitably treated. This motion is an irresponsible one. It has not been taken seriously even by its supporters on the other side of the House. It has not been taken seriously by the Government and it will not be taken seriously by the people of Australia.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Motion ( by Mr Nicholls) put:

That the question be put.

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

AYES: 63

NOES: 57

Majority……. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the motion (Mr Snedden’s) be agreed to.

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

AYES: 58

NOES: 63

Majority……. 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 4037

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

- Mr Speaker, I ask that questions be placed on notice.

page 4037

AUSTRALIAN ASSISTANCE PLAN

Mr HAYDEN:
Minister for Social Security · Oxley · ALP

– I present discussion paper No. 2 on the Australian Assistance Plan, a report prepared by the Social Welfare Commission.

page 4037

ANNUAL RETURN OF PERSONS GRANTED CERTIFICATES OF AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Transport · Newcastle · ALP

– Pursuant to section 42 of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948-1973 I present the annual return of persons granted certificates of Australian citizenship for the year ended 30 June 1974.

page 4037

REPORT ON NAVIGATIONAL AID SYSTEMS

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

– For the information of honourable members, I present a report prepared by the Commission of Inquiry into the Maritime Industry entitled ‘Report on Navigational Aid Systems’ dated November 1974.

page 4037

THIRD ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION

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

– Pursuant to section 122 of the Compensation (Australian Government Employees) Act 1971-74, I present the third annual report of the Commissioner for Employees ‘ Compensation for the financial year ended 30 June 1974.

page 4037

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr McMAHON:
Lowe

-Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr McMAHON:

– Yes, I do. Yesterday I asked a question in the House of the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron). I asked him would he distribute in the House a paper on indexation prepared by his Department in which it is argued that wage indexation in itself must be inflationary and the more rapid the indexation the more rapid the inflation. The Minister replied:

I do not know anything about the paper . . .

I interjected:

I did not think you would, but you can look for it.

The Minister went on to say:

I cannot respond to that; it would not be proper in this place. This is an odd sort of situation in which I find myself, Mr Speaker. The honourable gentleman invents some paper that does not exist and asks will I look for it. The answer is no.

I have in my hand a paper titled ‘Wage Indexation for Australia- a Discussion Paper’ by the Department of Labor and Immigration. It is a very long paper running into as many as 70 to 80 pages. There is a foreword to that paper signed by Dr Ian Sharp, the Secretary of the Australian Department of Labor and Immigration, and I must quote his words:

Credit for the bulk of the work must be given to Messrs McGee and McCarthy, who of course drew on the advice of many of their colleagues in the Department.

There is a second paper dealing with indexation which was by Mr Geluck of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. It is that paper which is the basis of much that is said in the Department of Labor and Immigration paper, and the Department treats Mr Geluck as the man who knows more about indexation than any other person. I table those 2 papers.

I do not argue here, and I do not state here, that the Minister for Labor and Immigration lied, but I do claim that he suffered from immediate shock. The departmental paper was also tendered by Mr Jim Staples, Queen’s Counsel, as exhibit SI in the national wage case on 19 February 1974. 1 draw attention to at least one paragraph there which is relevant, and permanently relevant, not only to what I said in my question in the House but to the cost of indexation to the Australian people.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes)Order! Is the honourable gentleman making a personal explanation?

Mr McMAHON:

– I am.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-He cannot debate the question, he can only show where he has been personally misrepresented. . Mr McMAHON- This is my introduction to showing it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I think he is introducing new argument.

Mr McMAHON:

– If you want the proof of it then let me show the exact part where I claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Debating points are not personal explanations.

Mr McMAHONAt the bottom of page 1 3 of the departmental paper there is this quotation from Mr Geluck

It must therefore be concluded that indexation tends rather to speed up inflation since within this system prices are adjusted immediately, leaving aside a reference period and possibly a waiting period which together rarely account for a delay of more than a few months . . .

There is proof of what I said. There are 2 such documents and the Minister has therefore been guilty of either untruth or, as I said, immediate shock.

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

-I desire to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr SINCLAIR:

– I claim to have been misrepresented and I wish to make a personal explanation. In a number of newspapers and I understand on at least one station of the radio network it has been alleged by Mr N. McLean, who apparently comes from Melbourne and is purported to be President of the Australian Union of Students, that I made some remarks- first of all he alleges at a closed meeting. The meeting to which he refers was not a closed meeting, it was a public meeting, and it was advertised as such. It was then suggested that the meeting was of supporters of the Liberal and Country parties and of the League of Rights. My own attitude to the League of Rights should be well known in this place. I am opposed to parties of the extreme, whether they be to the right or to the left. The persons at that meeting could have had any political affiliation and, as far as I know, they did so. It is then alleged that the meeting took place at James Cook University. As far as I am aware, the venue of the meeting was not the James Cook University. I believe it was associated with another education institution in the city of Townsville. One of the newspaper articles states:

Mr McLean said Mr Sinclair told the meeting last Friday that in view of “the rundown of the armed forces resulting from Labor’s administration,’ a coalition government would need to bring back the draft.

What I in fact said was that this Labor Government is pursuing a foreign policy which is aggressive and which purports to advance Australia’s defence role and capacity, and yet it runs down Australia’s defence capacity to the point that if there should be a grave national threat a government of any persuasion would be in the position of having to consider seriously reintroducing national service because there would be no alternative way of building up the defence forces of this country adequately to meet such a grave national threat.

page 4039

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

Constitutional Development in the Northern Territory

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

-On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Northern Territory, I present the report of the Committee on constitutional development in the Northern Territory. A dissenting report signed by a member of the Committee is included with the main report. I also present the minutes of proceedings taken in connection with this inquiry.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr JAMES:

– I ask for leave to make a short statement in connection with the report.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

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

Mr JAMES:

– I have pleasure in presenting to the Parliament the report by the Joint Committee on the Northern Territory regarding constitutional development in the Northern Territory. The implementation of the recommendations of this report could be the first step in the granting of a degree of autonomy to residents of the Territory. The first words of evidence given to the Committee were: ‘The constitutional development of the Northern Territory represents a complex and unique problem’. These words proved to be only too true and the complexity of the inquiry required much thought and deliberative effort by the Committee. The Committee sought evidence from as many organisations and individuals as possible. It visited as many Territory centres as possible and most of the evidence, in fact, was taken in the Territory. The Committee also divided into subcommittees and visited 15 Aboriginal settlements in the Territory. About 100 witnesses gave evidence and the Committee wishes to thank all those people who made the effort to prepare submissions and appear before it.

Because of insufficient time and the complexity of the inquiry, the Committee was not able to advise the Government on electoral matters in time for the conduct of the recent election for the Legislative Assembly. However, the Committee, after its own investigations, endorses the changes made by the Government for those elections. The Committee proposes that all ‘State-type’ legislation continue to be introduced into the Legislative Assembly.

Mr McLeay:

– What about land acquisition?

Mr JAMES:

– If the honourable member listens he will learn. However, the Committee recommends that, in repect to those executive functions retained by the Australian Government, the Governor-General be vested with the power to make regulations to be used only when agreement has not been reached on the legislation after the fullest consultation between the national and Territory executives.

Constitutional development is a step by step forward movement and the next step in this process in the Territory is the granting of some executive responsibility to the Legislative Assembly. The Committee does not recommend the transfer of responsibility for all ‘State-type’ functions to the Territory Executive but proposes that functions of local significance be transferred as soon as possible and that, for the time being, functions of national concern be retained by the Australian Government. The proposals of the Committee are, in effect, that all ‘State-type’ functions be transferred to the Territory Executive, except that major functions such as rural land, mining, education, health, companies and the supreme court be retained by the Australian Government and other major functions such as roads, ports, fisheries, national parks and the police be shared.

To implement the granting of executive responsibility as proposed, the Committee has made recommendations on funds to be made available to the Territory Executive, on the role of the Administrator and on the Public Service. The Committee recognises that the recommendations it makes will be the basis for immediate negotiations between the Australian Government and the Territory Executive. Furthermore, it points out that the Territory Executive should, as circumstances change, negotiate with the Australian Government for the transfer of additional functions.

The Committee cannot stress strongly enough the need for consultation, co-operation and coordination between the national and Territory executives particularly in respect to ‘State-type’ functions retained by the Australian Government. Without such consultation, co-operation and co-ordination the success of the transfer of executive responsibility to the Legislative Assembly is extremely doubtful. The Committee also considers it fundamental that the Territory Executive deal only with the one Australian Government Minister who would have the executive responsibility for all ‘State-type’ functions retained by the Australian Government. This Minister, of course, would need to consult with his colleagues in the Australian Government.

I thank all members of the Committee for their devotion to the task of compiling this report. I recommend the report to all honourable members. I also congratulate Mr Boorman and other members of the staff of the Joint Committee on the Northern Territory for the dedicated and efficient manner in which they carried out their duties.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

-I seek leave to make a statement on this matter.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes:

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

Mr CALDER:

– I have much pleasure in supporting the Chairman of the Joint Committee on the Northern Territory, the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James). He has given a very good account of the findings of the Committee, so I will not take up much of the time of the House. The Committee worked hard and long on a very complex problem. I think it has come up with a very good report and I urge the Government to take good notice of it. I would be remiss if I did not mention the very sound work that was done by Mr Boorman, the secretary of the Committee, and his staff. History has been made in the establishment of a fully elected Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. History has been made also- while we were in the Northern Territory we saw the candidates for the election- in that a full blood Aborigine has been elected to that Assembly. I am sure that Hyacinth Tungutalum will be a very worthy representative of his people in the area of Tiwi, which he represents. Although there is a dissenting report from a member of the Committee in relation to special electorates for Aboriginal people, I think Mr Tungutalum has proved that he can stand and hold a seat against Europeans or, for that matter, all comers.

In closing my remarks I must stress the point made so very strongly by the Chairman of the Committee. This new assembly will not work or function unless there is a very great deal of consultation, co-operation and co-ordination. We have governments of 2 different political colours. There is a government of one political colour down here in Canberra and we have a territorial government of another political colour up there. The position could always be so. Without real cooperation and real understanding the new Assembly will be in for very rough weather for a long time. I know that the members of the Assembly have a difficult job to do. But I hope that the Minister concerned and the Government will very soon begin consultations with the members of the Assembly now that they have the benefit of this report and that the Northern Territory will start on the road to selfdetermination.

page 4040

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

States Grants (Housing Assistance) Bill 1974.

Housing Agreement Bill 1974.

page 4040

HOUSING IN AUSTRALIA

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes:

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

The inadequacies of the recent measures announced by the Government to solve the housing crisis.

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 McLEAY:
Boothby

-Mr Deputy Speaker-

Motion (by Mr Daly) agreed to:

That the business of the day be called on.

page 4040

INCOME TAX BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 14 November on motion by Mr Crean:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr LYNCH:
Flinders

-The Bill before the House seeks to amend the Income Tax Act to give effect to tax changes announced in the Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr Crean) on 1 7 September and the changes announced by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) in introducing the mini-budget on 12 November. Briefly, the legislation provides for reductions in the rates of personal income tax, the rates of tax for public, cooperative and non-profit companies, the introduction of a surcharge on property income and the reduction of the special rebate for aged persons. The Bill incorporates one of the most iniquitous proposals introduced into the Australian Parliament- the surcharge on unearned income. The Opposition Parties do not endorse this proposal.

The major provisions of the legislation relate to income tax. On successive occasions during debates in this House we have criticised the unprecedented growth in Budget receipts which has occurred under the present Labor Government. The magnitude of the increases in personal income tax has played a major role in initiating and entrenching cost-push inflation.

Income Tax

Reductions in personal income tax, of course, have been a principal feature of the Opposition’s economic policy. Our policy released prior to the May election referred to income tax in the following terms:

Tax relief is needed to 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 referred to that policy as one of ‘economic vandalism’. But he has now endorsed it. The tragedy is that, like other features of the Opposition’s policy which have been adopted by the Government, the income tax reductions have been introduced after a totally unwarranted delay. While the overall level of the reductions is consistent with the Opposition’s policy, their incidence as between taxpayers certainly is not. Insufficient relief has been provided for those earning above average weekly earnings.

The Government is clearly incapable of treating fiscal initiatives designed to curb wage induced cost-inflation separately from its wider social goal of income equalisation. This is apparent not only in the restructuring of income tax rates proposed by this Bill, but also in the proposals for wage indexation which the Government intends to argue before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. If the tax compensation element of wage demands is to be neutralised, account must be taken of the nature of those demands. The fact is that wage demands are not confined to income levels below average weekly earnings. To the extent that income tax reductions are directed towards social objectives they are likely to be ineffective in defusing tax induced incomes claims from groups earning more than average weekly earnings.

To place the success of a program on one conceptwage indexation- can only be described as foolhardy. The Opposition has serious reservations about the introduction of wage indexation at this time. We reject, as I suspect will a number of trade unions, the Government’s formula of flat rate increases for all income levels above average weekly earnings. We also reject the concept of seeking indexation without a commitment to a wider program of prices and incomes restraint. In other words, if indexation were to form part of an overall package- subject to the agreement of employees, employers and Federal and State governments- it may be justifiable as an anti-inflation measure. In isolation it certainly is not.

The Government, consistent with its established approach, failed to consult or negotiate with employer or employee groups prior to determining the new tax rates. This was a major error. The Opposition’s economic policy, first put forward in April this year, has emphasised the need for consultation in seeking incomes and prices restraint. Any framework for restraint must be put to the principal parties on the basis that its individual elements are negotiable. It is not feasible to expect restraint without protracted negotiation. Of course, it can never be assumed that agreement will be reached simply because the Government wants it to be reached.

In terms of the adjustments to the rate scale proposed by this Bill income tax will be reduced by $890m during 1974-75. In the absence of detailed estimates for a number of tax deduction items and the practice of quoting full-year estimates for some others, it is not possible to determine an accurate figure for 1974-75. The cuts in total, however, do not exceed $ 1,000m as alleged by the Prime Minister on 12 November. If total personal income tax concessions are assumed to be around $ 1,000m, then receipts from this source will increase by around $1.5 billion or 37 per cent during 1974-75. The combined effect of the September Budget and the November minibudget will be to reduce the rate of increase in personal income tax from 49.2 per cent to around 27 per cent. Therefore, notwithstanding this legislation, personal income tax will have increased by around 70 per cent during the first 2 years under Labor’s administration.

Company Tax

Clause 10 of the Bill proposes to reduce the rate of public company tax from 47.5 per cent to 45 per cent for 1974-75 on taxable income for 1973- 74. It makes similar adjustments with respect to co-operative and non-profit companies. The cost to revenue of these measures for 1974- 75 is estimated at $130m. This proposal represents the Government’s long-overdue intention to restore profitability and investment levels in the private sector. It is endorsed by the Opposition. But, I take this opportunity to place on record our considered view that the proposal, as it now stands, is totally inadequate.

Prifits made by Australian industry are now at excessively low levels. From the June quarter 1973 to the June quarter 1974, wages and salaries increased from $6.01 billion to $7,559 billion or 26 per cent. In the same period, gross operating surpluses of companies- profitsdecreased from $1,494 billion to $1.39 billion or 7 per cent. On an annual basis, wages and salaries increased from $18,056 billion in 1970-71 to $27,712 billion in 1973-74 or 53 per cent. In the same period, however, company profits increased by 32 per cent. In terms of their relative shares of the gross domestic product, wages and salaries have risen from 58.2 per cent in 1965-66 to 62.4 per cent in 1973-74. But during the same period, the share attributable to profits has declined from 15.2 per cent to 13.8 per cent.

I have referred to these statistics in order to establish the facts relating to the profitability of Australian industry. This Government has consistently attacked the concept of profits and in so doing it has substantially weakened the private sector of the Australian economy. The price of that policy is now being paid in terms of accelerating unemployment and reduced levels of real output. The situation with regard to investment is equally serious. Real investment in Australian manufacturing industry has fallen below the level established in 1964-65. It slumped by over 4 per cent in the June quarter and declined again in the September quarter. There has been a rapid acceleration of current liabilities relative to current assets in corporate balance sheets. Debt equity ratios have widened and short term borrowings have accelerated in relation to longer term debt financing.

Even the current level of investment has been supported by capital raising plans set some 12 to 1 8 months ago and held up by the plough-back of company earnings from the boom conditions of 1973-74. The serious investment downturn will not be fully corrected by the present policies. This, in essence, means that any economic recovery will be based on private consumption expenditure- not investment spending. The Prices Justification Tribunal has consistently failed to understand the role of profits as an incentive for investment in plant and equipment. In its first annual report the Tribunal states:

The onus is on the company to show that funds for expansion cannot be secured from the capital market.

It also lays down its view that:

In general the Tribunal does not allow companies to finance capital expansion from increased prices but is concerned with the attraction of necessary capital to a company by normal investment criteria of shareholders.

The Opposition Parties reject the investment criteria as laid down by the Tribunal. As a matter of urgency, and by legislation if necessary, two changes must be made immediately. Allowance must be made for investment plans with respect to corporate price claims and no company should be compelled to absorb a proportion of justifiable cost increases. But these are merely short term initiatives. The role of the Tribunal must be subject to comprehensive and detailed investigation to prevent that Tribunal from excessively eroding profit margins and to bring it within the ambit of an overall co-ordinated industrial policy.

In addition to the Tribunal and the 2.5 per cent reduction in the rate of company taxation, new initiatives are required to stimulate investment in Australia. These should include a package of measures such as the following: Legislative adjustments to the Prices Justification Tribunal; an investment allowance on a cash subsidy basis; adjustments to depreciation allowances and methods of stock valuation; concessions for private companies with respect to retained earnings spent on investment; and the abolition of the surcharge on property income. Nobody can seriously argue that the investment crisis is going to be turned back by any marginal downward adjustment of company taxation. Investment is of course a very complex matter. It must be approached in a detailed and coordinated manner.

Age Rebate

Clause 9 of the Bill provides for the rebate of tax allowed to aged persons to be reduced from $156 to $130, where the taxpayer’s taxable income is $3,224 or less, reducing by 25 cents for each $ 1 of income over this amount. When the initial decision was made to tax pensioners the Government’s justification was that the phasing out of the means test would require this companion measure to eliminate the problems of equity. The Treasurer announced in his 1973-74 Budget that the rebate would be phased out as it served its purpose. However, at that stage the Government was committed to proceed with the next stage of the means test in the current Budget. It has failed to honour this promise. If it were not for the proposed tax cuts pensioners would see a serious reduction in their incomes. As it is all that the tax cuts achieve, taking into account the reduced rebate, is to free from tax incomes of $2,358 or less. Despite the proposed tax cuts the combined effect of the means test and taxation will be to impose a marginal rate of tax on pensioners of 45 per cent which is equivalent to the marginal rate paid by those with taxable incomes of more than $8,000.

Pensioners are one of the groups most betrayed by the story of broken promises of this Government. The deferral of the promised second stage of the easing of the means test until at least April 1 975 will result in those individuals between 70 and 74 years of age being deprived of income of $45 m. The decision to proceed with the phasing out of the age rebate, without the accompanying easing of the means test, will cost pensioners another $3m in income in 1974-75 and $6m during the course of a full year.

The Government stands condemned for its treatment of the pensioners of Australia. Its approach to this sector of the community completely ignores the fact that they require and ought to demand special attention. They are not in a position to exert pressure, for instance through withholding their labour, to ensure that they are able to maintain their standard of living. Evidence of this is that while unions exert a special influence on the Labor Government to achieve accelerations in wage and salary movements, pensioners are no nearer to achieving a pension equal to the promised 25 per cent of average weekly earnings than they were when this Government took over the reins of office.

Despite Labor propaganda, the single rate age pension was equal to only 20.6 per cent of the latest figures for average weekly earnings in the June quarter. Ten years ago, in 1964 under a Liberal-Country Party Government, the age pension was equal to 22.1 per cent of average weekly earnings.

Surcharge on Property Income

Clause 8 of the Bill proposes to introduce a surcharge on so-called unearned income. This is an iniquitous proposal. In response to the special debate on this matter initiated by the Opposition on 1 October, the surcharge is now to be limited to individuals whose taxable income exceeds $5,000. This is a totally inadequate response. This surcharge will be abolished by a future Liberal-Country Party government. The tax is anti-social in its impact and economically damaging in a time of very serious cost inflation.

It discriminates against those persons in the Australian community who are unable to effectively market their own labour. Those people are not, in the main, the capitalists of Australian society; they are, in the main, the retired, the aged, the handicapped and those in ill-health. Many of those who are liable to this tax have invested a lifetime of savings to supplement inadequate pensions or superannuation payments. To describe such a tax as an unearned income tax is as unjust as it is misleading. This tax is principally a tax that is directed against thrift, incentive and initiative in the Australian community. The proposed tax is wide ranging in its application. It includes dividends, rent, interest and royalties. It covers personal incomes, partnership incomes, unit trust, trusts and trust estates.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr LYNCH:

– As I emphasised before the sitting was suspended, this proposed tax is very wide-ranging in its application and covers dividends, rent, interest and royalties and includes also personal incomes, partnership incomes, unit trusts, trusts and trust estates. A significant number of people in the community rely to some extent on investment income. The absolute inequity of the proposed tax was, I believe, graphically illustrated in an open letter to the Treasurer written by the President of the Australian Council on the Ageing. This Council represents more than 900 organisations in Australia. That letter reads in part:

It -

That is, this tax proposing a surcharge on property income: . . . has brought bewilderment, sadness and confusion to those aged and older people who, by personal and sustained effort and thrift, have sought to convert to capital their savings of a lifetime from the income they earned in salaries, wages or small business operations . . .

The President of that Council, which represents more than 900 individual organisations throughout the Australian community, goes on, towards the end of the letter, to call not for an amelioration of the proposal but for its complete rejection by the present Labor Administration.

There is, we believe, no justification on economic grounds for the tax. It will have the inevitable effect of raising rents as property owners seek compensation through increased revenues. The tax will be a further element in the price pushing process in the Australian community. This is a serious consequence in a period of cost inflation, but the tax has equally serious implications for the investment factor. The surcharge will undermine the community’s propensity to save and, equally, to invest. It is, in fact, a tax directed against thrift, savings and incentive.

This new surcharge has been condemned by all sections of the Australian community. The Press has been very quick to highlight the community reaction. I quote simply from the ‘Australian Financial Review’ of 17 September, in an editorial appropriately entitled: ‘Unearned Income Tax: Poor Politics, Lousy Economics’ in which the newspaper said:

Beyond the very evident political inspiration of the proposed tax on unearned income, it is perhaps more valid for a newspaper anxious to see economic rationality have primacy in policy making to question whether a tax that will have the ultimate effect of discouraging savings, and therefore investment, has any place in Australian Government.

The simple fact is that the majority of the Australian Press, the Australian public and the Opposition Parties want this tax subject to total rejection and not to some simple face saving remedy of the type proposed by this Bill. As I said at the outset of my comments in this debate, the Opposition does not endorse the Bill. I now move the following amendment:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to sub- ‘ stituting the following words: ‘whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that the provisions of the Bill which impose a surcharge on unearned income are inequitable, anti-social, damaging to community incentive and economically incorrect in a period of costinflation and that the Bill specifically:

imposes additional burdens on Australian pensioners by decreasing the special rebate for aged persons, and

provides a seriously incomplete response to the downturn in private investment by reducing public company tax rates to 45 per cent ‘.

Mr Adermann:

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

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

-In speaking to this Bill I wish to concentrate particularly on the reduction in personal income tax and the introduction of the property income surcharge. Dealing first with the reduction in the rates of income tax, I wish to emphasise the substantial nature of the reductions that are involved in this measure. As a result of the reduced income tax scale and the new tax rebate scheme for lower income earners with dependants, many families will have a dramatically reduced tax bill this financial year. Looked at on an overall basis, these tax reductions are considerable enough. The full year impact of the tax scale restructuring is to reduce tax collections by more than $ 1,000m in a full year. Added to that is a further $60m special rebate for lower income families and another $ 130m is lost in revenue as a result of the new mortgage interest payments deduction scheme which is also involved in the Bills about to come before the House for consideration. These add up to approximately $ 1,200m in income tax relief this year, which is clearly a very substantial sum indeed.

This tax relief is not being allocated on an across the board basis. Rather it is designed to help those most in need. Thus, restructuring of the tax scale results in a much larger percentage reduction in income tax for lower income earners than for higher income earners. The special rebate is to assist low income families and the mortgage interest payments deduction is also structured so that the proportion of payment that can be claimed as a tax deduction is reduced by 1 per cent for each $ 100 of net income over $4,000.

Leaving aside the mortgage interest payments deduction for the moment, the impact of the other two measures is quite dramatic for lower income families. For instance, a taxpayer on $100 a week with a wife and 2 children to keep will have his tax cut by 54 per cent by this measure. This is a tremendous reduction which in fact increases the taxpayer’s earnings, after tax, by 6Vi per cent.

This year average weekly earnings will be about $144 a week, on the Budget estimates, those estimates being for a 22.5 per cent increase in average earnings for this financial year. For a taxpayer on an income at about that level of $ 144 a week and with a wife and 2 dependants to support, the tax burden will be reduced by 24 per cent as a result of the tax scale restructuring and the special rebate, which means that the after tax pay of that taxpayer will be boosted by 4Vi per cent before account is taken of any additional saving that he may get through the mortgage interest payments deduction scheme.

Having noted the dramatic nature of the tax savings resulting from these measures, however, I think it should be stated that without these measures the proportion of income that wage earners would be paying in income tax would have been increased dramatically. Indeed, what has been happening for the last couple of decades is that the proportion of income paid in income tax by the average wage earner has increased continually. I can give the House some figures on this aspect to show what a dramatic process this has been.

In the last financial year in which a Labor government was in office before Labor was returned to office in 1972-that was in 1949-50 when we were in office for almost half of that financial year- the proportion of income paid in tax by a wage earner receiving average weekly earnings and with a wife and 2 children as dependants was 2.9 per cent. Almost every year from that year on, whilst the Liberal and Country parties governed this country, that percentage increased. In 1953-54 it was 5 per cent. In 1960-61 it was 7.2 per cent. In 1968-69 it had risen to 2Vi per cent. In 1970-7 1 it had increased to 13.9 per cent. For 1971-72 the figure was 15.8 per cent. Tax cuts were granted in that year and the percentage of earnings paid in income tax fell to 14.1 per cent in 1972-73, increasing to 16.6 per cent in 1973-74, the first full financial year under this Government. Therefore there has been a continual, progressive and substantial increase in the proportion of income paid in tax by wage earners throughout the last couple of decades.

All this has been achieved by keeping the tax schedule constant, not by increasing the taxes in each financial year. The Treasurer (Mr Crean) did not announce that each financial year there would be a big increase in tax. All he said was that the tax schedule would be the same as it had been the previous year, but because of inflation and increases in real earnings everyone moved up into higher tax brackets and therefore paid a higher proportion of their income in income tax. Most of that increase, of course, was due to inflation rather than to increases in real earnings, so to that extent the wage earners were somewhat disadvantaged, or at least they felt they were substantially disadvantaged, because their aftertax pay was not increasing at anything like the rate at which their gross pay was increasing.

The growth in the proportion of income going in tax is thought by some economists to have important economic consequences. It is important to consider these in the context of what has been done in the tax measure before the House at the moment. As I said, in the financial year 1974-75 the proportion which will go in tax for a worker on average weekly earnings with the dependants I mentioned is 16.6 per cent. Without these tax cuts, it would have been 20 per cent. The economic significance of this arises from the fact that wage earners may take other action because of the fact that their after-tax pay is not increasing at the same rate as their gross pay is.

Various economic studies have been conducted which indicate that this much slower rate of growth of take-home pay has been an important factor in determining unions’ wage claims and also in increasing union militancy, in other words, the determination with which they pursue wage claims. The most important of these analyses is an English study which has been produced in the form of a book entitled ‘Do Trade Unions Cause Inflation?’ I hasten to say that the book does not conclude that there is a simple answer to that question, but it does strongly conclude that the process of an increasing tax bite has significantly affected union wage claims and union determination to achieve those claims in economic circumstances which would not previously have been associated with union militancy. In other words, with conditions of substantial unemployment which are increasingly pervading the industrial world at the moment, unions have continued to pursue wage claims, but with a determination that would not in the past have existed but which now exists because their bargaining powers are being reduced by unemployment.

The authors of the book I have mentioned believe that the substantial recent increase in the income tax bite in the United Kingdom is the factor which explains this change in union behaviour. This also poses a fiscal policy quandary for governments if this is in fact the case. The traditional remedy for inflation has been to increase taxes and cut back on government expenditure. But if in present circumstances taxes are increased, and if the authors of this book are right, what happens is that the unions will have a tendency to pursue higher wage claims to get the rate of growth in their after-tax pay that they wanted to achieve. This will add to the inflationary pressures in the economy. A counter productive factor would emerge if conventional fiscal policies were applied.

Whether union wage claims are in some way related to the much slower rate of growth in after-tax pay as compared with gross pay is debatable, but I would think that it is a fact of some importance. The growing union demand for tax indexation in line with prices reflects union awareness of and concern about this factor. Of course, if such an indexation scheme were adopted, the tax bite would still increase over time as real incomes increased but increases in incomes that were only to keep up with inflation would not lead to a taxpayer’s moving into a higher tax bracket and thereby seeing his aftertax income increase at a slower rate than inflation.

The tax measures which the House will be debating today as I have shown generally result in taxpayers not moving into higher tax brackets this year. For a man on average weekly earnings with a wife and 2 children to keep, his proportion of income paid in tax this year will be about the same as that paid last year. For a taxpayer on average weekly earnings but with more dependants, the proportion of income paid will be less this year than last year. For lower income earnersthose receiving lower than average weekly earnings- and particularly those with families to keep, the proportion of income paid this year in income tax will be less than that paid last year. Thus, in general, the tax measures have achieved more than indexation for prices would have achieved this year, although for taxpayers with incomes well above average weekly earnings this is not the case. If an increasing tax burden does accelerate wage claims, then this could still be a factor amongst higher income earners.

Generally, however, in terms of equity to wage earners and in terms of reducing the pressure by wage earners for wage increases to maintain the real value of their take-home pay, the measures contained in this Bill are very desirable. However, the measures also have a further beneficial effect at this time and that is the stimulus to the economy that will flow from them. By putting up to $ 1,200m in the hands of taxpayers at this time and by making the full year benefit applicable to pay-as-you-earn deductions in the last 6 months of this financial year, the Government is providing a substantial and quick acting stimulus to the economy. With unemployment increasing at the frightening rate that we have experienced in the past few months, some such measure as this to increase demand and to restore some confidence to the economy was undoubtedly necessary.

The Opposition claims that this was also its policy but it wanted to accompany it with a cut in Government expenditure of a similar order. The net result of such a policy however would be to give the economy no stimulus at all. By matching what we give the taxpayers on the one hand and a reduction in Government expenditure on the other, we would, through the balanced budget multiplier effect, provide less stimulus to the economy than was the case before the tax cuts took place. Given the great needs for additional stimulus at this time, such a policy as the Opposition advocates is asinine.

I turn now to the property income surcharge. I submit that this tax which the Opposition describes as iniquitous is in fact completely equitable and reasonable. Indeed such a tax operated in this country for 38 years from 1915 to 1953 and was introduced in the first place by a conservative government. The tax as now introduced involves a 10 per cent increase in the tax payable on property income, but does not apply where the taxable income is below $5,000.

The claim by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) in this debate that this exemption was introduced only in response to the debate initiated by the Opposition on 1 October this year is utterly absurd. The fact is that in the debate, of which we received one hour’s notice, Government speakers all mentioned the foreshadowed exemption of taxable incomes below $5,000. It was not introduced in response to initiatives of the Opposition but following reconsideration by the Government preceding 1 October.

The argument for introducing such a surcharge stems basically from the fact that it represents a means of incorporating property into the tax base. Of course, honourable members opposite, who represent in the main those who are the major owners of income earning property, can be expected to protest vigorously against any tax that brings property into the tax base, but that does not invalidate the argument for it. The possession of property does confer certain advantages on individuals which improve their general state of well-being. This has been succinctly set out in a book entitled ‘Taxation in Australia’ which was produced some 10 years ago by 4 leading Australian economists in the field of public finance. On page 109 of this book they say:

There are two reasons for thinking that capacity to pay would be more adequately measured if property, as well as income, were included in the tax base. The first is that the taxable capacity of an individual with a given income is greater if that income is derived from property than from personal exertion, since property income is obtained with less effort and is usually more permanent. The second is that property confers advantages on its owner independent of, and additional to, the income it yields: it serves as a reserve of spending power in emergencies and thus reduces the need to save out of income, it provides security for old age and heirs, it provides opportunities for reducing income tax liability by income-splitting, it gives the owner access to credit, it is a necessary condition of business enterprise, and it confers social status and prestige.

From this quotation it can be seen that there is a sound philosophical base for such a tax as this property income surcharge. On the same page the authors also say:

Australia differs from most other Western countries in that it neither differentiates in its income tax between property and personal exertion income nor imposes any separate general tax on property.

I stress that the authors were saying that we are different from most other Western countries in that we do not do these things. Here, in this Bill, we are doing something on these lines- incorporating property into the tax base by putting a surcharge on property income. In fact, the authors of this book went on to recommend that a wealth tax, or a net worth tax as it is sometimes known, be introduced to this country as it has been in many other countries, including 9 European countries. The United Kingdom is about to become the tenth European country to have such a tax. Of course, the United Kingdom currently has a property income surcharge and that surcharge has operated for many years.

I personally would also favour a wealth tax on the grounds of equity and greater equality but the fact is that the Government has made no decision at this time to introduce such a tax now or, indeed, in the future. In its absence, however, it is not only justifiable but also highly desirable on grounds of equity that a surcharge be levied on property income. This, in fact, was what was recommended by the authors of the book to which I alluded earlier wherein at page 1 1 3 they state:

Unless and until a net worth tax is introduced, we suggest reintroduction of a higher differentia! rate of income tax on property incomes, such as was in force in Australia until 1953.

This is what we are doing in this Bill. It is something which was recommended a decade ago by leading Australian economists in the tax field to bring more equity into our tax system. I might say that in recommending that this be done they did not suggest that any problems were likely to be created by way of disincentive for savings and investment such as was mentioned by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Of course these sorts of arguments are always thrown up in respect of any proposal which involves a tax on property or which in one way or another could be said to be a disincentive to savings and investment. All manner of arguments would be advanced as to why this should not be done because, basically, the Opposition is concerned to protect the property owners of this country from any further impositions on their income.

We are not introducing this tax in such a way that it impinges adversely on low income earners. The $5,000 exemption relates to taxable income, not net income, and so it should mean that taxpayers with dependants could earn somewhere near average weekly earnings in gross income before the surcharge would apply to any property income they may have. One other group that could be said to be disadvantaged by this tax embraces retired people. However, to a large extent the $5,000 taxable income exemption will take care of this problem, but for those above this level who consider the tax to be an imposition I suggest they should also bear in mind that if they are not already entitled to a means test free pension they soon will be and in almost all cases a retired pensioner will be better off over all from the means test free benefit and, of course, the property income surcharge. The combination of these two would certainly be to his benefit unless he had an extremely high income from property. In that case I find it difficult to engender a great deal of sympathy for him. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr ADERMANN:
Fisher

-We are dealing with the Income Tax Bill 1974. This is a very bad Bill and the amendment which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) has moved and I have seconded is an appropriate expression of condemnation which has the full endorsement of the Australian Country Party. I note the statement of the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) that he is an evangelist for a wealth tax. That does not surprise me, but it does disgust me. The first point I want to take up concerns the levying of a new tax, this super tax, on income from property. Despite what the honourable member for Gellibrand might have read in the book from which he quoted I believe that, if there is an example of the classic stupidity of this Government, the levying of a surcharge on income from property would be it.

Let it be clearly understood what the Government is saying by this measure and by the imposition of this tax. It is saying that investment is not wanted, thrift must be discouraged and saving is immoral. That is precisely what this measure proclaims. Despite the Caucus manoeuvres and the unbelievable shilly-shallying by the Government let it be understood that this impost will hit savagely the homes savings accounts of young couples saving for homes and it will destroy the endeavours of many senior citizens who, throughout their lifetime, have established investments to provide them with income in retirement, freeing them from dependence on the Government for handouts and providing them with such things as a decent burial. For all the pious promises of the Government, this provision makes it shameful to have been so prudent.

This Government, in a grandiose fashion, spruiks about business confidence and the growth of productivity, but how does it achieve it? First of all it has destroyed all the incentive to investment. Surely it must understand that expansion and business operations are dependent on ability to attract investment. That shows the sham of the Government’s latest facade of interest in business, because it has set out to destroy the incentive to invest. It has created a climate which has destroyed multitudes of businesses and thrown their employees into the scrap heap of unemployment. Now it has said that investment in Australia’s industry and business is immoral and must be penalised. That is what this Bill means. It illustrates the futility of hoping that the Government might have modified its attitude. This measure caused the nonsensical situation in this House where we saw the Treasurer (Mr Crean) and the Treasury overruled. Then the man who is now the Treasurerdesignate imposed his view and the views of the other pseudo-Treasurers with him on the front bench. Finally Caucus got into a tangle of dismay and confusion and the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Armitage) came into the House to announce that Caucus had taken over. He solemnly told us of the latest amendment, although he got it all wrong because he confused net income and taxable income when he made his solemn announcement. Now here it is- a Bill presented to us by a Government which has made a mess and muddle of it and is trying to bluster through. We heard again today that the Bill soaks the rich but the Government has found that it does no such thing. It has amended it to attempt to allay the trade union credit societies and pensioner investors but the Government has not succeeded even in that regard. This is the type of performance and type of legislation we can expect from left wing disdain for enterprise and a Cabinet of budding self-styled Treasurers who act on an ad hoc basis. They show panic and make ill-advised changes after every public opinion poll appears in the Press.

We believe, and we have stated unequivocally, that we will not tolerate destruction of confidence, initiative, enterprise and investment. These are the things which generate employment. Honourable members opposite should remember that the private sector, despised though it may be, still provides 75 per cent of the employment in Australia. These things are basic to a sound economy. We will not perpetuate this vicious tax when we return to office. We will remove it and will restore the trust and confidence which this Government has virtually destroyed. For good measure, we will not be looking at further imposts like a wealth tax.

I turn to another clause wherein we see the monumental insincerity of the Government in relation to companies, because it has presided over the rape of the family company. It has destroyed many such companies with its credit squeeze. It has destroyed their liquidity with the totally inopportune introduction of quarterly taxation assessments in a time of a credit squeeze and very tight liquidity. It has raised their rate of taxation to equity with public companies; yet it persists in imposing upon private companies an additional tax on undistributed profits. How on earth, in the present economic climate, can a government persist with this attitude when it penalises any creation of funds to ride through a liquidity crisis, to insure against a credit squeeze, to provide for expansion and to provide for plant and equipment replacement at a time when rapidly escalating costs make replacement all the more difficult just cannot be comprehended.

The Government says that it is bringing public companies and private companies to equality. It will not be doing that while it keeps upon private companies this imposition which does not apply to public companies. As it is the profits of a company are taxed before dividends are distributed and the dividends are taxed then again in the hands of the recipients. Furthermore a new super tax is levied on those dividends. We find also that when provisional tax is being levied the super tax is also going to be levied in the assessment of the provisional tax. So do not tell me that the present Government is not committed to the destruction of private or family companies and do not tell me that it is concerned about the productivity they attain or the employment they provide. It is perfectly clear that private companies are planned for annihilation.

Some reduction in the rates of income tax is provided for in this Bill. With Government revenue being rapidly bloated because of an inflation rate of 25 per cent or more, these cuts are totally insufficient and have come far too late. The average wage earner will still pay more aggregate tax on his earnings in the coming year. If they were associated with comparable reductions in the Government’s prodigal spending spree and perhaps if we had one less Prime Ministerial overseas jaunt we might concede that there was some sincerity in this move. But the unions know that in this measure the Government has shown no lead or need for restraint. They know that this is an insufficient gesture, a dishonest gesture, which will make almost no impact upon their struggle to relate wages to prices, taxation and the rate of inflation.

If the Government does not know it now its supporters will soon find out when they address meetings of the trade unions over the Christmas recess because they will impress nobody with the ballyhoo that we have heard so often from them in this House. I guess that they feel far from happy and comfortable about the royal edict of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) to go forth and explain the situation to the unionists. I am glad that they will be doing it and not me. I would want something better and more constructive to sell than these shabby goods, this sort of confidence trick. When honourable members opposite go before the unionists they should tell them the truth, that is, that there may be some rate of reduction but they will, in this mad economic climate of inflation, inevitably pay greater aggregate tax.

Let us look at the so-called reductions. In actual fact the marginal rate of tax has been increased in the range from $6,000 to $11,000 per annum. For each additional dollar over $6,000 to $7,000 per annum the marginal rate of tax has gone from 38c to 44c- in fact, a 16 per cent increase in taxation. As the average wage is now somewhere around $130 a week, which is this area, it will give no encouragement to work harder if the tax rates are in fact higher, because between $6,000 and $11,000 per annum there has been an increase.

This so-called reduction in rates is a remarkable somersault. It is the same move as the Government described as economic vandalism. Australians will remember how in late April of this year the Prime Minister, in solemn voice and with that confidential, condescending air of omniscience that we know so well, derided the Opposition as being totally unworthy of trust for such a puerile notion. But now we have it before us and the Prime Minister is singing a different song. He is now saying what a great move it was and how brilliant he was to have thought of it. Again he is courting popularity and seizing on what he hopes might bring him votes. That is the summation of the Government’s economic policy. But he knows that he has not done what must be done. He has done nothing about Government expenditure, except to increase it further. He wants popularity without any responsibility. He cannot get it. That is another reason for the total destruction of the credibility of the worst and most disastrous Government Australia has ever known. This was a bribe. It is totally inadequate. It is a totally insufficient measure of a reduction which is not a reduction for most people. It will be seen by all as the most miserable confidence trick one could ever imagine. That is just what it is.

The other main thrust of this Bill is the further inroad it makes into the age rebate. The Government has deferred- consigned to limbo- the promised further removal of the means test; yet the age rebate is still being phased down. How happy the older people must be. The promises about the removal of the means test have been shelved, forgotten, deferred, but the promise about a reduction in the age rebate has not been shelved, forgotten or deferred because it is referred to in this Bill. That shows how much the

Government really cares about the aged and that shows how reliable its promise was that it would remove the means test. The Government said that it would do so because such a promise is contained in the Opposition’s platform and the Government knew that the Opposition intended to keep its promise and its contract. So the Government also came out with the words, but the promise has not been kept. We can see the worth of yet another Labor promise. We can see just how much it now cares for the aged because the reduction in the age rebate has not been forgotten, not been overlooked- it is referred to in this Bill. That is another reason why the Government is despised, why it is discredited and why it has no reason to expect trust or respect from anyone anywhere.

The Treasurer has summarised the contents of the Bill on page 2 of his explanatory memorandum. I will use his headings to point out what the Bill is all about. This is the way in which the Treasurer’s own summary sets out the situation: Firstly, a confidence trick has been played in relation to the so-called cuts in income tax which return a minute portion of the inflationary bonanza; secondly, a disastrous super tax has been imposed on income from property- the demise of all incentive to productivity, to the management of our unemployment problem which is the sort of disastrous policy that directly contributes to unemployment; thirdly, a further reduction in the age rebate; and, fourthly, the rape of family companies. That is what this Bill is all about. It is a miserable Bill. It is a wicked Bill. It is a fitting epitaph for a Government which is unfit to govern. That is why I support the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– 1 shall not speak to this Bill for a great length of time. It is my intention merely to make one point. The point I wish to make is in relation to the progression proposed in this Bill. Before doing so I wish to say that the Bill clearly relates to 3 features of taxation- a new personal tax scale, to use the words of the Treasurer (Mr Crean), reduced rates of company tax and a new tax on property income which is known euphemistically as unearned income. I do not intend to enter into all the arguments concerning each of these new tax areas. It is my intention merely to say that no taxation Bill should be proposed without consideration being given first of all to its total consequences in an economic sense. The honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) intended to do that and, I believe, sought to do that but became embarrassingly theoretical about his propositions and became embarrassingly theoretical about the consequences of the measures before the House.

It is a long time ago that a statement was made which had in it a great deal of common sense. Professor Clark, an economist who is still wellknown stated that more than 25 per cent of national income collected in terms of tax would be confiscatory with respect to total national product. He was saying this in the days after the Second World War when the welfare state was proposed around the world and was being discovered in the United Kingdom and in Australia. No one disputed the proposition, until that statement was made, that higher collections of tax would themselves decrease total production and productivity. While the figure of 25 per cent may not correct- I believe it has shown to be correctthe statement in principle still stands. There is a maximum rate of take-off which a government should be allowed to confiscate from those who work and who earn in the community. Beyond that, the rate of return decreases. I believe that we are at that stage in Australia today. We are at that stage quite clearly in respect of matters determined by this legislation.

Of the 3 taxes considered by the Bill the most important is the proposed change in rates of personal income tax. No one can talk about taxation in Australia without talking about rates of personal income tax. That is commonsense because personal income tax represents such a large and growing proportion of the total tax take by Australian governments. In passing, it is to be reflected that on the latest details of the Government’s monthly receipts and expenditures the take on tax over the last 4 months is something like 40 per cent higher than it was at the comparable time last year. When one looks at the national income account figures, even for the last quarter for which they are available, one sees that the rises in personal income tax take has been quite remarkable. So personal income tax affects every person who is working and every person who is obtaining a price, a just price or otherwise, for his labour.

But it also affects to a great degree and very intimately the economic balance of the whole nation. The principles that I have been outlining cannot be ignored. In fact, in many ways, they are the most important of all the principles in this field because unless they are adhered to we cannot have a stable economy and we cannot have a full employment economy, and that ought to still remain the Government’s primary object. However, it is a principle that very sadly has been forgotten by the Government. It is one aspect of economic life that ought never be surrendered, inflation or no inflation.

I have been intrigued at the confidence trick that has been played by the Government in regard to personal income tax rates. The honourable member for Fisher (Mr Adermann) has highlighted it very explicitly. The confidence trick is being played in respect of the marginal rates of tax that are to be imposed if ever a person in the income bracket $7,000 to $12,000 decides to try to earn another $1 of income. The new rates of income tax are themselves confiscatory. I am intrigued to find that the bulletins put out by the Government which compare the proposed tax with what applied previously make no mention of the comparisons of the marginal rates of tax. I hope that the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) will discuss the penalties in detail with workers when he goes round to labour council meetings and trades hall meetings over Christmas time. I hope he will explain the penalties that will apply to workers in the income bracket $7,000 to $12,000 if they seek to earn $1 extra in income. He should also explain to them the implications of the Government’s proposition to adopt wage indexation because they are being trapped in this respect also.

One only has to turn to the very interesting series of bulletins put out by the much maligned Treasury- from it we have an occasional word of truth- to see what the real position is. I refer to the publication entitled: ‘Personal Income TaxThe Rate Scale- Treasury Taxation Paper No. 4, October 1974’. Reference is made at page 25 of the document to the essential principles that are abused in terms of the new personal income tax scales. The document states:

Economic theory is thus inconclusive as to whether high rates of income tax adversely affect incentives to work, though commonsense reasoning suggests that the higher are marginal rates of tax in relation to average rates of tax, the more is the substitution effect likely to outweigh the income effect.

In other words, the less likely are people to work. On the same page reference is made to the new philosophy embodied in the legislation before us and its effect on attempted tax evasion. The following statement is made at the bottom of page 25 after a reference to methods of tax evasion:

High marginal rates of income tax substantially increase the reward from such activities in relation to taxable income -

That is, tax evasion activities- and attempts to avoid and evade the workings of the law pose serious problems for the equitable administration of the tax system. As far as loopholes in the legislation or in the administration of the law are concerned, a frequent criticism of the tax system raised in many countries with high rates of taxation ( for example, the United Kingdom) - and it should add, Australia- is (hat the tax system is only highly progressive in form and that in substance many wealthy taxpayers avoid the full effects of the progression in rates of taxation.

That is what happens if we have a growing gap, as the gap will grow if this legislation is passed, between marginal rates of tax and average rates of tax. This gap was referred to on occasions by the late Ben Chifley, a former Treasurer of this country. But this is another principle that the present Labor Government has overthrown. It has overthrown principles of taxation as it has overthrown principles in relation to full employment.

Mr James:

– It is 1974, you know.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– That is right, but principles do not change. The honourable member for Hunter has been rooted in the past often enough. I had hoped that he would stay back there and learn something from it. It is interesting to reflect on the changes that are proposed in the tax on incomes from $7,000 to $12,000. The tax paid on $7,000 on the old scale was 37.9c in the $ 1 . On the new scale the tax will be 44c in the $1. This was pointed out by the honourable member for Fisher. At $7,200 the rate will increase from 39.9c in the $1 to 44c in the $1. Without going into a plethora of figures I shall recite a few more of the increases. The rate on $8,000 increases from 41.8c to 48c; the rate on $9,000 increases from 44.9c to 48c; the rate on $10,000 increases from 48.2c to 52c. From $12,000 upwards the gap decreases. So the Government has made a mark of a series of groups of taxpayers. They are the victims of confiscatory levels of marginal tax.

What is to happen with regard to the Government’s proposals of indexation? What will be the nature of discussion between the Government and labour councils? It is pretty widely known that I am not unsympathetic to indexation and I stand on that point. The argument put by Government supporters would be something like this: ‘Well, the Labor Government, will look after you. We will give you indexation. We will allow you, of course, to have your wages adjusted according to a cost of living index and your wages will go up automatically according to that index. We will not oppose that’. But that fails so say 2 things. It fails to say that if wages go up according to the cost of living index the Government will take an increasingly confiscatory marginal amount out of every $1 earned. That is the first part of the confidence trick. The second part is an interesting one because the index on which wages are intended to be adjusted or altered is falling further and further behind the actual increases in the cost of living and any examination of over award price deflators and consumer price deflators indicates that people would be foolish to believe that the consumer price index actually measures the increased burden of the cost of living on the average Australian household. I hope that this confidence trick and the principles involved in it will be examined in great detail. I am sure that there will be a great number of friendly questions posed in respect of them.

I indicated that it was not my intention to speak for long and I shall not do so. I merely make these points finally: Rates of income tax are the most important ingredients of this Bill. They have very great and very significant overall economic effects. The discouragement to work caused by high rates of marginal tax cannot be ignored by any government, and in a community in which actual production is decreasing- it is not merely remaining level, it is decreasing- in a community in which rates of growth of productivity are negative- they are actually negativeand in a community in which the work force itself- not just the unemployed but the actual work force- is decreasing in size, then to propose confiscatory marginal rates of tax, to prevent productivity, to prevent people from working and to prevent people from getting the reward for their work is, I believe, almost a form of economic insanity. But there it is; it is before us now. The principles were exposed by the honourable member for Fisher and I believe I have taken that a little further. If the Government sincerely intends to develop a full employment community in which productivity rates induce and encourage real higher rates of income, this type of tax scale is not the way to do it. It makes nonsense of those principles, and I hope that when the Treasurer (Mr Crean) replies to some of the comments that I have made he will answer in respect of these matters. I hope also that when he replies he will perhaps give a facsimile, a friendly but nevertheless very factual account, of how the discussions might go at these trades and labor council meetings and what the responses which will be required of Labor members at those meetings will be.

Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

-The House is debating the Income Tax Bill 1 974 and, as set out in the explanatory memorandum, there are 4 main aspects to the Bill: The variation of the general rates of tax payable by individuals, the imposition of a surcharge on tax on property income, the age rebate and rates of tax payable by companies. I read again to the House the amendment proposed by the shadow Treasurer, Mr Phillip Lynch, which is before the House now:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ‘whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that the provisions of the BUI which impose a surcharge on unearned income are inequitable, anti-social, damaging to community incentive and economically incorrect in a period of costinflation and that the Bill specifically:

imposes additional burdens on Australian pensioners by decreasing the special rebate for aged persons, and

provides a seriously incomplete response to the downturn in private investment by reducing public company tax rates to 45 per cent’.

Having said that, I want to refer to one or two aspects which arise from three of those four ‘ headings in the Bill. I refer first and foremost to the general taxation rates, the rates that apply to individuals. We have seen in the current year 2 changes to those rates. The first change, which was announced in the Budget Speech on 1 7 September, was to the pay-as-you-earn tax schedule which is issued and which affects most income earners because they are salary and wage earners. This change took effect from 1 November. Again in the Prime Minister’s very recent speech of a week or so ago another scale was proposed. I believe the first reduced by about $450m the tax that would have been received, and the second reduced it by $600m- and this from a government that poured such great scorn on the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) when he said during the election campaign of May last: ‘We think it is right that a tax cut should be made of the order of $600m’. He has now said, for reasons I will come to, that it ought to be reduced even more. But let us clearly face the fact that the Government made some sort of reduction and only a few weeks later did almost exactly what the Leader of the Opposition had proposed. The Government has greater access to the statistics and to advisers than the Opposition has. It ought to have seen then that the reductions were going to be necessary, that it was going to be equitable to reduce tax, for reasons which I will come to, and ought not to have been pushed into it, reluctant to give individual taxpayers what the man in the street would call and recognise as a fair go.

The Budget has been changed dramatically in many areas. It was presented to the Australian people only on 17 September- not very long ago- and it has already had 2 major revisions and a number of smaller ones. I do not believe that that is good enough for the major fiscal document. It ought to have been possible to foresee changes that would be necessary. It is not as though there have been any striking international events- although I believe that international events play a part, but only a part, in our Budget and in the Australian economy. No striking event has happened since 17 September. The crux of the matter, surely, where the gathering of income tax is concerned, is that we are living in conditions of extremely high inflation, and that means that most people’s incomes are rising tremendously in order to try to keep up with the cost of living. That is inflation. The result of it is that people’s incomes get into higher and higher tax brackets. Every honourable member in this place knows of cases where people- public servants are certainly to the fore- are actually going backwards . because out of their increase in salaries and wages they are having to pay greatly increased income tax and greatly increased superannuation contributions. I know of cases where people are getting less money, not only in real terms but in absolute terms.

The Treasurer, when the present Government was in opposition, made many speeches in this place, and anyone who cares to read back in the late 1960s, for instance, will see the pleas that he made time and time again for a revised tax scale, for a more equitable tax scale, for changes in the increments. Yet in government the Labor Party does the very reverse. The tax being paid is as a percentage of wages, higher than ever before. It is not just a question of adjusting for inflation; people’s incomes are in higher tax brackets. Let me make this clear, because I am astonished at the reaction of economic commentators in this country, who represent to the public of Australia that the $600m and the $450m-I hope I have got the figures correct but they are of that orderare tax cuts. I say they are not tax cuts at all. What has happened is that a slight readjustment of the tax scale has been made in order to resist a little of the greatly increased tax which the Government is getting from inflation. The Government, through the Treasury, is harvesting the inflation in this country and the amount of income tax receipts budgeted for this year, and the amount that was actually received last year, show a tremendous rise over the tax that was received in earlier years. I am not going to bore the House with statistics, but that principle is most important.

The Government has shown no real effort in trying to put people in the position in which they were before. It has shown no effort at all. Indeed, these rapid changes indicate that it yields only to the strongest political pressure from the Caucus.

So it is natural that people should try to find a system of taxing which is fairer. People talk about tax indexation. I do not know whether this country will or can adopt such a scheme. It is an extremely complex scheme. There are reasons why it ought not to be brought in, but one can understand people asking for it. One can understand people saying: ‘For heaven’s sake, it is no use getting another 10 per cent, 20 per cent, 30 per cent, 40 per cent increase in wages in an effort to keep up with prices if we are going to be paying higher and higher personal income tax, not on a proportional but on a percentage basis. ‘

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– It is confiscatory.

Mr GARLAND:

– It is confiscatory, and I believe that the Government is deliberatelyperhaps one should be kinder and say negligently- allowing greater and greater amounts of personal income tax to be gathered in this way so that people are worse off than they should be. I think this is described in one part of the Budget as being a transfer of resources from the private sector to the public sector. In my view, that is rather an overly formal way of putting it. In the last 2 years we have seen the taxes on individuals increasing enormously. What is more, there is every sign to anybody who sits in this House that taxes will continue to go up. Apparently one can only deduce that the Government wants taxes to go up so that it can use that extra money.

I simply make passing reference to these matters which appeared in the Asprey Committee’s report. There are just 2 other matters in the Committee’s report to which I wish to refer quickly. I think that most people who are interested in tax matters have waited with a great deal of interest to see the Committee’s report. After all, these are highly technical matters. They are beyond the resources of most people. We want to see what is the outpouring of the Committee as a result of all of the evidence that it has received and as a result of high quality documents submitted to it by the Department of the Treasury. We want to see the result of the Committee’s consideration of these things.

Two things occur to me. Firstly, I hope that when the final report is brought forward from the Committee and tabled that we do get, because of its importance in reviewing tax matters in the years ahead, a much more obvious distinction between the factual information that the Committee received in submissions and its interpretation of what ought to be done as a result of receiving that factual information. It is not too clear to me where the facts end and the value judgments begin. I hope the Committee will take an interest in this debate and note that point, because its final report will be an extremely important document to this country. The inquiry that it is undertaking is not an exercise which will be done very often.

The other thing that really rather shocks me about the Asprey Committee’s interim report is the great burden of tax which obviously it is going to recommend be put on the taxpayers of this country. It is not easy to point to a section of the report and say: ‘ Well, that is illogical ‘ or ‘ that is an invalid reason’. But its recommendations add up to the fact that a tremendous weight of tax which obviously the Committee thinks is equitable, will be levied on the people of this country. I am opposed to a greater increase in the percentage of gross national product or gross domestic product of taxation. Just to take one illustration, it is no argument to say: ‘If we bring in a capital gains tax and it raises a certain amount, and it is more equitable to raise it in this way, a smaller amount of income tax will need to be levied’. That could well be a fallacious argument. Every honourable member in this place knows that income tax will be levied at a certain rate, and a reduction in that rate will come about only when the Government is forced to yield, as it has been forced to yield twice in this year. This is referred to in the Bill before us at the moment.

My colleague, the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) rightly emphasised the disincentives which are contained in personal income tax scales and other tax scales recently introduced in this country. He rightly emphasised the need to encourage people to work harder and to try to raise their standard of living by their own efforts and, incidentally, to raise the standard of living throughout the country by those efforts, instead of taxing people to the point where they say: ‘Why should I work harder? Why should I work extra overtime? Why should I, if I am a dentist or a doctor, open my surgery for 5 days a week when I can open it for 3 days a week and still live well and not pay so much tax?’ The matters raised by the honourable member for Lilley are important to the national economy. I know that they have been said many times. I know that these things are hard to prove. But I am absolutely convinced that this question of incentive is important to the productive capacity of this country. I think we are getting beyond the point at which this sort of situation is for the general good.

Just on the general subject matter, I come back to my point that for many years the Treasurer said that the tax scale needs to be restructured- I think that was the word he used- or needs to be revised. But there is a tremendous reluctance to revise the tax scale in the very year in which such a tremendous harvest is being received. I do not know where we are headed when the Government cannot do this in a year when it does not have pressures on it. I can only assume that it will allow income tax charges to grow and to rise to much higher levels than they are today. That is the only conclusion to which one can come.

I wish to make just one or two quick observations on two other aspects of the Bill. I refer, first of all, to company tax. The way in which the Government’s proposal in relation to company tax was presented in the second reading speech was, to say the least, a little unclear. I shall endeavour to make it a little clearer. Public company primary tax is to be reduced from 47 V4 per cent to 45 per cent; private company tax will not change. It will remain at the same level at which it has been during the last year. It will not rise although originally it was said that it would rise. I repeat, it will remain the same. That is, I suppose, very nice. We all know that the private sectorthe income surplus producing sector- of the economy does need encouragement, does need to believe that it has got prospects of good returns on its capital, if it is to employ people and if it is to invest. It needs what is referred to so much around this place- confidence; that willothewisp which is so very hard to achieve when it has been lost, as it has been lost.

But this confidence will not be gained by reducing public company tax by 2 lh per cent. I hope the Government does not think that this is the only measure necessary to instil confidence. After all, the Government is very largely responsible for having broken down that confidence by its business bashing and by its display of hatred wherever it has been possible. Now it is paying through unemployment and unpopularity some of the price for it. But the present trend has to be stopped by a series of measures and in such a way that people believe that if they expand and they employ more people they will with certainty receive greater returns for their endeavours and for their capital. I simply say that a reduction of 2lA per cent in public company income tax is by no means going to be enough. It is a small help. The amendment moved by the Opposition takes that matter into account.

I want to say that the Opposition taxation committee of which I have the honour to be chairman at present has received some very helpful advice on not only this complex Bill but also the other 4 complex Bills that we will be debating immediately following the debate on this

Bill. At recent meetings of the Committee they have been able to help us to understand exactly what was intended. After all, anybody who knows anything about income tax Bills knows that they are extremely complicated. I want to place on record now the very fine help we have received- of course, in a completely non-political way- in understanding what was proposed and the impact of the proposed provisions.

Lastly, I mention that aspect of the Bill headed: ‘Surcharge of Tax on Property Income’. That is what members of the Australian Labor Party like to call in their speeches a tax on unearned income. That is a very revealing phrase when you think about it. The phrase ‘unearned income’ contains the implication of something being undeserved. It is nothing to members of the ALP that people save and work to acquire assets to rent and to gain interest and that many people in retirement have spent their lifetimes putting away a bit of money in order to do that. They just view this as part of the capitalist system, that system which must be swept aside. Therefore, they say: ‘We will put an extra tax on it’.

Anyone who knows anything about the way in which this Government Party operates knows that members of the Government thought they would find a clever and attractive trick. It was decided to abolish radio and television licence fees of the Postmaster-General’s Department, which raised about $70m a year for the Government, and to recoup that lost income the Government would tax this wealthy group which earned money from funds collected by way of interest or from rent. That was a smart idea. It was expected that such a tax would raise about $50m a year. Of course, the whole thing backfired. I cannot say that I am terribly sorry about that. In the first place, those people whose PMG licence fees had just come up for renewal could not get a refund of the fees they had paid and they felt very bitter about it. Some thousands of letters flowed into the offices of members of Parliament on that subject. In addition to that, by giving inadequate consideration to this so-called unearned income tax, the Government realised that it was hitting many people who were in the lower income group. The Government had to make an amend.mentment to the proposal and say that this highly inequitable tax would not apply if a person’s income was less than $5,000 a year. In other words, the Government stated that it would try to get at those people with higher incomes. I think that only illustrates the shallowness of thinking. I am told- perhaps some Minister may care to deny it- that after days of discussion about where money would be spent, five minutes was spent on that.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– in reply- Before a vote is taken on this matter I would like to mention one or two points that have been raised in the debate. The Income Tax Bill 1974 is concerned with the rates of tax that will be imposed on individuals and companies for the period ended 30 June 1975. 1 acknowledge the thanks of the previous speaker, the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland), for the assistance that his Party has received from officers of my Department in helping them to evaluate the Bill.

Mr Garland:

– And the Treasurer.

Mr CREAN:

– I thought that he might have added the Treasurer. I think this House is the better when its members are well informed about measures that come before it. I have never restricted the access of members on the nongovernment side to the technical material, so long as they have not expected my officers to say that they think certain things are silly. Such things involve matters of policy and it is not for the officers to comment upon them. But so far as the facts are concerned, I think we are all helped by knowing what we are talking about.

One of the matters that has been raised involves this question of what is described as unearned income or income from property as distinct from personal exertion. I know that a lot of tears are being shed about the hard earned savings of certain people. I make the simple declaration that I believe there is a difference in those 2 situations: Two people have the same incomelet us say, of $6,000 a year- and one person earns that $6,000 by the sweat of his brow or the work of his hands and another person earns the same sum simply by receiving dividends or returns on investment. This is acknowledged not only in our present tax system, but also it was acknowledged previously. It is a practice commonly acknowledged in the United States of America and in the United Kingdom. I know that a lot of crocodile tears can be shed about it. I think that there are some people even who are suggesting that the tax represents a charge of 10 per cent on income. That is not true. It is simply a tax at whatever the rate which otherwise would have applied, increased by 10 per cent on that part of the total income which derives from property. I think there has been a lot of distortion about the position. I simply try to put that right.

Equally, I think that both sides of the House agree to the proposal to abolish the means test. We said that if we were to abolish the means test, in the long run money received by way of pension should be regarded as income and included along with other income as subject to tax. I believe that almost every pensioner is better off today when his pension and the additional tax on that pension is taken into account. I think that the net income position of such people has improved. But we still see these crocodile tears shed in regard to the taxing of elderly people and so on without any suggestion being made that now, if such people are over 75 years of age, they are able to receive a pension in full, regardless of income. As from April, pensioners between the age of 75 years and 70 years will receive a pension in full regardless of their position, and I believe that in the next Budget we will go further down the line to include people over the age of 65 years.

I think that my friend from Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) described something as a confidence trick. What does not seem to be acknowledged in all this argument is that confidence tricks are put over when people do not study the facts. Virtually, they trick themselves. The reality of the situation is that the Government is expected to provide certain services for its citizens- things like education, health services, welfare, payments to the States, cash transfer payment to citizens and so on. The principal source of revenue for the provision of those services is the income tax charged on individuals and companies. During the period of the current Australian Budget such income will account for over half of the total of $ 16 billion that we are proposing to spend in the next 12 months. There has been a certain amount of tax reform in this Budget, whatever people say to the contrary. The reform has come, as I for one have always insisted that it should, from the bottom up and not from the top down. We have thought first of relieving the burden on those in receipt of lower incomes. In fact, we have abolished income tax for people who are on what is called the poverty level.

The same sort of arguments that honourable members opposite have advanced in the Parliament in regard to the proportions of tax could well have been argued and, I presume, were argued by us when we were where honourable members opposite are now. In fact, I think that my colleague the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) described that. There has been very little change. In fact, money collected in taxes of one kind or another, including taxation at all 3 levels of government, has slowly increased upwards from 1951 right through to 1974 as a proportion of the gross domestic product in Australia. This has not been something peculiar only to this Labor Government. It is something that has happened in other areas. Even now, there are quite a number of countries where that proportion is far higher than it is in Australia. Our proportion is still only about onequarter. In some countries the proportion goes nearly as high as 40 per cent when the different provisioning of welfare arrangements is taken into account.

I do not want to say very much more other than to commend for the full and detailed consideration of honourable members who are interested not only the Asprey Committee’s interim report itself but also the 13 or so pamphlets that I am issuing with it. They are expert documents about certain aspects of taxation in Australia prepared mainly in the Taxation Office. I am sure our debate will be better informed if those documents are closely studied in the next 12 months so that when further revisions of income tax are before us we may be a little better informed. Some people are enthusiasts for one form of tax rather than another. Some are enthusiasts for rebates as against deductions. But the cases are not always black and white; there are pro and con arguments. I must say that I have resented to some extent the fact that one or two of the newspapers that have reported upon these documents, have tried to give them what they call a Treasury slant. Every one of those documents has a page of preface which says that the material is presented for consideration and evaluation. They do not attempt to come to a view favouring one idea rather than another.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– They have a value all their own.

Mr CREAN:

– Exactly. As in many other documents, maybe sometimes there peeps out from the author a sort of predilection for the pro rather than the con, or vice versa. But in no sense are they the Treasury’s views and therefore they certainly are not the Treasurer’s views about these particular matters. Perhaps the thing that has to be cogitated upon in particular by this House is the Asprey Committee ‘s suggestion that if the tax structure as a whole is taken- I think the report says that it does not deserve to be referred as the tax system; it is just something that has grown up and in some respects is a very ossified arrangementit is seen that in lower levels of income the tax structure is regressive, that is, that the people on those levels proportionately pay more than they should. In the middle section- it is pretty hard to define with much precision what the middle is- the system is virtually proportional when both direct and indirect taxes are taken into account and it is only in the higher levels of income that the total structure can be said to be progressive.

What does not seem to be considered enough in Australia is that, whilst perhaps we have more poor people than we should- relatively they do not represent many of the total populationneither are there very many extremely wealthy people. The majority of people in Australia are in the band of, -say, incomes of $4,000 to $8,000 a year. Those barriers are pretty rough because some are single people who will receive higher incomes later on and some are older people who have had higher incomes earlier, and so on. But if you want to increase the total amount of tax that is collected, mostly it has to come from that great central band who comprise the majority of taxpayers. I think that if we realised that at times there might be a little more light and a little less heat in some of these debates about whether a particular section is inordinately taxed in relation to the other. I thank honourable members who have participated in the debate for their interest in the matter. However, I urge the House to reject the amendment that has been proposed.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 61

NOES: 0

Majority……. 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original 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 Crean) read a third time.

page 4057

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL (No. 2) 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 14 November on motion by Mr Crean:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr CREAN (Melbourne PortsTreasurer) Mr Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation. Before the debate on the Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 2) 1974 is resumed, I would like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill, the Income Tax (Bearer Debentures) Bill 1974, the Income Tax (International Agreements) Bill 1974 (No. 2) and the Estate Duty Assessment Bill 1974, as they are related measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest, therefore, Mr Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of the 4 Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the 4 measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr LYNCH:
Flinders

-Mr Speaker, the Bill before the House seeks to amend the Income Tax Assessment Act to give effect to a majority of the tax changes announced in the Treasurer’s Budget Speech on 17 September. Briefly, this legislation provides for increased tax liabilities for the mining industry, the imposition of taxation on certain forms of fringe benefits, the specific allowance of deductions for depreciation on child care facilities, a reduction of the limit on deductions for educational expenses, the deductibility of mortgage interest payments, a reduced level of the special deduction allowable to life assurance companies, a rebate of dependants’ allowances for low income families; and technical amendments fo the principal Act with respect to dividends payable from Papua New Guinea, the relief of taxpayers in cases of hardship and provisional tax for 1974-75. On the estimates available in the Budget papers, the net effect of the changes proposed by the legislation will be a loss to revenue of around $30m for a full year. Nevertheless, this figure can only be taken as a guide since estimates for a number of the Bill’s provisions have not been provided by the Government. The Opposition will not oppose the Bill at the second reading stage. But I will be moving an amendment at a later stage in my comments to the second reading. There are a number of measures which are warranted and which I will endorse during my remarks. There are, however, specific provisions to which we are totally opposed. Because this legislation is associated with the Budget we do not propose to take the Bill into Committee for the purpose of seeking to move amendments there. This fact cannot, however, be an indication of our general support for the Bill.

Mining Companies

Clauses 4, 2 1 to 29, 30 to 33, 39 and 45 are amendments relating to the taxation of mining companies. The proposed amendments to the taxation of mining companies will provide an estimated $80m additional revenue in a full year and a further once for all gain of $50m in 1975-76 in terms of revenue previously foregone.

The provisions of this Bill follow those enacted as a result of the Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 5) 1973. This legislation has been introduced in spite of the fact that the whole subject of the taxation of the mining industry is being reviewed by 2 expert public inquiries- the Taxation Review Committee and the Industries Assistance Commission. This Bill is completely inconsistent with the Government’s stated policy that industry assistance should neither be introduced or withdrawn without inquiry by the Industries Assistance Commission. It pre-empts both the Commission and the Asprey Committee. The Government has, of course, examined the report entitled ‘The Contribution of the Mineral Industry to Australian Welfare’otherwise known as the Fitzgerald report. The Fitzgerald report, in spite of the deficiencies in its analysis- the many deficiencies in what is a partisan document- did outline the extent of benefits available to the industry. It did not recommend the removal of the specific benefits which this legislation seeks to remove.

Clauses 5 and 27 are designed to withdraw the 20 per cent tax exemption on income from the production of certain prescribed minerals including copper, bauxite, nickel and beach sands. The House will recall that this proposal, together with action to withdraw the complete exemption for gold mining profits, was subject to legislation last year. As a result of the strong representations made by the Opposition on behalf of the vitally affected communities such as Kalgoorlie, it was withdrawn. Our attitude has not changed since that time. Notwithstanding the decision to defer again the gold mining exemption, the Government in now proceeding to remove the partial exemption for prescribed minerals. I take this opportunity to place on record again our strong opposition to this proposal. Clauses 2 1 to 29, 33, 39, 44 and 45 remove the accelerated depreciation provisions in relation to developmental expenditure and remove the allowable deductions with respect to capital expenditure incurred on company formation and capital raising. Notwithstanding that exploration and prospecting expenditure of general mining companies and petroleum exploration companies will continue to be immediately deductible in the year of incurrence and the proposal to give petroleum mining companies the right to claim ordinary depreciation allowances for expenditure on plant, the Opposition strongly disagrees with the Government’s decision. The combined effects of these provisions will act as a further deterrent to new capital raisings and capital expenditure by the industry. At a time when there is a serious downturn in private sector investment- in fact, a crisis in capital mobilisation- the provisions of this Bill are destructive and damaging to the future development of the industry in Australia. The tragedy is that the main impacts of these changes will apply to new mining ventures.

Clauses 30, 3 1 and 32 change the period over which expenditure incurred on a railway, road, pipeline of other facility for transporting minerals is deductible from 10 to 20 years. This proposal, like those directed towards actual mining operations, simply adds additional costs with respect to vital infrastructure developments. We similarly regard the proposal as unwarranted and damaging. Clause 4 relates to mining companies engaged in exploration or mining on the continental shelf for minerals other than petroleum. The Bill proposes that they be treated for income tax purposes as if those activities were conducted on the mainland in the same way as the law now applies to off-shore activities in relation to petroleum exploration and production. The Opposition does not oppose this amendment which I recognise as a sensible change to the legislation and one which is appropriate at a time when off-shore mining operations are beginning to increase.

Credit Unions

Clause 6 proposes that interest received by credit unions on loans made to its members be exempted from taxation. In order to qualify for this exemption a credit union must have as its primary objective, or carry on as its principal business, the raising of moneys from its members and the making of loans out of those moneys. A credit union will not qualify for the exemption if it restricts its activities to those which are carried out by a building society. The proposed exemption is also not intended to extend to rent from premises and income from investments outside its central purpose. Credit unions, of course, are basically agents acting on behalf of their members. The borrowing members pay interest on loans made to them by the union. This payment is regarded as having only the common purpose of providing the agent with funds to meet its expenses including interest on deposits and administrative expenses. The Opposition supports this proposal.

The exemption will have the effect of reducing considerably the amount of tax payable by qualifying credit unions. Nevertheless, the Asprey Committee clearly stated in its interim report that the tax system should be neutral and that public intervention to correct any misallocation should only be by way of tax concessions after other alternatives such as subsidies, have been held to be less effective. Clause 20 of the Bill merely provides that a credit union which qualifies for the above exemption cannot also qualify for the favourable tax treatment which is given to co-operatives.

Fringe Benefits

The Bill makes a number of new provisions with respect to the taxation of fringe benefits. The combined effects of these provisions will add some $30m to revenue. Clause 7 proposes a new method of assessing for tax purposes the value derived from the private use of a company car. Taxpayers who use privately a company car are to be required to declare as income an amount equal to 12 per cent of the car’s original price or 24 per cent where the original price exceeds $6,000. Section 26(e) of the principal Act already requires the declaration of any saving which is, in effect, derived from fringe benefitsincluding motor vehicles. Although this section is based, as the Treasurer pointed out, on the Canadian model. Nevertheless, I wish to go on the record as indicating that the Opposition has serious reservations about this proposal. It could add around $500 per annum to the income of those persons directly affected. This is an amount considerably in excess of those now declared in this regard. It will have the effect of adding to taxation and therefore to costs. It will also, of course, have a direct impact in terms of disincentive to persons in the business community. While we agree that the provisions of existing section 26(e) merit clarification, there is no justification for using this requirement as a revenue device.

Clause 8 seeks to require that the value of benefits received under a stock option or share purchase scheme be measured at the time of the exercise of the option or on the transfer of the shares rather than, as at present, when the rights are acquired. The Opposition Parties support this proposal. It will prevent the abuse of the system by offering options at absurdly low market values in relation to their ultimate realisation value and, in some cases, protect those employees from unjustified taxation where rights have declined in value prior to the exercise of an option.

Child Care

Clauses 1 1 and 12 of the Bill provide for the expenditure of plant and facilities used in child care centres provided by employers for their employees to qualify for depreciation deductions in the same way as facilities provided for employees. We support this proposal. The Opposition’s policy provides specific support for child care facilities and, in particular, a detailed investigation of methods of providing capital assistance- by either grants or long-term loans. However, the decision to introduce this tax deduction in no way compensates for the deferral of the pre-election promise to embark on a major pre-school and child care program estimated to cost $130m in 1974-75. This commitment formed an important plank in the election platform of the Labor Party in 1974. Failure to honour that promise represents yet another step in the trail of Labor’s broken election promises.

Non-resident Dependants

Clause 1 4 proposes to amend the Act to make deductions available for the maintenance of dependants who are not residents of Australia. The Opposition supports this amendment. Allowance for such dependants is, of course, already made in a wide number of cases. We welcome the move to put this matter beyond the discretion of the Commissioner. It will be of considerable assistance to many families, especially migrant families, who are not yet united in Australia.

Education Expenses

Clauses 15 and 16 of the Bill provide for the statutory maximum deductions of $400 allowable for educational expenses to be reduced to $150. The Opposition Parties have made it very clear that we are totally opposed to this move. It is contrary to the repeated public assurances given by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and the present Minister for Education (Mr Beazley) during 1972. It will pose unwarranted financial burdens on Australian parents, and therefore on their children, whether the school in question is public or private.

The rationale behind the reduction is that there have been increases in direct educational spending which reduce the need to subsidise education through the taxation system. Whilst we support the increases provided in the Budget for education, we believe that the decision to reduce the deduction does not take into account that the benefit was available in respect of expenses incurred by the family for the individual child. Those expenses will continue notwithstanding the additional expenditure on school buildings, equipment, and teachers. The additional expenditure does not reduce the costs incurred by the family. It must be recognised that in many cases mandatory educational expenses clearly exceed the proposed $150. Although the loss in benefits resulting from the proposal will be greatest to higher income earners, it is not they who suffer the most from the reduction, but those on average or lower incomes. Although the Asprey Committee in its interim report expressed the view that on the grounds of efficiency, simplicity and equity alike, the long-term aim might be to replace concessional deductions, whenever possible, with assistance given in other ways to meet the principal needs that deductions now serve, it recognised that certain qualifications were necessary. It cited education as one example where the concessional deduction system has the merit of leaving the citizen with a free choice and of saving the authorities some of the burden of administrative control. I repeat that we are totally opposed to this proposal.

Mortgage Interest

Clause 1 7 provides that, in certain cases, a proportion of the interest paid on home loans will be deductible for tax purposes. The scheme is estimated in the Budget papers to cost $130m in a full year. This is not a proposal which has been supported or endorsed by the Opposition. It represents a political response by a Government which, by its own economic mismanagement, forced interest rates to their highest levels since Federation. It is no more than a second best palliative to compensate for the devastation of this Government’s immensely damaging housing policies. Income earners with $14,000 taxable income or less will be eligible. Allowable interest deductions will range from the total deduction for those with taxable incomes of $4,000 or less to a cut off point at $14,000. The deduction which will be applicable to interest payments made since 1 July this year was estimated to cost $ 1 30m in a full year at the time of the Budget.

This scheme is grossly deficient in a number of marked respects. Whilst it may assist taxpayers who have already saved a deposit and obtained finance for a home, it will not assist those taxpayers unable to bridge the deposit gap. Further the scheme will discriminate against those who pay rent rather than against those who own a home and against those who pay mortgage interest but who do not pay tax, for example, certain pensioners whose mortgages are nearing completion. It also has the additional disadvantage of being regressive between certain points on the taxation schedule. This situation will be aggravated by the fact that a person who receives a higher income can afford to take out a larger mortgage and pay a higher interest rate than a person who receives a lower income.

I am totally opposed to the proposal that this scheme should be built into the PA YE system so that deductions can be made on a weekly basis. Although the immediate benefit to the home buyer is a desirable feature, the administrative expenses of this form of proposition will be immense. Additionally, such a proposal discriminates against those who are self-employed as they must, of necessity, wait until the end of the year before they receive their benefit. We believe that this scheme is no answer to the problem of high interest rates and no satisfactory response to the continuing problems of the building industry. It is an admission on the part of the Government that it is prepared to live with those problems and is not prepared to seek effectively to overcome them.

The Opposition Parties have put forward, through the Opposition spokesman, the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay), an effective and workable policy for home buyers. We have advocated the restructuring of loan repayments to assist the home buyer in the early years of his payments, when they are at the maximum point. We also have proposed the retention and extension of the homes savings grant scheme, which this Government is committed to abolish, in order to encourage savings and to reduce the deposit gap, thereby making home ownership a possibility for a wider variety of Australians. The simple fact is that this Government is making many Australians rent-payers and not home owners and the great Australian dream of home ownership has been totally shattered by the mismanagement which has emanated from senior Ministers in the economic area of Government decision making and taking.

Mr Stewart:

– Check your facts.

Mr LYNCH:

-The Minister should not display his ignorance by his comment. It is again interesting to note that the Government once more has ignored suggestions of the interim report of the Asprey Committee. As I noted earlier, the Committee expressed preference for the replacement of concessional deductions, wherever possible, with assistance given in other ways to meet the principal needs which deductions now serve. It is felt that this would be more efficient, far more simplified and a more equitable approach. However, the Government has decided to entrench in the taxation system a highly complicated and inequitable scheme which does not get at the roots of the problems it pretends to seek to solve.

Life Insurance Companies

Clause 19 proposes an increase of $25m in tax paid by life offices. It will be collected by reducing the amount of calculated liabilities allowable as deductions from 2 per cent to 1 per cent. This follows a reduction in calculated liabilities as deductions for taxation purposes from 3 per cent to 2 per cent in the 1973-74 Budget and an increase in the rate at which these organisations are taxed from 42 half per cent to 47 Vi per cent. The overall impact of these measures means that life offices will be paying Vh times as much in the way of income tax as they were paying two short years ago. The reduction in company tax to 45 per cent in 1974-75 will only marginally ease the crippling burden which the earlier measures have entailed. In assessing the significance of these increases it must be emphasised that life offices are, in the main, of a purely co-operative nature and all profits belong to policy holders. Where life offices are formed on a mutual basis, about 90 per cent of profits pass to policy holders. The role of the life offices is, in effect, that of trustee of the funds of its policy holders.

The proposal which the Government has brought down in this legislation completely ignores the fact that thousands of low income earners have invested in these companies. The average sum assured under an individual policy is estimated at around $4,000, while the average reserve held in respect of each policy would be less than $ 1 ,000. The small saver will not only receive reduced bonuses as life companies pay an additional $25m a year in taxation but he will now also incur the iniquitous surcharge on unearned income as a penalty for his thrift and his investment. This proposal strikes at the very basis of private capital formation in Australia at a time of an investment crisis. The Government’s attitude to the life offices entirely ignores their special function and takes no account of the unique problems they face in counteracting tax increases. I refer here, not for the purposes of quotation but because of the need to allow other speakers to participate in this debate, to the reference made by the Life Offices Association to the Asprey Committee.

Rebate for Low Income Families

Clause 35 provides for a rebate for low income taxpayers with families. The rebate will ensure that the lower income earner receives a tax reduction in respect of dependant deductions worth at least 40 per cent of those deductions. Although this will be an additional benefit, combined with the proposed tax cuts, the rebate cannot exceed tax otherwise payable. The rebate was estimated in the Budget to be worth $2 5 m in 1974-75 and $60m in a full year. It should be noted, however, that personal income tax announced since the Budget will result in the cost of the rebate being slightly higher. The Opposition Parties support the rebate on the grounds that it is a step towards equalising the worth of the deductions for dependants between the lowest and highest ends of the income tax scale.

Mr Armitage:

– A system your Government introduced.

Mr LYNCH:

-The honourable gentleman might give his advice better to the Caucus rather than again display in this House his ignorance of these subjects. The Government has chosen to initiate this complicated system of assisting the lower income earner prior to the final recommendations of the Asprey Committee. The Government’s proposals with respect to concessional tax reductions are not consistent with the suggestions of the Asprey Committee in its interim report brought down in June this year. That report suggested that consideration be given to converting the present deduction to a tax credit diminishing in relation to the income of the spouse. In relation to deductions for dependent children, the Committee indicated support for the suggestion, made in the Interim Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty, that such deductions should be abolished and child endowment correspondingly increased.

The Opposition considers that the aim of relieving the tax burden on lower income earners could have been served best by a general reduction in the tax schedule as an interim measure until the Asprey Committee’s final report is available rather than through the introduction of this complex system. The Opposition Parties support the proposals in respect of the hardship of taxpayers and dividends from Papua New Guinea. We do not oppose the Bill outright on the second reading but, having regard to the comments I have made and which indicate our serious reservations concerning a number of the significant proposals in this Bill, as an amendment to the Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 2) I move:

The Opposition will be moving also an amendment to the Estate Duty Assessment Bill, which I have not dealt with in my contribution to this debate. Also I have not dealt with the Income Tax (International Agreements) Bill (No. 2) or the Income Tax (Bearer Debentures) Bill. Those Bills will provide other honourable members with an opportunity of speaking to them in the order of the speakers ‘ list.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Adermann:

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

Mr MARTIN:
Banks

-The purpose of the Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 2) 1974 is to give legislative effect to the taxation proposals which were announced by the Treasurer (Mr Crean) in his Budget Speech. This Bill seeks to implement 16 separate amendments to the existing law. I will cover in this speech just a few of those amendments.

A special rebate of tax has been introduced to provide relief for low income families. The rebate will provide a benefit to taxpayers in the lower income ranges whose tax saving, because of the lower rates of tax that apply there, resulting from the allowance of the dependants’ deductions is less than 40 per cent of the amount of the deductions. In some cases the new tax rebate will extinguish the tax which otherwise would be payable. But where that does not occur the tax saving to those low income families will be a considerable amount. The concessional deductions in regard to the maintenance of dependants have been widened also to allow a deduction to be claimed for dependants who are residing overseas. That should be of particular benefit to new arrivals in this country who are still maintaining dependants in their country of origin.

One of the major purposes of this Bill is to allow a deduction for interest repayments in respect of home loans. The tax benefit arising from that deduction will reduce the effective rate of interest payable on home loans. It is a fact that the rates of interest payable at present on housing loans present a real burden to a large section of the community. This new deduction will be welcomed by those people who are struggling to maintain their present loan repayments. The deduction for interest will be allowable in full for those taxpayers who have an actual income of $4,000 per annum or less. Where the actual income is above $4,000 per annum the deduction will be reduced by 1 per cent for each $ 100 of the excess. That will mean that 80 per cent of the interest will be deductible at an actual income level of $6,000 per annum and that one-half of the interest will be deductible at an actual income level of $9,000 per annum. A deduction will not be allowable where the actual income level is $14,000 per annum or more. I point out, however, that in ascertaining the deduction the combined actual income of a man and his wife will be taken into account. It will thus be seen that the purpose of this deduction for interest on home loans is to provide a greater measure of assistance for those people on lower incomes whose need is the greatest- I emphasise the words ‘whose need is the greatest’. It follows the needs concept which the present Government has applied in so much of its legislation.

Also on the needs basis but in reverse, the law is now to be tightened up to ensure that certain ‘fringe benefits’ will be properly subject to income tax. That applies particularly to the ‘fringe benefit’ which accrues from the private use of a motor vehicle supplied by an employer. The amount now to be included in the assessable income of a person who is supplied with such a motor vehicle will be 12 per cent of the first $6,000 of the cost of the vehicle and 24 per cent of the balance of the cost in excess of $6,000. This provision is similar to that which applied for some time in Canada and which, I might add, has applied pretty effectively. It will reduce some of the difficulties which have applied in the interpretation of the existing law.

Under this Bill it will no longer be possible to claim a deduction for fees paid for membership of sporting or social clubs, nor will it be possible to claim a deduction for expenditure relating to leisure facilities such as boats, ski lodges, holiday cottages and so on. I do not think any tears will be shed by the great majority of people over the disallowance of these tax lurks, which have only applied to the benefit of that section of the community which can afford to pay its rightful share of the cost of running the country. The present Government will be remembered for the manner in which it has attempted to level out the taxation liability of all sections of the community. During the 2 years in which it has been in office the present Government has done more to prevent tax lurks and to minimise tax avoidance schemes than the previous Liberal-Country Party government did in the whole of its 23 years of office. Of course, that is understandable as the previous Liberal-Country Party government had no intention of hurting its powerful and wealthy friends. In contrast, the present Government can properly be called the little people’s government.

The Treasurer recently made a public statement in which he said that he wished to be remembered for the things that he had done. He will certainly be remembered by the credit union movement in Australia for the action which is now being taken in this Bill to exempt credit unions from income tax on interest derived from loans to their members. This exemption will apply to assessments of credit unions in respect of the income derived during the year of income which commenced on 1 July 1973 and in subsequent income years. The Treasurer announced in March of this year that he intended to take this action. The Bill now before this House implements that promise. The liability to tax of credit unions has been a vexed question for many years. Credit unions have taken all legal steps possible to have the matter determined. To my knowledge 3 test cases have been taken to the Board of Review and two to the High Court of Australia. In view of the legal decisions in all those cases which went against the credit unions, it has been necessary finally to determine the issue by legislation, and that the Government is now doing. On behalf of the credit union movement I would like to convey to the Treasurer the thanks of all credit union members and their appreciation for his taking of this worthwhile step, which will enable credit unions to apply any surplus arising from dealings with their own members for the benefit of their own members. The previous Liberal-Country Party government would not grant this concession. The present Australian Labor Party Government has now put into legislation the commitment which it made prior to the 1972 election. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr ADERMANN:
Fisher

-I intend to speak to the Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 2) 1974 and the other related Bills. I may touch for a moment on the Estate Duty Assessment Bill 1974. In speaking to income tax Bills, I adopt the philosophy that the most fair and equitable form of taxation is direct income tax. We should have a tax scale which is flexible enough to enable adjustments to be made for the distortions that are due to inflation and which is able to be adjusted or rescheduled as quickly and as frequently as is needed. I think that is far better than a system of indirect taxation as the adjustments to the rates of such a system are fraught with danger in unstable or inflationary periods. I wonder whether the Government has yet learned that lesson. In speaking to the Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 2) the Treasurer (Mr Crean) introduced the Bill in these words:

This Bill will give effect to taxation proposals announced in the Budget Speech -

I ask: Which Budget? Whose Budget? As we look at the impermanency of the Budget and its offspring we wonder indeed how enduring even this legislation will be. What an opening he gave when he said that the rebate for low income earners entitled to concessional deductions for dependants is one feature of the legislation. Then he went on to slash savagely one of the most important valuable concessional deductions in the tax Act. We have this classically vicious proposal in clauses 15 and 16 of the Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 2) which provide that the maximum education deduction of $400 a year is to be reduced to $150. Let the people of Australia clearly see that those supporters of the Government who are peddling the propaganda around their electorates that they are not in favour of this move and have spoken in this place against it will sit on the Government side in complete unanimity and will vote to support this Bill when a vote is taken. The honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh) has told us in Queensland recently how unhappy he is about this part of the Bill. But he and his colleagues have no intention of crossing the floor to vote against it despite their clucks of sympathy in their electorates. We will give honourable members opposite a chance to prove that this is not the case when we call a division on our amendment.

At whom is this barb aimed? It is aimed not at the mythical Midases of society but at every parent who has a child at any school, private or government, anywhere in Australia. Can any supporter of the Government assert with any truth at all that with the possible exception of a few of the preparatory grades, $150 will go anywhere near covering the educational expenses in a year for a child at primary or secondary school? The Government which makes a fetish of education and which claims to spend record millions has in a penny pinching, scrooge-like, vicious and petty action penalised every parent of every school pupil in Australia. Despite the Minister’s remote area allowance, this is a very definite thrust against remote area children, because there are no secondary schools or primary schools in many isolated areas and as a result children have to be sent to city-based private schools. How on earth can this Government show a scintilla of evidence of sympathy for these country people when it limits their annual tax deductibility for education to a miserable $150? This amount of money will hardly buy their pencils. It is a drop in the ocean.

In clause 17 we see the Government desperately and fruitlessly striving to salvage its credibility in the field of housing. The Government which told us so solemnly how home ownership was at the top of its priorities has set about demolishing the home savings grant, escalating interest prohibitively, insisting that most of the money provided for housing commission homes be used for rental homes and by its total incapacity to manage our country has made no move to prevent land and building costs from rising to levels which made the prospect of building a home unthinkable. Does the Government now think it is fooling anybody? It has forced people into rented homes. Despite its red herrings there is no tax deduction for rental payments.

The Government now imagines that this measure, limited and insufficient as it is, to give some deductibility for interest payments will be gullibly or readily accepted. Will it make one cent of difference to the monthly repayments which our young home owners have to face up to each month and which have grown alarmingly because of the Government’s jacking up of interest rates? Will it make one infinitesimal bit of difference to those who are trying to make home repayments out of unemployment relief? I believe that the Government’s credibility is shot to pieces and this shabby and dishonest endeavour to redeem itself will be recognised immediately for what it is-an end of the year rebate. It will not help people much each month to make for increasing home repayments which must be met.

This is a shabby and dishonest endeavour to salvage a lost reputation and to excuse the abrogation of specific promises. I reaffirm that the legislation does not reduce interest rates as the Government promised when it bid and bribed for office; it does not hide the fact that interest rates went up astronomically, and not down as it promised; it does not do one thing to reduce interest and principal housing repayments which have increased almost beyond imagination; it will not give one more Australian a home; and its exaggerated presentation and this premiere do not make it excusable as a redemption of the promises which the Government has callously broken.

Clause 19 of the Bill relates to life assurance companies. This clause will most certainly ensure that premiums on new policies will be higher and that bonuses will be reduced. I suppose that this is consistent with the Government’s ideology that provision for the future is immoral and we should be willing to settle for dependence on a socialist state. This move will most certainly very seriously discourage investment in life assurance. It will also reduce the investment which life assurance companies can make in local government loan programs and the like. Local government which is supposed to live in Utopia under this Government in most cases cannot anywhere nearly obtain its loan moneys now. That is how sound the thinking of this Government is and that is the measure of the stupidity of measures such as the legislation we have before us which is a shortsighted sally against the despised life assurance companies which a Labor government proposed to nationalise after it had finished with the banks in 1948-49. So the Labor Party’s hatred has not yet subsided. Its intentions are really no different but its methods of achievement have been subtly altered. The rate of deduction on calculated liabilities was reduced last year from 3 per cent to 2 per cent. This year it has been reduced from 2 per cent to 1 per cent. Next year probably there will be no deduction at all. If this is the case, the life assurance companies will have no option but to make the premiums on new policies higher and slash bonuses. They will have less surplus for assisting in government, semi-government and local government programs. What a Government this is, obsessed with myths of privileged classes and with a blind unreasoning hatred of business, thrift and private initiative.

Clause 46 is another clause on which I believe the Government should be very seriously reprimanded. If we read the explanatory notes and the Bill we find that not only is there to be a surcharge on income from property, about which I spoke previously and which I have condemned, but also the clause means that when provisional tax is assessed it too will be calculated even to include a provisional surcharge. Not a cent must escape this Government to provide the means to continue the most reckless, wasteful, prodigal spending bonanza that we have ever known in our history. Provisional tax is difficult enough. It poses real problems in times of credit squeezes and liquidity crises. But when provisional tax also includes penalty surcharges in advance we have certainly good reason to denounce this clause.

There are many things in the Bills about which I would like to talk. However, I know that there are other members who want to take part in this debate. The Bills contain measures dealing with fringe benefits and expense allowances. They contain a lot that is bad and a lot that is good. Some of the provisions are very reasonable and would receive our support but some have been improperly and imperfectly thought through. There is much that is difficult to discuss in a short period. The Bills are voluminous and technical. The second reading speeches made by the Treasurer cover them very incompletely and partially. Also, the time allowed for perusal and study has been rather short. In a speech such as this there is not great opportunity to discuss points on which there could be some agreement. I am pleased that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) voiced approval and support for a number of measures contained in the Bills. But we have not had much time to do other than point out what is bad and discriminatory.

I want to make one other comment before I give way to another speaker, and this relates to the Estate Duty Assessment Act 1974. Of course I welcome the further relief provided in this Bill and of course I support any reduction in this area. However- and I exempt no government from this, either past or present- the sooner this pernicious, callous, heartbreaking, immoral imposition of death and estate duties is completely abolished the better. I suspect that the collection costs absorb a substantial part of their revenue benefit anyway. I suspect that it would need very little rise in direct income tax to provide the revenue that these taxes provide. Their abolition would remove the heartbreak and the worry that so many people experience because of these pernicious taxes.

These sorts of taxes destroy incentive and when they are associated with a capital gains tax they will exacerbate the problems and the worries. The family business and the family farm will be destroyed under such taxes as these. They erode the provisions that have been made for widows and dependants who have been deprived of a bread winner. They invite all conceivable sorts of ruses to dissipate assets before death. They freeze funds and they make sustenance in many cases unavailable to families. They create hardship, misery and even total lack of funds for provisions, in many cases for people who are unable to understand, who are totally inexperienced and who are already suffering the sorrow and insecurity of death. So often the only people who benefit from these taxes are the Treasury and the legal people who administer the estate. Therefore I welcome any easing of these duties, which is a carry on from the policy of the previous Liberal-Country Party Government which was committed to the abolition of these duties as quickly as possible. Each one of the Budgets brought down in the last years of the Liberal-Country Party Government showed a progressive reduction in this duty.

Mr Stewart:

– Your father was in favour of them.

Mr ADERMANN:

– I hope the Minister is taking copious notes. He had the privilege of replacing the Treasurer on the last occasion I spoke. I hope he has brought his pencil, because these are words of wisdom. I am condemning these taxes; I am not supporting them, no matter who imposes them. I say that the previous LiberalCountry Party Government was committed to the abolition of these taxes, and I think the Minister should concede that in the last Budgets brought down by that government there were reductions. If the Minister had listened he would have known that I was commending the Government for continuing those reductions and I was appealing to the Minister to take heed of the fact that I and my Party are committed to the progressive and complete abolition of these taxes. I would commend to the Minister that the Government commit itself to that same very worthy objective.

I will not say more on the Bills. There are a number of them and they are very copious. I know that the time for debate is limited and I know that other speakers want to take part in the debate. But I support the amendment which was proposed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch), and which I seconded. 1 believe it points out very explicitly and very clearly those things, particularly in the Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 2), to which the Opposition takes great exception.

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

-The honourable member for Fisher (Mr Adermann) examples very well indeed the carping criticism which the Opposition always levels at all legislation introduced by this Government. It never offers anything constructive, because it is an Opposition bereft of any ideas of its own, as exampled in the last Federal election campaign when suddenly it had to adopt Labor policy in the last fortnight before the campaign began in order to have even a policy of its own. For this reason I say quite specifically that it can only resort to destructive criticism and it completely ignores its own responsibility for past actions, for example in respect of particular aspects of this Bill. When the Opposition was in government it increased interest rates from the official bank lending rate of 4’/4 per cent to 8 per cent and in some instances to 8½ percent. In other words, it doubled interest rates during the time it was in government. Of course, that included even higher rates for building societies.

Despite its recent espousal of the complete abolition of estate duties, when it was in government the Country Party did nothing whatsoever. It always uses this beautiful diversion: ‘This is what my Party, the Country Party, says’, but implying: ‘It is that other dreadful coalition Party of ours, the Liberal Party, which stopped us from doing anything.’ Right throughout that period the Country Party did nothing whatsoever to grant exemptions from estate duties for matrimonial homes. It is all very well for the Opposition to come here and say that this legislation should go further. At least this Government is doing something. The Liberal-Country Party governments of 23 years did absolutely nothing.

Then we come to the concessional deduction system, which was introduced by the LiberalCountry Party Government. Prior to that the Chifley Labor Government had a rebate system which gave an across the board flat rate reduction in respect of a wife and in respect of dependent children, for example- an equal amount irrespective of the individual. But because of the pressures upon it the conservative LiberalCountry Party Government introduced a concessional system which benefits the rich to the detriment of the poor. A very good example would be the case of a man with a wife and 3 children. I know the honourable member for Fisher wants to leave now, but he has to hear the truth of things. A man with a wife and 3 children who had a taxable income of $4,000 a year would receive an actual rebate in tax of $208 whereas a man with a wife and 3 children who had a taxable income of $40,000 would receive an actual tax rebate of $696. That is $208 compared to $696. That was the system which was introduced by the previous Liberal-Country Party Government in 1950-1951. It was introduced as soon as the Menzies Government took office. It was a system deliberately designed to benefit those on high incomes so far as taxation rebates are concerned to the detriment of those on low incomes.

For this reason I am very pleased indeed to see that the Treasurer has introduced in this Bill what one could say is the beginning of a rebate system and the reintroduction of a rebate system which existed under the Chifley Labor Government. It means that there will be a trend now towards a flat rate of taxation rebates instead of the concessional deduction system which now applies and which has over the years operated to the detriment of the lower and middle income groups. I hope to see this legislation extended to provide for a rebate system for all deductions in the future, irrespective of income. I do not think it is just that my wife should be more valuable to me in actual taxation rebates than is the wife of a person on a taxable income of $4,000 or $5,000 per annum. It is not right, it is not just, and I hope that this is one thing which will be corrected in the future.

I must also congratulate the Government for introducing its scheme of tax deductibility for interest payments on home loans. This scheme has received very little publicity from the general Press. It is a scheme which will bring very considerable benefit to those people who are purchasing new homes, purchasing second hand homes or paying off the dwelling in which they live. It will mean that the average individual will save approximately 2Vi per cent in interest payments. In other words, interest payments will be reduced by 2lA per cent. As a result of a consequential regulation which is to be introduced and which I understand is at present being prepared, wage and salary earners will be able to claim this tax rebate on a weekly basis in the same way as they now claim tax rebates for dependants on a weekly basis. As I said, people will save up to 2 ‘/i per cent, and even more, on their interest payments. That is to say, if they are paying today 1 1 ‘A per cent in interest, that interest rate will be effectively reduced to as little as 9 per cent. This will go some way towards overcoming the hardship which has occurred as a result of increased interest rates. But, as I said before, it should be borne in mind that interest rates increased under the previous Government also.

I think it is important that we should know some of the provisions of this Bill in relation to the tax deductibility of interest payments on home loans. Where a loan is used to acquire vacant land, interest paid in respect of the loan will be first deductible in respect of the year of income in which a dwelling erected on the land in first used by the taxpayer as a sole or principal residence. Let me give an explanation of the extent to which interest payments can be claimed as a tax deduction. At a net income level of $4,000 or less in the year of income a taxpayer will be entitled to a deduction for the whole amount of housing loan interest payments. Where the level of income is greater than $4,000 per annum, the deduction to be allowed will be reduced by one per cent for each complete $100 of the excess. This means that 80 per cent of interest will be deductible at an income level of $6,000 per annum and 50 per cent at an income level of $9,000 per annum. No deduction will be allowable where the income level is $14,000 per annum or more. In other words, as was stated by the honourable member for Banks (Mr Martin), tax deductibility will be applied on the principle on which most of the reforms which this Government has introduced are applied, and that is on a needs principle. Those who have the greatest need will receive the greatest benefit.

The definition of ‘net income’ is as follows: The net income of the taxpayer will be combined with the net income of his or her spouse. Their combined net income will in effect be their total income less the expenses incurred in earning it, other than expenses of a private, domestic or capital nature. Payments received by way of child endowment or domiciliary nursing care benefits are to be ignored for purposes of the net income calculation. The net income of the average wage earner will, of course, be the amount of his wages less union dues.

There are some other aspects of this legislation which I think are very important indeed. For example, irrespective of the interest rate charged, there will be no limit to the amount of interest payments which can be claimed. Furthermore, there will be no restriction in regard to the marital status of the claimant. For example, a bachelor or a spinster living in his or her own home will still be able to claim the rebate. Furthermore, interest payments on bridging finance will also be allowed as a tax deduction. It is quite reasonable these days that when many people buy a home they do not immediately obtain bank or building society finance. Consequently they go for bridging finance. Such people will be able to claim interest payments on that bridging finance.

I repeat that I believe that this proposal will certainly assist people in overcoming the increased payments they are required to make as a result of increases in interest rates. I think it is a pity that the whole system which we propose has not been given more publicity, because I find that a great many people do not even realise that it is proposed. Certainly they do not realise that as from 1 January they will be able to claim as a weekly tax deduction interest payments on home loans. In other words, just as some people get a rebate in respect of their wife, their children and other dependants, so will they be able to receive, as from 1 January, as a result of a consequential regulation to be introduced, tax rebates in respect of interest payments on home loans.

The Bill also proposes the removal of income tax in respect of interest paid on loans by credit unions. I think great credit must be given here to the honourable member for Banks for the very tenacious manner and for what I can only say was the almost stubborn manner in which he pressed the Government time and again- he did so in committees and even pressed the Treasurer himself- to bring about this very important reform in relation to credit unions. It will be a very considerable benefit to the credit unions. It is a reform which has been proposed for some years. The credit unions could not get anywhere with the previous Government. Submissions were made to the previous Government but no undertakings could be obtained. Yet the honourable member for Banks, with the assistance of a number of his colleagues, including myself and others, was able to obtain such an undertaking from this Government. It is another one of the election pledges given by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) during the 1972 Federal election campaign which has now been implemented.

As I said before, at least this Government is doing something in the area of exempting from estate duty a matrimonial home. The previous Government gave great undertakings in this regard but it did not achieve very much. The Government’s proposal will mean that a deduction of up to $35,000 will be allowed in the assessment of estate duty payable in respect of the estate of a deceased person where an interest in the matrimonial home passes to the surviving spouse. Furthermore, the exemption will cut out in respect of a home valued at $85,000 or more. In regard to any home valued at more than $35,000, the maximum deduction of $35,000 is reduced by $7 for every $10 by which the gross value of the interest included in the estate exceeds $35,000. 1 think this will be of some considerable benefit to that vast majority of Australian people who do leave their matrimonial home to their surviving spouse.

For these reasons- I think they are very good reasons- I support the Bill which is before the House. I believe that the amendment has been moved by the Opposition in another effort to try to obtain some element of political advantage. It is opportunistic in the extreme because it touches on issues which the previous Government was not prepared to tackle. Our Government is prepared to tackle these things. We are trying to do something in the interest of the vast majority of the people of Australia, that is, the lower and middle income groups. For these reasons I hope that these reforms will be recognised as very important and a further implementation of the policies announced by the Prime Minister during the 1972 and 1974 election campaigns. For these reasons also, I very strongly support the Bill.

Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

-The House is engaged in a debate on several Bills. They are the Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 2) 1974, the Income Tax (Bearer Debentures) Bill 1974, the Income Tax (International Agreements) Bill 1 974 and the Estate Duty Assessment Bill 1 974. 1 think it is a great pity that the House has to debate these Bills in this way. It was the desire of the Opposition that they be debated separately. But in order to be able to have 5 speakers from the Opposition side it was necessary to agree to the Government’s proposal that the Bills be debated in a cognate debate. As I say, I think this is a pity because these Bills are clearly dealing with very different matters.

The first Bill contains a great list of virtually unconnected changes to the Income Tax Assessment Act. Clearly, the references to bearer debentures and double taxation agreements with other countries, let alone estate duty, which is death duty, are obviously unconnected matters. However, having said that, I want to address a few remarks to those matters. Firstly, I speak in respect of the Income Tax (Bearers Debentures) Bill. The Bill seeks approval to increase the. basic rate of tax payable by a company under section 126 of the Income Tax Assessment Act on interest paid on bearer debentures where the company does not disclose to the Commissioner of Taxation the names and addresses of the debenture holders. The principal Act declares that the rate of tax payable by a company on interest it has paid or credited on bearer debentures in cases when the holders are not disclosed. The company in turn may deduct from the interest payable to a debenture holder the tax it will be required to pay on that interest.

The holders of debentures can avoid any deduction of the tax under these provisions from the interest payable to him by the company by simply disclosing their names and addresses when collecting the interest. The provisions of the income tax law which provide for tax to be payable in these circumstances were designed to provide an incentive for taxpayers to furnish their names and addresses so that the receipt of interest could be checked into their income tax returns by the Taxation Office. Alternatively a withholding of tax would be suffered at the source. Accordingly, it is essential that a high rate of tax be fixed in order to prevent evasion. The present rate of tax on such interest, other than interest paid abroad where the rate is equal to the general interest withholding tax rate, is the average rate applicable to the taxable income derived by an individual in receipt of an income of $16,786. The rate has been expressed in this form since 1946 when the rate was that applicable to an income of £8,393, consisting of property income. The rate at that time was set at a high level in order to prevent evasion. The rate was approximately 15/- in the f 1 and as such was approximately equal to the maximum rate of tax on property income.

As rates of tax have fallen over the years since 1946 the rate of tax payable under these provisions has fallen to what could no longer be regarded as a deterrent to evasion. At the rates of tax proposed for 1974-75 it would have been less than 39 per cent, which is considerably below the normal company tax rate and less than the marginal rate of tax payable by an individual in receipt of a taxable income in excess of $7,000. Taxation statistics for recent years show that, apart from the most recent year, no assessments have been raised under these provisions. In the latest year for which statistics are available there was one such assessment and it is possible that if the rate were left at its present level there would be an incentive for more holders of bearer debentures not to disclose their names, to accept this tax rather than disclose the interest in their returns, and pay a higher tax. The proposed rate of 55 per cent will be the same as that applicable under the other anti-avoidance provisions- for example, section 99a of the Income Tax Assessment Act. The Opposition supports that Bill.

The principal purpose of the Income Tax (International Agreements) Bill is to amend the Income Tax (International Agreements) Act as a result of the comprehensive double taxation agreement with the Federal Republic of Germany. The agreement was signed by the former Government in November 1972. The other amendments proposed are consequential to associated legislation. The first relates to the surcharge on property income contained in the Income Tax Bill, which has just been passed, and the second relates to the rebate for low income taxpayers with families as proposed in the Income Tax Assessment Bill. The Opposition supports that Bill. The amendment arising from the German agreement is along the lines of the present arrangements that Australia has with other countries. However, there is a particular area which requires a different approach. Article 10 of the agreement provides for a limit of 1 5 per cent on the amount of withholding tax which can be imposed by either of the countries on dividends which have a source in that particular country. Australia is required to reduce its withholding tax on dividends from the general rate of 30 per cent to 15 per cent under the agreement and Germany is required to reduce its rate from the general rate, 27.75 per cent, to 15 per cent. However, the requirement for different treatment in this arrangement arises because of the way in which the Federal Republic of Germany taxes company profits.

Under German law company tax on distributed profits is at a much lower rate than the tax on undistributed profits. The German Government levies a rate of 24.55 per cent on distributed profits and 52.53 per cent on undistributed profits. This system would be open to exploitation if other provisions were not inserted in the agreement. To overcome this problem a special provision has been incorporated in the agreement. As a consequence, the agreement provides that, in the cases where the Australian recipient company has a substantial holding in the company paying the dividend- an interest of 25 per cent or more- the Federal Republic is entitled to charge dividend withholding tax at a rate of 25.75 per cent. The overall effect is that the total tax- distributed profits tax plus withholding tax- amounts to a rate of 43.98 per cent. In the converse situation, total Australian tax of 55.4 per cent is levied. Although the agreement is effective from the 1971-72 income year the recent company tax rate reduction will decrease the variation between the total taxation of both countries. In the case of Germany the agreement will be retrospective to the 197 1 calendar year.

I have mentioned already that the Opposition supports those Bills. In respect of the Estate Duty Assessment Bill, I move as an amendment on behalf of the Opposition:

That all words after ‘that’ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: ‘While not declining to give the Bill a second reading the House is of the opinion that the provisions of the Bill’ -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Order! The honourable member for Curtin should not move his amendment until the second Bill, which is the Estate Duty Assessment Bill, is called on. Although the House is debating the Bills together, that Bill has not been called on.

Mr GARLAND:

-I take your advice on that, Mr Deputy Speaker. I shall take this opportunity to give notice of my intention to move my amendment. I shall put the remaining terms of my motion on the record so that it may be discussed:

While not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that the provisions of the Bill do not provide adequate relief to the taxation of deceased estates in a period of unprecedented inflation.

I believe that the proposed amendment is rather self-explanatory. We believe the Government’s proposals in respect of estate duty do not meet the present situation. We are living in a period of extremely high inflation. The exemption provisions of the Bill are insufficient and the Opposition has some reservations about the proposal to make special provision for a matrimonial home which is left to a spouse, simply on the ground that it is wrong to single out a particular type of asset. What ought to be proposed is a general exemption to the surviving spouse.

We will in the future certainly outline our policy in this area. It refers to all categories of beneficiaries and set sums that we believe are more in keeping with the present position. But certainly, with inflation racing at present at perhaps 20 per cent per annum, when exemptions are set they need in all fairness to be revised quickly. This Bill is before the House now. The present situation is not really provided for, certainly not adequately. The legislation, after it is enacted, will probably take a long while to come back to this place for amendment. I place on record our views that it is inadequate in the respect I have mentioned and at the appropriate time I shall move the foreshadowed amendment on behalf of the Opposition.

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

-The Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 2) seeks to amend the amount of tax payable by individuals and companies for the current year. We find in this measure the true intention of the Labor Government to manipulate and to play the taxpayer like a puppet of the dogma and philosophy of the deeply committed socialist wing of the Australian Labor Party. The Treasurer (Mr Crean), speaking earlier, justified this by saying that the changes were starting at the bottom. But he failed to acknowledge, as one would have expected, the work now being done by the Asprey Committee and the clear undertaking of the Government to receive a report from that Committee, to consider it and then to undertake major changes in the taxing structure. For that reason I believe that we are justified in taking the view that the Government has acted from a purely political point of view, with a political motive, in implementing these changes.

The Government has certainly seized upon the introduction of the mini-Budget a few weeks ago to cut total taxation fairly considerably. Now, of course, it is using this measure as a means of trying to perpetrate upon the public what might best be described as a Santa Claus approach.

The Government is giving to the low and middle income earner a substantial benefit. I well recall in the weeks that led up to this legislation, following the Budget, the often expressed term ‘the middle income earner’ to whom relief would be given. Now we see in the full light of day the way in which the Government acts in this matter. It certainly leaves one with a real lack of confidence in the administration of the treasury bench by the present Government.

The relief that is envisaged is a pretty hollow proposition. It is nothing less than series of inconsistencies in which we find the taxation and income increments, resulting from wage determinations or other changes in the wage structure, being totally unrelated. I believe that in the present situation, with an inflation rate in excess of 20 per cent per annum, a totally different approach is justified. Certainly the Government should have waited for the report of the Asprey Committee if it were to make the kind of changes that this legislation envisages. This legislation is nothing more than a manoeuvre or a charade, in fact a veneer, to cover up the real deficiencies of the Government’s handling of the economy.

To offer to the low and so-called middle income earner these benefits as some kind of sop against the inflation pressures is certainly misleading. It becomes all the more misleading when one looks at what it does in relation to the relative considerations of the total tax scales. In the debates on tax scales that have taken place in this House over the past four or five years certainly weighty comments have been made about the need for a review and a change. But there has been a recognition of the intricacy of the considerations that must be taken into account. The Government has failed to do that. I believe it is fair to say that in reality what is happening is the first step by the Government in a deep, abiding and motivated intention, based completely on a socialist philosophy, to bring about the implementation of the threat that has been often expressed in the past 2 years to redistribute wealth in Australia.

The Treasurer said today that in the course of doing this the Government chose to start at the bottom. This presupposes that some sections of the community are getting benefits to which they should not be entitled. It presupposes that there is some inconsistency in the present scale. I question that very much indeed. I believe that if a benefit is to be given to the very low income earner it is proper so to do, but not to do it in a manner, as this legislation proposes, which gives the major benefit to certain sections tapering off to no benefit at all to others in the community whose responsibilities are just as great. Their responsibilities in terms of their day-to-day care of the family and of the home and their attitudes to a standard of life style certainly do not, or should not, place them in the category in which they should be regarded as being able to carry the load. I just express this as a view. Really it is the responsibility of the Government and of the Parliament to consider in depth and in a proper manner the Asprey Committee report when it is submitted. Then these kinds of intricate details can be properly and effectively debated and action taken. Let us not have a continuation of the Government’s socialist approach in every matter that comes before this House. Let us make it clear to the public outside, to the community, that really what we are getting today is an overdose of politics and too little consistency in terms of acknowledgement of the economy and what is required to handle the economy.

I believe that the legislation we are now dealing with is pointing in the wrong direction, is based on the wrong premise, and is certainly on the wrong track in its bid to get rolling the idea of redistributing wealth. This legislation is rushed in on top of earlier proposals that flowed from the Budget and insufficient consideration has been given to it beyond that political content to which I have already referred. It seems that even Caucus is not happy. We well recall public statements by the chairman of a Caucus committee referring to a proposal for a super tax on certain incomes. That change was announced. I do not find it being carried through legislatively in the proposals now before the House. Something went wrong along the way. Caucus reversed some decision, which it had made at the start of the week, by the time the end of the week was reached, the next week or whenever it was.

The property surcharge tax continues. We still have the claim being made today in this House that income earned in one way should suffer a certain imposition from which income earned in another way is free. If that is not the intrusion of a lopsided approach and an injustice, I want to know what is justice in this country. When we look at some of the other propositions, we find concessions being granted at the same time as other concessions that have operated for a long period are being removed. Credit unions are to be given some benefits. I am not opposed to those in the slightest. Despite what has been said from the other side of the House today, I am one who has been in favour of giving proper respect to credit unions and giving them concessions of the kind proposed. But I deprecate the attitude of the Government in respect of another section of the community, that is, those who participate in life assurance. We find that concessions are to be taken away from this area without any proven evidence that there are grounds so to do. Long standing concessions that have applied in this area are being eroded. Many of the aged people in the community who have paid into life assurance over the years, depending on bonus payments to carry them through at a level relative to what has applied for many years, now find those bonuses falling. They are falling at a time of inflation.

What crazy management to have this kind of action in the face of rampant inflation. In other words, those who thought that they had protection for their families by providing certain life insurance with established bonuses flowing to those policies in response to certain policy commitments, now in the twilight of their lives find that these benefits are being rapidly eroded not only by inflation but also by the actions of this Government which is taking away bonus benefits. I really believe that there will be a day of reckoning concerning this attitude which again involves one law for one section of the community and another law for another section of the community. Obviously these actions are supposed to accord with the philosophy of redistributing wealth in this country. But when one looks at what these proposals have done to the small people and to the honest Australians who have tried to protect their families into the future, one finds that these actions go very much beyond the philosophy that I have just mentioned. They cut at the grass roots of the kind of community and life style that we want to preserve in this country.

We find throughout the 4 measures that are now before the House a similar attitude. I turn to the matter of the concession to be provided for interest on home loans. This has come after 2 years. The promise was made in 1972 that the home owner would receive concessions in the form of a subsidy on interest. That proposal fell to the ground. Then came another proposition that was to be implemented in a matter of months. It also fell to the ground. Finally we had this proposition for a tax concession, again for the low and middle income earners. It can do nothing to assist housing in this country. It will contribute nothing to the aspiration that every person who possibly can should own his own home and build a family unit in it. It will serve as no real encouragement for young people as, if honourable members look at the scale or at the benefit, they will see that it is quite ridiculous.

It is ludicrous when studied against the old scheme of a housing grant on the basis of a homes savings account which was introduced by the Liberal-Country Party Government in 1964. On such a comparison, this proposal has a very hollow ring about it indeed. Yet, it was described as a winner. In fact, it captured the headlines as a proposition not so long ago. It is strange that in reality we find that the Government has had great difficulty first of all in producing this scheme and then, having produced one, to convince people that it really has very much to it. When we think of it in terms of what the administrative costs will be to get this scheme going and then to get the benefit to the average person in the community, it is a joke. The paper work alone will sap a very substantial percentage of the benefit for the nation.

These kinds of grandiose schemes are all very fine when they are dredged up in the mind of a pseudo-economist who has not taken the proposal through to a practical test and who has not looked at it from the point of view of how it will apply. Then, when it is carried out we find that the bureaucrats are really working overtime to make the proposition a goer. This one is not a goer. The test will come when the average Australian sees what this scheme .does for his pay packet. He will be disappointed and very much disillusioned at the frightfully small advantage. This will be especially the case in respect of those who may be looking forward to some kind of benefit far exceeding what they will receive.

I conclude by referring to estate duty and the changes which are envisaged in this legislation in that respect. Certainly the increase in the base value of the matrimonial home, to name one area of change, is timely. Taking inflation into account, I assert that this increase just could not have been put off at all if we were to prevent people getting into very grave difficulties in the area of estate duty.

I support the amendment foreshadowed by the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland). Whilst we see an attempt being made to provide relief in cases of hardship, I believe that we must know more about what is proposed. I commend the proposition that there should be a board of review established and that that board should have the authority to release persons from liability to pay estate duty either in whole or in pan if it is found that hardship exists. Certainly in the metropolitan area we have today circumstances where the value of ordinary homes has risen to a point where the amounts involved in duty can be quite considerable. Valuations rising to $75,000, $100,000 and more for an ordinary home are now occurring. So, an upper limit of $35,000 as the base concession is still very limited indeed. There will be many instances undoubtedly in which we will find hardship in this respect unless some means of providing relief are introduced.

The criteria and the system under which the proposed board will operate need to be spelt out. The same circumstances are to be found in relation to rural properties. I point out that 9 months ago a valuation of land and stock in rural areas could have produced an average value for a property exceeding several hundred thousand dollars. In some cases today those figures are still being used for the purpose of assessing death duties. No mechanism is available to deal effectively with the hardship which will flow from that situation. Even now, property values still remain high but the income required to pay duty is just impossible from the point of view of what the asset can return for the beneficiary. Accordingly, a great deal of consideration needs to be given to this in an effective way, if we are to save the viability of country properties and if we are to protect those who are beneficiaries within the family circle and who deserve to be protected from bankruptcy, which will be inescapable unless effective action is taken. For those reasons I strongly support the 2 amendments that have been proposed in relation to the 4 measures before the House.

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

-The Bills now before the House demonstrate quite clearly that the Government has no clearly enunciated philosophy for income tax or for other taxes. What is urgently needed is a precise and detailed statement as to this country’s and this Government’s philosophical approach to taxation. But the 3 Budgets from which the legislation now before this House arises, when linked with the Budget of 12 months ago, demonstrate a hotch-potch approach to taxation. As a result, the average taxpayer who is bound to fill out a tax return has no idea as to the burden that he is likely to bear, nor can he forecast the approach that the Government is likely to take in the future.

First, a tax system is used to collect revenue to run the Government. Secondly, a tax system is also used to redistribute incomes. Thirdly, a tax system can be used as an important tool in economic management. With regard to the aspect of a tax system used to redistribute income, we need a clear definition of what the Government’s purpose is. The manner in which the Government has approached this tax legislation gives no guide to its attitude. It demonstrates a piecemeal approach where in some instances people are wrongly discriminated against and in others there is discrimination in their favour. In the meantime, the average taxpayer is the one who suffers.

One of the means used in a tax system to redistribute incomes is that where an effort is made to redistribute vertically between those on a high income and those on low incomes. I suppose the normal way in which this is done is by a progressive rate scale. But in Australia we have a progressive rate scale which has been varied twice this year and there is no indication as to how it will be varied in the future. So the man today on average weekly earnings can calculate the proportion of his income that is taken in tax, but he does not know what proportion of his income will be taken next year, and he should know. The fact that there is a progressive rate scale fixed in money terms unrelated to changing levels of income in terms of average weekly earnings means that the Government has a vested interest in inflation. In a quite irresponsible way, a government can encourage inflationary pressures to develop. As a consequence of that it knows that the proportion of incomes that come into its hands as a result of an increased tax take is greater than if it adjusts the scale strictly in accordance with the changing general level of incomes.

I think there is an urgent need to fix the rate scale so that people at various levels of incomethose who have an expectation of income at 100 per cent of average weekly earnings, those with an expectation of 75 per cent of average weekly earnings and those in the lower income brackets -can be sure that the amount of their income taken by the Government maintains a fixed proportion to their income. The other benefits that would flow from such a scheme where the rate scale was in some way index related, would be that a government could not irresponsibly expand its expenditure without being required by Parliament, by the people, to come into the Parliament and justify that expenditure. How often when we look at the relationship between the Australian Government and State governments do we hear the plea that those who spend the money should raise the money? The same approach should be made in relation to the rate scale as a whole. The Government, if it wants to take a higher proportion of incomes into the Government sector should be required to justify the expenditure and not take a higher proportion of every man’s pay packet by stealth. That is what happens when there is the sort of rate scale that is being introduced in the legislation now under discussion, there is no mechanism for that rate scale to be adjusted in accordance with the rise in the general level of money incomes.

I have referred to the fact that a taxation system aims at bringing about a vertical redistribution between those who have a capacity to earn high incomes and whose capacity is less. But it is equally important that the tax system be equitable in the manner in which it brings about a horizontal redistribution. It is necessary that a tax system should look at the position of 2 taxpayers on the same income and ask whether in the light of their differing responsibilities, their tax burdens should be the same. Should the tax burden on a single man be the same as that imposed upon a man with a dependent wife and 2 young children? If the burden should be different, is the difference now allowed by the system adequate sufficiently to provide the taxpayer who has dependants with a reduced burden that will enable him to fulfil adequately his added responsibilities.

It is important to recognise that the question of horizontal equity should be studied at every income level. It would appear from the way in which this Government approaches the question that it has the belief that once a person ‘s income reaches a certain level, irrespective of his responsibilities, he should pay the same tax as the man with the same income but with far fewer responsibilities. This of course involves also an examination of the equity of the tax system insofar as it affects not only a taxpayer but also a tax paying family unit. I reject out of hand the suggestion that there should be an aggregation of family incomes and the imposition of taxation on the aggregate income. I urge that consideration be given to taxation of the family incomes upon the basis of a notional partnership between husband and wife. The family man who is earning, say, $ 10,000 a year should not be as grossly disadvantaged as he is today when his family is compared with a family earning 2 incomes- say $6,000 a year by one person and $4,000 by the other.

There are many such families where the contribution in time at work taken on a family basis is not different. The male breadwinner can have the same sort of job in each family, but one man may take all the overtime he can get and may be away from his family for several additional hours. He gets a higher income of say $ 10,000 a year. Another man with similar skills doing similar work could say: ‘No, I will not take any overtime. I will go home and look after my family whilst my wife takes a job’. She could work as many hours as those worked by the first man in overtime. In other words the families could be in like circumstances yet the tax burden borne by those 2 families could vary significantly, to the extent that one family would be discriminated against.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– It is penalised. .

Mr WILSON:

– Yes. As my colleague says, it is a scheme of penalties which imposes a harsh burden on the family which has a strong desire that the mother should stay home to look after young children. One would think, in the light of such evidence that is available, that the incentives should be directed to encouraging mothers of young children to be at home, certainly while their children are in the pre-school age group. This Government has introduced a hotch-potch of methods whereby it seeks to achieve some equity to take account of the differing responsibilities of families. We find that there are concessions which are allowed under which a taxpayer is entitled to deduct from income the amount of a special expenditure, for example, rates paid on his house. The benefit to him is then related to the marginal rate of tax which he pays. Some concessions are available to all; other concessions are limited by the income level to only a few taxpayers. Then there are rebates where the tax bill is worked out and an amount is deducted because of a person’s particular responsibility. In some instances the rebate is available to all; in others it is available only to some, according to income level.

We find in this legislation, when we look at the concession to be made available to those with dependants, a combination of a rebate and a concession. Let us look at each of these. Let us turn first to the concessions available to all. There are rates and taxes with a ceiling limit of $300 and a limit in respect of rates payable only on the house in which the taxpayer is residing. There is an education allowance, which is being drastically cut in the Budget, imposing heavy burdens on all taxpayers who have school-going children, no matter to which school they go. There are deductions for insurance, superannuation payments and gifts to charities, which come within the concession area. I touch briefly on concessional deductions in respect of gifts to charities. It is appallling that the Government continues to talk about withdrawing the tax deductibility of donations to school building funds, as well as gifts to charities. Instead of encouraging people to be independent the Government is trying to turn Australians into submissive hangers-on who will be forced to turn to big brother for all their needs.

Not only would the withdrawal of these taxation concessions be a body blow to the independent school system; it would also be a device to take us one step further towards total State control over many aspects of our lives, even down to the practical expression of human concern of one person for another. Apparently the Government wants to kill off community based charities and replace them with a bureaucratic maze of government departments. These departments will be supposed to deliver the same kind of service as charities. The difference will be that the method of delivery will involve colossal waste of resources and, at the same time, eliminate the heart and soul that motivate charity organisations. Over the years many of these bodies have become institutions with which Australians have become closely identified in a personal and compassionate way. This has immeasurably enriched the community. They have met community needs in a direct response to community concern and they have been sustained by community concern in a way in which no government department could be sustained. Anyone who has given anything to a charity and anyone who has ever benefited from the work of these organisations must continue in their public protest at the possibility that tax deductibility for gifts to these organisations could be removed. The right of people to express their concern as to the way in which charities could be assisted is an important right and to take away that right is to substitute a less sensitive system to meet the needs of the community.

It is apparent in the legislation we are now debating that in many instances the Government seeks to phase out a rebate or a concession. It wants to limit the availability of that rebate to people whose income is below a certain level notwithstanding the fact that people whose income is higher have special responsibilities of a like kind and notwithstanding the fact that those people with higher incomes are already paying substantial amounts in tax. That tax is calculated on very high average rates of taxation. Furthermore, from every additional $1 that those people on medium and higher incomes are earning a high proportion is being ripped off in tax. Apparently there is no recognition in the middle and higher income levels of the differing responsibilities of persons with the same income.

In the remaining moments at my disposal I want to touch in more detail on the vicious reduction that has been made in the tax concession in respect of education expenses. The amount allowable has been reduced at a time when it should have been increased. If these concessional deductions are to have any continuing meaning their value or amount in money terms should be increased regularly so that their real value is maintained. No one can suggest that the cost of educating a child at any school has declined since this Government came to office. I think the parents of every school child are finding more and more that the expenses of educating their children are rising, for even though we have a socalled free education system there are still many items of expenditure which people are required to pay in respect of the education of their children. It is no excuse to say that people are getting more spent on education in other ways.

On other platforms spokesmen for the Government will claim that they have spent so much more in money terms, not real terms, on education, but by sleight of hand, by describing amounts that were formerly paid to the States as general grants and as education grants, they boost their figures. This is accountancy trickery. So, here, with the individual taxpayer the same sleight of hand is being used. The reduction in the education concession is justified on the basis that more is being spent on education in other spheres. If that is so, why does the Government not look at its education program as a whole and reduce what it claims it is spending in education by giving to the taxpayers the credit for the withdrawal of this tax concession? The Government ‘s attitude to the tax deductibility of education expenses is clear. Why did it not use the same approach here as it has used in respect of the dependants’ allowance? Why did it not allow to every parent who has a child at school a minimum deduction of 40 per cent of the $400 or such lesser amount spent on education- that is, in respect of $400 spent on education a rebate of $160? Why did the Government adopt that approach in respect of the concessional deductions for dependants and another approach in respect of this deduction? We need to know its philosophy in regard to the education concession and its attitude to tax concessions and rebates as a whole.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

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

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 16- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I refer to clause 1 7, which reads in part:

After section 82k of the Principal Act the following Subdivision is added at the end of Division 3 of Part 111: ‘Subdivision C- Interest in respect of Housing Loans

‘82kc. ( 1 ) Where the net income of a taxpayer in respect of a year of income exceeds $4,000, the amount of the deduction otherwise allowable to the taxpayer under section 82KB in respect of that year of income shall be reduced by one per centum of that last-mentioned amount for each $100 by which that net income of the taxpayer exceeds $4,000.

I move:

The amendment has the simple aim of moving the base amount on which the 100 per cent tax deductibility applies from $4,000 to $6,000. I have moved this amendment for a very simple reason. I believe that it is nonsense and foolish in the extreme to say today that a person who obtains a loan for a house and who has a net income of $78 a week will have all the interest payments available as a tax deduction. The amount of $78 a week as a net income would not enable anyone, certainly not a person who has any responsibilities, to get a loan from any institution. In fact it is far below the level which is supposed to apply in respect of housing commission loans.

This proposal was first put forward in November 1972. It was put forward as a panic measure because the Australian Labor Party at that time had been denied its. own housing scheme proposal. Its 2 per cent deduction housing scheme was shown to be a fraud and nonsense; so it dreamed up this proposal within weeks of the 1972 election. At that stage the Labor Party said that it would apply to everybody on a net income or an actual income- the words have been varied- of between $4,000 and $14,000. But since November 1972 costs have moved along a great deal. A $4,000 net income at that time must be equivalent to something like a $5,500 to $6,000 net income today, especially in relation to housing costs and especially in relation to the ability to meet a reasonable loan from a lending institution, whether that institution be a bank, a building society or even a housing commission. An income of $78 a week would not allow any person to meet a substantial mortgage payment. So to leave the base amount at $4,000 is to play a confidence trick on those people who want loans for housing.

There are other aspects of the scheme which I hope to mention in one or two moments, but that is by far the most important. We know that the scheme is regressive in many other respects. We know that the scheme penalises those people who want to save for a home. We know that it penalises those people who seek to obtain a modest loan to build a modest home compared with those who want to obtain a large loan to build a castle. The Government is saying: ‘We will return to you less dollars if you have a modest loan than if you have the largest loan possible ‘. It is for that reason that this is perhaps the most obviously regressive part of the taxation home mortgage deductibility scheme. The sum of $4,000 is completely inappropriate. I know that the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay) is vitally interested in this aspect. I know also that the Treasurer (Mr Crean) has a sense of social justice about these matters.

I put it to the Treasurer that the $4,000 means nothing. I put to him the example of a family comprised of a man, his wife and perhaps 2 children which has a net income of $4,000. Does the Government say to that family: ‘We are very generous with our taxation deductibility scheme. If you go to a bank and obtain a loan all the interest that you, on $78 a week or so, pay on that house we will give back to you as a tax deduction’? In fact $4,000 is either at or just below the minimum weekly wage at the moment. So to pitch a scheme which is designed to assist people paying off mortgages by making the minimum amount equivalent to the minimum wage is to speak rubbish and nonsense. I believe that the Government is effectively deluding many people in this respect. I have indicated that I will speak to this amendment for only four or five miunutes. I know that the honourable member for Bonython (Mr Nicholls) always appreciates it if I keep my word in this respect. I shall not say any more, but I hope that the Treasurer will respond and will consider very carefully whether the figure of $4,000 has any relevance to November 1974.

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– I indicate briefly that the Government cannot at this stage accept this amendment. I think it ought to be appreciated that, however inadequate this system may be thought to be by the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns), the Government of which he was a member did nothing in this direction. If my memory serves me correctly it poured a lot of cold water on this proposition during the 1972 election campaign. It is part of an election promise. It is being introduced in the terms in which the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) announced it to the public. I know that people in the Caucus of my own Party have put forward much the same kind of argument, that is, that the proposed amount of $4,000 in now inadequate. I gave them the assurance that when we were considering amending the income tax provisions for the next financial year these sorts of conditions would be borne in mind.

I simply say, therefore, that at least we are getting this scheme onto the statute book. It is going to cost something of the order $ 130m. We have been subjected to all sorts of criticism about high expenditure, high taxation and so on. I have not been able to cost the proposal advanced by the honourable member for Lilley, but I suggest that it would involve an expenditure considerably above the $ 130m that will be foregone by allowing this concession. I accept his view that inflation does make a change to the threshold of this matter. That will be borne in mind when the Government is considering this matter in the course of next year’s tax proposals. While inflation exists as it is at present- I get very few bright suggestions as. to how to bring it down; I get plenty of people diagnosing it but none offering any solutions as to its removal- I believe that we have to get used to changing the taxation rate schedules annually including the kinds of concessions involved in the tax system. I simply give the honourable member the assurance that this matter will be looked at. My own Party has asked that I do it. I have promised that I will. Meanwhile I want to get this measure at least written in the statute book. Therefore I cannot support the amendment at this stage.

Mr McLEAY:
Boothby

-Mr Chairman, I too have given an undertaking to the Government Whip that I will spend only two or three minutes on clause 17 which deals with deductions for interest paid on home loans. Simply, Sir, 1 want to place on record some of the history of this matter and the views of the Opposition. I might at the outset very briefly say that the plan proposed in this legislation was initially put up both to the Labor Party and to ourselves two or three years ago by the co-operative permanent building societies. The Labor Party, in its wisdom, adopted the plan in an election platform and we did not. I would like to place on record some of the reasons why we did not.

We believe that the legislation is discriminatory. Firstly, it discriminates against those who pay rent in favour of those who already own a home. We find that this principle is very general throughout the housing and non-housing policies of the Government. People who pay rent have very few advantages whatsoever. For example, people who pay rent cannot claim rates as a taxation deduction. We believe that this scheme discriminates very seriously against people who do not own a home. Usually such a person pays rent.

Secondly, we believe that it discriminates against those who own a home, who pay interest on mortgage repayments but who pay very little or no income tax. One example is a pensioner. Others are people receiving superannuation payments or maybe those people who the Government apparently describes as capitalists who are living on unearned income.

Thirdly, we believe that the legislation discriminates against those who are nearing the end of their mortgage obligations and as a result have lesser amounts of money to pay off their loans. In fact, we believe that this scheme- and this is why we discarded it- actually discourages thrift and incentive for a person to gain equity in his own home and quickly pay off a mortgage. To that extent the scheme positively encourages people to borrow more and live on the nevernever. We believe also that the scheme is regressive. The tax savings proposed under the legislation are higher for people on higher incomes who may be in a position to negotiate larger mortgages and pay higher rates of interest than persons on lower incomes. To this extent the scheme also positively discourages thrift. Take the example of 3 people receiving annual incomes of, say, $2,000, $4,000 and $5,000, each making identical interest payments of, say, $ 1 ,200 a year. The amount of tax that they would save respectively, using last year’s income tax scale, would be just over $168, $292 and $330. So we believe that for this reason the scheme is undesirable.

We can also see some real problems- and I fancy that the Treasurer (Mr Crean) can, too- in making this scheme work. There is the problem of salary fluctuations. Salaries can fluctuate throughout the year especially in these days of inflation and increasing salaries. There is the problem in the changing entitlement that will be involved. There is the problem of aggregating family incomes. There is the problem for employers, most of whom already have enormous extra duties to perform, maintaining staff to handle the paperwork which has been forced upon them by legislation of various governments. I cite the example of tax stamps and group certifictes which come under the responsibility of the Treasury. I think that it is an imposition on employers to be expected to assist in this matter.

Also I see a problem with the banks. I refer to people who are using an overdraft to pay off a house. How will a bank separate the amount of interest applicable to a house and the amount applicable to some other item that may have been purchased by way of an overdraft? Perhaps the Treasurer in the time left to us will explain some of these things. Finally, will the Treasurer explain why it is that, for example, person A, who is buying a home which is an appreciating asset, can take home more pay than person B, who is paying rent, and who is disadvantaged all the way down the line, although both men perform the same amount and son of work, receive the same salary and have the same sized family?

It is our view that the Government has no housing policy at all. All that it has is a patchwork quilt. The Government will make the position worse by abolishing the Home Savings Grant which will really mean that people who do not own a home and have to pay rent will have no incentive whatsoever left to them to acquire a deposit to buy a house. When we are re-elected to government we will re-introduce the Home Savings Grant Scheme. We will clean it up and update it. We will give particular consideration to people who pay rent because there will be more and more people in the community paying rent if they are lucky enough to be able to secure accommodation. As a passing reference to this issue I point out that because of the regressive tax imposed on unearned income fewer people will invest in flat development and flats will become harder and harder to get. If one happens to get hold of a flat the rent will become higher and higher.

There has been a housing shortfall already this year of over 50,000. By this time next year the shortfall for the 12-month period will be well over 100,000. So without going into any more issues which I would like to introduce and test your patience, Mr Chairman, let me say, given the reasons for the Opposition not adopting the scheme, that we are not opposing the amendment, as the Treasurer knows, because this proposal is one of the few things on which the Labor Party can truly claim to have a mandate.

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Amendment negatived.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I shall continue to abide by the undertaking which I have given to the Government Whip. I move:

The reference to the year 1 974 of course applies in more legal terms to the income year 1974-75. What is simply being proposed here- and the Treasurer will recognise it immediately- is that a form of indexation be applied to the -

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

-Order! Could I be clear on the amendment? The copy which I have gives the year as 1975. The amendment just moved and read by the honourable member gives the year as 1974.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I am referring to the 1 974-75 year of income. The amendment is quite simple. It proposes a form of indexation in respect of the spread of incomes for which tax deductibility will apply for interest paid on a housing loan. Indexation is one of the very important matters that has to be considered in times of inflation, and inflation of costs certainly applies in respect of homes. It would be foolish to put aside the proposition that this measure is in many ways a policy of penalties. I believe that there are at least five serious significant penalties in the whole proposition. The penalties apply to people who want to build modest homes and they apply to people who are on lower incomes as compared with those who are on higher incomes. The penalties certainly apply to people who try to obtain loans at low interest rates, as compared with loans at high interest rates and there are a number of other penalties. I mention one further penalty that is important. Consider the case of a family unit in which the income is to be calculated for the purpose of tax deductibility and the income of the one breadwinner is very low-in the vicinity of $4,000 or $4,500. There may be two or three or four children in that family. To get the maximum benefit from this scheme at that income level the man ought to send his wife out to work, because if he does he will get more money returned to him. I will not go into the precise figures that are appropriate, but I think the Treasurer (Mr Crean), who knows social security schemes based on taxation deductions, would accept that this would apply. He has often stated the principle of inequity applying to social security dependent upon tax deductions. It was that form of inequity which the Government thought it recognised when it changed the tax deductibility for education, but it does not work out that way in terms of education. So there is the case of the family unit with a low income of a little over $4,000 and a number of children. To get the best return the man should send his wife out to work. Consider another family unit with a number of children where the breadwinner is earning a higher income- $12,000 or so. If his wife goes out to work she will take him out of the scheme altogether, and it is this contradiction in principles, this contradiction in application of reasonable systems of social security or of a welfare scheme- and this is a welfare scheme- which makes this proposal very difficult. I suggest that this amendment, by applying the principle of indexation to net incomes of between $4,000 and $14,000 in respect of which the calculations are to be made, would obviate a lot of those difficulties.

A few moments ago the Treasurer made it clear, and I can see his point, that he is introducing a scheme here. He did not want to change the base amount of $4,000 in the first year but he said he would consider it in subsequent years. My amendment enables the House to be sure that this indexation of costs and incomes is to apply in subsequent years. I agree with what the Treasurer said in his response to my first amendment and I am asking him therefore to support this amendment, which merely states in other words the response that he gave to my first proposition. I think that he would immediately acknowledge that that is so.

Because there is one other speaker who might like to say something, I sum up by saying that this is a scheme of penalties; I believe they are very severe- penalties. The principle of indexation applied to the spread of incomes would eliminate quite a number of those penalties and would tend to eliminate some of those that I have enumerated in these few minutes.

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– Again, I am afraid I cannot accept the amendment at this time. I repeat the assurance that the matter will be looked at when income tax is being adjusted next year.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-Mr Speaker -

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Remainder of Bill- by leave- taken as a whole, and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 4078

INCOME TAX (BEARER DEBENTURES) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 14 November, on motion by Mr Crean:

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 Crean) read a third time.

page 4078

INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 14 November, on motion by Mr Crean:

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 Crean) read a third time.

page 4078

ESTATE DUTY ASSESSMENT BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 14 November, on motion by Mr Crean:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Amendment (by Mr Garland) proposed:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that the provisions of the Bill do not provide adequate relief to the taxation of deceased estates in a period of unprecedented inflation’.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes:

-Is the amendment seconded?

Mr McLeay:

– I second it.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Garland’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.

Original 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 Crean) read a third time.

Sitting suspended from 6.20 to 8 p.m.

page 4079

BANKS (HOUSING LOANS) BILL 1974

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

Second Reading

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP

-I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to appropriate an amount of $150m to be advanced to specified banks for lending for housing. The proposed scheme was announced by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) in his statement on the economy in the House on 12 November 1974. The need for this action arises because the reduction in activity in the home building industry was in danger of becoming more extensive than the Government would have wished. However, I emphasise that there is a need to keep the housing situation in perspective. I remind the House that dwelling completions in 1973-74 reached a record level of 152,700 and, at the end of the June quarter, the amount of work under construction was still at record levels. Indeed the capacity of the building industry then was undoubtedly still over-stretched. Furthermore, even at the end of the September quarter the number of dwellings under construction was still 28 per cent above the level at the end of September 1 972 and only slightly below the number at the end of September 1 973.

However, with both dwelling approvals and loan approvals declining sharply in the early months of 1974-75, the Government quickly moved to amend the Banking (Savings Banks) Regulations to enable the savings banks to channel a greater proportion of their funds into housing. At the same time, the banks were requested to increase the volume of finance approvals for housing. In short, the Government acted to increase the supply of housing finance as soon as it became apparent that there was a need to do so. 1 emphasise that, as a result of this action, savings bank loan approvals in the December quarter could be as much as 50 per cent higher than in the September quarter. Nevertheless, a temporary gap in the total flow of housing finance appeared likely. It is primarily to avoid such a gap that the Government has decided to provide additional finance through the savings banks in order to minimise any reduction in activity.

The specific allocations to individual savings banks are set out in the schedule to the BUI, which provides for advances to be made to savings banks in proportion to their shares of total depositors’ balances with savings banks at the end of September 1974. The allocations to the Rural Bank of New South Wales and the Bank of Queensland Ltd are based on their respective shares of total savings and trading bank deposits in the same month. These 2 banks are included in the scheme because of their traditional and important role in the provision of housing finance and the fact that, unlike the other trading banks, they do not have savings bank affiliates.

As the purpose of the proposed scheme is to provide an additional quick-acting stimulus to activity and employment in the home building industry, the funds will be made available to the banks on the condition that they are used by them to increase their rate of housing loan approvals over the period from the commencement of the Act to the end of March 1975, or such later date as the Treasurer approves, by the full extent of the additional funds available to them. The increased lending will be required to be additional to the higher rate of lending for housing which banks would have achieved from their resources, which I have already mentioned.

If a bank is judged to be unlikely to increase this higher rate of lending by the full amount of its share under the Bill, there is provision to enable its share or part thereof to be redistributed to other banks. Thus, clause 4 of the Bill provides that, where the Treasurer is satisfied that the amount initially allocated to a bank under the Bill will exceed the likely increase in the bank’s rate of housing loan approvals over the specified period, the Treasurer may reduce the allocation to the bank by the amount of the excess and then re-allocate the excess among some or all of the other banks.

The Government is determined to avoid a return to the earlier boom conditions in the home building industry which were beneficial neither to the community nor to the industry, and it is important that these funds be put to use at a time when activity in the industry is slackening. It takes a little time before increased finance is reflected in increased activity and, to facilitate speedy use of the funds, they are being lent by the Australian Government for on-lending by eligible banks on the same terms and conditions as apply to normal housing loans financed from the bank’s own sources. The banks have agreed to take the funds at a margin below their own lending rates which will have regard to administrative costs. Within this framework banks have been asked to give preference to loans which will result in new constructions, including extensions to homes, and the acquisition of houses not previously occupied. The banks will endeavour to use their allocation under the Act so as to achieve as high a proportion as practicable of their total housing loan approvals under this scheme to persons earning less than $ 1 50 a week, and will continue not to make any distinction between male and female applicants in the approval of housing loans.

The detailed arrangements relating to the timing of advances to banks, their repayment by banks, and the interest rates on the Government loans under this legislation are currently being discussed with the banks and will be contained in a written agreement with the banks on terms and conditions of the Government advances. However, the banks have indicated their acceptance in principle of the scheme on the general basis I have outlined. I express my appreciation for the banks co-operation in the discussions at short notice on this scheme.

The scheme covered in this Bill is additional to the measures already taken by the Government to increase substantially the volume of finance provided by the savings banks for housing and the action to increase the funds for welfare housing purposes. I am confident that the combined effect of these and other measures should be to restore activity in the home building industry to a satisfactory level. However, policy with regard to bank lending for housing will continue, as in the past, to be reassessed in the light of developing circumstances. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Ellicott) adjourned.

page 4080

COMPANIES (FOREIGN TAKE-OVERS) BILL 1974

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

Second Reading

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP

Thai the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to extend the operation of the Companies (Foreign Take-overs) Act 1972-1973 until 31 December 1975. The Companies (Foreign Take-overs) Act was introduced by the previous Government in 1972 as an interim measure pending the preparation of comprehensive legislation for the control of foreign takeovers. The Act was to have expired on 31 December 1973 but its operation was extended to 31 December 1974 to provide further time for the development of proposals for comprehensive legislation.

The Government has completed its review of the existing foreign takeovers legislation. However, incorporation of the Government’s proposals into new legislation is a complex task. In view of the very heavy demands imposed by the Government’s legislation program on available legal drafting services, it has not been possible to prepare the new legislation in time for introduction into the Parliament this year. It is therefore necessary to extend the operation of the existing foreign takeovers legislation for a further period. I have therefore introduced the Companies (Foreign Take-overs) Bill 1974 to extend that legislation for a further period of 12 months. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Ellicott) adjourned.

page 4081

LOAN BILL 1974

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

Second Reading

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP

This the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill is a machinery measure designed to meet legal and constitutional requirements associated with the Government’s financial transactions and accounting arrangements. Honourable members will be aware that the Australian Government’s transactions are recorded in 3 separate funds- the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the Loan Fund and the Trust Fund. Current estimates of the Government’s financial transactions indicate that expenditures in 1974-75 on items which would normally be charged to the Consolidated Revenue Fund would exceed receipts of that fund.

The normal procedure followed in the past to cover a prospective deficit in the Consolidated Revenue Fund has been to charge some expenditures which would normally be met from that Fund to another fund. This Bill is designed to permit such a procedure. The Bill authorises that borrowings be made for defence purposes so that, to the extent necessary, defence expenditures in the remaining months of the year can then be charged to the Loan Fund rather than the Consolidated Revenue Fund, thus avoiding a deficit in the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The Bill does not, I should stress, seek to authorise any additional expenditures; its purpose is simply to reallocate part of expenditures on defence services specified in the Appropriation Acts for 1974-75 from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the Loan Fund.

At this stage of the year, with a high proportion of the year’s receipts and expenditures still to be incurred, the size of the prospective Consolidated Revenue Fund deficit is particularly difficult to forecast. For this reason the Bill before the House does not specify a fixed amount of borrowings. Rather, it seeks authority to borrow amounts not in excess of what is considered necessary to avoid a deficit in the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Bills making a similar provision were passed by the Parliament in 1 968, 1 970 and 1971. To summarise, the proposed Act is a conventional machinery measure. It does not authorise any increase in expenditures. Its essential purpose is to re-allocate expenditures approved by Parliament between the Consolidated Revenue Fund and the Loan Fund. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Ellicott) adjourned.

page 4081

ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION (IMPACT OF PROPOSALS) BILL 1974

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

This Bill seeks to improve consideration of environmental factors in the Government’s decision making through use of the environmental impact statement technique and public inquiries. The Government’s proposals reflect its belief that, in the past, insufficient attention has been given to environmental considerations when decisions were being taken. The proposals we have developed should change this regrettable situation. This Bill also reflects the Australian Labor Party’s belief in open government and public participation in decision making.

The Bill will effect many facets of the Australian Government’s activities. Its operation will extend to every Government department and authority. It is the most important piece of environmental legislation ever to be considered by the Parliament. The environmental impact statement procedure introduced through this Bill represents a development and improvement of policies adopted by the previous Government in 1972. That Government had required impact statements to be prepared on environmentally important proposals being considered by Cabinet. In considering requests by State governments for financial assistance for major development projects, the previous Government merely required assurance that associated environmental factors had been suitably investigated and taken into account.

Under this legislation the Australian Government will extend the impact statement requirement to cover any proposal in which it is involved and which is likely to have a significant effect on the environment, irrespective, of whether or not it is a matter to be decided by Cabinet. In addition the requirement will be extended to cover proposals to which Australian Government funds are specifically directed and which are being developed by State or local government. Thirdly, the requirement will be extended to encompass proposals which involve the constitutional power of the Australian Government. For example, it will be used to ensure that the environmental effects of mining and woodchip proposals are thoroughly evaluated before any decision is taken on export licences.

Some may seize on these extensions and claim they represent an unnecessary intrusion into matters which are State responsibilities. This, of course, is not the case. These extensions merely use Australian Government constitutional powers which, because of the indifference of earlier government to environmental issues, were never applied. I might say, in fact, that I see very considerable scope for co-operation between the Australian and State governments. In this respect, I am encouraged that all States except Western Australia are requiring, or developing procedures requiring, impact statements on matters that are their responsibility. Within the Australian Environment Council there has been basic agreement on what statements should cover. This will mean that where 2 governments are involved in examining a proposal, only one statement will be needed.

The Australian Government will have to rely to a large extent on State government advice in assessing the environmental consequences of proposals in which it is involved and which are being developed in the States. But it is not obliged to accept that advice or to leave investigations only to the State authorities concerned. The extent to which it will rely on State environment authorities will depend on the confidence it has in those authorities, on its judgment of their independence and on the significance of the proposals from the national viewpoint.

In developing the impact statement procedure we have noted difficulties that have accompanied its use in the United States. These have largely stemmed from mandatory requirements for statements and from procedures which result in too frequent a resort to the courts. We hope to avoid these difficulties, firstly, by making the impact statement requirement discretionary so that we can concentrate on the most significant proposals and, secondly, by incorporating the requirement into the normal process of governmental decision making. Although we will be limiting the requirement in terms of the environmental importance of a proposal, we will not be limiting its scope in terms of the type of proposal that could be the subject of a statement. Proposals to change a tax or subsidy, to change a tariff, to plan and develop a particular construction, to become a party to an international agreement, to build a new city, to purchase equipment or to commence to extend a forestry or agricultural operation, for example, could all be the subject of an impact statement.

A considerable part of the Bill deals with public inquiries into matters of environmental concern. It is a very real reflection of our commitment to open government. Under the previous Government, impact statements were to be made public immediately after a Cabinet decision was announced and before the related legislation or appropriation was passed by the Parliament. These arrangments provided the public with the minimum opportunity to influence a decision on environmental grounds. Under this legislation, except where specifically exempted by the Minister, public comment will be sought before a statement is finalised and before any decision is taken on the proposal concerned. Exemption from comment will occur only in Isolated cases such as where publication of the impact statement could lead to land speculation or endanger national security. The public will be given a real opportunity to influence decisions. The detailed requirements for impact statements and hearings will be set out in procedures to be established under clause 6 of the Bill. These procedures will be tabled in the Parliament as soon as possible after this Bill has received royal assent. They will provide that responsibility for the preparation of the impact statement lies with the organisation putting forward the proposal concerned. The statement will be required to set out the need for the proposal, the objective of the proposal, the alternative means of reaching that objective and the environmental effects of these different alternatives.

Once a draft impact statement is complete it will then be subject to public scrutiny which will be achieved through advertising the availability of the document and seeking written comment upon it. In addition, where the environmental consequences of a proposal are considered to be particularly significant, or where there is considerable public controversy over these consequences, a public inquiry will be held. Following public scrutiny the impact statement will be finalised and submitted, together with the report from any public inquiry, to my Department for assessment. The assessment of the environmental consequences will be conveyed to Cabinet at the same time as the proposal itself is put to Cabinet for consideration. Thus we will ensure Cabinet considers the economic, technological and environmental consequences of proposals at the same time, before any decision is taken. The procedure will not give to environmental considerations a veto power in decision making. Environmental considerations will become an integral part of the information upon which a decision is taken. This is the first Bill of this type to be introduced into a Parliament in Australia. It represents a very significant step forward in contributing to the adequate protection of our environment and should be of real benefit to all Australians, irrespective of their occupation, their political outlook of their place of living. I commend it to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Ellicott) adjourned.

page 4083

APPROPRIATION (URBAN PUBLIC TRANSPORT) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 25 November, on motion by Mr Charles Jones:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr LAMB:
La Trobe

-In rising to speak on this Bill I remind the House that we are debating the appropriation of a total of $66. 1 lm to the States for the upgrading of urban public transport systems. Of that amount, $27.85m is to be allocated in the financial year 1974-75. 1 point out to honourable members that this sum is in addition to the $7 1.91m allocated under the States Grants (Urban Public Transport) Act 1974. That means a total of a little more than $138m has been allocated to the States for the first 2 years of our 5-year assistance program.

The allocation to Victoria of $40.32m is on the basis of two-thirds of the total Victorian program of $60. 5m. Details of that program have been outlined. That allocation is made up of $640,000 for bus services, nearly $36m for rail services and $3.38m for tram services. The honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon) said that much of the moneys allocated would be worthless because of inflation. I can only point out that if the Opposition parties had not brought about a double dissolution and forced this Government to an election, not only would these Bills have been debated much earlier but these funds would have been allocated much earlier to the States which desparately need this money to upgrade their public transport systems. They cannot do this from their own funds.

People from Melbourne only have to cast their eyes over the rolling stock that operates on the Melbourne train network to realise that 500 of Melbourne’s carriages are more than 45 years old. In fact I am informed that many of these units were made prior to the turn of the century, making some of them 75 yean old or more. One has only to travel on a bus in the Melbourne area to become aware in the course of that journey that some of these buses are more than 20 years old. Half of Melbourne’s trams are more than double that age.

The honourable member for Gippsland pointed out that with these funds only 2 trams would be purchased. I might remind him that that will be 2 more trams than his Government was willing to assist the Victorian government to purchase. I cannot make too much of the fact that this is the first ever Australian government contribution which commenced with the States Grant (Urban Public Transport) Bill, the provisions of which were outlined in our 1973-74 Budget.

In that debate, the honourable member for Gippsland chided the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) for his lack of facts. Yet, when we heard from him that his Government in 1969 spoke often about the need for Federal government involvement and spoke often of some rather secret plans that were involved in helping the States, we did not hear of any action. It was a matter of deeds being replaced by words. What the Victorian Government and what all State governments need if they are to provide adequate public transport are deeds and not words. This is the very essence of what we are debating- allocations to turn words and plans into deeds. Yet, the honourable member for Gippsland did not mention that his study which took many years to carry out was a secret study; it was not to be made public. But this Government has tabled here several reports from the Bureau of Transport Economics -

Mr Nixon:

– That is not even accurate.

Mr LAMB:

– The honourable member seeks to interrupt. I point out that he went so far as to threaten to put the honourable member for Werriwa (Mr Whitlam), the then Leader of the Opposition, in jail for talking about a so-called secret plan when it is obvious that if we want to honour the concept of open government and if we want to inform the public what is to be done with their funds, we should inform the public constantly through public reports tabled in this Parliament and described elsewhere just where its money is going.

Much of the area in the outer eastern suburbs of Melbourne depends heavily upon private bus services. It should be remembered that private bus operators provide a public service. I have been advised, in consultation with these bus operators, that they can provide the same form of public transport system at about 20c a mile less than the operating costs of comparative government systems. But without support from government, they must raise their fares. Here I must compliment the Premier of Victoria for providing some small measure- $ lm- to help these private bus operators to keep their fares down. Any move to keep fares down is to be complimented. Without support, bus operators will have to increase their fares further. They raised them five or six months ago by 10 per cent. As a result, they experienced a 25 per cent decline in patronage. However on the other hand I do not think that if fares were reduced there would be a similar rise in patronage. A 10 per cent increase in fares resulted in a 25 per cent decline in patronage. This is not good enough. What I call the pioneering areas, the developing suburbs, that are without an adequate train or fixed rail service must rely upon bus services. The greatest cost increase incurred by private bus operators has been in the wages paid to drivers. They cannot take a driver on for an hour or two, send him home to another job, then take the driver on again and pick up the kids after school. Drivers have to be paid whether or not a complete bus service runs. So the operators are caught in the squeeze between operating an adequate service and trying to recoup their outlay from fares. Obviously this problem has to be recognised. The Australian Government has recognised it in Western Australia and South Australia.

I draw to the Government’s attention the drop-off in services in the pioneering eastern suburbs of Melbourne. These services will further decrease unless some examination is made of their operating costs. I understand from the Minister that such a study is being carried on. There are several possible solutions. The operators of the private bus services have indicated that they would like to see, for instance, their bus services taken over by the Government. This is an example of private enterprise suggesting that it be nationalised. Those operating this private system have said that they would prefer to work for salaries and to manage a government bus service if they were taken over. That is one possible solution. Another recommendation is that we adopt the practice that applies in New Zealand and the United Kingdom, where bus operators are excused from paying excise duty on petrol. This would reduce operating costs quite substantially.

I do not know the answers. What is required is a study. It is comforting to learn from the Minister that a study has just begun in consultation with the private bus operators to find out what is needed in the way of support which will be equitable and which will keep up these services. I understand that the report will be ready in about 6 months and will form the basis for decisions on how best to maintain these services. We should also question- I hope the study questions itwhether or not a bus service is environmentally sound. Those conducting the study should examine what sort of propellant is being used in the buses, analyse what fumes are created, and consider whether buses would block the traffic and whether it would be better to try some alternative to fixed rail. In many of the eastern suburbs of Melbourne the topography does not lend itself to a fixed rail system, so new road systems must be developed to carry fast through bus services. It would be impossible, for instance, to provide anything but bus services, privately or government operated, to Mount Evelyn, Monbulk and Mount Dandenong. These are rather mountainous or hilly areas in the outer eastern suburbs of Melbourne. Yet people living there, school children and pensioners, rely on public transport. So I compliment the Minister on his study and I ask him to consider the environmental facets of the study as well as the pure economics of the situation.

I turn now to the advances that will be made by the Victorian Government through the cooperation of the Australian Government in developing fixed rail services in the Ringwood corridor. These rail services serve the outer eastern suburbs. The line to Box Hill has 3 tracks and the line from there to Ringwood is double track. The 13 kilometres of line from Ringwood to Lilydale is single track except for the 3.5 kilometres between Croydon and Mooroolbark, which causes a bottle-neck in the services to these developing outer suburbs. What is needed is a duplication of the 3.5 kilometres of track between Croydon and Mooroolbark. The 1 6.5 kilometres of track between Ringwood and Belgrave is single track except for 5 kilometres of double track between Bayswater and Ferntree Gully.

This Bill provides for the allocation of funds to duplicate track so that faster and more comfortable services can be provided between Melbourne and Mooroolbark-Lilydale, and Belgrave. It will provide for a third platform at Ringwood costing $0.7m with updated resignalling. The railways beyond Ringwood, although built in the 1880s, were electrified in the 1920s. Between Lilydale and Healesville an irregular diesel service is still operating. Development has gone past Lilydale, has centred on Coldstream and is extending towards Healesville despite the encouragement by the Victorian Government of expansion in the Sunbury-Melton area. Commutors in the areas I have mentioned are being deprived of an adequate rail service. Yet the Victorian Government has threatened to close down the line between Lilydale and Healesville. Surely there is an inconsistency, a contradiction, in overall planning. A corridor of growth has been established, yet the Victorian Government wishes to close down the railway service operating to Healesville. I suggest that it might benefit the Victorian Government if it were to provide to the Bureau of Transport Economics sufficient data to work out what is needed in this area. If this line were closed Healesville would suffer the fate that has been experienced in the twin town of Warburton not far away. The Victorian Government closed the railway line servicing this area and replaced it with a private bus line. I have been informed by the many people who live out that way that the fares rose soon afterwards. Warburton is now a dead-end town in the sense that it does not have adequate public transport to join the main stream of traffic through Lilydale and Croydon into the central business district.

Mr Nixon:

– They are badly represented.

Mr LAMB:

– This may not seem important to the honourable member for Gippsland but to the people who live in the area, particularly the people in Healesville, it is vital. There is a possibility that this thriving tourist town, which has instigated a deal with the Victorian railways to start a railway tourist package, will lose its rail service. People are now able to obtain a low priced ticket to travel to Healesville and discover the beauties of that area. All of this is under threat. The development of an infrastructure in that town which could provide many amenities enjoyed by those in the city will be threatened unless the capacity of that town to earn income from tourists is maintained.

In discussing this matter important questions are involved. We should consider whether or not we should duplicate the line between Ferntree Gully and Belgrave. I understand that although the duplication of the line will go as far as Ferntree Gully it will not go beyond. This is because the Victorian Government has never applied for assistance to duplicate the Ferntree Gully to Belgrave section. It has not even discussed such a project with the Bureau of Transport Economics. The 1973-74 upgrading submission requested assistance, as I said, for track duplication of the Ringwood to Croydon and Ringwood to Bayswater sections, but no application was made to take the duplication through to Belgrave. This could be beneficial or it could be a bad thing for those who live in the Belgrave area. Consideration of the matter has quite rightly been deferred due to lack of data.

I say that it is a mixture of good and bad because in the total evaluation beyond economics we must consider the environmental questions. First of all, will future demand in the BelgraveUpweyTecoma area require a double track? Of course, a double track could be provided to satisfy demand, but in turn it could create demand. In saying that it could create demand I mean that a double track is more likely to increase the desire for urbanisation of this area, and increased urbanisation could be in conflict with the environmental planning of the Dandenong Ranges. Undoubtedly the proposed new planning authority for the Dandenongs and the Yarra Valley should express a view on this matter to the Victorian Government and, in turn, to the Burea of Transport Economics. The answer possibly lies in preparing an overall transportation study of the area. I point this out not only for parochial reasons but also to get across to honourable members the fact that in planning for transport one cannot look at rail transport in isolation, at road transport in isolation or at private and public transport each in isolation. One must plan with an overall, total, integrated view so that one produces an economically and environmentally sound plan. If I could look into my crystal ball beyond this 5-year program to when the Victorian Government has possibly provided the necessary data, I think I could expect that this duplication would take place, but further upgrading beyond that would be environmentally undesirable.

I turn to another omission from the Victorian Government proposals, that is, the very important link between Huntingdale and Ferntree Gully. This would provide a spur line, origninally created in the .1965 transportation study, to feed the central business district of Melbourne. However we find- I thank the honourable member for Gippsland for this information- that only 150,000 commuters work in the central business district out of a total working population of 1.2 million. That number has not increased to the expectations of the planning bases of the 1965 study, but we have seen a change in demand for transport in the area that would be served by that spur line- I now have many constituents who need to get to Monash University to satisfy their tertiary education requirements. At present they get there by hitch hiking or by their own private transport. As I mentioned earlier, the private bus operators are unable to supply an adequate north-south direction transport service which would meet the needs.

If the link were provided it would establish fast commuter transport for students to Monash University. It would open up alternative areas of employment for the people of the Ferntree Gully, Boronia and Knoxfield area and give them a greater job choice. People often forget that there is a relationship between adequate transport and employment. This is a fine exam.ble of what could happen if this spur line were provided- It would also enable the Knox Council to go ahead with its planning for the expansion of a township at Rowville. At the moment people who live in Rowville are considered to live in a no-man’s-land. They are half way between the city of Dandenong and the Mountain GateScoresby area. Once the Victorian Government can provide the route of the spur line the Australian Government can provide the $2.2m necessary for acquisition and then the council can go ahead with planning around that spur railway line to develop Rowville to its proper potential. The Australian Government and the Australian Minister for Transport are to be congratulated on being the initiators of action in pumping extra funds into the various State programs for developing and upgrading adequate public transport. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr NIXON:
Gippsland

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

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr NIXON:

– Yes, grievously, by the previous speaker. The honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Lamb) rightly said that the projects in this Bill were based on an original work done by the Bureau of Transport Economics when I was the Minister for Transport, but he said that I kept the report secret- that I had not published BTE reports. The simple truth is that all BTE reports were published bar that one. The reason why it was not published was that it was a report to State Ministers and not to me as the Federal Minister; therefore is was not my report to publish. That is the first part of the misrepresentation. Secondly, he said I talked about putting the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) in gaol. That is not true. The facts are that one State Minister on seeing a publication of his report- that is, the State Minister’s report- sent me a telegram urging that I have a Commonwealth Police investigation made into the matter. It was none of my doing at all.

Mr CADMAN:
Mitchell

– I suppose that in this Appropriation (Urban Public Transport) Bill we are dealing with the other aspect of transport which would concern most honourable members. The first aspect was dealt with in the Roads Grants Bill but now we come to the urban public transport section. Often there is a conflict between these 2 areas of transportbetween funds allocated for roads and funds allocated for urban public transport. It seems to be a popular trend these days to promote greater use of public transport, and if we consider the use of resources undoubtedly there is much merit in this promotion. However with both systems there are problems. The Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) is well aware of the problems that can occur with the total development of a road system or the total and sole development of a public transport system. The public transport system is susceptible to breakdowns, stoppages and disputes. Recently in Sydney people were thrown into confusion and great chaos arose at peak hours when a minor dispute arose involving workers in the transport unions. Peak hour trains were brought to a halt. Such incidents tend to discourage the patrons of public transport. On the other hand, of course, the private motor vehicle tends to be wasteful of resources as well as tending to be destructive in its development and in its need for roadways and expressways.

The complexity of this problem is outlined if one examines the Sydney Area Transportation Study- the so-called Nielsen plan- in which Dr Nielsen went to great lengths to indicate the relationship between planning and transport. In his study Dr Nielsen took into consideration such matters as manufacturing industries, where people need to be employed, office work, schooling, shopping and the social and recreation needs for roadways and public transport. Despite this close relationship between transport and planning I doubt whether there is any real need for the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) to have a part of the roads allocation- some $30m. However, I say that in passing. I feel that this is a transport matter and rightly should fall under the jurisdiction of the Minister for Transport. Surely it is his sole prerogative to deal with matters of transport and to integrate new transport systems into existing schemes.

I should like to quote from the Nielsen report the objectives that were set out before the study team commenced its work. I will touch on them briefly as I have made arrangements with the Minister for Transport to have incorporated in Hansard this section of the report. I draw to the attention of the House the great diversity of aspects of transport which need to be investigated when developing any sort of system. The first objective set out in the report reads:

Evaluate the present transport network and use it as the basis for developing recommended systems for future years.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Did the honourable member seek leave for the incorporation of a document?

Mr CADMAN:

– I had previously made arrangements with the Minister for Transport. I seek leave.

Mr Charles Jones:

– What is it the honourable member wants incorporated?

Mr CADMAN:

– The objectives of the Sydney Area Transportation Study.

Mr SPEAKER:

-How big is it?

Mr CADMAN:

– It contains about 10 paragraphs. The study carries a lot of weight and they are fine objectives.

Mr Charles Jones:

– It can be incorporated.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

  1. 1 ) Evaluate the present transport network and use it as the basis for developing recommended systems for future years.

Existing major highway and public transport facilities represent a large investment and must form the basis for any future system expansions.

  1. Develop a series of analytical techniques that can be used to evaluate the transport consequences of alternative land use/transportation plans.

Transportation planning requires the use of simulation techniques to accurately forecast future travel patterns.

  1. Develop a series of analytical techniques that can be used to evaluate costs and benefits of alternative transportation systems.

These techniques allow benefits from various alternatives to be expressed in monetary terms, so that they can be weighed against the capital costs involved.

  1. Prepare estimates of preliminary capital improvement plans for future years.

The cost of implementation of recommended systems must not exceed the financial resources that the community is prepared to devote to transportation in the Sydney Region.

  1. Investigate the inducements necessary to develop the use of public transport, rather than private transport, for repetitive journeys along heavily travelled routes, as far as this may prove desirable.

A viable public transport system is an essential ingredient of a modern, dynamic urban community.

  1. Ascertain reasonable levels of service for all major movements of persons and goods.

Reasonable levels of service must be defined, and then introduced into the various transport systems.

  1. Produce a series of alternative proposals indicating how the transportation elements of the Sydney Region Outline Plan can be implemented.

Analysis of a number of land use/transportation alternatives allows development of transportation systems most appropriate for the Region.

  1. Ensure that transportation planning in the Sydney Region is co-ordinated with all other types of planning.

The inter-relationship between transport and land use is one of the most important factors to consider when planning for urban growth. In the case of Sydney, while topography has influenced the location of the transportation system, the system itself has exerted a dominant influence on the shape of the metropolitan area. Future transport development in Sydney must be closely linked to expansion plans for the residential, commercial and industrial centres in the Region.

Mr CADMAN:

-I thank the House. The study refers also to the preparation of estimates of preliminary capital improvement plans for future years and the need to ensure that transportation planning in the Sydney region is co-ordinated with all other types of planning. Looking through the Nielsen plan and the Minister’s speech concerning the proposals provided for under this Bill, I would like to deal specifically with the proposals for a railway spur running from Parramatta to beyond Castle Hill. I would like to quote first of all from a document entitled ‘Australian Transport 1973-74’, which was prepared by the Department of Transport. It states:

As an adjunct to other Government moves to encourage the growth of Parramatta, the Prime Minister in February 1974 wrote to the Premier of New South Wales offering to construct a three branch railway system for Parramatta. The proposed new routes lead to the Hoxton Park area southwest of Parramatta, north-east through Carlingford to the Epping area and to the Castle Hill area in the north-west.

I come now to the relevant part. It continues:

The Prime Minister proposed that this service be operated using the best contemporary rolling stock obeying the most up-to-date signalling. He also promised that the Australian Government would cover any operating losses on these railways so that NSW would not be out of pocket-

I repeat the words ‘would cover any operating losses’. On the other hand, we have had the Treasurer (Mr Crean) saying something completely different. The Treasurer has said that the Australian Government has made an offer to the New South Wales Government to construct and operate a railway radiating from Parramatta. Then again the Minister for Transport has said something else. The Minister has said that the Prime Minister has offered to construct at no cost to New South Wales. We have 3 differing and varying ideas of what is going to happen there. I think that some clarification is needed on this matter. The Prime Minister has said that the Australian Government will cover operating losses, the Treasurer has said that the Australian Government will construct and operate and the Minister for Transport has offered in his speech to construct at no cost to New South Wales.

Mr Fisher:

– He will have to ask Caucus.

Mr CADMAN:

– I feel that no decision has been made in this matter. In fact we have had a great deal of imagination and perhaps one could say some airy-fairy dreaming, but no real thinking through of how this thing is going to work. I would like the Minister to comment later on how these things are going to operate. Is the Commonwealth going to do the constructing? It it going to pay for the construction? Is it going to operate the service? Is it going to consider the Nielsen plan and the thoughts and proposals about the laying down of tracks by the New South Wales Government? The New South Wales Government has its own plans. Will it be consulted or are we going to have a complete Commonwealth run railway of some 10 to 15 miles which will have Commonwealth guards, Commonwealth drivers and Commonwealth ticket collectors? I hope that nothing so drastic or inconsistent as that will happen, but the Treasurer has said that the Australian Government will construct and operate a railway radiating from Parramatta. The people of this area need this sort of transport system. I am sure that public transport of this type certainly would be appreciated by all the people residing in the Castle Hill area, to the south and even to the north of it as it develops. They will appreciate the opportunity of being able to avail themselves of public transport that runs on a regular basis into Parramatta.

When we come to look at what type of system will operate we again have a variance. The Prime Minister, in the quotation to which I referred earlier, said ‘the best contemporary’ and the Minister for Transport has said ‘a distinctive type of railway line’. What are we talking about? Are we talking about a light railway line, a light guideway or the conventional type of system which uses the best contemporary carriages and rolling stock? It seems to me that when one is proposing to put a railway line through a densely populated area one should take into consideration that one is going to run into a great many problems in relation to land acquisition and will find many individual owners contesting the authority of such a proposal. If it is to be a conventional track involving the use of contemporary rolling stock of the best type it will mean that there will have to be a far greater amount of land acquisition than otherwise would be the case if it were to be a light railway or a light guideway. I think that one problem that raises its head is: If it is to be a light railway, how will it integrate into the existing system? I would like to suggest to the Minister that a good part of the $3.5m to be appropriated in this respect be used to study this aspect properly so that we may come up with some answers before statements like those that have been made are in fact made.

The need for feeder services once this railway line of whatever type it is to be is established is self obvious, self apparent. Proposing passengers would be able to travel wide distances on public transport and in private cars if there were adequate parking at stations and at places at which they may board these trains. I think that incorporated in this scheme provision must be made for park and ride services whereby people can pay the one fare which will give them access to parking and travel facilities. There could be just the one fare- a park and ride fare. Despite what we have had to say earlier on this matter the use of this railway facility will be most popular and will be welcomed by the people of that area. However, the roads must be developed in conjunction if the planning of the area about which we are talking is to go ahead as we would like to see it go ahead.

Again I draw the Minister’s attention to the need to integrate the systems of transport. I mention in particular the Old Windsor Road, which is a main road. I believe that it is not covered by the categories under which funds are allocated to the States. It is a category 7 road and there is no provision for the funding of that type of road, but its use in conjunction with a railway line would supply easy access in the most popular direction in which people wish to travel from the Toongabbie, Winston Hills and Baulkham Hills areas. I refer again to my earlier remarks that careful and comprehensive planning is needed when one is dealing with all sorts of transport. I noticed that the Minister is providing for the supply of a number of buses to different cities. I believe that he is to have a conference with the private operators. I draw his attention, in particular, to the need to provide an express service from Blacktown to Pennant Hills. That also is mentioned in the Nielsen report.

I am not sure what parts of it are being adopted and whether there has been any discussion with the States on these matters. I must assume that passing reference would have been made before proposals of the type that we see the Minister espousing were put into operation. I notice that the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Lamb), who was the previous speaker in the debate, made reference a number of times to the co-operation between the State and Federal governments in this sphere. I do not know whether it is peculiar to Victoria, but in all the Minister’s speeches on this matter and in all the things he has mentioned concerning the electorate of Mitchell in Sydney he has given no indication that he has discussed the matter with the States, that he is prepared to discuss it with the States or that he has settled on what sort of proposal he has for the railway system running north beyond Castle Hill.

Mr BENNETT:
Swan

– I support the Appropriation (Urban Public Transport) Bill, which will provide tremendous benefits to the people of Australia. In Western Australia’s case it provides for the allocation of funds for things such as the replacement of the South Perth Ferry Services Barrack Street jetty and building, the acquisition of 65 buses, the Innaloo bus transfer terminal, the Rockingham bus transfer terminal, the Kwinana bus transfer terminal, car parks at railway stations, Gosnells bus depot, bus priority traffic management measures and stage 1 of the Mitchell Busway for 1974-75 construction. The Bill provides for specific benefits to the people of the electorate of Swan. I refer in particular to the provision of funds in 1974-75 for a ferry terminal at the Barrack Street jetty which, while situated in the electorate of Perth, services the regular travellers to South Perth and the Swan electorate. A terminal has been needed for many years and now at long last this Australian Government has seen fit to assist. This relief has come at an appropriate time for, with the growing redevelopment of South Perth into higher density home buildings, the ferry travel will be extended to Coode Street and the existing route will carry a greater volume of traffic. With this future growth I hope that funds will be available to provide the necessary modern ferries to complete their journeys in adequate time. I hope that the ferry services will be planned and provided for so that people will be attracted to fast, comfortable, pollution-free river travel and will not suffer the disadvantages of crowded transport due to the lack of forward planning. Personally, I would like to see investigated the possibility of ferry services to the Canning Bridge area in the south and the Garret Road Bridge area in the north to give an alternative, pleasant mode of transport. Perhaps it would lose money. But one will not know until such a service is tried. But is should be tried because we all should have the right to enjoy the comparative quiet of river travel. Any opportunity which encourages people to leave their cars at home and commute to the city by urban public transport should be encouraged. What is lost in the operating costs of public transport is gained by the advantages to other car users. The provision of $2,069,000 for 65 buses is welcome. However, it is to be hoped that these buses will take on new concepts of comfort. I raise this point because the difference in the standard of comfort of a tour bus and a metropolitan passenger vehicle is marked. In a tour vehicle one is assured of a seat and the opportunity to relax in an individual seat designed for the comfort of the passenger. The provision of such facilities in tour buses encourages people to use them and greater profits result. But the minimal comfort provided in buses used for city transport makes people who travel on them wish that they had used their comfortable cars despite all of the parking problems, or that they had accepted a lift in someone else ‘s car.

If city transport systems are to succeed they will need to compete with the motor car. There is no way in which they do this today. One can see workers standing in queues waiting for buses in Perth peak hour traffic. These people are often exposed to the elements. One can see shoppers struggling with parcels, with nowhere to place them, sometimes for 20 minutes or more. This is a hopeless situation. When one does get on a bus one has the problem of finding a seat. If a passenger does get a seat it is probably soft enough but it in no way compares with the seat in a tourist bus and even less with the seat in a private car. In fact, metropolitan buses do not have the head rests supplied in tour buses and motor cars to prevent whiplash neck injuries in accidents. The plain fact is that metropolitan buses do not compete, no matter how modern their chassis and bodies may be and whatever the cost.

Who wants to sit on the end of a seat while someone more unfortunate stands alongside and lurches into one’s shoulder or lap as the traffic dictates? Who would want to be the unfortunate passenger who has to stand when travelling home by bus after a day’s work or shopping, or perhaps after attending an afternoon film matinee in comfort? Who would want to face the rigours of a trip home on a metropolitan bus? No wonder people often use their cars although they have free bus passes, and I include myself in that category. One has only to look at the parking areas for bus crews to realise that buses do not provide the ultimate mode of transport. It is not sufficient to say that it is more convenient for bus crews to travel by car because of the staggered hours that they work. In the main they are like the rest of the community and seek the most comfortable form of transport available to them, which in this instance is a small, comfortable vehicle designed specifically for commuting, namely the motor car. For too long we have been required to sit 2 abreast or stand patiently in the middle of the aisle when we travel on buses. We have been forced to freeze in winter and to stifle in summer and hope for the time when we reach our destination and get relief or hope that the local shop is open so that we can get a cool drink. Apparently the authorities have not thought of providing water dispensers on city buses such as one sees on other forms of commuter transport.

It is past the time for buses to start to compete with other forms of public transport. It should be noted that funds are provided in the legislation for car parking at railway stations. It is to be hoped that the rail service is continued and upgraded. I was surprised to see a Western Australian report recommending the abolition of city rail services. This was a unique report when one considers that in most cities in the world, including those in Australia, endeavours are being made to upgrade existing rail services and institute other more modem tracked systems. It will be interesting to read this unique report when it becomes available in January, for it may in fact prove the rest of the urban transport aspirations of other cities to be wrong. If the report can do this- and I doubt that it will be able to- it would indicate that some of the allocations being made to the States in this legislation for rail transport are a misallocation of funds. No doubt the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) will look at this aspect.

I am personally envious of those cities which will be able to utilise the Australian Government’s urban passenger train rail car which will be developed from the prototype which was displayed in Perth recently. I only hope that the pollution aspect of buses, the increasing world cost of fuel and the world wide effort to obviate the energy problems will all be taken into consideration in planning future city transport. This Bill is welcomed by the people of Western Australia. I admit that the people of Western Australia will not be provided with the facilities which will be enjoyed by the people of Sydney and the other cities- I refer to hydrofoils, ferries, electric railcars, upgrading of present systems, and even an experimental 2 -way radio system for buses. Perhaps the fact that Western Australia is not to get these facilities reflects a lack of forward planning for what is needed in that State. Many of us will watch with interest the progress of the ventures I have mentioned in other States. However, we are thankful for the $4,040,000 provided for the Perth urban transport system. It is to be hoped that this amount will obviate the situation in which the answer to falling patronage is to curtail services further and thus force people into a second family car category for purposes of convenience alone.

It is long past the time for a hard look to be taken at the history of the failure of urban public transport to compete with the modern car. The tremendous cost which has had to be borne by the taxpayer in providing facilities for the private alternative to urban transport- that is, the carwhich requires road systems and parking areas is appalling. The short term solutions of propping up old systems that have proven failures must be avoided. Such systems should not continue to operate indefinitely. We should be planning to replace them with new concepts of commuter facilities not only in the cities but also in the regional shopping areas. The old systems should be replaced with an efficient cross-suburban system of transport, whether monorail, magnetic, or air cushion. The Australian Government is the only body which has the resources required to carry out this work. It is to be hoped that everyone will co-operate to see that solutions are found. I support the Bill.

Mr MILLAR:
Wide Bay

-This Bill proposes that an amount of $66.1 lm be appropriated from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to upgrade urban public transport systems. It is noted that $27. 85m of this amount is expected to be allocated in 1974-75 and the remainder during the balance of the program over several years. I am rather gratified to see that an amount of $1 1.93m is to be appropriated for the electrification of Queensland urban railway systems, the purchase of 30 buses and various minor interchanges as specified by the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones). I hope that the Government bears in mind the insidious effect of the inflationary process which no doubt will take their toll before these programs are finally implemented. It should condition itself to a shortfall in the completion of the works programs.

It is gratifying that the attitude of the Government is one which sees the various modes of transport as being an entity, an approach which embraces railways, ferries, buses and trams, and recognises the urgent need to integrate all of the various modes of transport and to create an efficient and integrated urban transport system. In so doing, of course, the Government would be well advised to ponder the reliability and the quality of the advice- the so-called expert advice- which has been made available over the years and which has brought about a situation in which some cities have withdrawn tramways, others have persisted with them, and even now we find a major city considering seriously the question of reintroducing them. The massive expenditure involved in embarking on these programs, or retrenching in some areas, cannot be considered lightly. It is all too easy to embark with enthusiasm on these programs and find out after the event that we were not so well informed or well advised as we might have hoped.

As the honourable member for Swan (Mr Bennett) pointed out, the country cannot for ever tolerate the position of trying to draw from the nation’s resources sufficient to maintain highways and arterial roads to service the modern motor vehicle, which day after day engages in the futile exercise of transporting the solitary occupant, in most cases, into the city through smog filled atmosphere for the doubtful privilege of reversing the process at the end of the day. It has appeared quite clearly from our experience that man cannot overtake the need to meet the demands of the motor vehicle. We see the tragedy of cities such as Los Angeles where 25 per cent of the city area is devoted to urban freeways and trafficways for the motor vehicle, and the end result of the exercise is monumental failure. They have destroyed the spirit of the city and left the motorist and the person dependent on public transport as frustrated as they were in the first place.

So quite inevitably we must consider some restriction on personal choice of transport. Unpalatable as it may sound, this is an inescapable fact of life. The introduction in recent days of the rapid transport lane in Sydney has demonstrated quite clearly that, by and large, the public is urgently in need of some education in the basics of urban transport. The public must demonstrate a degree of responsibility in which people will accept their personal responsibility to make the public transport systems operate satisfactorily. It seems an extraordinary facet of human nature that most people endorse these programs but tend to think that they are designed for the edification and guidance of every other motorist but themselves. They must assume a personal responsibility because in a country as vast as ours quite clearly we cannot cope with the heavy capital expenditure involved in order to bring things to a state approaching the ideal.

In the matter of rapid transport lanes, considerable thought could be given to the question of additional busways and bicycleways. One might say that if the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) ignores his responsibilities, we might even consider bridle paths, because it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that, as our fuel resources are exhausted, we may finish up travelling to work by horse.

Mr McVeigh:

– We would have to break them in for honourable members opposite. They would not know what a horse looked like-

Mr MILLAR:

-That is true, but there is one thing about members of the Country Party- they know how to look a horse in the mouth. The essential thing is that we must imbue the employees of our transport systems with a new pride in their service. Some of the traditional forms of transport services have suffered very sadly over the years from a decay in morale. The services have been neglected- and I speak now of a period covering 50, 60, 70 years- and in their neglect the employees have become somewhat defeatist in attitude. It is terribly important that they be imbued with a spirit of service, a pride in the transport system in which they are engaged. I must endorse the attitude that this can best be achieved by an improvement in facilities and in working conditions, as long as they remain consistent with a responsibility on the part of the workers to render the necessary service, recognising that this is a 2-way thing.

In Queensland an electric suburban railway has been mooted for years. Argument exists as to who is responsible for the failure to continue with the electrification of the urban rail system, but I do not propose to enter into argument on the matter. The inescapable fact is that in the suburban railway system there are in excess of 30 million passenger journeys made in a year and these journeys attract gross earnings of $3. 5m. On the other hand, buses have a passenger journey total in excess of 60 million a year. This scarcely touches the gross tally of passenger movements in the city of Brisbane each and every day. Clearly there is an urgent need for the improvement of public urban services.

Another factor which concerns me considerably is that the lack of efficient public urban systems puts at greater risk the welfare of the motoring public. It is a rather sad indictment of our society that each and every day in this country 10 or 12 people are killed in motoring accidents. Of course, these accidents do not all take place within the city boundaries, but there are far too many accidents and I rather fancy that with a more efficient public transport system and a greater sense of responsibility resulting in greater discipline on the part of the motoring public and those who are engaged in travelling to and fro in the city and suburban areas each day there might be a reduction in these tragic figures.

In the final analysis however, all the considerations directed towards the improvement of urban public transport must be based on certain fundamentals which involve the question of decentralisation. To what extent must we perpetuate the shocking wastage that has been manifested in trying to maintain obsolete systems within our greater cities, not just in urban transport but in all systems of servicing, with the cost of servicing dwellings in the peripheral areas mounting to a point where it is scarcely tolerable from a sound economic point of view. Clearly we cannot continue. We are just pouring money into this great sink, if I may be pardoned the term, in endeavouring to support the city systems indefinitely without considering just how much our cities may be permitted to grow, just how far we are going to go in continuing to drain the nation’s resources to mount services for great areas of population which in the end tend to destroy the very soul of the nation. In observance of the requirement to curtail debate on this Bill, Mr Deputy Speaker, I conclude by endorsing the Bill.

Mr DAVIES:
BRADDON, TASMANIA · ALP

-Mr Deputy Speaker- (quorum formed). I will not keep the House for long. I strongly support the Appropriation (Urban Public Transport) Bill which is before the House. I especially support that part of the Bill which provides assistance for Tasmania, because so often we in Tasmania are criticised because of the assistance that we receive from the Australian Government. In the few moments available to me I simply want to point out that we appreciate very much- I refer particularly to the people in the city of Hobart- what the Australian Government has done in order to provide a reasonable form of transport for the people who use the public transport system. As I said, so often we are criticised by the Opposition because of what this Government is doing for Tasmania. Very briefly, I want to place on the record the appreciation of the Tasmanian Government and the Tasmanian members and senators in the Federal Parliament for what the Federal Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) is doing for Tasmania in the field of urban transport.

The Australian Government has approved in the financial year 1973-74 the provision of 30 new buses at an estimated expenditure of $lm. Also there is provision in 1973-74 of $0.04m for the purchase of ticket issuing machines and for 1974-75 the appropriation is $0.1 m, making a total expenditure for the 2-year period of $0. 14m. Also Tasmania is being granted assistance in the provision of 80 bus shelters, the estimated expenditure for which in 1973-74 was $0.02m, and in 1974-75 there is a similar estimated expenditure of $0.02m, making a total of $0.04m for the 2-year period. Only at the weekend the State Minister for Transport, my colleague and friend, the Honourable G. D. Chisholm, paid tribute to the Australian Government for its 1974-75 program. This program is worthy of mention because it provides for the replacement of 58 buses at a cost of $2.25m. It includes the provision of 36 new buses which will be used to upgrade the public transport system in Hobart, and the cost involved is $0.09m.

The program provides also for an additional 8 buses at a cost of $0.26m. In the city of Hobart the Australian Government, working in cooperation and in conjunction with the Department of Transport in Tasmania, has acquired land for new workshops and a bus depot in Hobart at a cost of $0.4m. So Tasmania will be benefiting in the 1974-75 program by an estimated expenditure of $3m. The total cost to date of assistance projects approved for Tasmania is, if one adds up those figures, $4. 18m of which the Australian Government’s contribution is $2. 79m. Of course, Tasmania never received this sort of money during the 23 years of LiberalCountry Party Government. We do appreciate that this assistance is being provided, and I think it is only fair that we should stand up in the

House tonight and pay tribute to the Minister for Transport and to the policies that he has endorsed and also to the Australian Government for granting this money to Tasmania in order to upgrade its public transport system.

I want to refer briefly to the position in northern Tasmania. The Minister for Transport is aware that in this financial year Tasmania sought assistance for projects in Launceston and Burnie. The Minister has ruled, of course, that these projects are not eligible for assistance because assistance is to be provided only to capital cities or to areas which have a population of 100,000 or more. According to the June 1971 census, which are the last available figures, the population of Launceston was 62,241 and the population of Burnie-Somerset was 20,087. The Minister has ruled that these areas are not eligible for assistance because their population is less than 100,000 people. But I would remind the Minister that the Government has granted assistance for sewerage works to cities and towns with a population in excess of 20,000 people. I think there is a parallel here and I hope that the Government will at some time in the near future extend its assistance to urban transport to towns which have a population in excess of 20,000 people. As I indicated, the population of Launceston and the Burnie-Somerset area would make them eligible for assistance if this were done. I know that these funds are limited and that therefore the Government has to deal initially with those areas having the greatest need. But I simply make a plea to the Government tonight to recognise the fact that assistance for sewerage works under its urban and regional development program has been extended to include towns with a population of more than 20,000 people. I simply ask the Minister for Transport to have a survey made of the cost to Australia of extending to towns and large centres with a population of more than 20,000 assistance in relation to urban transport projects.

I want to record the facts as they apply to Tasmania. I congratulate the Government and the Minister because, as I have indicated, so often these days we are under criticism from the Opposition because of what this Government is doing to assist Tasmania.

Mr Sherry:

– Specious and empty criticism.

Mr DAVIES:
BRADDON, TASMANIA · ALP

– As my colleague, the honourable member for Franklin, says, it is specious and empty criticism. I simply say that we thank the Government and we want to place on record our appreciation of what the Government is doing for urban transport in the State of Tasmania, and particularly in Hobart. But we hope that this assistance will soon be extended to places such as Launceston, the Burnie-Somerset area and other places with a population of more than 20,000 people on a similar basis to that which applies to sewerage works.

Mr RUDDOCK:
Parramatta

-Mr Deputy Speaker -

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 60

NOES: 52

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Motion (by Mr Charles Jones) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I call the honourable member for Mackellar.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-Thank you, Mr Speaker-

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 4094

STATES GRANTS (WATER RESOURCES ASSESSMENT) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 13 November, on motion by Dr Everingham.

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

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

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

-Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering both measures?

Mr Hunt:
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr HUNT:
Gwydir

-The Opposition supports both these Bills. I just want briefly to deal with the River Murray Waters Bill 1974. It is a Bill for an Act to amend the River Murray Waters Act 1 9 1 5- 1 973. The purpose of this Bill is to provide a more satisfactory basis for the employment of staff by the River Murray Commission. The Bill brings staff of the River Murray Commission within the scope of the Officers’ Rights Declaration Act 1928-73 and the Superannuation Act 1922-74. In addition, the Bill permits the salaries of the statutory officers to be determined under the Remuneration Act 1973-74. An almost identical Bill was introduced to the House of Representatives on 7 March 1974 but lapsed with the occurrence of the double dissolution. We fully support the measure and hope that the legislation passes so that we will be better equipped to ensure that those who are employed by the River Murray Commission benefit from the provisions of the legislation.

The States Grants (Water Resources Assessment) Bill provides for grants to the States for the financial years 1974-75 and 1975-76 for the measurement of water quality of surface and underground water resources. In 1964 the Australian Water Resources Council recommended the adoption of an accelerated program of surface and underground investigation. The then Liberal-Country Party Commonwealth Government and the States adopted such a program to improve the knowledge of the rate of flow, the quality and the variations in the quantity of Australia’s water resources. It has been a most successful co-operative program between the various States and the Commonwealth. Needless to say, the States have done most of the work, being responsible for most of Australia’s water resources. However the former Ministers responsible, the Honourable David Fairbairn, and Sir Reginald Swartz who has now retired from the Parliament, must rate a mention of praise for the way in which they sought the co-operation of the States and for the way in which they succeeded in achieving this co-operation.

Let no one assume that the Australian Government alone is giving the initiative or bears the brunt of the responsibility for water resources. Because of an inadequate reimbursement formula suffered by the States for many years these funds become necessary to assist the States in a comprehensive program. Clearly this is a typical area where the Commonwealth Government can and does, and indeed should, co-ordinate the resources of all the governments in the national interest. This Bill will enable the States to meet their commitments to the water quality assessment program- an objective endorsed by the Water Resources Council.

Under the program the Australian Government contribution for water quality assessment is on a dollar for dollar basis with the States up to the specified sum of $807,905-5446,305 for surface water quality assessment and $361,600 for underground water quality assessment.

Clause 4 of the Bill provides an amendment to section 3 of the principal Act to that ‘assessment’ is defined to include water quality measurement in addition to water quantity measurement. The schedule outlines the amounts to be allocated to each State for the purposes of assessing the surface and underground water resources. The cost of the program in each State has been determined by that State. It is an immensely worthwhile extension of the water resources assessment program. The data on quantity and quality of Australia’s water resources is essential to a planned program of water conservation and water control, and indeed to the proper management of Australia’s limited water resources.

Water is fundamental to life. We occupy the most arid continent on earth. I wish to quote from a publication produced by the Australian Water Resources Council. It is Technical Paper No. 7 entitled ‘A Compilation of Australian Water Quality Criteria ‘. It states:

Except Tor the Antarctic, Australia is the most deficient continent in permanent bodies of standing water lakes, lagoons and ponds. Restricting consideration to permanent lakes, the only extensive natural lake land in Australia is that or the Tasmanian central plateau. This area contains lakes and ponds ranging in depth from less than 1 metre to more than 200 metres and in area from a fraction of a hectare to about ISO square kilometres. In addition, 5 permanent lakes occupy glaciated basins in high altitudes in the Australian Alps. Numerous lakes are found on the rest of the Australian mainland; they are frequently impermanent and may have high concentrations of dissolved minerals.

I think that more or less gives some sort of background to the total problem that Australia faces with regard to its water resources. The economic growth of Australia could well be determined by the success or failure of our governments to assess the availability of water resources and their quality, to adequately conserve and use wisely our often limited water and to develop sound land and water use policies. There is an interaction and integration of forces which should ultimately determine land and water use patterns. I see water resources and land use as being interlocked. It is essential that there be: Firstly, effective use of our land resources; secondly, effective long term improvement of our land resources as well as an effective use of water resources and long term plans for the provision of good quality water.

No civilisation, regardless of its technical or industrial sophistication, can exist without sufficiently cared-for topsoil. The example of the bad effects of early civilisations on land in the Middle East has surely left behind its lessons to mankind. The day has gone when man can simply take unto himself a block of land and exploit its total yield and productive capacity in his own lifetime. We can no longer tolerate the ruthless raping of our water and land resources and leave the next generation to get on the best way it can. Effective land use policies must be based upon the realisation that there are multi- purpose uses of the resources of the land and the water, that each reacts upon the other with long term and often disastrously unforeseen results.

Although this Bill deals with water quality assessment I want to press a view that I believe needs to be heeded. Research in land use and water use should be against the following backgrounds: Firstly, the acceptance of the interaction of the multi-purpose uses of water and land; secondly, the population distribution; and thirdly, regional considerations often determined by river valleys and the natural forces of the terrain, and not State boundaries. Thus the Federal system of government in Australia will have to be made to work in a co-operative land and water use sense in the interests of all Australians.

Probably the best example of the need for a national land use policy is the Murray-Darling basin. This is the largest Australian river system. It drains a vast area of the eastern States inland from our eastern highlands. This vast catchment stretches from northern and central Queensland, close to Melbourne and across to South Australia. Most of the terrain is gently sloping, has a relatively low rainfall and the geographic and climatic factors, while contributing to a wide ranging agricultural activity, contain in them nevertheless inherent dangers, such as: First, the effects of low rainfall; secondly, the effects of flooding; thirdly, water pollution which takes some time to pass through the system; fourthly, salinity levels in the rivers and salinity problems affecting agricultural production; fifthly, water supplies to urban communities; and sixthly, water supply problems so far as quality and quantity are concerned and their effect upon South Australia, which is becoming an industrialised community.

Although we are gathering water quantity and quality data in a co-ordinated manner as between the States, there is no apparent desire to develop co-ordinated or coherent agreed land use policies which take these factors and other interacting factors into account. The lack of land use strategy in the Murray-Darling basin is now beginning to show its ugly head with the emergence of the serious salinity problem in that valley. It is a problem of which, I know, the Minister for the Environment and Conservation (Dr Cass) is aware.

The problem is a cumulative one. It will not be solved by piecemeal methods. There is a need for an agreed land use policy, not ordered or administered necessarily by the’ Australian Government but devised on a co-operative basis among the States and administered by the States. If the Commonwealth can assist in a coordinating role, it should do so, but I believe this should be only at the request of the States. The Commonwealth should finance the States in a program, first, to undertake a land use survey; secondly, to establish a land use inventory; and thirdly, to develop a national land use strategy. In the process of developing this strategy it is essential that the desirability of such a program is understood by the people. It is the community at large which will either accept or reject such concepts. It is the community at large which will have to pay the costs of such a policy.

The Murray-Murrumbidgee system provides 20 per cent of our food needs as a nation. It is a region to which special consideration should be given. In order to understand the problems of the area much research will need to be undertaken. A lot of money ultimately will need to be spent to overcome the problems which have occurred. But I believe that that expenditure should be met by the community at large. It will be necessary to have co-ordinated controls to re-establish the land and to enhance its productive capacity for coming generations. However, in such national programs to preserve our soil and to improve the quality of our surface and underground water no one section of the community should pay. It should be a charge against the national account.

I have digressed from the sole purpose of the Bill, but I do hope that we see a co-operative effort among the States and, indeed, the Commonwealth, to bite the bullet before it is too late. It should not be done in any doctrinaire sense in order to achieve State ownership of land or State control. It should not disturb man’s relationship to his land or to his sense of private occupancy of that land, but more as an effort to ensure that he is assisted to adopt sensible land use practices in accordance with an overall national strategy and to ensure that the land’s productive capacity is not denied to future generations. I believe that this should be an objective that we should all set out to achieve. I do not think that we can afford to witness a situation where State and Commonwealth governments are not prepared to share jointly a responsibility for what is probably one of the biggest problems concerning land use in Australia. I know that there are differences among the States as to how these matters should be tackled. But too much procrastination could well reduce the productive capacity of this country to a dangerous level for future generations.

In conclusion, I quote Mr R. G. Downes. I think his comments are worth reading into Hansard. He said:

Conservation is an exercise in applied ecology to fit man into his environment so as to provide for his needs now and in the future in a manner which will maintain a satisfactory human habitat.

Surely that is what we should be setting out to achieve. I believe that the States Grants (Water Resources Assessment) Bill 1974 does provide some of the facility that is necessary to achieve the sort of research that will be required to establish the data upon which we must hasten to adopt a strategy for the proper use of land in Australia, and to overcome this very real problem of salinity of which the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) and certainly the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) are so well aware. I have not had an opportunity to visit this area in recent years, but I hope to go down there in the not too distant future to try really to come to grips with and to see for myself the great problem that farmers and the community are suffering as a result of this most serious difficulty. I commend both Bills to the House. The Opposition supports them.

Mr FitzPATRICK (Darling) (9.56)- I congratulate the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) on his contribution to the debate on this legislation. I also support the States Grants (Water Resources Assessment) Bill 1974 because it provides $807,905 for the assessment of water quality, in addition to the present water resources program for the assessment of water quantity. When the principal Bill was introduced in May 1973 1 made the statement that the States sharing the grant of $ 15.1m had an obligation to protect the quality as well as the quantity of our streams. It is some satisfaction tonight to be able to support a Bill which indicates that the States are entering into a partnership with the Federal Government to provide for water quality as well as water quantity and to assess concurrently water quality and water quantity.

It is hard to understand why the Australian Water Resources Council, set up in 1964, has taken so long to recommend this provision. The reason could be that the Liberal-Country Party coalition Government made a grant of only $2. 8m in 1964 and that 6 years later this grant had risen to only $8.2m. How could the States be expected to take on greater responsibility if they have never had enough funds to cover those responsibilities that they already had in hand? Labor saw the problem. In 1973 it increased the grant to $ 15.1m. This was an increase of 85 per cent. In my opinion this action spells out clearly the Australian Government’s determination to provide a sufficient quantity of water. The Bill before the House indicates the Government’s determination to provide for proper quality of that water, so necessary for our own agricultural, industrial, domestic and indeed recreational requirements. Our efforts nevertheless will be in vain if we allow our streams to be polluted as they have been in the past.

I have no doubt that this Bill will bring much satisfaction to people in my electorate. For a long time they have been concerned with the discharge of highly saline water from Lake Hawthorn into the Wentworth Lock Pool which is upstream from Coomealla and Curlwaa pumps. This Bill should result in some light being focussed on such happenings. At present it is the responsibility of the Victorian Government to pump water from Lake Hawthorn into evaporation basins further away from the river so that the water cannot flow back into the Darling River. Five years ago $ 1.6m was made available by the Commonwealth so that the Victorian Government could carry out this function, but unfortunately during periods of high flow large quantities of highly saline water are allowed to flow back into, the river. I have pointed out in previous speeches that River Murray Commission reports have shown that less water has been pumped each year into the evaporation basin, yet more water has been allowed to flow back into the River Murray. As a matter of fact, it fell from 2,150 acre feet in 1969-70 to as little as 755 acre feet in 1971-72. Yet in the Barr Creek disposal scheme, which is of a similar nature, the quantity increased from 6,810 acre feet in 1969-70 to 10,570 acre feet in 1970-71.

Water users in New South Wales and South Australia claim that Victoria is concerned about the quality of the water that passes through Victoria but is little concerned with the quality of the water further down stream. The 1 973 River Murray Commission report shows, fortunately , a substantial increase in the amount of water that has been pumped from Lake Hawthorne. It states:

The Lake Hawthorne pumps diverted to the Wargan basins a volume of 4,638 acre’ feet containing 2 1,455 tons of salt.

This is a big improvement on the figures I mentioned previously. However, one must still have grave doubts about the Victorian Government’s concern for the quality of water further downstream, because the River Murray Commission report also states:

At Merbein in 4 of the 12 months, the salinity exceeded 300 p.p.m. TDS and at Waikerie the salinity exceeded 500 p.p.m. TDS in 7 of the 12 months.

I point out that ‘p.p.m.’ means part per million and ‘TDS’ means total dissolved solids. The report goes on:

It would appear that the present amounts of saline inflows in the Sunraysia area, the dilution flow requirements of the agreement are not capable of maintaining 300 p.p.m. TDS at Merbein during severe drought conditions.

It seems as though during severe drought conditions the Victorian Government is concerned about the quality of the Victorian water, but further downstream at Merbein salinity reaches 300 p.p.m., and at Waikerie it is already 500 p.p.m. I think this indicates that water users have some grounds for saying that something is happening in Victoria that is not in the best interests of the water users further down. I ask anyone who disagrees with this statement to examine another report entitled ‘Water Resources Newsletter’, No. 22 Winter, 1 974. On page 33 it states:

Water quality is to be improved at Stanhope, and at Strathfieldsaye in connection with augmentation of supply to meet further needs. At Robinvale urban ratepayers have the option by vote of a new pump and rising main to draw water from the Murray River upstream of discharges from town drains and of effluents from partial treatment works.

This means that a pump is installed upstream from where the water is polluted, but the pollution runs further downstream. The report also contains a good statement made by an overseas expert on water pollution problems. The report states: ‘Australia faces critical water pollution and should act now, ‘ said an American expert, Professor W. W. Eckenfelder who is professor of environmental and water resources engineering at the University of Nashville, Tennessee.

I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the remainder of this section of the report.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes:

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

Professor Eckenfelder who is a consultant to the United Nations and Israel on water pollution, addressed the 6th Federal Convention (Theme: Man and Water) of the Australian Water and Wastewater Association in Melbourne at its opening on 30 April 1974. ‘On the face of it, the problem does not look as bad as in other places but this is a country with most of its industry on the coastline, and because of this, now is the critical period.

Unless you act now with tough legislation it will become as bad as other places, ‘ he said.

The Professor, who is a member of a U.S. Government Committee to advise Congress on water pollution management said that new and tough legislation in the United States aimed at putting the cure for pollution back on to those who caused it. Industry had to find the best practical treatment for the problem by 1977 and had to come up with the best technology for re-use of water by 1 983. ‘Although it is tough legislation, by 1985 we should have a non-polluted environment’, he said and continued: ‘Our lead has been followed by Canada, Japan and Western Europe. Now is the time for Australia to act. The main goal should be not to create polluted water and not to use water recklessly. The world water pollution problem is not irreversible. ‘

Mr FitzPATRICK:

-What worries me is not what one reads in these reports but what is not written in the reports. Even the boundary rider’s sore-eyed dog could inform us of a lot of the things happening to the water running into the River Murray that are not reported. I refer in particular to the anabranch water. A couple of years ago during a drought when cattle were dying the boundary rider’s dog was exhausted every day trying to keep cattle away from the polluted water. I wish the Minister every success in this matter and congratulate the Government on its efforts to do something about this water.

I want to say something about the River Murray Waters Bill because I think it indicates that the Government is determined to take measures to ensure proper conditions of work for the commissioners involved in the work of the River Murray Commission and also those who may join it in the future. I believe that these amendments will give protection and peace of mind to the staff of the River Murray Commission and will remove the ever-present fear that long retirements may bring severe financial problems. I commend that Bill to the House.

Mr GILES:
Angas

– I, too, congratulate the Government on bringing the River Murray Waters Bill into the House tonight. I will not mention the States Grants (Water Resources Assessment) Bill because it is purely pro forma and a machinery matter. The River Murray Waters Bill follows on logically and well from what I might refer to as the David Fairbairn Bill on quantity. In my State at least measures designed to improve water quality are a logical extensionI congratulate the Government upon taking this course- and they are of tremendous importance, as mentioned by the honourable member for Darling (Mr Fitzpatrick), to those who live downstream on the River Murray. I take up the point made by the honourable member. I do not know that I am any more prepared to blame Victoria than I am to blame New South Wales. To be equally just, let me say that a lot of the South Australian attempts to control water salinity through drainage above the Waikerie area are not of very great value either. I think it is proper that these things should be openly said and debated in this House.

A little while ago I found myself leading for the Opposition on a similar Bill. On that occasion the Minister at the table was the Minister for Environment and Conservation (Dr Cass) who is also at the table tonight. Due to the extreme tolerance of the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, we broadened the debate a little to include the powers of the River Murray Commission and several other most interesting topics. I only repeat tonight what I said on that occasion. I hope that the Federal’ Government, by subterfuge, psychology or any other means possible, can gain proper reception for its ideas within the States that at present constitute the River Murray Commission, because the control of quality at this level is inextricably involved with the veto right of any one State in relation to flows along the River Murray system.

If there is one drought year after a lot of wet years there is a grave danger that the Government can be lulled into a false sense of security. The Minister shakes his head. I point out that most political animals are geared very largely to the people in an electorate. I am fearful that many people have forgotten the years of high salinity in the River Murray flow. I acknowledge the Minister’s point of view but I take advantage of this opportunity to remind honourable members and people elsewhere that high salinity and drainage problems could occur within the next 5 years in the main stream of the Murray itself. It is of no earthly use doing what we are so apt to do in this and other places, that is, to wait for the awful moment to arrive when we start to clutch at straws- to introduce Pels schemes and all sorts of strange and expensive ways of weaving our way out of the difficulties we are in.

I hope that from the statistics that are compiled as a result of this Bill real programs will be undertaken to safeguard not only the growers who are the concern of the honourable member for Darling (Mr FitzPatrick), who represents an electorate further upstream on the Darling River, but also the people who live in the lower reaches of the main stream. I have even heard the Murray River on one or two occasions described as the sewer. But it is not that, it is a most attractive river. However one can understand the use of that term. The river is of tremendous importance to those people who live near it and whose livelihood depends on the quality of the water. In my own State of South Australia 90 per cent of the population depends on water from the Murray system to sustain industrial growth and to provide for the normal water usage of families now and into the future. Perhaps it is not the time now to debate futuristic measures of water control, whether such measures involve use of atomic power or membrane type nitration systems. I ignore these possibilities because for the next decade or two the important objective is that we reach a situation where all States are rational and big enough to perceive the difficulties of those who live downstream. It is essential that we arm ourselves with the weapons to control the quality of water. That is the aim of this Bill.

Another great project is at risk if the quality of water is not maintained as the main stream of the Murray flows towards its outlet beyond Goolwa in South Australia. In this connection I refer to a paper entitled ‘Monarto, South Australia’ which has been taken from the Cities Commission report to the Australian Government and dated 30 June 1 973. In that paper it is stated:

In 1972 the South Australian Government took significant steps in urban planning by agreeing that an upper limit of 1.3 million for the future population of Adelaide was desirable -

Mr Wilson:

– Is that limit correct?

Mr GILES:

– I will presently prophesy the future. The publication indicated that the site for the proposed new city of Monarto was selected in 1972. It is located near the town of Murray Bridge. The document continued:

It was concluded that the Monarto project formed a desirable component of forward planing for Adelaide, and that development should commence at the earliest opportunity. As the new town’s potential is directly related to the growth of Adelaide, the project is heavily dependent for its viability on the strong support of the South Australian Government, particularly in its early stages.

I will not repeat what I said a few weeks ago on this matter as regards to competition from industries at Mount Gambier, Redcliffs, Adelaide itself, Christies Beach and Albury-Wodonga. The document continued:

The analysis shows that in order to achieve a population in Monarto of 170,000 by the year 2000, approximately onethird of the estimated growth of Adelaide will need to be diverted to the new town . . .

Although Adelaide’s growth problems are not as acute as those of other large Australian cities its people and its Government have become increasingly disturbed about the deterioration in its quality of life.

If the new suburb of Tuggeranong in Canberra were in Adelaide I would be even more disturbed than I am now. The document continued:

In March 1972 therefore a preliminary investigation was undertaken by a Government committee . . .

In many ways the project has not got far beyond that point. There is still no accepted plan for the growth of Monarto. Much of the reason for this is the problem of the quality of water and the fact that the Australian Government has decided to develop Albury-Wondonga upstream. I have referred to this development on more than one occasion in this chamber and I hope that never again will governments lightly decide to build major growth centres upstream from other major centres of population. If they do, I hope they provide signed agreements to establish the maximum permissible degree of salinity and the maximum permissible content of solids in the water to protect people who live downstream.

I repeat that the opening comment in the paper ‘Monarto, South Australia’ was to the effect that in 1972 the South Australian Government took significant steps in its urban planning by agreeing to an upper limit of 1.3 million for the future population of Adelaide. That government said this was the desirable limit. If we assume that the metropolitan population will continue to grow by 1.8 per cent per year, which was the current rate at that time, the 1.3 million ceiling will be reached by 1997. The effect of Monarto ‘s diversion of 7,500 persons a yearthat is, assuming a predominantly linear growth pattern- is therefore to postpone the attainment of the 1.3 million population ceiling until well after the year 2000. As the House will recognise, this is because the growth factor in South Australia, and even more importantly in Adelaide, has decreased considerably. When the original work was done on this subject the population growth in Adelaide during the period 1961-1966 was almost 3.25 per cent. It dropped to 1.75 per cent over the following 5 years. The average rate throughout was 2.5 per cent. The Australian population growth average during that 10-year period was 1.9 percent.

That should be borne in mind because what subsequently has transpired is directly concerned with the problem of water supplies to that area and their quality. Adelaide is now expected to reach a population of 1.3 million in about the year 2005, not 1997, because its population growth has fallen from 3.25 per cent in the period 1961-66 to below 1.5 per cent today. The problem concerned with the use of water relates to how urgently it will be required to meet Adelaide’s population growth and how urgently will be the requirement of the expenditure of funds for Monarto. It is for the reasons I have stated that I have risen tonight to point to changing circumstances which the Government would do well to assess. I congratulate the Government on this Bill. I hope that many of the statistics that are compiled will be valuable in the proper and rational planning of future growth centres and other works undertaken below the Hume Reservoir.

Mr LLOYD:
Murray

– I, too, welcome the Bills that are presently before the House. As every previous speaker has mentioned, the key point of this legislation concerns the extension of measurement of water resources to include quality as well as quantity. It is important also that it is intended to measure the quality of underground water as well as surface water. Although the States Grants (Water Resources Assessment) Bill relates to all States and all areas of Australia, if one is to understand the River Murray- most of the discussion tonight has centered on the Murray system- one has to have an understanding of the movement and the quality of underground water in the areas adjacent to the Murray. That is necessary if one is to unravel the quality system generally. I believe that it is important to do that because many insinuations are made from time to time about who is responsible for the water quality- whether it is the farmers, the tourists, the urban concentrations or, in many cases, subterranean inflows, such as those containing salinity, into certain parts of the Murray. When those matters are determined specific recommendations on how to deal with the individual problems can be made rather than just a blanket recommendation which may not cover the situation completely.

I believe it is important that the Commonwealth Government should be careful not to be too domineering in dictating to the States a policy on modified land use and water quality control measures. I believe that we can make better progress by deciding what are the problems and them getting the States, through their responsible authorities, to implement the required management and legislative patterns. The Commonwealth then could come in as a co-ordinator, a co-operator and as the provider of finance. I support the remarks of the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) who made the point that the finance should be provided on a grants basis from the Government rather than on a loan basis, or that just the individual group should bear the cost. When one looks at many of the Commonwealth programs in the areas of urban concentrations one finds that many of the projects which the Commonwealth is funding are being funded on a grant basis. I think that policy should still apply.

The honourable member for Gwydir mentioned also that this is a major agricultural area.

When one looks along the irrigated areas of the Murray, the Murrumbidgee and the Murray Basin generally, I believe that his percentage figure was too low. There is the more important point that for all types of agricultural produce that are required by the large urban concentrations in Australia, this irrigated area is the only guarantor of a continued and reasonably cheap supply of these foods, whether they be vegetables and fruit for Sydney, Melbourne and elsewhere, or even milk products. More and more the city of Canberra is coming to depend upon the guaranteed supply of milk from these irrigated areas, as are Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide.

One should not talk lightly about major modifications to land use there when one is considering the requirement of these large urban concentrations of a high standard of food on a guaranteed and reasonably cheap basis for people enjoying increasing standard of living. But with this assessment of quality, if we can discover the problems and move in concert with the States before it is too late to deal with salinity and general pollution problems, we will be able to do something about the position and stay ahead of some of the problems that have developed in other countries.

When looking at the Murray one thinks also of the rivers in the south-western parts of the United States of America in which the pollution and salinity problems are far greater than anything we are facing at the moment. One has to remember also that the two record wet years we have had in the Murray area will, in the short term, increase the salinity problem because of the increase in the water table. I support the legislation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 4100

RIVER MURRAY WATERS BILL 1974

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 13 November, on motion by Dr Everingham:

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 Dr Cass) read a third time.

page 4101

ADJOURNMENT

Whitlam Ministry- League of Rights-Telephone and Radio Fees: Pensioners- South Australia: Water Supplies- Television advertisements- Regional Employment Development Scheme: Victoria

Motion (by Dr Cass) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

- Mr Speaker, this morning we witnessed in this House something which I would have considered impossible. That was when a want of confidence motion which had been moved by the Opposition was gagged after only one supporter of the Government had spoken in the debate and the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) did not choose to come into this House to defend himself against an attack which was not in any way based upon events in this House but was based upon events in the country. The whole country is crying out against the Government and against the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister himself must take personal responsibility for some of the major factors of the current economic disaster.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I should like to remind the honourable gentleman that standing order 7 1 prevents him from discussing what took place in the debate this morning.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Indeed, I would not revive that debate. I am discussing not what took place in the debate but what did not take place in the debate. I want to refer in particular to the Prime Minister’s personal responsibility for the tariff disaster. He has assumed that responsibility in his own words. He has said: ‘I personally have done this thing’. He has said: ‘I have backed the Rattigan plan for the restructuring of Australian industry’. Irrespective of whether it is a correct plan- there may be a logical argument for and against that on both sides of the House- there can be no argument surely with the statement that that plan should not have been undertaken at a time of credit restriction. If one is going to restructure industry one must do it in a time of economic buoyancy when there is a place for these unhappy, ‘nervous nellies’. That is not my phrase. That is the phrase the Prime Minister used to describe those who were fearful of his policy and who would protest because they had lost their jobs. One cannot say that that is a feasible policy at a time of credit restriction. The

Prime Minister has to take personal responsibility for that. He has to answer to his Party, to the trade union movement and to the country for the unemployment which comes about through this personal misjudgment.

Sir, as you have very well said, I cannot refer to anything that took place in the debate in the House this morning, but I can refer to something which did not take place, that is, the appearance of the Prime Minister to defend himself. He is a guilty man, and he knows it. He has endeavoured, in a most unworthy manner, to find scapegoats in the rest of the administration of the community. He has thrown the Treasurer (Mr Crean) to the wolves and attacked civil servants who cannot defend themselves. It is all very well for the Prime Minister to reply: ‘I am only attacking a few of the top civil servants’. As a matter of fact he is attacking every public servant because he is attacking the principle upon which our Administration has been based, namely, that Ministers in this House are responsible and do not take the coward’s way out of hiding behind the skirts of some Treasury officials. It is not just the top man who is jeopardised by this. Everybody in the Public Service down to the bottom is prejudiced because this means that ministerial responsibility is repudiated and denied by the Government. This is one of the things that the Government has done to strike at the root of our system.

I do not want to conclude my speech without endeavouring to be constructive. I believe that a serious situation faces Australia. In my view the gathering wave of unemployment is greater even than the Government foresees. This is something which should concern all of us individually as members of Parliament. All of us should feel that we have some kind of responsibility for those in our electorates who find themselves unemployed. I suggest that we should show some greater initiative, and here perhaps I would criticise not only the Government. Perhaps we on this side of the House should be putting forward some more constructive ideas.

Let me put forward one tonight. We need to expand employment and to expand industry without putting costs up. I know that anything done in the way of reflation can be criticised as exacerbating excess demand. It has been said: ‘Look, you are adding to inflation by adding to employment’. Let us find a way of adding to employment without adding to inflation. I believe that this can be done if the Federal Budget is used as an instrument to cut costs. The immediate deficit is not in question because there is no excess demand. If excess liquidity is put into the banking system by reason of an increased deficit there is no reason why it cannot be mopped up by the traditional central banking mechanisms.

Let us use the Federal Budget to cut costs. In particular let us think of such things as electricity costs, rail freights, postage costs, the extra 6c that will be placed on each gallon of petrol in New South Wales. If necessary, let us think of temporary subsidies on the cost of food. These are things for which the Federal Budget should be used. Admittedly, the administration of most of these things, particularly the big items of electricity charges and rail freights and rail passenger fares, lies in the hands of the States. If we had a really forward thinking government, a government which realised the seriousness of the mess which it has created, a government which had some sense of the shame at what it has done to the Australian economy, that government, would surely be thinking of going to the States and putting to them a positive plan, saying: ‘If you will cut back your electricity costs and your rail freights, if you will cut back your rail fares and your suburban transport fares so as to cut real costs, we as the Federal Parliament will give you the necessary subsidies’. We should be able to say to New South Wales that it has been unfairly treated and this is why it has had to impose an extra 6c charge on a gallon of petrol. The Federal Government should say to that State: ‘We will make a subvention which will relieve you from the necessity of this impost which adds to costs’.

This action could be supplemented, of course, by cutting costs in the Federal sphere. I refer to such items as postage, excise and sales tax on some things that enter into costs at the bottom. The Federal Government has, I think unwisely, cut too much into customs duties. It is certainly umwise in a time of credit restrictions. The Government could cut the excise on certain items- not necessarily on beer and cigarettes. I am thinking more of sales tax on items that enter into costs, for example, on commercial vehicles. By so doing the Government can put employment up without adding to inflation.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr MILLAR:
Wide Bay

– I would not suggest that parliamentarians should have any immunity from occupational hazard any more than people engaged in other activities, with the exception of one essential qualification. I think that parliamentarians should be freed from the hazard of being regarded as one of a group with whom they may appear whilst meeting their obligations to the electorate to accept invitations from time to time. In qualifying that statement further, I would like to refer to an event which took place in this House comparatively recently. This is a matter of record in Hansard and I see no purpose in designating the person involved because I am speaking now to a matter of principle.

It was cited as a result of a chain of circumstances that I was involved with the League of Rights. I would like to say, and say quite emphatically, that in considering myself a representative of all the people of the electorate of Wide Bay I respond with a sensitivity and a generosity that would meet with the endorsement of my electorate whenever I am invited to attend a certain function in my capacity as member for the electorate. I am rather saddened to find that in so doing I and any parliamentarian similarly situated should be exposed to the accusation that the acceptance of an invitation must necessarily indicate a tacit endorsement of all that the organisation which issued the invitation stands for.

I was invited to attend a function of the organisation I have mentioned on 2 occasions, of one of which the spokesman who raised this matter was not aware. Oddly enough, by the intervention of fate- on one occasion an airline strike which delayed our departure from Canberra and on another occasion by being grounded by storms- I was unable to attend both functions. So in truth I have not actually attended one of the functions that was designated. But that is purely a matter of circumstance. I would have attended these functions. I argue that as a member representing my electorate I have a responsibility and a mandate to attend functions within my electorate. By attending a function of the League of Rights I no more become a member of that organisation than I become a widow if I attend a meeting of the Civilian Widows Association. Patently it is quite absurd to suggest otherwise.

Lest it be imagined that my protest has the effect of totally disassociating myself from the League of Rights, I would say that this is a matter of small concern to me, apart from my categoric denial that I am a member of the League of Rights or that I hold brief for its purpose. All activities in which I engaged- I would hope this applies to my fellow parliamentarians -are examined to find the good, and to discard what is not worthy of my concern or interest. I have little doubt that in the League of Rights there are many people of admirable quality and integrity who are firmly convinced that the

League has something to offer them. I will not venture into argument on that matter; it is a matter of personal choice. But what I do argue, and argue most emphatically, is that my appearance there or the appearance of any parliamentarian in pursuit of his parliamentary duties in giving the electors their due, wherever the venue may be, should not expose him to the hazard of having a parliamentarian of the opposing faction in this House attribute to him motives that he may not in truth endorse. Carried through to the logical conclusion, I dare say that, as I have sat in the House from time to time and listened with a certain amount of respect to what Government members have said and have found myself agreeing with them completely on certain matters, I could also have had awarded to me the accolade, if it can be regarded as such, of being a Labor supporter. Again I say that this is patently absurd, and it is a tragedy if parliamentarians are to be exposed to this criticism purely on the basis that they have accepted an invitation to speak, within responsible limits, at any venue and at any function and without any further evidence to indicate what their personal attitudes might be. So be it as a matter of principle.

I should like to take advantage of the few minutes remaining to me to bring to the attention of the House a fairly minor matter but one which is of great importance to the people concerned. This matter highlights the lack of co-ordination or liaison between the various portfolios and, to a lesser extent, between the various departments. My comment arises from the irony of a Budget measure which on the one hand takes away from the pensioners the requirement to pay $4 a year for a television licence- a not particularly substantial sum of money and one that pensioners were quite easily able to budget for. They accepted this on the basis that they knew exactly what they were doing and where they were going. So the Government removed the TV licence fee but simultaneously increased pensioners’ telephone rental by $6.68. As if this were not enough, it increased the unit call charge by in excess of 26 per cent. What extraordinary irony! This is not just a matter of economics or fiscal issues, it is based on the fact that many of these’ pensioners who are aged or infirm are terribly dependent on the telephone for their contact with the outside world and on occasions when they have to have urgent help rendered to them, the telephone is a great moral support and of great comfort to them. Living alone, they are very sensitive to sudden giddiness or a sudden stab of pain which could herald a serious illness, and the prospect of being isolated in their homes and unable to summon help occasions them great concern. What an extraordinary situation it is to find that on the one hand pensioners are relieved of the payment of $4 a year and on the other hand a charge for an essential service is increased substantially.

A similar situation has occurred in the case of increased radio licence fees for radio hams. The hams are highly regarded and they have from time to time rendered sterling service to the community. Quite often at times of disaster they have been the only link between the scene of disaster and outside help. Their licence fee has doubled from $6 to $12, again not a substantial sum of money for those who have means, but in many cases ham radio is a recreational activity as well as a very vital hobby for retired people. In many cases radio hams are dependent on the pension to support their activity. Again, there is a lack of co-ordination or liaison between the departments when we find on the one hand the Department of Tourism and Recreation allocating fairly substantial sums of money for recreational purposes and on the other hand the Government making it more difficult for some people to engage in recreation. It emphasises quite clearly that ad hoc government is not good enough, and whilst there are complexities in introducing a Budget and co-ordinating the fiscal policies of the Government, clearly some closer scrutiny should be made of these matters, which not only add up to anachronisms but also result in some personal hardship to the people involved.

Mr GILES:
Angas

-On another occasion in this House I found myself talking about the effect of quality of water supplies to areas such as South Australia. On that occasion, of course, I was unable to talk about the quantity of flow. I thought that perhaps I would spend a few minutes tonight is the matter of quantity. Historically speaking, South Australia fought many years ago a rather famous election on the matter of quantity of water flowing into the State. The issue at the time was: Does the State Government give away fighting for the Chowilla Dam, within the boundaries of South Australia, or does it accept the offer from the Federal Government of the time and agree with the obvious attitude of the other States concerned and take on Dartmouth Dam which, you will be well aware Mr Speaker, is under construction now. An election was called on this issue- purely and simply on this one issue- because water is so vital to the State of South Australia. A government resigned a year before its time and went to the people on this issue of water. The bait, if that is the right word, was that for the first time in many decades the quantity of water allowable to the State of South Australia under the agreement with the upstream States and the Commonwealth Government would be increased from 1,254,000 acre feet to 1,500,000 acre feet.

That was the issue on which an entire election was fought, and I have no hesitation in bringing it to the attention of the House tonight because it was not only Adelaide that was on the end of the supply line. I can see the honourable member for Grey (Mr Wallis) looking at me from the other side of the chamber. Towns in his area were then and are now entirely dependent on a huge outlay of money for pipelines to feed growing areas in the electorate of Grey. The pipeline was not only to supply Adelaide, it was not only to supply Grey. It was to substantiate the growth of Port Stanvac, to substantiate the growth of Redcliffs, if it ever develops, and it was to substantiate the growth of places like Monarto and other growth centres in South Australia which were 90 per cent dependent on the quantity of flow from the River Murray for the mere existence of the people. Now, that election was lost, as is now a matter of history, by the government of that time. The Premier of South Australia at that time now sits in a duller House than this, growing quite thick in the waist and generally looking like a senator. I am sure you will appreciate the point, Mr Speaker. It is purely a historical fact that that is so.

Mr Hunt:

– He gets a lot of publicity.

Mr GILES:

– Yes, he can only thrive on that. I suppose one can take the point of view as a member of this House that there he sits and stagnates, but the water issue in South Australia does not stagnate. I am not referring to anything other than stagnation, Mr Speaker, because it is such a vital matter. I mention that not only the establishment of future industries is dependent on the quantity of water supply now, through that system, but there is also the matter of growth centres. In relation to those growth centres, I congratulate very much the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) for producing those remarkable essays some time ago that he allowed even the Opposition to read. On the last occasion on which I spoke on this matter I made the point that I did not wish to take cheap advantage of the essays he had so properly made available to people with opposing points of view in order to open up debate on the matter. But one of the facts that does stand out is, that we in this country are imbued with the fact that Geelong needs to decentralise. This comment could also apply to Wollongong, Newcastle, Brisbane, Launceston, Hobart, Adelaide or Perth. But, of course, on a national scene this is a ludicrous thesis to adopt.

I do not know whether overseas people are right or wrong. I just point to the fact that people like Professor Alonzo have written in this field, and this is the sort of thing they believe in. From my point of view I would say that marginally I congratulate the Federal Government for taking a risk. I do not think it is the Federal Government’s role to act as a funding authority to State governments and say: ‘Go your own way’. That would be ludicrous. I do not think it would be right for this Federal Government to say too often without any proper work on the subject: ‘We will build a regional growth centre at Albury-Wodonga, at Timbuktu or anywhere else ‘. I do not think that is right. But I think what is right is that this Government should acknowledge I do not know that it does acknowledge this but it is proper that it should- and take into account the fact that not all the brains, ability and capacity in these matters are situated in Canberra. I think that what we have to do now is not get carried away by blind emotion, but take your risks, if this is the course you have adopted, and learn from your mistakes as you go but try to rationalise your judgment as conditions alter.

A little while ago I spoke on another occasion on the changing population trends affecting South Australia and particularly Adelaide. If indeed the trend of growth in my own State, and more particularly in Adelaide, approximates zero population growth then some government situated in Canberra has to take into account in a proper fashion whether such a scheme should continue or whether such huge expenditure should be deferred for a period of time. I am not in government. I am not privy to all the decisions .that are made. Sometimes I am thankful for that. But somebody has to look at this matter and decide just where taxpayers’ funds should be expended in relation to regional growth centres. I hope that this Government has the intestinal fortitude to clutch hold of such a prickly old thistle if necessary and come to a proper rational judgment on these matters.

In the remaining 2 minutes available to me I would like to talk to the House briefly on a matter in relation to which I have been trying to ask a question for some period of time now. Of course, I know very well that the Chair is not to blame for any deficiencies in that regard. I do not know whether I am getting old or whether other people in this House are getting old, but I find that when I listen to television programs these days perhaps I have the volume turned up a little higher than I once used to. If I turn the volume up a little, I must say that when those programs are interrupted by advertisements the din one suffers is beyond belief. One of the noise nuisances of this age is the decibel din that hits one’s ear drums when listening to television programs. I would like the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Mr Enderby) who is at the table to take up with the Special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen) this matter. I would be interested to know whether his hearing is affected in the same way as mine is, because I do not believe that the powers reposing by Act of Parliament in the Australian Broadcasting Control Board are being properly used. I would not mind betting that if a census were taken of the people of Australia today we would find that 50 per cent or 60 per cent of them would support me in this complaint that I lodged with the Minister tonight.

Anyone who tries to kid me that the advertisements that interrupt worthwhile television programs are not many decibels higher in volume than is the program itself ought to have his hearing tested. Nobody could kid me that my contention is wrong. I hope that the Minister will take that small matter seriously, because I believe that a vast proportion of the people of Australia today are vastly offended by this undue noise. A hell of a lot of them turn the volume down, sit down, and then turn up the volume when the advertisement is over.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-In the last couple of days I think the Opposition sought in fact to take from the Australian Broadcasting Control Board the power to take the action that the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) has advised that it should take. However, that is not the subject on which I rise to speak tonight. I am concerned with the attitude taken by the Victorian Government- I do not know whether it is repeated in other States- to the Regional Employment Development scheme. The scheme, introduced to provide employment for a number of people, was of necessity quickly drawn together and was commenced some weeks ago with a number of projects being approved. What concerns me is that a number of public statements have emanated from the Premier of Victoria in which he has indicated that unless he is able to dictate to whom the funds will be allocated, unless he personally is able to sign the cheques and, I assume, get the kudos- getting kudos seems to be the only thing that State governments are interested in nowadays- he will not allow the Victorian Government to participate in the scheme and may well attempt to prevent local government bodies which are subject to this control from participating in the scheme.

That might be all right, but what in fact has occurred is that the Premier of Victoria, following applications and the granting of funds to the Victorian Forestry Commission in the Otway Shire- an amount of money has also been allocated to the Forestry Commission in the Corio Shire in respect of the You Yang national park for works costing some $45,000 in the first instance and $30,000 in the second instance- has advised the Forestry Commission in the case of one project which has reached the stage of recruiting labour that it is not allowed to utilise or to recruit that labour until the total funds have been received.

I know of no instances in which the Victorian Government pays in advance the total amount of funds to its contractors or to anyone else. But, for the purposes of a political exercise, in order to achieve leverage, the Premier of Victoria refused one of his instrumentalities the right to recruit labour in a situation which would relieve unemployment and thus give the families of those people who would be employed the wherewithal to live. The Premier has used these people as political pawns in his game of gaining self-prestige. That is what it is all about- self-prestige for Victorian Ministers, who seem to have only one aim in life nowadays, and that is to see their names on plaques outside buildings and to get credit for expenditures which they have quite often publicly opposed prior to their being approved. This, in my opinion, is a serious situation in which a State government denies employment to people in order to put forward its own prejudiced political position. An amount of $45,000 was made available to the Forestry Commission in the Otway Shire some weeks ago. The recruitment of labour could have started this week. People could have been working this week but for a veto imposed by the State Premier of Victoria until further notice, and ‘until further notice’ means until he is able to impose on the Federal Government his demand that his public works program which he cannot finance or will not finance- one or the other- be met by the Federal Government. This fits into a pattern. When the Federal Government asked the States for prices powers temporarily he offered to sell them to the Federal Government collectively for $300m. Now what he is doing is saying: ‘I am prepared to let people work in my State instrumentalities provided you give me the money for my public works’.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! It being 11 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 12 noon tomorrow.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 4107

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Canned Meat for Food Aid

Textile Industries: Employment Levels (Question No. 191)

Mr Graham:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice:

What action is proposed by the Government to stabilise the employment levels in the textile and knitted garments industry having regard to the recent announcements by the General Secretary of the Australian Textile Workers Union, Mr W. A. Hughes.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

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

The Australian Government has acted to alleviate employment problems in the Australian textiles and apparel industry by moderating the pressures of imports and by encouraging structural adjustment within the Australian textiles industry.

Earlier this year the Government appointed a special Textiles Authority to investigate quickly those cases where it appeared imports might be causing or threatening disruption of the Australian market. The Government also decided at that time that Australia should accede to the Arrangement Regarding International Trade in Textiles to enable it, consistent with its other international trade treaty rights and commitments, to take action against individual low-cost overseas sources of supply whose exports to Australia were causing or threatening disruption of the Australian market.

Following a report by the Textiles Authority in July 1974, action was taken to contain imports of a range of knitwear and woven apparel items. Import licensing controls were introduced on imports from Taiwan and the Republic of Korea. Export restraint arrangements were negotiated with Hong Kong, India and the People’s Republic of China.

The Prime Minister forwarded a further reference to the Textiles Authority on 1 1 September on whether action should be taken in terms of the Arrangement Regarding International Trade in Textiles to contain imports of wool and acrylic yarns, knitted fabrics and towels and towelling.

The need to restrain import pressures at this time was also an important factor in the Government’s decision to devalue the Australian dollar. The additional cost of imported textiles arising from devaluation will, of course, be greater than 12 per cent as the higher than average duties payable on most imported textiles will now be levied on the higher basic cost of imports.

Recognising that some restructuring of the Australian Textiles industry will nevertheless remain necessary in the longer term, the Government has also implemented programs of compensation and adjustment assistance, including compensation payments and retraining and relocation programs for employees.

It is acknowledged that in some cases the measures outlined above may not have the effect of correcting immediately unemployment problems such as those which exist in some non-metropolitan areas where textile and apparel production provides significant levels of employment. In this respect, the Government has decided to introduce special measures of assistance for country towns that have been adversely affected by structural changes. These measures will assist those communities which at present have a limited range of job opportunities to absorb significant changes in the structure of employment with a minimum of disruption.

Suburban Rail Passenger Systems (Question No. 253)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

What was the operation profit or loss of suburban rail passenger systems in each State in each of the last ten years.

Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

The information the right honourable member requested is not available. Information published by the States in relation to railway profit/loss does not enable separation of suburban figures from the totals for £11 of the last ten years. However, the Bureau of Transport Economics in its report of June 1972, tabled by this Government, included a table showing estimated operating results for urban railway services for the three years 1968-69 to 1970-71. Comparable figures for later years are not available. Figures extracted from that table are shown below:

Government Consultants and Advisers (Question No. 326)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) With reference to his answer to question No. 1199 (Hansard 7 November 1973, page 296 1), what progress has been made in the re-examination of maintaining a central comprehensive record of the employment of persons engaged by the Government to serve as consultants or advisers.
  2. When is it likely that a decision on the maintenance of such a record will be made.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

All departments were asked to provide information in respect of consultants and advisers to Ministers, department and other authorities engaged in the period 2 December 1972 to 31 December 1973. The information that has been provided has been consolidated in a single document. This document is being placed in the Parliamentary Library and the right honourable member and others may inspect it if they so desire. I am advised that the document cannot be regarded as comprehensive.

The information in the document was brought together so that, as stated in my answers to Senate Question No. 369 (Hansard, page 863 of 25 September 1973) and House of Representatives Question No. 1 199 (Hansard, page 2961 of 7 November 1973) the practicality and usefulness of maintaining a central record of these matters could be reexamined.

As the right honourable member will appreciate when he inspects the document I have placed in the library, all departments have been involved in the very considerable amount of work that has been required to assemble and present this information.

While it may at times be of interest to provide information on consultancy or advisory arrangements for particular matters, I doubt whether the continuous recording on a central basis of such large amounts of diverse information is justified. I am reluctant to authorise the additional and continuing work involved in the further refinement and maintenance of this record.

If the right honourable member wishes to have information in regard to a specific arrangement I shall see if it can be provided.

Appointment of Committees, Commissions and Specialist Advisers (Question No. 1797)

Mr Garland:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

How many (a) committees and (b) commissions have been set up and (c) specialist advisers have been appointed by the Government since 5 December 1972, and what are the details in each case.

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. and (b) See my answer to the Leader of the Opposition on 14 November 1974 (Hansard, p. 3605).
  2. See my answer to question No. 326 supra.

Immigration to Australia (Question No. 524)

Mr Wilson:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What was the immigration target for 1973-74.
  2. How many migrants arrived in Australia during 1973-74.
  3. In which countries did the migrants who arrived in Australia during 1 973-74 lodge their applications to migrate, and how many were there from each.
  4. In which countries were those who migrated to Australia during 1973-74 born, and how many were there from each.
Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The Immigration target for 1973-74 was 1 10.000.
  2. . (3) and (4) Official statistics of arrivals in Australia prepared by the Australian Bureau of Statistics are not yet available for the complete financial year 1973-74. However, a manual count in the Department of Labor and Immigration of Passenger Cards lodged by persons at time of arrival indicates that some 1 12,960 migrants arrived during 1973-74. Countries of their last permanent residence or selection are shown in the following table:

The above figures must be regarded as preliminary only and subject to revision until final figures are provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Final figures will be sent to the honourable member as soon as they are available.

Uranium Enrichment Plant: Feasibility Studies (Question No. 532)

Mr Wallis:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Are feasibility studies being carried out on the possible establishment of a uranium enrichment plant in Australia.
  2. If so, was one of the areas to be studied the northern Spencer Gulf area of South Australia.
  3. 3 ) If so, what stage has been reached in the studies.
Mr Connor:
Minister for Minerals and Energy · CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (I), (2) and (3) 1 have publicly acknowledged that, prima facie, the area around the head of Spencer Gulf has attractions as a possible site for a uranium enrichment plant. As announced in the press statement issued on 2 November 1974 after the talks between the Australian and Japanese Prime Ministers, joint studies of various matters relating to uranium enrichment in Australia will be initiated as early as practicable. Further consideration of the question of an appropriate site will be related to those studies.

Carpet Tiles Inquiry (Question No. 680)

Mr Garland:

asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did he take the opportunity to read the transcripts and evidence presented to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Prices relating to carpet tile prices.
  2. Did he discover any important point in relation to these industries or prices of which he or his officers were previously unaware.
  3. Has he found the report and recommendation useful; if so, in what way.
  4. What action has he taken to implement it.
Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes, and I have also referred the report to my Department.
  2. In general the report contains valuable information on the pricing practices and distributional aspects of this relatively new industry, and on retail pricing in general. I note that the Committee findings state that the retail mark up on carpet tiles is unnecessarily high. Officers of my Department advise that purchases of carpet tiles by the Department are made at rates which are more advantageous than retail prices and, wherever possible, supplies are obtained direct from manufacturers or wholesalers.
  3. ) I did find the report useful. As the amount of information available on retail pricing in Australia is quite limited, it is worthwhile to have gained an insight into the pricing of carpet tiles; this will also assist in building up a fund of information on pricing practices in Australia.

It is hoped that inquiries by the Joint Committee on Prices, as well as the activities of the Prices Justification Tribunal, will continue to increase the Government’s understanding on pricing matters. Once we gain more knowledge of the pricing of building materials, it will be possible to develop a consistent, informed policy on the subject.

The Carpet Tiles Inquiry was the first Inquiry to be held by the Joint Committee on Prices into a specific complaint from the public; the Committee’s aims were to gain an insight into the factors influencing prices of carpet tiles, and also to assist in the build up of a fund of knowledge on pricing practices in Australia. I think these objectives have been achieved, and the report highlights the need for careful shopping by buyers.

  1. The matter of publicising retail pricing arrangements is not one falling within the jurisdiction of my Department. The Trade Practices Act 1974 includes provisions designed to bring about a more competitive climate in retail pricing as well as in other areas. In addition the Trade Practices Commission provided for in that Act is able to inform the public of the kinds of benefits obtainable by comparative shopping.

The major company mentioned in the report has been contacted by the Department of Manufacturing Industry and advises that it no longer issues recommended prices to retailers unless specifically requested.

The Committee’s report has also been brought to the attention of members of the Textile and Apparel Industry Advisory Panel and the Interim Commission on Consumer Standards.

Narrogin: Television Translator (Question No. 949)

Mr Bungey:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

When is work on the recently announced television translator at Narrogin to commence, and when will the translator begin operating.

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:

Design work for the television translator station at Narrogin commenced shortly after advice of its approval was received by my Department from the Australian Broadcas.ing Control Board in September 1974. Orders for supply of the necessary equipment are expected to be placed in about four months time. The translator station is expected to commence operating in approximately 1 8 months from now.

Shepparton Post Office and Communications Centre (Question No. 1424)

Mr Lloyd:

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

  1. When is it anticipated that the new Shepparton Post Office and Communications Centre will be completed.
  2. What variations in cost and time of completion are expected from the original estimates.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

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

  1. It is expected that the Shepparton Post Office and Communications Centre will be completed in October 1 975.
  2. On 22 October 1973, the Department of Housing and Construction placed a contract for the construction of the building, at a contract price of $1,367,000. The date of completion specified in the contract was March 1975. It is now estimated that the building will be completed in October, 1 975 and that the final completion cost will be of the order of $1,490,000.

Post Office Staff (Question No. 1470)

Mr Hunt:

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

Will the Postmaster-General ensure that Post Office staff will not be disadvantaged by any changes arising out of the Vernon Committee Report, in particular, that the status, promotional prospects and location of all serving offices will be preserved.

Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

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

It is the Government’s intention that payment and temporary staff transferred from the Postmaster-General’s Department and Overseas Telecommunications Commission to the new commissions will retain all existing rights and entitlements and will be employed under conditions no less favourable than those presently enjoyed. The Government’s intention has already been conveyed to representatives of all unions/staff associations with coverage in the PostmasterGeneral’s Department and the Overseas Telecommunications Commission.

Australian Post Office: Management Systems (Question No. 1471)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice: in view of the apparent inconsistencies in the Department’s attitude to interim management systems developed prior to the introduction of some or all of the recommendations in the Vernon Committee Report, what recommendations in detail will be incorporated into legislation of the Government platform, and will they be implemented by the same or equally competent consultants who acted as advisers to the Vernon Committee.

Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

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

I refer the honourable member to my answer to Question No. 1472.

Australian Post Office: Engineering Branch (Question No. 1472)

Mr Hunt:

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

  1. 1 ) In view of the announced total abandonment of the Area Manager concept within the Australian Post Office and the publication and acceptance in principle of the contents of the Vernon Committee Report, will the Postmaster-General ensure that the residual organisational aims are not being pursued by the Engineering Branch in country areas of New South Wales, in particular, the centralisation of some of the District Engineers’ functions from Armidale and Narrandera to their respective area headquarters at Tamworth and Wagga Wagga.
  2. Will the Postmaster-General also ensure that a moratorium will be declared on any further administrative changes, which could pre-empt Parliamentary decisions on this matter, until the Postmaster-General submits the necessary legislation to the House.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) In order to meet work loads and to make optimum use of the skills of the professional, technical and clerical staff in the Engineering Division a program of restructuring has been in progress since early 1972 in both Metropolitan and Country districts. Some strengthening of the technical officer organisation is proceeding at present. None of these activities is a result of the earlier Area Management Scheme. The whole question of organisation of districts is being reviewed at present as part of the question or implementing measures arising from the Vernon Committee Report. The organisational consultants to the Vernon Committee, Cresap, McCormick and Paget Inc., are participating in this review. No further major changes to district organisations will be considered pending the outcome of the review.
  2. See answer to ( 1 ) above.

Book Bounty (Question No. 1501)

Mr McLeay:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

How much book bounty has been paid to the printers of the following books:

Enema by Anthony Lovejoy (b) Below the Navel by King Carol, (c) Sensual Appetite by Pierre Duval, (d) Felicity’s Trip by Jeremiah Stone, (e) Inside Linda Lovelace by Linda Lovelace, (f) Adultery without Men by Ann Harris and (g) The Coming of a Woman by Alistair Hunt.

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:

I assume that the honourable member seeks to establish the actual amount of bounty that was paid in respect of each of the publications mentioned in his question. I am sure the honourable member will appreciate that to do so would be to disclose cost data not otherwise available to competitive commercial interests.

However I provide the following information:

no bounty was paid in respect of the books designated (a) and (e).

bounty amounting to $2,083.06 was paid in respect of books designated (b), (c), (d), (f) and (g).

Mr Neville Curtis: Temporary Entry Permit (Question No. 1542)

Mr MacKellar:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has Mr Neville Curtis been granted a temporary entry permit.
  2. If so, was the decision to grant a temporary entry permit taken personally by the Minister.
  3. 3 ) On what grounds was temporary entry granted.
  4. Has he applied for residence in Australia.
  5. ) Has consideration of this application been accelerated.
  6. Have all the normal requirements been observed in consideration of the application.
  7. Has permanent residency been granted to Mr Curtis.
Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. ) His strong family links in Australia.
  4. Yes.
  5. No.
  6. Yes.
  7. Yes.

Overseas Visits (Question No. 1792)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

With reference to his answer to Question No. 1657, why did not his Department follow normal practice and, after consultation with the Department of the Special Minister of

State arrange for the Table Office of the, House of Representatives to transfer the question to that Department?

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

-The right honourable gentleman asked me ‘Which Minister is responsible for the Overseas Visits Committee?’ (Hansard, 19 November 1974, page 3725). Although the information was available in the- 1974 Australian Government Directory under the heading ‘Department of the Special Minister of State’ (page 316), I told him.

Bureau of Transport Economics and Bureau of Roads , (Question No. 29)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the current establishment of (a) the Bureau of Roads and ( b ) the Bureau of Transport Economics.
  2. What is the function of (a) the Bureau of Roads and (b) the Bureau of Transport Economics.
  3. Does the Government intend to amalgamate- the Bureaux; if so when; if not, why not.
Mr Charles Jones:
ALP

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

  1. (a) 75

    1. 119

  2. (a) To investigate and report to the Minister on matters relating to roads and road transport.

    1. Conduct of research programmes, appraisals, studies and investigations, to assist the formation of policy in the fields of transport and materials handling in or affecting Australia.

  3. ) The matter is under consideration but at this stage no firm decision has been made.

Ph.D. Degree Courses: Enrolments (Question No. 370)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. How many graduates have enrolled to undertake Ph.D. courses in (a) physics, (b) chemistry, (c) biology, (d) geology (e) geography, (f) psychology, (g) social welfare and (h) mathematics at each university in Australia in each of the last 10 years?
  2. What is the expected enrolment in each course for Ph.D. degrees in each of the next 5 years?
Mr Beazley:
Minister for Education · FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member ‘s question is as follows: (.1) The following data shows total enrolments in selected Phi.D. degree courses by university for the years 1970-74. Details of Ph.D. degree enrolments by course were not collected in years prior to 1 970. .

  1. Figures projecting Ph.D. enrolments over the next five years are not available insufficient detail to answer the question.

Department of Defence: Management Consultant Firms (Question No. 798)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) For what purpose has the Department used management consultant firms in the last twelve months.
  2. Which firms have been used.
  3. 3 ) What was the total cost.
Mr Barnard:
Minister for Defence · BASS, TASMANIA · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) During 1973-74 management consultant firms have been used Tor the following purposes:

Queensland Floods: Damage to Army Property (Question No. 1308)

Mr Hodges:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Was the Training Depot of the Queensland University Regiment, CMF Army Reserve at Walcott Street, St Lucia, damaged as a result of being inundated by water during the Australia Day floods of 1 974.
  2. If so, (a) what is the estimated cost of the damage; and (b) when is it expected repairs will be undertaken.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.

  2. (a) $36,000.

    1. The repairs required form part of a program to rectify damage caused to Army property in Queensland at that time and will be undertaken as soon as possible.

Australian Government Employees: Maternity Leave (Question No. 1375)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. Which categories of Australian Government employees are not entitled to (a) paid maternity leave and (b) employment protection on maternity.
  2. What steps is the Government taking to provide maternity leave and employment protection for these employees.
Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) It is the policy of the Australian Government to provide maternity leave and employment protection on maternity for Australian Government employees in accordance with International Labor Organisation Convention 103. The Maternity Leave (Australian Government Employees) Act 1973 has given expression to this policy by providing maternity leave benefits to certain categories of Australian Government employees. I am informed the categories of Australian Government employees not entitled to these benefits are:

    1. employees listed in Section 5 (3) of the Maternity Leave (Australian Government Empoyees) Act 1973;
    2. employees of authorities to which the Minister responsible has, at this stage, not sought to apply such benefits; (in) employees of authorities which the Minister responsible has sought to have excluded from applying such benefits;

  2. In relation to 1 (i), these categories of employees are specifically excluded from the coverage of the Maternity Leave (Australian Government Employees) Act 1973 and it would be inappropriate to apply the provisions of the Act to them.

In relation to 1 (ii), the Public Service Board and the Department of Labor and Immigration are currently identifying these authorities and examining the application to them of the Government ‘s policy on maternity leave.

In relation to 1 (iii), the Public Service Board and the Department of Labor and Immigration are currently examining the application to these authorities of the Government’s policy on maternity leave.

Flood Mitigation: New South Wales and Queensland (Question No. 1509)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What sum has been made available to New South Wales and Queensland in the last 3 years to assist flood mitigation as distinct from flood restoration works in those States.
  2. ) Do these States have any requests for such assistance before the Australian Government at the present time; if so, how much would these proposals cost the Australian Government if approved.
  3. Is there any agreed cost sharing formula for flood mitigation works with these or other States.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. Under the New South Wales Grant (Flood Mitigation) Act 1971-73 funds made available to New South Wales over the past three financial years were:

No similar arrangements existed with Queensland during this period and no funds were made available to that State for flood mitigation works as distinct from flood restoration.

  1. There are no new requests from New South Wales for financial assistance for flood mitigation work before the Australian Government at the present time. In April 1974 I invited the Premier of Queensland to submit a State-wide plan on flood mitigation that would be a basis for consideration of Australian Government assistance.

The Premier has outlined proposals for works on Brisbane River Creeks, Wivenhoe Dam, Pioneer River and Proserpine River. Apart from the Proserpine River works these proposals have not been developed to a stage where it is possible to provide firm estimates of cost. A grant of up to S 1 20,000 has been approved for emergency flood mitigation works on the Proserpine River.

  1. 3 ) Funds under the New South Wales Grant ( Flood Mitigation) Act 197 1-73 are provided:

The same cost sharing formula is proposed for flood mitigation works on the Proserpine River.

Electoral: Employment of Candidates (Question No. 1795)

Mr Garland:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Does he recall making references to the value of providing answers to questions on notice and to the need for answers to be prompt.
  2. If so, will he now give details of all cases of which he is aware in answer to my question No. 658 which refers to the employment by the Government of unsuccessful Australian Labor Party candidates subsequent to the elections of December 1972 and May 1974.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. There is nothing I can usefully add to my previous answer ( Hansard 23 August 1 974, p. 1 2 1 3 ).

Double Orphans Benefit

Mr Hayden:
ALP

– On 23 October the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) asked me a question relating to the double orphans benefit. I informed the honourable member that I would arrange for full details to be incorporated in Hansard as an answer to a question on notice if the honourable member wished me to do so. Consequently, I have some further information for the honourable member. It is as follows:

States known to have reduced or terminated payments made in respect of children following grants of double orphans pension are Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. It is also understood that New South Wales has reduced State Ward care payments made to foster mothers but this has not been confirmed. Further details in respect of the other States are provided below:

Ministerial Councils: Contact with States (Question No. 45)

Mr Snedden:

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

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

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

The information sought by the right honourable member was provided by my colleague, the Prime Minister, on 3 October 1974 in his reply to Question No. 41 (Hansard, pages 2249-55).

Ministerial Councils: Contact with States (Question No. 55)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

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

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

  1. to (4) I refer the right honourable member to the Prime Minister’s reply to Question No. 41 (Hansard, 3 October 1974, pages 2233-2239) in which he provided details of the Australian Education Council and its Standing Committee.

Government Departments: Use of Advertising Agencies (Question No. 757)

Mr Morrison:
Minister for Science · ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– In an answer to Question No. 757, which Mr Snedden asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Media, the ‘ known percentage of foreign ownership ‘ in John Clemenger (Vic) Pty Ltd was given as 65 per cent in one section of the answer and 35 per cent in another. 35 per cent is the correct known extent of foreign ownership in that advertising agency.

Unemployment: Income Maintenance (Question No. 984)

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What are the benefits available to people who have been put out of work due to tariff cuts.
  2. Since the reduction in tariffs how many people have been receiving payments of this nature in (a) Australia, (b) each State, (c) each capital city and (d) areas outside capital cities.
  3. Can he say whether the recipients of these benefits are (a) being retrained, (b) looking for other jobs or (c) having a holiday.
Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. Persons who have been put out of work through Government induced structural change are eligible for income maintenance under the Government’s Structural Adjustment Assistance Scheme. The income may be maintained for a period of up to 6 months at the level of the individual’s average weekly earnings over the previous 6 months (subject to a ceiling of I ‘A national average weekly earnings). At the same time such persons have available to them the full range of services provided by the Commonwealth Employment Service including training assistance under the National Employment and Training SystemNEAT.
  2. Between July 1973 when the 25 per cent tariff reductions came into effect and 30 August 1974, 6,261 applications for income maintenance were received by my Department. The number of persons in receipt of income maintenance at 30 August 1974 in each State, by metropolitan and non-metropolitan area was as follows:

  1. (a) Up to 30 September 1974, 368 applications for training had been received from persons in receipt of adjustment assistance.

    1. and (c) It is a condition of eligibility for income maintenance that the individual is available for employment.

National Health Scheme: Chemists’ Claims (Question No. 1088)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. What arrangement has he made to speed up the payments of chemists’ National Health Scheme claims.
  2. Is it anticipated that this arrangement will overcome the backlog of claims; if so, when.
  3. When the backlog is overcome, will the previous payment arrangement be reinstated.
  4. What as the average delay in respect of claims in each State at the end of May and August 1 974.
Dr Everingham:
Minister for Health · CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP

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

  1. New and improved methods of processing chemists’ claims are being introduced. The phased introduction of new equipment and the new processing procedures is well advancd and the associated benefits are being progressively realised. A substantial increase in the number of prescriptions per claim over recent months has delayed the payment of chemists’ claims, particularly in New South Wales. As from 4 November 1974 a system of part-payment of chemists’ claims has been introduced, as an interim measure, to alleviate the situation in that State. The system provides for chemists who request such payments to receive a payment soon after lodgement of the claim. The pan-payment system should not cause any increase in the time taken to pay the balance of the claim.
  2. The improvements to the system of processing of claims and the new equipment should overcome the backlog of claims, it is expected that the existing backlog in New South Wales will have been cleared by the end of January 1975.
  3. When the backlog of claims is overcome the system of pan-payment of claims will be discontinued.
  4. The average number of days taken to process chemists ‘claims in May and August 1974 were-

Queensland Institute of Technology (Question No. 1091)

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to resolutions of a meeting of the Staff Association of the Queensland Institute of Technology held on 15 September 1974, which expressed grave concern as to the sincerity of the Government in its attitude towards education when not allowing college salaries to move with comparable professional salaries, and which deplored the actions of the Government in its attitude towards the fixation of academic salaries in that it failed to implement the recommendations of the Campbell Com- ‘ mittee.
  2. Is it a fact that the meeting urged the Government to take action so that academic salaries can be investigated forthwith.
  3. Is it also a fact that industrial action is contemplated.
  4. What action is being taken by the Government to settle the grievances.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1). (2) and (3) I have no information about the meeting in question or about the current intentions of the Staff Association.

  1. The Remuneration Tribunals Act 1974 which came into operation on 16 October 1974 established a permanent Academic Salaries Tribunal. The decision to establish this body flowed from recommendations made by the Hon Mr Justice W. B. Campbell in his 1973 inquiry into Academic Salaries.

On 21 October Judge Campbell, who constitutes the Academic Salaries Tribunal, wrote to the Prime Minister advising him that he had decided to make an immediate review of Academic Salaries which he expected to complete prior to the end of the year.

The Government will give urgent consideration to the Tribunal ‘s findings when they are available.

Australian Broadcasting Commission: Film of China (Question No. 1110)

Dr Klugman:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Media, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to a report in the July 1974 issue of Channel, the official journal of the ABC Staff Association, that ABC Commissioner Dorothy Edwards, speaking to This Day Tonight staff, claimed it was just as well they had not shown the Antonioni film on China as the ABC’s representative in Peking, Paul Raffaele, could have been killed.
  2. Is the Minister able to say whether Commissioner Edwards made this statement.
  3. If she did make the statement, is the Minister also able to say what evidence she had for making it.
Mr Morrison:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes, I have seen the report.
  2. I am advised that the report in the journal Channel referred to is taken out of context.
  3. I am told in an informal meeting with members of the This Day Tonight staff in Sydney on 5 June, Mrs Edwards was asked what was the worst thing that might happen to Mr Raffaele. Mrs Edwards replied that ‘the worst thing was to be killed’ but not implying that there was any possibility of this in this case, which fact was accepted by the staff members themselves.

Mrs Edwards is surprised that a remark made ironically in a private and informal conversation should have been so twisted out of context and published in the ABC Staff Association Journal.

Fire Fighting Procedures (Question No. 1147)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation, 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 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 Repatriation and Compensation.
  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 Lionel Bowen:
ALP

– The Minister for Repatriation and Compensation has provided the following answer to the right honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) The Department of Repatriation and Compensation has a continuing program of fire safety /emergency training which includes films, lectures, demonstrations and evacuations.
  2. Officers and employees from administrative offices, general hospitals, outpatient clinics and limb and appliance centres participate in these exercises.
  3. Over 9,500 officers and employees in six States took part in one or other form of fire safety/emergency training during the 1 8 months up to 30 June 1 974.
  4. The purpose of the training was to develop a basic awareness of the conditions which assure a state of fire safety, of the procedures to be followed in fire or other emergency, and of the special problems which arise in evacuations involving patients with various kinds and various degrees of disabilities.
  5. As the Prime Minister pointed out in his earlier reply, the Australian Government has already given a lead in this area when it established a Natural Disaster Organisation to cope with emergency situations on a national level and to assist the States in maintaining their capacity to cope with local emergencies.

Paper (Question No. 1199)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is there a relatively high per capita wastage of paper and other goods in the Australian Capital Territory, which could be recycled.
  2. ) Has his Department the responsibility for the recycling of waste paper, bottles and other goods in the Australian Capital Territory.
  3. If so, what action is being taken in Canberra to implement an exemplary system for the rest of Australia.
Mr Bryant:
Minister for the Capital Territory · WILLS, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. I ) Probably no more than in any other urban centre.

    1. I think responsibility is too strong a term. The Depart.ment co-ordinates and encourages the collection or material through its waste disposal service but the responsibility for its reprocessing and for decisions about the economies of that collection and processing lies with the industrial sector.
    2. It is not possible to establish a standard system of recycling. The system in each urban centre would vary greatly with local marketing practices and the proximity of the centre to industrial plants willing to reprocess the salvaged material. In Canberra negotiations are under way with paper manufacturers involving door-to-door collections of newsprim and the installation of a large storage and baling depot. Similar steps are being taken for the establishment of a centralised bottle collection depot. The Department maintains a system unique in Australia for collecting all unwanted vehicles, having these scrapped through a private agency and having the metal dispatched to Sydney. The Department is investigating the feasibility of reducing the volume of disused tyres by shredding. The shredded product is used as land fill etc.

Social Welfare Workers (Question No. 1322)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many social welfare workers are there in each State and Territory.
  2. What is the ratio of population to social welfare workers in each municipality of each State and in each Territory.
  3. What is considered a desirable ratio of population to social welfare workers.
  4. How many short of this desirable level is Australia at present.
  5. 5 ) How does he intend to overcome this short-fall.
  6. How long will it take to overcome the short-fall.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. The Australian Labor Government established the Social Welfare Commission in 1973 with a broad range of responsibilities in the social welfare area. The Commission, in turn, set up on 12 November 1973, a Working Party on Social Welfare Manpower under Section 1 4 (f) of its Act- to consider and report to the Minister on measures designed to provide skilled staff for the successful implementation of social welfare programs. The right honourable member’s questions are being considered within the general context of the Working Party’s examination of welfare manpower issues.

There is at present inadequate information available to answer this specific question but the Working Party is obtaining this information. Various studies have been undertaken on particular aspects of welfare manpower, e.g. by the Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research at Melbourne.

The use of the term ‘social welfare workers’ can be interpreted as inclusive or exclusive of many occupations depending on the parameters one cares to accept. In the 1971 Census the occupational classification of social worker included, for example, counsellor, moral re-armament worker, welfare officer, refuge worker, youth worker and social worker. The figures from the 1971 Census are as follows:

  1. See Table presented above. No break-up by municipality is available.
  2. This question is being considered by the Working Party although it must be noted that the use of ratios may not be accepted by the Working Party as the only appropriate measure of desirable manpower distribution.
  3. See(l)and(3).
  4. See(l)and(3).
  5. See(l).

The comments provided in respect of questions (I) and (3) will make it clear that it is not possible to state accurately the full extent of needs nor therefore of the time required to meet these needs.

Work Force: Female Component (Question No. 1370)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. What percentage of the workforce is currently composed of women.
  2. What percentage of the total wage and salary bill computed on an annual basis is earned by women.
Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

I am informed that

The preliminary results from the August 1974 quarterly population survey conducted by the Australian Bureau of Census and Statistics indicated that females comprised 33 per cent of the total civilian labor force.

There is no official information available on the percentage of the total wage and salary bill earned by women. However, on the basis of the available statistical information on average female earnings and on the number of female wage and salary earners, it is estimated that approximately 25 per cent of the total wage and salary bill for 1973-74 accrued to females.

Unemployment: Female Workforce (Question No. 1371)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What statistics does the Government have available to indicate the dimensions of the unemployment problem in the female workforce.
  2. What percentage of the female workforce is currently unemployed.
  3. What specific measures has the Government adopted to deal with unemployment in the female workforce.
Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The quarterly labour force survey conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, which is based on a sample of households, is one source of regular information on the incidence of unemployment in the Australian community.

Another source is the Commonwealth Employment Service statistics of the number of persons registered for employment. However, the CES statistics cannot be taken as a comprehensive measure of the absolute level of unemployment as registration with the CES is voluntary and the statistics relate solely to persons registered for full-time employment.

  1. The preliminary results of the August 1974 quarterly labour force survey which are the latest available, indicate that 2.8 per cent of the civilian female labour force was unemployed. (For source and definitions of the unemployed see Australian Bureau of Statistics, The Labor Force, reference 6.20.)
  2. Measures for avoiding or relieving unemployment are available to both men- and women without discrimination. These measures include: the counselling and employment assistance of the Commonwealth Employment Service; training assistance under the National Employment and Training System; employment assistance under the Regional Employment Development Scheme; and for those displaced as a direct result of Government induced structural changes, assistance under the Structural Adjustment Assistance Scheme.

International Labour Convention 103 (Maternity Protection) (Question No. 1374)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has the Government ratified International Labour Organisation Convention 103 (Maternity Protection).
  2. If not, what Australian laws or practices need to be changed to enable ratification of the Convention.
  3. What steps- is the ‘Government taking to enable ratification of the convention.
Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. No.
  2. and (3) The major barrier to the implementation of Convention No. 103 in Australia is the funding of any arrangements for maternity leave in the private sector of employment. The Convention stipulates that maternity benefits (cash and medical) are to be provided either by means of compulsory social insurance or by means of public funds and that in no case shall the employer be individually liable for the cost of such benefits due to women employed by him.

I would also refer the honourable member to the booklet ‘Maternity Provisions’ No. .10 in the Women and Work series published by the Women ‘s Bureau of my Department, a copy of which is available in the Parliamentary Library and which sets out in detail how Australian law and practice fall short of the standards contained in Convention No. 103. Although this booklet was published in February 1973, it substantially reflects the current situation with the exception of that relating to Australian Government employment.

Under the Maternity Leave (Australian Government Employees) Act which came into operation on 1 8 June 1 973, female officers and employees of the Australian Government are entitled to at least 12 weeks’ maternity leave on full pay commencing at least 6 weeks before the expected date of confinement and continuing for at least 6 weeks after the actual date of confinement. The cost of the scheme is met out of public funds.

The subject matter of the Convention is appropriate for action partly by the Australian Government and partly by the States. The Australian Government has introduced paid maternity leave for its own employees as indicated above and the provisions of this scheme are not inconsistent with the Convention. In accordance with the arrangements established between the Australian Government and the States for consideration of unratified ILO Conventions, Convention No. 103 is under examination by my Department and the State Labour Departments.

Housing (Question No. 1382)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has his Department made estimates of the (a) level of building approvals for houses and flats, (b) building commencements for houses and flats and (c) building completions for houses and flats for 1974.
  2. ) If so, will he make these estimates available.
Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. (a) The level of building approvals is used only as a means to estimate the important indicators of building activity i.e. commencements and completions;

    1. and (c) Yes.

  2. For some time, the Australian Government has been concerned with the lack of any real co-ordination in the housing industry. The Government believes that it should seek to achieve a better balance between the supply of and demand for housing and reduce the extent of unnecessary fluctuations in the level of housing activity. In order to achieve this aim, the Government has embarked on a program of Indicative Planning for the housing industry. As part of this program the techniques used in forecasting and current forecasts are being revised and reassessed. Forecasts made available in these circumstances could be misleading.

Home Ownership (Question No. 1383)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice:

Will he provide statistics to show the level of home ownership in Australia.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

Details of the number of occupied private dwellings in Australia classified by nature of occupancy, as obtained from the published results of the Census of Population and Housing carried out by the Australian Bureau of Statistics at 30 June 1971 are shown below:

Migrants in the Building Industry (Question No. 1385)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice:

What percentage of (a) skilled and (b) semi-skilled employees in the building industry are migrants.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

Information in the detail requested is not available. However, the published results of the 1971 census of population and housing give details of the employed population 15 years of age and over, born in Australia and born overseas, classified by broad industry groupings, one of which is the construction industry as defined in the Australian Standard Industrial Classification. This group includes persons engaged not only in the construction of buildings but in other construction work, e.g. civil engineering.

The proportion of the employed population in the construction industry at 30 June 197 1 born overseas was approximately 33 per cent.

Estimates derived from the results of the population survey carried out by the Bureau of Statistics on a sample basis through Australia each quarter show that this proportion had not changed significantly in May 1974, the time of the most recent survey for which results are available.

Federal Headquarters of Voluntary Organisations (Question No. 1438)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What voluntary organisations have requested financial assistance from the Department of Agriculture for the establishment or maintenance of a federal headquarters.
  2. What has been the response to the requests.
Dr Patterson:
Minister for Northern Development · DAWSON, QUEENSLAND · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The Australian Fishing Industry Council.
  2. The request was refused.

Federal Headquarters of Voluntary Organisations (Question No. 1444)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation, upon notice:

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

– The Minister for Repatriation and Compensation has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. I) and (2). The Department of Repatriation and Compensation has no record of having received any requests from voluntary organisations seeking financial assistance for the establishment or maintenance of a federal headquarters.

Prisoner of War Trust Fund (Question No. 1476)

Mr Hyde:
MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What payments have been made to The Prisoner of WarTrust Fund of 485 Bourke Street, Melbourne.
  2. To what categories of ex-prisoners of war have payments been made from this Trust Fund.
  3. What steps are taken by the Trust Fund to ensure that all eligible prisoners of war knew of the Fund.
  4. Has the Minister knowledge of any other trust funds for the benefit of ex-prisoners of war; if so, what are they.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

– The Minister for Repatriation and Compensation has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. The Prisoner of War Trust Fund was established in 1952 with a Government grant of $500,000. The Fund was reviewed in 1961 when a further $94,000 was allocated. Subsequently for each of the six years from 1965-1970 annual grants of $30,000 were made and these were reduced to $20,000 a year for the period 1 971-1973. For the current period 1974-1976 the allocation has been set at $10,000 a year making a total Government allocation since 1952 of $864,000.

In 1 973 the Trustees of the Fund accepted as an additional Trust, the sum of $ 1 1 ,382.37 being the balance of proceeds from the realisation of Japanese assets in Australia disbursed in accordance with article 16 of the Peace Treaty between Japan and the Allied Powers. These moneys are being applied to the benefit of former prisoners of war of the Japanese.

  1. The P.O.W. Trust Fund was established to provide financial assistance to former prisoners of war of the 1 939-45 War suffering distress or hardship as a result of disabilities arising from the conditions of their captivity, or as a result of any material prejudice directly related to those conditions. All prisoners of war of the 1 939-45 War are eligible to apply. Payments from the Fund may be made in addition to any Repatriation benefits that may be payable, each case being considered on its merits.
  2. At the inception of the Fund in 1952 advice of the function and purpose of the Fund together with a form of application for assistance were forwarded to all prisoners of war who could be located. Since then the Ex-Prisoner of War Association has continued to keep members informed of the Fund’s existence and makes periodic representations to the Trustees on behalf of its members.
  3. In 1952 the Civilian Internees Trust Fund was established to administer the disbursement of pan of the proceeds from the sale of Japanese assets in Australia. Eligibility for assistance from this fund was limited to certain civilian internees of the Japanese and their dependants.

At the same time, and again in 1956, funds from the same source were also divided amongst former ex-servicemen, who were prisoners of war of the Japanese. This Fund was originally administered by the Department of Treasury, Defence Division, and in 1973 the balance was taken over by the Prisoners of War Trust Fund as indicated at ( 1 ).

There are no other known funds established for the exclusive benefit of former prisoners or war.

Infestation of Wheat (Question No. 1482)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What adverse reports were received from buyers in respect of wheat loaded onto ‘Ogden Clipper’ at Geelong in April 1974.
  2. Did buyers impose any penalties on wheat in this shipment; if so, what were the penalties and the cost to the Australian Wheat Board.
  3. Was the ship passed by Department of Agriculture inspectors prior to loading.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

-The Minister for Agriculture has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. I ) and (2) It was reported that insects were found when the wheat was unloaded. I am informed that subsequent checks provided evidence that the wheat contained some latent infestation, not detectable by visual inspection, at the time of export. The price at which wheat is sold and any adjustments to that price or other arrangements in respect of claims made by buyers are matters between the contracting parties.

    1. The vessel was inspected in accordance with the requirements of the Exports (Grain) Regulations and a Grain Loading Permit was issued.

Infestation of Barley (Question No. 1483)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What adverse reports were received from buyers in respect of barley loaded onto ‘Bordatxoa’ at Port Lincoln in January 1974.
  2. ) Did buyers impose any penalties on barley in this shipment; if so what were the penalties.
  3. Was the ship passed by Department of Agriculture inspectors prior to loading.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) It was reported that insects were found when the barley was unloaded. The price at which barley is sold for export and any adjustments to that price or other arrangements in respect of claims made by buyers are matters between the contracting parties.
  2. The vessel was inspected in accordance with the requirements of the Exports (Grain) Regulations and a Grain Loading Permit was issued.

Infestation of Wheat (Question No. 1484)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, upon notice:

  1. What adverse reports were received from buyers in respect of wheat loaded onto ‘Dinara’ at Sydney in May 1974.
  2. Did buyers impose any penalties on wheat in this shipment; if so, what were the penalties and the cost to the Australian Wheat Board.
  3. Was the ship passed by Department of Agriculture inspectors prior to loading.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) It was reported that insects were found when the wheat was unloaded. I am informed that subsequent checks provided evidence that the wheat contained some latent infestation, not detectable by visual inspection, at the time of export. The price at which wheat is sold and any adjustments to that price or other arrangement in respect of claims made by buyers are matters between the contracting parties.
  2. The vessel was inspected in accordance with the requirements of the Exports (Grain) Regulations and a Grain Loading Permit was issued.

Infestation of Wheat (Question No. 1485)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, upon notice:

  1. What adverse reports were received from buyers in respect of wheat loaded onto ‘Aghios Nicolaos’ at Geelong in April 1974.
  2. Did buyers impose any penalties on wheat in this shipment; if so, what were the penalties and the cost to the Australian Wheat Board.
  3. Was the ship passed by Department of Agriculture inspectors prior to loading.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) It was reported that insects were found when the wheat was unloaded. I am informed that subsequent checks provided evidence that the wheat contained some latent infestation, not detectable by visual inspection, at the time of export. The price at which wheat is sold and any adjustments to that price or other arrangements in respect of claims made by buyers are matters between the contracting parties.
  2. The vessel was inspected in accordance with the requirements of the Exports (Grain) Regulations and a Grain Loading Permit was issued.

Unemployment Benefits (Question No. 1516)

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

Will he bring up to date as far as possible the answer to my question No. 143 (Hansard 14 March 1974, page 520).

Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. The averages of the numbers of unemployment benefits current on each Saturday of the months in the period January 1 974 to September 1 974 is as follows:_
  1. The table below shows for surveys carried out in 1974, the distribution of beneficiaries according to duration of benefit at the time of each survey.
  1. Any discrepancies between totals and sums of components are due to rounding.

Nuclear Armaments: Indonesia (Question No. 1533)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) With reference to his answer to my question in the House of Representatives on 22 October 1974 concerning Indonesia’s attitude to nuclear armaments, has he sought the Indonesian Government’s attitude to ratification of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; if so, what is its attitude.
  2. If Indonesia has said it will not ratify the Treaty, what action has the Government taken to persuade it to do so.
  3. Has his attention been drawn to the indication by the Indonesian Ambassador to Australia, on an ABC television program, This Day Tonight, on 22 October 1974, that the Indonesian Government would keep its options open on the development of nuclear weapons.
  4. Will he undertake to begin discussions immediately with the Indonesian Government to clarify its attitude on the development of nuclear weapons and the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty.
  5. What further action will he take in this matter which is of fundamental importance to Australia.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The Indonesian Government, although a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has entered certain reservations and is withholding ratification until they are satisfied.
  2. and (4) My September meeting with President Soeharto has been followed by officials’ talks in Djakarta at the end of October on a range of matters including the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. As opportunity offers the Australian Government will continue dialogue with the Indonesian Government on the important question of nuclear proliferation.
  3. Yes, I am aware that the Indonesian Ambassador was interviewed on an ABC television program ‘This Day Tonight’ on 22 October 1974. 1 have since read the transcript of the interview and from that transcript I did not gain the view that the Indonesian Government was intending to pursue the development of nuclear weapons. I have particularly noted that the Ambassador said ‘we have no intention whatsoever to use our nuclear reactor to prodduce nuclear weapons ‘.
  4. I declared at the United Nations General Assembly on 30 September 1 974 Australia ‘s intention to work towards the strengthening of the international non-proliferation regime by supporting the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and working for its acceptance everywhere. This was no empty declaration; the Australian delegation to the United Nations General Assembly is currently working actively towards this end. As a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Australia will be an active participant in the forthcoming conference in May 1 975 at Geneva to review the Treaty as required by its Article VIII (3).

Ministerial Press Releases (Question No. 1653)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for the Environment and Conservation, 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 distribution of press releases.
Dr Cass:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Copies of ministerial press releases are circulated by hand, by mail and by publication.
  2. ) Copies are circulated to the press gallery, a ministerial mailing list, the Australian Government Digest, and to people or organisations who request them on a casual basis.
  3. The number of copies circulated depends to an extent upon the particular subject matter of the statement, but in general, statements are sent to about 250 addresses.
  4. Part of the cost of producing and distributing Ministerial press releases is included in costs relating to salary and administration of the Minister’s office. Other costs are borne by the ministerial document reproduction unit, which is part of the 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.

Survey of Household Income and Expenditure (Question No. 1717)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the answer to Question No. 365 (Hansard, 30 July 1974 page 831), did he state in opening the Industrial Peace Conference that an in-depth study is under way in his Department to compile and assess material relating to household expenditure so that this kind of information can be made available to employers, unions and the commission for national wage cases.
  2. ) If so, has this study been completed, and what were the results.
  3. If the study has not been completed, what progress has been made, and what is the exact purpose of the study.
Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) No. In my opening address to the Industrial Peace Conference on 1 1 December 1973 I said the in-depth study had been undertaken ‘on the initiative of my Department’.
  2. and (3) There is nothing further to add to my answer on 30 July 1974 to the right honourable member’s related Question Upon Notice No. 365.

Unemployment (Question No. 1776)

Mr King:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. How many people have been registered for unemployment in each State for each month from July 1973 to October 1974.
  2. What was the total cost in each State of payments in the form of unemployment relief in each of the same months.
Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I am informed that:

  1. 1 ) The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The monthly statistics of unemployed persons'"' registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service in each State for the period July 1 973 to October 1 974 are as follows: {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The Department of Social Security has provided the following monthly statistics of payments to Unemployment Benefit recipients in each State for the period from July 1973 to October 1974:

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 26 November 1974, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1974/19741126_reps_29_hor92/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant