House of Representatives
28 May 1975

29th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 29th Parliament
  3. 1975

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. G. G. D. Scholes) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2895

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Metric System

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

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

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

That the traditional weights and measures are eminently satisfactory.

Your peititioners therefore pray:

That the Metric Conversion Act be repealed, and that the Government take urgent steps to cause the traditional and familiar units to be restored to those areas where the greatest inconvenience and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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. byDr J. F. Cairns, Mr Barnard, Mr Les Johnson, Mr Lynch, Mr Bourchier, Mr Donald Cameron, Mrs Child, Mr Corbett, Mr Erwin, Mr Jarman, Mr MacKellar, Mr Nixon and Mr Oldmeadow.

Petitions received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned employees and agents of the Australian insurance industry respectfully showeth:

  1. 1 ) That the Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  2. That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.
  3. That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October, 1 974.
  4. That no sound reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise) has been given by the Government.
  5. That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful at this time.

  6. 6 ) That the insurance industry is already coping with

    1. the effects of inflation,
    2. increased taxation on life assurance offices,
    3. the effects of recent natural disasters,
    4. other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, a National Superannuation Plan and improved Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation.
  7. That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2 million initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated ) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  8. That as employees and agents of existing insurance offices your petitioners fear for their jobs and their future prospects if the Parliament proceeds with the legislation.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron, Mr Connolly, Mr Drummond, Mr Drury, Mr Howard and Mr McKenzie.

Petitions received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

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 establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. . Create hundreds of public service jobs and cause serious unemployment in the private insurance industry throughout Australia.
  2. Add to the taxpayers burden.
  3. Trade unfairly.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1 975.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

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 establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. 1 ) Further shrink the flow of funds available for finance for private enterprise in Australia.
  2. Will eventually lead to nationalisation of much of private enterprise in Australia.
  3. Cause serious unemployment in the private insurance industry throughout Australia.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1 975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. byDr Edwards.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we are deeply disturbed at the Australian Government’s proposal to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office. Apart from the effect that the AGIO will have not only on the viability of the many insurance organisations now operating in this country, but also on the stability of their employees, we are apprehensive that the Government’s entry into the insurance and assurance fields will seriously erode the benefits now accruing to subscribers to the mutual companies. Many of our savings, as well as our retiring benefits are invested in life assurance, and the erosion of the profitability of the private and mutual companies must inevitably mean that many of us who are now self-sufficient will have to seek government aid. We feel sure that your government would not wish this to happen, and we plead therefore that the proposals be withdrawn.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

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

  1. 1 ) That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  2. That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.
  3. That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October 1974.
  4. That no sound reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise) has been given by the Government.
  5. That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful at this time.

  6. That the insurance industry is already coping with

    1. the effects of inflation,
    2. increased taxation on life assurance offices,
    3. the effects of recent natural disasters,
    4. other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, a National Superannuation Plan and improved Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation.
  7. That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2 million initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

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 establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

Lead to nationalisation of the Insurance Industry.

Provide no better insurance service to the public than that already provided by the existing 45 Life Offices and 260 General Insurers.

Provide the opportunity for that office to obtain general and superannuation business by the application of Australian Government financial and verbal duress on State Government’s local and Semi-Government bodies, Australian or State instrumentalities or any other body, or their employees, which is funded by the Australian Government.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1 975.

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

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned, all being of or above the age of 1 8 years as follows:

  1. Your Petitioners oppose and seek the deletion of those provisions of the Family Law Bill 1974 which supplant the existing grounds by the introduction of the sole ground of irretrievable break-down, which remove any consideration of fault, and which will weaken the family unit while causing more widespread injustice because:

    1. it imposes on society a radical alteration of divorce law far beyond identifiable requirements or desires;
    2. it lowers the status of marriage by permitting people to ‘drift’ into divorce, reduces parental importance and leads to increasing institutionalisation of children with consequental delinquency;
    3. it will not reduce the ‘in-fighting’ in a divorce suit which mainly occurs over matters of property and custody;
    4. it will not encourage maturity in acceptance of marital and parental obligations and responsibilities.

  2. Your petitioners commend the divorce legislation introduced in Great Britain in 1 973, which acknowledges the importance of the family unit, mirrors community requirements, secures justice for innocent people and establishes a realistic definition of irretrievable breakdown, and call for similar legislation to be provided in Australia.

Your petitioners therefore, humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will make provision accordingly. by Mr Drury.

Petition received.

Communism

To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that the undersigned express their total oppositoin to the creed and expansionist aims of Communism and calls on the Australian Government to use its full resources to resist Communism, to support active opponents of Communism and to withhold support for Communist-inspired activities.

We call on the Australian Government to: press for the release of refugees from occupied South Vietnam; permit entry to Australia to those refugees who wish to come here; establish a public inquiry into the power exercised by the Communist movement in Australia; publish intelligence assessments of Communist activity in Australia. by Mr Gorton.

Petition received.

Sydney-Newcastle Expressway

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 it is necessary for the Sydney-Newcastle expressway to be constructed on the west side of Lake Macquarie for the following reasons:

  1. to protect the environment including Blackbutt reserve,
  2. to prevent the bisection and destruction of urban areas on the east side of Lake Macquarie,
  3. c) to by-pass through traffic from urban areas.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House ask the Government to arrange for the Sydney-Newcastle expressway to be constructed on the west side of Lake Macquarie.

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

Petition received.

Flora and Fauna Sanctuary

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

We, the undersigned, citizens of Australia, by this our humble petition respectfully request that the Australian Government make available, either singularly or in cooperation with the State of New South Wales, finance to allow the purchase and dedication as a fauna and flora sanctuary with part reserved for recreational usage that parcel of land known as ‘Black Neds Bay’ being the estuarine swamp and salt marsh at the entrance to Lake Macquarie, New South Wales, together with the land along the southern shore of the entrance to Lake Macquarie to the east of ‘Black Neds Bay’ up to and including the headland known as Reids Mistake’, and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Morris.

Petition received.

page 2897

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2897

QUESTION

POTATOES

Mr ERWIN:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

-I wish to ask the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture a question. Has the Minister any evidence to show that the potato importer processors in Australia have manipulated the industry in favour of the processors? Will the Minister introduce a means whereby the importer has to submit to a Government department the quantities ordered at the time the orders are made?

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

-This is the second question I have been asked this week on potatoes. The first one was asked by the honourable member for Casey who, as I said, represents one of the best potato growing areas in Australia, Kinglake. I am aware that the honourable member for Ballaarat also represents one of the biggest potato producing areas in Australia. I do not know whether it is the best, nevertheless it is a big one. As regards the specific question, there has been a lot of concern with respect to the imports of frozen potato products- French fries, as I think they are called- in recent years. Prior to 1973-74 the average amount imported was about 20 tons a year, which has increased dramatically over recent years to more than 15 000 tons. As I explained the other day, one of the reasons for this was the shortage of potato products in Australia and the high prices being asked. Imports were necessary to bring down the price of potatoes and also to fill the gap between supply and demand. I am pleased to say as far as potato growers are concerned that the imports of potatoes have dropped dramatically in recent months. In fact they are running now at about only 270 tons a month compared with up to almost 3000 tons a month say 12 or 8 months ago.

A study group is inquiring into the imports of various commodities to see whether effective forecasting can be carried out. I do not know whether potato imports are included. As regards imports hurting the industry, as I said recently to the honourable member for Casey the Government has been looking at whether these products have been dumped. I think a statement was made yesterday by the Attorney-General that we have no evidence of potatoes being dumped. I will certainly refer the question as to whether there has been any manipulation by importers to the relevant Ministers, the Attorney-General and

Minister for Police and Customs, and the Minister for Agriculture, for expert advice and I shall let the honourable member know the position.

page 2898

QUESTION

SAND MINING AT FRASER ISLAND

Mr FULTON:
LEICHHARDT, QUEENSLAND

-Has the Minister for Minerals and Energy received a telegram informing him of a statement made by the General Manager of Dillinghams at a public meeting at Maryborough on 26 May relative to the extent of sand mining on Fraser Island?

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

– Yes, I did receive a telegram and so did most members of the House. It has caused considerable unnecessary perturbation. The position briefly is this: My Department was approached by Dillingham-Murphyores for approval of a contract to export 175 000 tons of beach sand minerals over a period from 1 June 1975 to the end of 1977. The contract as advanced was loosely worded and said that the minerals would come from the company’s operations on Fraser Island. In the terms of the guidelines set down by the Prime Minister recognition had to be given to 12 leases which had been granted by the Queensland Government to the Dillingham-Murphyores operation. On the other hand, those 12 leases did not all relate to the area from which mining was to take place.

We proved specifically the area from which the company wished to mine. The area of special rnining lease 102 contains sufficient of the minerals to meet the whole of the requirements of the contract. It was that area, SML 102, which had been the subject of an exhaustive mining inquiry at the Maryborough court. The full transcript of the evidence taken at the inquiry already has been lodged by me in this House. It is a public document. To provide a back-up it was suggested that the company might also mine from SML 95. On the other hand, my information is that special mining lease 102 will meet the whole of the requirements. The General Manager of Dillinghams, if he made such a statement, is quite wrong and is committing a breach of faith. We will not tolerate it any more than we will tolerate the unnecessary, unfair, and in many cases malicious, criticism which we are receiving from his antagonists.

The terms of the approval will operate from 1 3 December 1974. They are reviewed annually. If in the meantime any attempt is made- I doubt that there will be because his superiors will keep him in check- to mine from any lease other than those I have mentioned, we will take appropriate action. When the contract comes up for review on the annual basis according to policy, we will strictly confine it to the 2 areas, 102 and 95. 1 am disgusted with the malicious and false rumours that are spread around by some of those people. On one side there are people who have no thought for anything other than the profit they can make. On the opposite side there are people who are foolish, irresponsible, and in many cases utterly intolerant. They are abusing the trust of ordinary, honest, decent Australians who want to preserve pur environment. I would yield to no one in my desire to preserve the environment. At the same time, contracts properly entered into will be honoured to the letter and neither group -conservationists of the ilk of the honourable member for Gwydir or people of the ilk of Mr Everson on the opposite side- will be allowed liberty and licence.

page 2898

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT LOAN

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA

– I ask the Prime Minister: Is he concerned at the failure of the May loan to attract subscriptions to securities with maturities beyond 2 years, and that of the $380m much came from the Reserve Bank and only about $44m was new money? Does he have any more confidence than investors in his own Government’s ability to control inflation? Is he resigned, and should investors be resigned, to further increases in interest rates?

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

-The Acting Treasurer will answer.

Mr HAYDEN:
Minister for Social Security · OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

-As I pointed out in the Press statement I released last night, a tendency for an decrease in liquidity at this time is a seasonal factor. The tendency is reinforced at present because there has been deferment of the payment of company tax. There are other factors at work too. For instance, the fact that there has been a reduction in the 60/40 investment requirement to 50/50 for savings banks has meant that the savings banks have been reducing the demand for bonds. I do not think we should lose sight of the fact that the present yield differential between public sector securities and debenture offerings of prime corporate borrowers is 3 per cent to 4 per cent when the more normal differential is about 2 per cent. This is an indication that there are other attractive competitive forms of investment in the economy. I suggest that the most important influence is the need of corporations for liquidity to meet tax liability. Raisings from the May loan are generally lower than those from loans at other times of the year. For instance, the loan which was floated in February of this year attracted $388.7m. If one goes back to loans floated over the May period in previous years, although of course the amounts are not consistent, one notices in comparison with loans at other periods of the year, there is a much lower subscription rate.

I should also like to point out to the House that overall there are signs that the economy is strengthening. Retail sales are improving. The overhang in stocks, especially in the retail area, in physical volume, is now starting to decline. Unemployment, according to the Minister for Labor and Immigration has reached a plateau. I am not suggesting for a minute that it will be easy to restore the economy to a state of equilibrium. One of the worst things which I think could happen would be for the recovery of the economy to take place at too rapid a rate. This would be completely disastrous to the health of the economy. On the other hand, one of the most disastrous effects which could be induced into the economy at present would be for members of the Opposition to go about in the most determined way, as the Leader of the Opposition seems to indicate is his intention, to try to destroy confidence when the early signs are there of a pick-up in the economy and a move towards a more healthy condition.

page 2899

QUESTION

DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

Mr MARTIN:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister for Northern Development received any progress reports on development projects being financed by the Australian Government in northern Australia? Are these projects being co-ordinated with State governments and local authorities? Has he received any complaints from local authorities with respect to these Australian Government projects?

Dr PATTERSON:
ALP

– I am happy to say that progress reports are flowing in regularly from State governments and local authorities with respect to water conservation, beef road projects and the Regional Employment Development scheme. The only complaint that I have received has been with respect to the irresponsible statement made by the Leader of the National Country Party last night on national television. I read his words:

I was told yesterday, probably the people of Mackay in Queensland may not like this, that $500,000 was given to that town to plant 14 000 trees- they cannot find the people in the town for the job so they fly in 10 people only to find that it was not the right time to plant the trees.

Let me assure the Leader of the National Country Party that the people of Mackay will not like his statement. They deeply resent it. They would think that the Leader of the National Country Party was a fool to make such a statement. The statement is maliciously untrue. It is a deliberate fabrication by Mr Anthony. It is an insult -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will not pursue that line in answering a question.

Dr PATTERSON:

– It is an insult to the people of Mackay. It is an insult to the parents and citizens associations, the Mackay City Council and the progress associations that put up schemes to beautify the city of Mackay. The facts are that approximately $500,000 was made available to the city of Mackay, but this money was for works connected with drainage, sewerage and the maintenance of roads. A sum of money was given to the Mackay City Council and the Pioneer Shire Council for beautification, including the planting of trees, particularly in the area from the aerodrome into the city. Mackay is one of the most beautiful towns in northern Australia. I am disturbed also that the Australian Broadcasting Commission would allow such rubbish to be televised when, I am told, the interview was taped.

page 2899

QUESTION

WOOL

Mr FISHER:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

-My question is to the Acting Treasurer. In answer to a question earlier this week, the Minister stated that Government support for the reserve price scheme for wool was a welfare payment to wool growers. Will the Minister say which other welfare schemes of the Government require repayment of the funds provided and have an interest rate of at least 1 1 per cent?

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

-First of all, I do not know when we are going to get the money back. Secondly, I rather gather that there is an arrangement with the wheat industry which is even more generous. It is undeniable that this is a diversion of resources in support of the wool industry to assist it at this time. In the rather general way in which one talks about welfare support programs, that is a welfare support program.

page 2899

QUESTION

BROWN COAL DEPOSITS

Mrs CHILD:
HENTY, VICTORIA

-Will the Minister for Minerals and Energy tell the House the importance of brown coal deposits, particularly those in Victoria, in the Minister’s Austraiian energy plans?

Mr CONNOR:
ALP

-National Country Party members are laughing. The levity which comes from those honourable members is typical of their political immaturity and their general oneeyed stance on Australia’s fundamental energy problems. The main significance is this: The coal resources of Australia are over 160 times as important in energy content as the total known and recoverable reserves of natural gas and crude oil. In particular, the State of Victoria is endowed with what are probably the largest brown coal deposits in the world. Recently, scientific representatives of the German Democratic Republic who visited us stated their amazement at the quality of these deposits, their quantity and the ease of their recovery. Certainly we intend to integrate the deposits in our overall energy planning.

Brown coal is the sole source of energy in the East German Republic. It is that country’s sole source of liquid hydrocarbons as well. East German technology stands pre-eminent in the world today and that is the technology which we will be following. I have noted with interest that the State of Victoria has terminated arrangements for its inquiries with the East German people. The Austraiian Government will be stepping right into the breach. As a matter of fact, I am indebted to the honourable member for McMillan for already having provided me with a sample of coal from his electorate. Similar samples will be obtained from the Hunter Valley and from the Darling Downs.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I do not think the honourable member for McMillan would look upon this as being funny. I think this matter is rather serious for quite a number of areas in Australia.

Mr CONNOR:

-This is a matter about which we should speak, think and act as Australians. I am not interested in little Australians. Australia is a great country with a great future, and it will have that future under the Australian Labor Party.

page 2900

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Mr SNEDDEN:
BRUCE, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Has there been a drop in private sector employment of 140 000 people? Has there been a drop in private capital investment from 13 per cent of the gross domestic product to 8 per cent of the gross domestic product in the March quarter? Did the Government’s submission to the Prices Justification Tribunal inform that Tribunal that lack of company profits leads to this alarming downturn in investment, which in turn produces unemployment? Will the Government bring in legislation giving specific statutory direction to the Prices Justification Tribunal in terms of this part of the Government ‘s submission and not leave such a nationally significant economic issue at the discretion of the Tribunal on a mere request from the Government?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I ask the Acting Treasurer to answer the question.

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

-The last matter raised by the honourable member concerning the introduction of legislaton is a policy matter and would need consideraton by the Government. So far as the other matters are concerned, I would share the concern of any responsible person in the community who pointed out that profits as a proportion of gross domestic product have slumped in recent times. I think it also ought to be pointed out that the level of resources which has gone to salaries and wages has increased substantially in the same period. I cannot recollect the figures exactly- it is some time since I looked at thembut my recollecton is that profits as a proportion of gross domestic product went from something like 15 per cent to 9 per cent. That is a recollection which may be a little inaccurate. The amount of resources which went to wages and salaries went from 57 or 58 per cent to 65 per cent or 66 per cent of gross domestic product.

It has been pointed out by spokesmen from the Government side, particularly the Treasurer, that wage and salary earners have to realise that they cannot continue to increase the rate of resources which they divert to their own uses substantially at the expense of profits, because in our economic system profits are an important source for investment, the expansion of industry, the maintenance of efficiency and the creation of job opportunities. Adverse effects at the present time have longer term deleterious effects upon the performance of the Australian economy. I think we can see the effects right now, in a-more immediate sense where people in many sectors of the work force are literally pricing themselves out of jobs. I share the honourable member’s concern. I share that sort of concern when it is responsibly stated by all members of the community. I should have thought that it would have been noted by honourable members of this House and the public that Government spokesmen and trade union and professional associations have made this point publicly. For instance, some months ago I spoke to the Victorian Trades and Labor Council on this issue, making the point that you cannot eat up your resources, that you cannot cannibalise your levels of capital investment and the rates at which they should proceed, in order to have immediate consumption satisfaction. In other words, if this continues, the present is living at the expense of the future.

This is one of the most serious issues which must be confronted by the Government, the Parliament and the Australian community. None of these things can be achieved unless there is a recognition of this problem in the Australian community, unless there is support of the need for restraint in the demands on resources diverted to wages and salaries, and unless an opportunity is developed for private enterprise to be more profitable. One should not confuse the terms ‘profitable’ and ‘profiteering’. Profiteering can be covered by the term ‘profits’. A reasonable rate of profit is proper in our society and indeed in any sort of economy. Even in a centrally planned economy there must be surpluses which are diverted by command planning measures to reinvestment, to redistribution and to various other purposes. If I may make the point in the friendliest manner possible, I think that, as spokesmen for the free enterprise system in our community, members of the Liberal and National Country Parties- especially the Liberal Party- are deplorably deficient in their advocacy of the role of profits and of the right to a respectable recognition of that role in our economy.

page 2901

QUESTION

REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT SCHEME: QUEENSLAND

Mr KEOGH:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

– Has the attention of the Minister for Labor and Immigration been drawn to statements by Mr Lee, the Queensland Minister for Works and Housing, on the operation of the Regional Employment Development scheme in Queensland, alleging that it is necessary to dismiss employees of the State Department of Works through lack of funds and to re-employ them immediately on the same work under the RED scheme? Is there any truth in this allegation by Mr Lee, particularly in the part where he claims that the situation has been brought on by pure socialism and centralism? Can the Minister give the true facts about this problem?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-A short time ago the various State premiers indicated to the Prime Minister that they needed additional funds to make it possible to continue to employ people then employed on roads and such work. The Prime Minister invited the State premiers to indicate to him the amount of money they would need to make it possible to continue to employ these people. They submitted to the Prime Minister the amounts that they would need for this purpose, and the Prime Minister and the Treasurer agreed to give them the full amount for which they had asked. Therefore, it is not true to say that any dismissals in the Queensland Public Service are due to lack of support from the Australia Government.

It is not true either to say, as Mr Lee quite wrongly and untruthfully said in Parliament, that it is possible for State instrumentalities to sack their employees and for the same employees who are sacked to walk around the corner and be employed on another State Government sponsored project under the Regional Employment Development scheme the very next day. That is not true. I have had that matter checked out by my Department, and my Department’s records do not show any case where an ex-Department of Works employee was re-employed under the RED scheme on projects which had been sponsored by the State Department of Works.

The Queensland Government was given specific grants to maintain State Government employment, quite apart from the RED scheme. In Queensland under the RED scheme 1 042 projects have been approved by the Australian Government, providing employment for 10 699 persons at a total cost of $3 6m. If it is true that the State Government had properly assessed the amount it needed to keep its people fully employed- it was its job to do that and not the Australian Government’s job- and if it knew its sums, one can only assume that there has been some misappropriation of the moneys allocated by the Australian Government to Queensland. In private life where a conviction for misappropriation is recorded, the person concerned is sent to gaol.

page 2901

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOAN

Mr LYNCH:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is it a fact that a report in respect of the Government’s overseas borrowings was given by the Bank of England to the Treasury representative in London? Does the report contain information from Scotland Yard? Is he aware that the report was available before 27 January? Is he also aware that the report, in typewritten form, is now on Treasury files?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I have not heard anything which would be a foundation for any of the honourable member’s questions.

page 2901

QUESTION

PHOSPHATE DEPOSITS

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

-I direct a question to the Minister for Minerals and Energy. What progress has been made by Broken Hill South Pty Ltd in respect of the mining of phosphate rock in Queensland? What reserves of phosphate rock have been determined by survey and testing in this area? What effect upon local fertiliser companies could eventuate in respect of price and quantity as a result of the opening up of these large deposits?

Mr CONNOR:
ALP

-The deposits at Duchess and Lady Annie in the Mt Isa area are of the order of 2600 million tons of 19 per cent P2O5 variety phosphate. The people from Broken Hill South Pty Ltd have commenced their operations. We are doing everything possible to assist them. In its turn, the discovery is both a boon and raises certain problems. We already have certain commitments in relation to the produce pf Christmas Island, Nauru and Ocean Island. But viewed as a whole, the discovery is a boon for Australia- so great a boon that it is not generally understood by honourable members. The late Dr John Dunn, of geological fame, said that the discovery of substantial deposits of phosphate rock in Australia would be of even more importance than the discovery of flow oil. This is particularly the case today in a world which is desperately in need of this most valuable commodity. By virtue of phosphorous in our system we stand upright. It is as simple as that. Phosphate is in short supply throughout the world. Australia will be in a key position to see that the nations of the world, particularly the nations of South East Asia which most urgently need it, are able to be supplied. As for the internal arrangements, I would prefer not to make a specific statement at this stage other than to say that the discovery is an undoubted boon to Australia and we hope to be able to make a substantial reduction in the internal price structure.

page 2902

QUESTION

POSTMASTER-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT

Mr HEWSON:
MCMILLAN, VICTORIA

-I direct to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General a question which refers to administration arrangements within the Postmaster-General’s Department. Can the Minister explain in precise terms what is wrong with the existing field management structure in the Postal Services Division of the Department? Is the Minister aware that as a result of the proposed reduction in postal management centres increased costs will be incurred? Can he tell me what new responsibilities and functions are envisaged in the central office and State head office administrations which justify the substantial increase in staff numbers and job classifications? Will the Minister agree that district organisations could be made quite workable without a wholesale restructuring of districts and transfer of staff members if district postal managers were given the authority that would enable them to operate more effectively?

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

-The Postal and Telecommunications Commission Bills are at present before this House.

Mr King:

– That has nothing to do with it.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-It has everything to do with it. The Bills are the result of recommendations made by the Vernon Commission which clearly indicate that more efficiency will result if the postal and telecommunications areas of the Postmaster-General’s Department are separated and come under the control of 2 commissions. Difficulty has been experienced in a number of areas in respect of a duplication of what might be termed proper utilisation of resources. For years the postal division has never been able to operate at a profit. For years the telecommunications division has always made substantial profits which have had to be subvented to what might be deemed to be inefficient postal operations.

Evidence submitted to the Vernon Commissionthe Parties opposite, including the National Country Party made submissionsclearly showed that it was important, particularly in country areas, that there be a delegation of responsibility and authority. If there is that delegation it will assist the services, both postal and telecommunications. We need to get away from the concept of the area management scheme, which the previous Government was unable to implement, because that scheme was contained within a State regional proposition. It is far better for the administration of this country if there is a delegation back to regions without State restrictions. This can be done through a central authority. This is the idea of setting up the Commission. On the Commission will be people representing the consumer, people representing these areas. They understand the problems of the areas. There would not be the over-centralised bureaucracy that the previous Government always encouraged which never did anything for the outlying areas.

The country telephone program- this was the situation in the time of Sir Alan Hulme- needed more money than it could possibly return. The previous Government had Cabinet submissions which the Opposition is frightened to produce in this place. I would welcome a move by the Leader of the Opposition to allow me to table those submissions which clearly show that the previous Postmaster-General said: ‘This is a financial disaster. We cannot continue to finance this’. All that honourable members on the other side of the House were looking for was votes. They did nothing to assist the proper efficiency of the service.

Mr King:

– The Post Office gave service.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-And there was no service either. The problem is that all honourable members opposite have done has been to milk the consumer and spend the money in a nonefficient way. The Labor administration has had the problem analysed by a very valuable commission whose findings really show that by separating the 2 authorities the people of Australia will be able to see how efficient those authorities are. The people will be able to see whether the authorities will run at a profit, whether they will provide the necessary services and whether new services should not be provided. These things can be done. But under their archaic scheme there was a downtrodden society in the areas which honourable members opposite claim to represent. No new facilities were provided. All they ever wanted was a new post office. They could not care less whether it made a profit. They just wanted to lay the foundation stone. That was the only interest they had in it.

From the point of view of future efficiency, I hope the Bills will be passed today. We will welcome some constructive criticism as to what ought to be done in the areas which honourable gentlemen opposite represent. Until such time as this new arrangement is made they will wallow in the past and there is no future in that for the people honourable members opposite represent.

page 2903

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

Mr JACOBI:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address my question to the Minister for Minerals and Energy. Can the Minister advise the House what stage has been reached in uranium enrichment technology by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission?

Mr CONNOR:
ALP

– Very substantial progress has been made, much more than the Australian Atomic Energy Commission has in fact revealed. With the advent to its membership of Professor Messel there has been a new driving force. I say this with due respect to its present and former membership. Professor Messel has pointed out to me that technological achievements have been in many respects comparable to those of other advanced countries. I speak in particular of gas centrifugation. We are at a stage in Australia where, in Professor Messel ‘s opinion, it would be possible for Australia, if it were necessary, to go it alone. Nevertheless, we prefer to compare our advances with those of other countries, in particular Japan and the consortium in Europe, Urenco. From a comparison of our respective achievements we believe we are well on the high road to ranking with the best in the world in this field. What has been achieved is a credit to Australian craftsmen and scientists. Naturally, certain matters are on the secret list but I am well satisfied with what has been done. I have directed the Australian Atomic Energy Commission to pursue vigorously the program of gas centrifugation. I believe that the results which we will be able to show in the very near future will be outstanding.

page 2903

QUESTION

INTEREST RATES

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I ask the Prime Minister a question. Following statements by the Acting Treasurer that the present yields on government bonds are not competitive on the open market, does he agree that interest rates will have to be raised for the next loan? Is not such an increase inevitable as a result of the Government’s failure to control inflation?

Mr HAYDEN:
ALP

– Loans are one of the many variables available to a government in its economic management. It does not necessarily follow that interest rates will have to rise. It may well be argued that in fact it is not an undesirable trend that investment is taking place in the private sector. Much will depend on the form of the Budget and other economic measures which we will take. It is absolute nonsense to postulate that at this point. It is not only nonsense but also it is erosive to the confidence which is developing in the economy now. Given the need for restoration of confidence in the private sector I think that representatives of the Liberal Party should be the last people to set about trying to destroy that confidence.

page 2903

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN LEGAL AID OFFICE

Mr OLDMEADOW:
HOLT, VICTORIA

-Is the AttorneyGeneral aware that attempts are being made to strike down the Australian Legal Aid Office scheme? Will the Minister inform the House what it will mean to the people of Australia if these challenges are successful?

Mr ENDERBY:
Attorney-General · ALP

– Yes, I am aware of such attempts being made to strike down the Australian Legal Aid Office. I can well understand the honourable gentleman’s concern because it is intended to locate such an office in his electorate. Not long ago the stage was reached in Victoria where the political opposition to the Australian Legal Aid Office, which comes from the Liberal Party in that State, was such that I had to give, I think, $307,000 to the secretary of the Victorian Legal Aid Committee in order to help that Committee operate its own legal aid scheme. There is no doubt that one of the best pieces of evidence of the sudden lurch to the right in politics by the Liberal Party is to be found in its opposition even to such a socially desirable measure of reform as legal aid.

I suppose the most recent example of this lurch to the right was a statement attributed to Senator Greenwood, made in the Senate yesterday on the matter of the Australian Legal Aid Office in Canberra. He said that the Canberra people had no need for an Australian Legal Aid Office. I claim to be better qualified to express an opinion on a matter of that sort than the honourable senator. The people of Canberra and, indeed, the people of Australia have a great need. Probably 5000 people a week resort to Australian Legal Aid Offices which are scattered around Australia. Already there are about 29 offices operating. They provide a valuable and much needed service by bringing legal aid facilities to people who have never had them before. It is predictable that the opposition to this development should come from the Opposition parties- the Liberal Party and the National Country Party.

page 2904

QUESTION

WOOL

Dr FORBES:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Prime Minister: In the interests of the wool industry will he come down from the lofty heights in which he resides and give a straight answer to the question asked yesterday by the Leader of the National Country Party of Australia? Does his Government intend to support the wool industry on a continuing basis or not?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– It was plain from what I said yesterday in answer to the Leader of the National Country Party that my Government is the first government which has given any substantial assistance or any rational assistance to the wool industry. The previous Government acted only after the organisation then in charge of wool marketing had forced its hand. It did so when the season was far advanced. My Government on 2 occasions has, before the season has commenced, made very substantial provision for the wool industry. In fact, a third of the assistance which is given to primary and secondary industry by the Australian Parliament on the initiative of my Government has been for the wool industry. The Australian Parliament has provided this financial year about $1 billion in assistance for industry. A third of that goes to the wool industry and this presumably will be the position under the Bills which are to be introduced today. I hope the honourable gentleman will help in giving them a speedy passage. I am sure that honourable members will notice that I am the only member in the House wearing an International Wool Secretariat tie.

page 2904

DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

-For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Department of Foreign Affairs for the period 1 January to 3 1 December 1974, the first annual report by this Department since that for 1968-69.

page 2904

DARWIN CYCLONE TRACY RELIEF TRUST FUND

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

– For the information of honourable members I present a report on the Darwin Cyclone Tracy Relief Trust Fund for the months of March and April 1975.

page 2904

TERRITORY OF COCOS (KEELING) ISLANDS

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KingsfordSmithSpecial Minister of State · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present the report on the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands for the period 1 July 1973 to 31 December 1974.

page 2904

URBAN PAPER ON EDUCATION AND TRAINING OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATORS

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

– For the information of honourable members I present an urban paper prepared by Professor Henry Maddick entitled Education and Training of Local Government Administrators in Australia ‘.

page 2904

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WannonLeader of the Opposition

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Yes. In the Melbourne ‘Age’ this morning there is a paragraph that reads:

Mr Fraser is known to support moves to amend the legislation-

That is the Australian Government Insurance Corporation legislation- but has supported the shadow Cabinet decision to defer consideration of the AGIC . . .

The source of the report comes from Russell Skelton. He may believe his source to be good, but his source is bad and it is wrong because I have not made up my mind as to whether our final position shall be one of amendment or of complete rejection.

page 2905

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

-On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Northern Territory I bring up the Committee’s report on Constitutional Development in the Northern Territory, Second Inquiry. I also bring up the minutes of the proceedings taken in connection with this inquiry.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr JAMES:

– I seek the leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with this report.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr JAMES:

– The Joint Committee on the Northern Territory, in its original report tabled in the Parliament on 26 November 1974, made a number of recommendations designed to grant a degree of self-government to residents of the Northern Territory. On 13 February 1975 the Minister for the Northern Territory (Dr Patterson) wrote to me requesting that the Committee be reconvened to report on whether, in view of the devastation of Darwin caused by Cyclone Tracy, the Committee saw a need to vary any of the recommendations in its original report. After hearing evidence in Darwin for 2 days and in Canberra for one day, the Committee concluded that it should not vary any of its recommendations. The Committee, however, recognised that there could be delays in the transfer of functions to the Northern Territory executive because of administrative problems arising from Cyclone Tracy.

When I tabled the original report in the Parliament I stressed the need for consultation, cooperation and co-ordination between the National and Territory executives. I warned that without consultation, co-operation and coordination the success of the transfer of executive responsibility would be extremely doubtful. Cyclone Tracy and evidence received during the second inquiry emphasised the need to implement the consultative machinery recommended by the Committee in its original report: Namely, that one Australian Government Minister have the executive responsibility for all State-type functions retained by the Australian Government; that the administration be vested in one Australian Government department; and that a committee, comprising the Minister for the Northern Territory and ministers of the Territory executive, be established to co-ordinate and consult on major issues. The Committee now recommends that these measures be implemented as soon as possible.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

- Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a short statement on the same subject.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr CALDER:

– I should like on this occasion to commend the Chairman of the Joint Committee on the Northern Territory, the Committee members and the staff on bringing in a report which is very similar to the original report after due consideration of the situation in Darwin after Cyclone Tracy. The report is virtually the same as the previous one and I support the Chairman’s remarks about consultation and cooperation between this Government and the majority Party in the Territory. But I would ask the Minister for the Northern Territory (Dr Patterson) to take urgent steps to advise the majority Party and members of the Assembly- the independent members as well- what the Government is going to do about this report, particularly items contained in it which were mentioned by the Chairman which I will not reiterate.

I draw to the Minister’s attention that he must have known that the second report would be very similar to the original report and there should not be any delay in his advising the territorians of the Government’s plans. This is very urgent because the Assembly has legislated, taking consideration of the first report. It did not know that the matter was to be referred again to the Committee, so legislation is pending in the Northern Territory. The Assembly needs the advice of the Minister as to what policy the Government is going to pursue. I see that the Minister is in the House today. I should very much like him to intimate whether the Committee’s report is going to be accepted or altered in any way. It is most urgent that he should do this. The Assembly is hanging on his very word to see whether this very sound report is going to be accepted in its entirety. I recommend that it should be so accepted.

Mr HUNT:
Gwydir

- Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a short statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr HUNT:

– I want to commend the chairman and members of the Joint Committee on the Northern Territory for the way in which they have responded to the request by the Minister for the Northern Territory (Dr Patterson) and for having brought down, in such a short time, another report to take account of the serious situation that followed cyclone Tracy. But as I understand the Chairman of the Committee, it is recommended that the Minister for the Northern Territory and his Department have the complete, overridding co-ordinating authority in the Northern Territory. I could not agree more with this recommendation. As one who had the responsibility for the Northern Territory for nearly 2 years I know how frustrating it can be for the Minister and for the Department to have a number of other Munsters and a number of other departments trying to elbow their way into this area of responsibility. It makes the job completely impossible for the Minister and his Department and it is not in the best interests of the people of the Northern Territory. If I heard the Chairman correctly, the Committee has recommended that the Minister and his Department be given this co-ordinating and complete authority in this area. If that is to be the case I am sure the people of the Northern Territory will benefit from it because splitting responsibility and administration creates confusion and is not in the best interests of the people of the Northern Territory. If that is the recommendation I commend the Committee.

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

– by leave- I should like to thank the Chairman of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Northern Territory, the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James), and the members of the Committee for the work that they did in formulating their conclusions with respect to this most important inquiry. As the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) said, it is unlikely that there would have been any major variations from the initial recommendations. But I think it was only fair that, in view of the devastation that occurred in Darwin on Christmas Day and the disruption to that city as a result of the cyclone, plus the very serious administrative problems that have arisen and are even more likely to arise in the future, the Committee should have had another look at their conclusions in the light of the new evidence available to it. I also agree that if constitutional reform is to progress in the Northern Territory there has to be co-ordination and co-operation between the Australian Government, the members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, the members of the Darwin City Corporation and, of course, the people of the Northern Territory themselves. All that continuous sniping at the Government by people in various forms simply on political grounds does is cause confusion in Darwin, particularly at present I have made it clear that I am prepared to cooperate with the Legislative Assembly and the Darwin City Corporation, which now has a new mayor and a new council. This does not mean to say that I did not get on with the previous council. I did. Although the previous mayor -

Mr Nixon:

– Not too well.

Dr PATTERSON:

– I got on a lot better with those people than the honourable member ever would. Alderman Tiger Brennan and I have known each other for probably 25 years. We have had our differences, but I always had respect for him for the way he put forward his views in support of the Northern Territory. The principal comment I wish to make is that if the Northern Territory is to proceed to constitutional reform it has to be done in a co-operative, coordinated and calm manner.

page 2906

WHITLAM GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT POLICIES

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

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

The continuing failure of the Government’s employment policies.

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 STREET:
Corangamite

-The proof of the point contained in the matter of public importance submitted by the Opposition for discussion- ‘the continuing failure of the Government’s employment policies’- is unfortunately all too obvious. Our present economic mess is graphic evidence that the Labor Government does not have a clue on how to manage the Austraiian economy or maintain full and secure employment. It has gone from disaster to disaster. After each successive miscalculation it has tried desperately to repair the damage it has caused. These are the actions of a government which is rushing in without knowing what it is doing, without having thought through the consequences of its so-called policies. In broad terms, the Government has quadrupled the rate of inflation and more than doubled the rate of unemployment since coming to power- and this in a country with perhaps more natural advantages than any other in the world, a country largely insulated from the inflationary effects of the rise in oil prices, a country rich in resources with a well-educated and skilled work force.

One would think that even the Labor Party would have some difficulty in wiping out all these advantages, but not a bit of it. It succeeded, if that is the right word, in reducing a prosperous, progressive country to chaos in a couple of years. The Government is now discovering that it is much easier to create chaos than to clear it up. The Government has belatedly admitted that inflation is the basic cause of our difficulties. It has even admitted that the principal cause of inflation is excessive wage and salary rises far in excess of national productivity gains. But that is where the Government baulked. Having finally got round to identifying the cause, it is now apparent that the Government lacks the courage to fight it. The tragedy is that unless the Government tackles inflation it is absolutely certain that the unemployment situation will get worse since if there is one thing that we know for a fact, it is that inflation will not cure itself. For months the Government has been saying that by now the economy would be picking up and that unemployment would be on the way down. The Government was wrong and it will keep on being wrong until business confidence, a delicate flower at any time, has been restored. The chances of this happening are getting more remote every day and the reasons are not hard to find.

This Government started off believing that it could transfer resources from the private sector to the public sector and still maintain employment. It started off believing that it could increase Government spending as if money was going out of fashion and could still contain inflation. When unemployment skyrocketed to levels which we have not seen in Australia since the depression, and inflation got out of control, the Government started the series of panic measures I mentioned earlier. It is now bewildered because the measures are not working. The Government just does not understand how to manage the country’s economy. The message has got through loud and clear to all forms of business in this country. Investment has slowed to a trickle and shows no signs of recovering. Jobs are not being created because, in the words of the previous Treasurer, the stage has been reached where an increase in one man’s pay packet will cost another man his job. The Government has tried to disguise the real seriousness of the employment situation by a patchwork quilt ragbag of so-called schemes. We have the Special Assistance for Non-Metropolitan Areas schemeSANMA the Regional Employment Development scheme- RED- the National Employment and Training scheme- NEAT- and the Structural Adjustment Assistance scheme- SAA- and goodness knows what else.

Let us look at each of those schemes in turn, beginning with the SANMA scheme. Having put thousands of people out of work, closed some firms and almost bringing to the point of closure dozens of other firms, the Government realised that it has better do something about the situation. So it put out a list of Government miscalculations and mistakes and said that firms affected by those miscalculations and mistakes would be entitled to assistance under the SANMA scheme. One of the criteria was the effect of the 25 per cent tariff cut. As some honourable members in this House will be aware, for years I have strongly argued in favour of tariff reform. But this Government’s hasty indiscriminate action on tariffs has set back rational tariff reform by years. That may well turn out to be the single most serious effect of the Government’s economic mismanagement.

But to get back to the SANMA scheme, the scheme was an open admission by the Government that it had been wrong. In its attempts to get out of trouble it has created dangerous precedents, spent a lot of taxpayers’ money, some of it even without the authority of Parliament, and has solved nothing. To the best of my knowledge about 39 companies have received over $4.5m. From a study of the list, it is obvious that the original guidelines have been completely disregarded. This has even been admitted by one of the firms concerned- M. B. John and Co. which received $125,000. The chairman is reported as saying that the whole situation has been brought about by the general economy rather than the tariff cut specifically. I am not blaming this firm or the other 30-odd firms which have received assistance under this scheme. They are the victims of the hopeless ineptitude of the Government. The Government has abandoned all pretence of making structural adjustment by the recipient companies, a prerequisite for the grants as set out in the document of the Department of Manufacturing Industry of 25 October 1974. The Government is just throwing money around in a completely haphazard way, reacting to political pressures.

There must be serious doubts whether in fact many of the grants comply with the legislation. In some instances, even if the grants do comply with the structural adjustment legislation, they clearly subvert the recommendations of 2 other Government instrumentalities- the Industries Assistance Commission and the Temporary Assistance Authority. The $650,000 payment to Associated Pulp and Paper Mills was completely contrary to the express advice of the Temporary Assistance Authority. In fact there was no legislative backing for it. The Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns) admitted on 8 May that there was no legislative authority for the payment of this money. What sort of madness is this? Since when can a Government give away $650,000 of taxpayers’ money without any authority? It is a measure of the Government’s desperation that it has resorted to such practices which are in fact illegal. It is a measure of the Government’s confusion that recommendations made by Government authorities one day are promptly contradicted by legislation introduced the next.

Next we have the RED scheme formed for the same purpose, that is, to give employment to those put out of work by the Government’s policies. According to the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) not less than 24 000 people are now employed under the RED scheme. In 1974-75 the scheme is estimated to cost at least $1 14m. Many of the projects which have been completed, or which are now in progress, are excellent in themselves. Many of them are in my own electorate. However there are 2 basic deficiencies in this scheme as it stands today. Firstly, it is completely ad hoc in nature. There are no guidelines which would enable automatic implementation of the scheme when structural or regional unemployment reached a certain level. Secondly, it is hopelessly cumbersome and bureaucratic in its administration. It is ridiculous to expect a Federal department to be able to make judgments on the priorities to be given to projects of a purely local nature. The Government has to some extent minimised this problem by enabling smaller grants to be approved at the State level. However the principle is wrong. The administration should be carried out by those closest to the problem, and that is local government. Above all, not one permanent job has been created. The cost, I remind the House, will be about $ 1 14m.

Next we have the NEAT scheme- excellent in concept but again let down by the plain inability of overworked officers of the Department to process applications quickly and with due regard to personal problems. Some married women who do not need assistance get it; others with the same criteria for eligibility are refused. There appears to be some evidence that all married women are discriminated against to some degree. As a consequence of misleading advertising in pamphlets, people are leaving their jobs, being refused assistance under the NEAT scheme, and are left with no means of support. The eligibility criteria appear to be changed without the public being informed. The operation of the scheme is often in direct contrast to the recommendations of the Cochrane report on retraining. People who previously would have received benefits under older schemes which NEAT has absorbed, apparently do not now qualify for anything. There have been incredible delays in the administration of the scheme.

I should like to cite a few case histories. There is the case of a man who retired after 23 years in the Army. He has a wife and 2 teenage children. He has received a letter from the Education Department explaining his automatic transfer from the former servicemen’s scheme to the NEAT scheme. This transfer has never taken place. His file has been lost twice by the Commonwealth Employment Service. There is another case of a woman who applied for and was granted housewife’s retraining last year. She applied for assistance this year under the NEAT scheme and was turned down. She has 5 children and a husband to look after. There is the case of a man aged 26 years who has been in the work force 8 years and is completely unqualified. He applied to the Prahran Commonwealth Employment Service in October 1974. He has not heard from the CES since. He has not been either accepted or rejected in the 4 months.

I mention next the case of a woman who received some help through the widows retraining scheme last year. She was informed that the scheme was to be transferred to NEAT. Since then, under NEAT, she has received no money at all. I refer next to a single woman, aged 30 years, who was in the work force for 15 years in unskilled occupations. She has been on unemployment benefit since the beginning of November of last year, yet she was refused retraining because she had a ‘marketable skill ‘. I go on to the case of a 24-year-old ex-national serviceman. He was rejected because his training was ‘considered continuation of initial education’. He was doing the same course which made him eligible for assistance in the first place. Finally, I mention the case of a man, aged 26, unskilled and under the threat of retrenchment. He took the initiative, left his job and applied for NEAT retraining. He has been penalised because he took the initiative himself. About 9000 people are under retraining now through this scheme at a cost which is estimated this year to be about $22m.

I turn next to structural adjustment assistance, or the income maintenance scheme. This must be the most inequitable of all the rag bag of government programs. People who lost their jobs because of tariff cuts virtually received a paid holiday at about 85 per cent of their previous earnings while those put out of work as a result of the general downturn in business activities received only unemployment benefits at the standard rates. Both were victims of the policies of this Government, yet one group has received benefits nearly 3 times as high as those paid to the other. Nothing illustrates more clearly the muddleheaded directionless attempt by the Government to correct its mistakes. This inequitable scheme is to cost taxpayers about $55m this financial year.

Finally, there are the two biggest items of all. I refer to the $240m for the States to create employment and an estimated $2 10m for unemployment benefits. What a story can be told about unemployment benefits. There is a discrepancy of more than 50 000 between the figures on unemployment from the Department of Labor and Immigration and unemployment figures from the Bureau of Statistics. Which figures are right? One thing is certain; they cannot both be right. Tens of thousands of those registered as unemployed in fact have jobs. Thousands have given fictitious addresses. All told, the grand total of more than $650m has been required this financial year to pay for the mismanagement of the economy by this Government.

At present, 265 000 people are registered for employment. Over 30 000 more are hidden from view in all these expensive schemes set up by the Government. Perhaps most significant of all is the message of the seasonally adjusted unemployment figures which indicate that 15 000 to 20 000 school leavers will not get a job this year. What a way for these school leavers to start their adult life. What an indictment of the Government. What a disgrace in this once prosperous and vigorous country. Mr Minister, you are a failure. Your Government is a failure. Your socialist policies have been tried in Australia and they are a failure. And, remember, you cannot bury your failures under a mountain of funny money whether we print it ourselves or get it from one of the comic opera deals of the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor).

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I did not know that the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street), who has just resumed his seat, was one who would resort to such gross personalities and make such vitriolic attacks on a person who has always thought that the honourable member was a friend. The honourable member for Corangamite has come out in his true colours today. We see that behind the benign face there lies a very hard, cruel and vindictive person.

At the beginning, I make the observation that this is the fourth occasion that the Opposition has launched a debate on the alleged failure of the Government to deal with unemployment. The first debate was led by the right honourable member for Bruce (Mr Snedden). Shortly afterwards, he lost the leadership of the Opposition. The next attack was led by the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) who did better than Mr Snedden, but who did so poorly that on the third occasion when it was decided to launch such an attack the Leader of the Opposition himself asked the Deputy Leader of” the Opposition, Mr Lynch, to lead the debate. Now we have yet a fourth Opposition member who is trying his luck, the others all having failed quite dismally.

The basic difference between the policies of the Liberal Party and the National Country Party- more so the National Country Party than the Liberal Party- and the Australian Labor Party is that the Labor Party believes in full employment and it will go to no end of trouble to try to provide employment for people who are out of work. On the other hand, the Liberal Party and the Country Party in 1971 went to no end of trouble to bring about unemployment. This was a deliberate economic ploy by the LiberalCountry Party Government of the day to create a pool of unemployed in order to put the unions in their place and, as the then Government saw it, to cure inflation. It had no other cure for inflation but massive unemployment.

The amount of unemployment which we have now- it is higher than the Government would like, and it would be a lot higher but for the action taken by the Government- is symptomatic of what is happening right throughout Western economies. From the time of the energy crisis when the increase in the price of oil had such a tremendous impact upon the economies of European and North American countries, the problem of inflation, and with it unemployment, as one is interacting against the other, has been a difficulty which all of those countries have had to face. Australia is not the only country in the world that has a high level of unemployment. The United States of America, which no one could accuse of having a socialist economy, has a level of unemployment that has now reached 8.9 per cent and threatens to reach 10 per cent before the year is out. Canada- hardly a country with a socialist economy but in fact a country with the kind of economy that represents some of the thinking of the Liberal Party- has an unemployment level of 7.2 per cent. Unemployment in West Germany, with all the advantages that that country gained from post war reconstruction and the enormous amount of money that was poured into its redevelopment, is now 4.7 per cent, having risen from 0.9 per cent a little more than a year ago.

On the question of inflation, the United Kingdom has an inflation rate of 21.7 per cent. Inflation in Italy is running at 20 per cent. I could go on to give plenty of examples from around the world of increasing inflation. But what we cannot find in any other country in the world where inflation has increased is that the general standard of living of the working people has gone up anything like it has in Australia. There is no country in the world where the net benefit of the government’s administration has been so beneficial to the working people as has been the case in Australia. (Quorum formed) Mr Deputy Speaker, in view of the fact that the Opposition has lost all interest in its own matter of public importance, I move:

Question put.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 60

NOES: 53

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 2910

WOOL TAX BILLS

Notice of Motion

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent five Wool Tax Bills-

  1. being presented and read a first time together and one motion being moved without delay and one question being put in regard to, respectively, the second readings, the committee’s report stage, and the third readings, of all the Bills together, and
  2. the consideration of the Bills in one committee of the whole.

I understand that this is purely a procedural motion.

Mr SINCLAIR:
New England

-The Opposition does not accept this type of intervention in the proceedings of the House. I seek an assurance from the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) that the Wool Tax Bills will be dealt with in the normal way. The Opposition is not against the second readings being moved and the debate being adjourned, but it is opposed to that part of the motion which, if implemented, would enable the legislation to be proceeded with forthwith and the third readings dealt with without there being any opportunity for the Opposition even to examine the legislation or consider it. Accordingly, I ask the Leader of the House whether that assurance can be given.

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

– The honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) is as intelligent as I am, I suppose. The Bills will be presented and debated in accordance with the motion I have moved.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

WOOL TAX BILLS (Nos 1 to 5) 1975

Bills presented by Mr Hayden, and together read a first time.

Second Readings

Mr HAYDEN:
Minister for Social Security · Oxley · ALP

-I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

These Bills will amend the Wool Tax Acts (Nos 1 to 5) 1964-1974 to continue in force for another year the special levy of 5 per cent on the sale value of shorn wool which was imposed for the current marketing season as part of the wool marketing arrangements agreed last year between the Government and the Australian Wool Industry Conference. The continuation of the special levy has been accepted by wool growers, through the Australian Wool Industry Conference, as necessary to give effect to the 1975-76 wool marketing arrangements approved by the Government and agreed by the Conference. Details of those arrangements have been announced by the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt).

In brief the Government has agreed to extend to 1975-76 the minimum reserve price arrangements introduced during the present season and will authorise the Australian Wool Corporation to continue operating a minimum floor price equivalent to 250c per kilogram, clean basis, for 21 micron wool at auctions during the coming season. The special levy of 5 per cent was originally introduced last September to apply for the period from 2 September 1974 to 30 June 1975. It was additional to the tax of 2.75 per cent already being collected as wool growers’ contributions towards the financing of programs of wool research and promotion and the administration of the marketing functions of the Australian Wool Corporation. The proceeds of the special levy are channelled to the market support fund established under the Wool Industry Act (No. 2) of 1974. The purpose of that fund is to meet any losses incurred in the operation of the approved wool marketing arrangements. In the meantime, money standing to the credit of the fund may be used by the Australian Wool Corporation for purposes prescribed in the Wool Industry Act 1972-1974.

It is provided in the Wool Industry Act that if any money stands to the credit of the fund after any losses under the approved marketing arrangements have been met, it shall be applied by the Corporation for such purpose in relation to the wool industry as is determined by the Minister for Agriculture with the approval in writing of the Australian Wool Industry Conference. The Wool Tax Act (No. 1 ) imposes a tax on shorn wool produced in Australia and sold by a woolbroker. The other Acts ensure that where shorn wool is not sold by a broker it is subject to tax at some other point. The need for 5 separate Acts arises from a constitutional requirement that laws imposing taxes should deal with one subject of taxation only. I commend the Bills to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Street) adjourned.

page 2911

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Curriculum Development Centre Bill 1975.

Technical and Further Education Commission Bill 1 975.

page 2911

ELECTORAL RE-DISTRIBUTION (SOUTH AUSTRALIA) BILL 1975

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill is designed to implement the electoral divisions in South Australia having the names and boundaries approved in respect of that State by this House on 21 May 1975. As honourable members are aware, the report by the Distribution Commissioners for the State of South Australia was laid before both Houses of the Parliament on 15 April 1975, pursuant to section 23A of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, together with suggestions, comments and objections lodged with the Distributions Commissioners in pursuance of sections 18A and 21 of that Act. The motion for the approval of the redistribution proposed in that report was passed by this House on 21 May 1975, but was negated by the Senate on the following day.

The Government has decided to introduce 5 separate Bills to implement the Distribution Commissioners’ proposed electoral divisions for South Australia, Tasmania, Queensland, Victoria and New South Wales. This action has been taken because of the uncompromising attitude adopted by the Opposition parties in the Senate towards the redistribution proposals for each of the 5 States concerned. In case the Australian public should have any doubt as to the uncompromising attitude to which I have just referred, let me stress the attitude adopted by the Liberal and National Country Parties.

The National Country Party’s determination to obstruct the redistribution proposals for all 5 States concerned was clearly indicated months before the proposals were published. For example, in an article published in the ‘Age’ on 30 September 1974, the Right Honourable J. D. Anthony stated:

When the new boundaries are presented to Parliament, every Country Party member and Senator will vote against their implementation.

In an ill-disguised hint to the Liberal Party, he added:

We are confident that our Liberal Colleagues share our views, and that the proposed boundaries will be defeated in the Senate.

It is not therefore surprising that the National Country Party should be now steadfastly opposing all redistribution proposals.

The Liberal Party, for its part, has also decided to oppose all the redistribution proposals, in order to avoid risking any offence to its coalition partner. The Liberal Party has adopted this approach despite the acclaim accorded to the Distribution Commissioner’s proposals by the erstwhile Liberal Party consultant and electoral analyst, Mr Malcolm Mackerras, who has stated:

In overall political terms the 1975 redistribution is the fairest set of proposed boundaries ever to be presented to any Australian Parliament in my lifetime; the Commissioners have bent over backwards to avoid any suggestion of ‘gerrymander’.

The Liberal Party, unfortunately, has not heeded such opinions. It has refused to reconsider its intransigent opposition to the redistribution proposals despite the fact that this attitude has been criticised, not merely by a former Liberal Premier of South Australia, Senator Steele Hall, but also by a former Liberal Prime Minister of Australia, the Right Honourable John Gorton, now independent member for Higgins.

In rejecting all the re-distribution proposals both Opposition parties have been motivated by their objection to the basic redistribution ground rules as set out in section 19 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, which must be observed by the Distribution Commissioners. Accordingly, and given the intransigent attitude to which I have referred, it is quite clear that there would be no point in directing the Distribution Commissioners to propose a fresh distribution in the States concerned, as allowed under section 24(2) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The Government does not overlook the possibility that the Opposition may even choose to reject this Bill itself in the Senate, but nevertheless we believe that redistributions have become a matter of urgent necessity in order to provide equality of representation for every elector.

The Government is not prepared to wait until 1977 or 1978 for a redistribution, even supposing that future Distribution Commissioners could produce proposals which would please the National Country Party and the Liberal Party. The Opposition may be quite happy to postpone this overdue redistribution indefinitely, but the Government has no intention of waiting until the inequalities in electoral representation become as outrageous as they did prior to the 1968 redistribution, with a disparity of some 100 000 in enrolments between some divisions. The incorporation of these redistribution proposals in legislative form will enable, if necessary, these proposals to be submitted to the judgment of the electorate, together with other items of electoral legislation already obstructed by the Opposition parties in the Senate. Accordingly, the Government has no hesitation, within the terms of the Constitution, in taking whatever action is needed to ensure that the proposals of the Distribution Commissioners, for each of the 5 States concerned, are given legislative effect at the earliest possible date. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Street) adjourned.

page 2912

ELECTORAL RE-DISTRIBUTION (TASMANIA) BILL 1975

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time

This Bill is designed to implement the electoral divisions in Tasmania having the names and boundaries approved in respect of that State by this House on 21 May 1975. As honourable members are aware, the report by the Distribution Commissioners for the State of Tasmania was laid before both Houses on 17 April 1975, pursuant to section 23A of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918-1973, together with suggestions, comments and objections lodged with the Distribution Commissioners in accordance with sections 1 8a and 2 1 of that Act.

A motion for the approval of the redistribution proposed in that report was passed by this House on 21 May 1975, but was negated by the Senate on the following day. I have already indicated, in the course of my remarks on the first of the 5 Electoral Re-distribution Bills, the purpose of these Bills and there is no need to reiterate those remarks in dealing with this Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned.

page 2913

ELECTORAL RE-DISTRIBUTION (QUEENSLAND) BILL 1975

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

This Bill is designed to implement the electoral divisions in Queensland having the names and boundaries approved in respect of that State by this House on 22 May 1975. As honourable members are aware, the report by the Distribution Commissioners for the State of Queensland was laid before both Houses on 17 April 1975, pursuant to section 23a of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918-1973, together with suggestions, comments and objections lodged with the Distribution Commissioners in accordance with sections 1 8A and 2 1 of that Act.

A motion for the approval of the redistribution proposed in that report was passed by this House on 22 May 1975, but was negated by the Senate on 27 May 1975. I have already indicated, in the course of my remarks on the first of the 5 Electoral Re-distribution Bills, the purpose of these Bills, and there is no need to reiterate those remarks in dealing with this Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned.

page 2913

ELECTORAL RE-DISTRIBUTION (VICTORIA) BILL 1975

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time. (Quorum formed) This Bill is designed to implement the electoral divisions in Victoria having the names and boundaries approved in respect of that State by this House on 22 May 1975. As honourable members are aware, the report by the Distribution Commissioners for the State of Victoria was laid before this House on 13 May 1975 and before the Senate on the following day, pursuant to section 23A of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918-1973, together with suggestions, comments and objections lodged with the Distribution Commissioners pursuant to sections 1 8A and 2 1 of that Act.

A motion for the approval of the redistribution proposed in that report was passed by this House on 22 May 1975, but was negated by the Senate on 27 May 1975.I have already indicated, in the course of my remarks dealing with the first of these 5 related Electoral Redistribution Bills, the purpose of these Bills, and there is no need to reiterate those remarks in dealing with this Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned.

page 2913

ELECTORAL RE-DISTRIBUTION (NEW SOUTH WALES) BILL 1975

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

This Bill is designed to implement the electoral divisions in New South Wales having the names and boundaries approved in respect of that State by this House on 22 May 1975. As honourable members are aware, the report by the Distribution Commissioners for the State of New South Wales was laid before this House on 13 May 1975 and before the Senate on the following day, pursuant to section 23A of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918-1973, together with suggestions, comments and objections lodged with the Distribution Commissioners pursuant to sections 1 8A and 2 1 of that Act.

A motion for the approval of the redistribution proposed in that report was passed by this House on 22 May 1975, but was negated by the Senate on 27 May 1975.I have already indicated, in the course of my remarks dealing with the first of the 5 related Electoral Redistribution Bills, the purpose of these Bills. This Bill, like the 4 related Electoral Redistribution Bills, has been made necessary by the uncompromising attitude adopted by the Opposition parties in the Senate towards the redistribution proposals for each of the 5 States concerned. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned.

page 2914

DAIRY PRODUCE BILL 1975

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Dairy Produce Export Control Act 1924-1973 to change the powers and membership of the Australian Dairy Produce Board as part of the Government’s program to provide progressively more effective regulatory and marketing services to Australian primary industries. The changes proposed follow a review of the present legislation in the course of which representative organisations of producers and manufacturers have been consulted at every stage. The changes have been agreed at meetings with the major dairy industry organisations.

Since the Board was last reconstituted in 1947 there have been many changes in the structure of the dairy industry at the farm and the factory level. The industry is also presently faced with a number of unresolved issues which will influence its future. These include developments in relation to the dairy industry equalisation arrangements and the potential consequences of the recommendations by the Industries Assistance Commission which is inquiring into the type of assistance required for the industry after 1 July 1976. The Government considers that it will be a useful move to strengthen the capability of the Australian Dairy Produce Board to accord more closely with the circumstances of 1975 and beyond. The circumstances facing the Australian dairy industry are now very different since the entry of the United Kingdom into the European Economic Community in February 1973. Prior to this the United Kingdom was the principal market for the disposal of surplus Austraiian dairy production.

The effects have been two-fold. First the EEC which has formed itself into a powerful bloc is virtually closed as a market for our dairy products and is strongly competitive in other markets. Second, to dispose of product at premium prices the Corporation must be able to find new markets and be competitive in existing markets. Greater accent will need to be placed on collective action to co-ordinate marketing activities and improve marketing efficiency in order to achieve the maximum benefits for dairy farmers, manufacturers and distributors and exporters. The additional powers proposed will strengthen the Corporation’s regulatory responsibilities and provide it with more flexibility in its financial and trading operations to permit this.

I now turn to the details of the Bill. The Australian Dairy Produce Board will be renamed the Australian Dairy Corporation and will consist of 1 1 members, namely, an independent Chairman, 3 members to represent dairy farmers, 3 members to represent manufacturers, 2 members with special qualifications, one employee representative and one government representative. All the members of the Corporation will be appointed by the Minister for Agriculture. The members to represent dairy farmers and manufacturers will be selected from panels of names submitted by the appropriate dairy industry bodies. The 2 members with special qualifications will be appointed after consultation with the appropriate industry bodies. These members will be people specially qualified for appointment by reason of their experience and expertise in marketing generally, or in the marketing of dairy produce, or by reason of other experience in commerce, finance, economics, science or industry matters. The position of Chairman will be of major importance to the operation of the Corporation. The qualities demanded will be a capacity for leadership and broad commercial experience consistent with the range of functions the Corporation has to perform including the guidance and determination of marketing policy.

The Bill provides that the 3 dairy farmer representatives, the 3 manufacturer representatives and the 2 members with special qualifications will retire by rotation. This will be achieved by making one of the initial appointments in each category for a term of 2 years and the other appointments for a term of 3 years. In this way retirement will be staggered and will thus ensure a nucleus of experienced members at all times. All subsequent appointments will be for a period of 3 years. Other pan-time members will hold office for 3 years. The changes proposed are designed to achieve a balanced membership which will enhance the Corporation’s ability to perform its functions in a modern marketing environment. At meetings with industry representatives there has been general agreement that the new membership structure meets this objective and that there is satisfactory scope for bringing to the Corporation representation of all important industry interests.

The opportunity has been taken to set out the functions of the Corporation in clause 6 ( 13) of the Bill on the lines followed in legislation for other comparable statutory bodies. The existing powers are to be assumed by the Corporation with additions in 3 main areas where it is considered that a change would benefit the industry and improve the Corporation’s operations. First, the Corporation’s regulatory functions will be strengthened by providing it with specific power after consultation with appropriate industry bodies to determine the quantity of dairy produce which will be exported to a particular country or countries in the course of the season. The purpose of this provision- clause 6 ( 13B) of the Bill- is to help ensure that adequate supplies are maintained for domestic consumption and to enable the Corporation to meet specific overseas obligations particularly by way of long term supply arrangements which could become an increasingly important element in the industry’s export marketing arrangements. Second, under clause 7 the Corporation will have monopoly trading power for specific export markets by regulation after consultation with the industry. Currently the Board has this power for the United Kingdom and by voluntary industry arrangement for cheese to Japan. The purpose of the provision which has wide industry support would be to meet special circumstances where, for example, development of a fragmented marketing approach would be harmful to the Australian industry or where new market development was not attractive to private traders because of special commercial difficulties.

The third area relates to the borrowing powers of the Corporation which presently restrict advances under Austraiian Government guarantee to dairy produce intended for export. The principal purpose of the advance arrangements is to facilitate payments to producers pending the sale of their produce. Over the years they have formed an integral part of the industry’s arrangements to maintain price stability. Clauses 8 and 10(23) extend the present borrowing powers to permit advances to be used to finance winter stocks by allowing product subject to Corporation advances to be withdrawn for the local market. This provision will assist the industry with its special seasonal production problems where the burden of maintaining substantial domestic stocks is falling increasingly on a small number of manufacturers in Victoria and Tasmania. In addition clause 10 (23) will enable the Corporation to borrow with the approval of the Treasurer from commercial lending institutions against secured assets. This will enable the Corporation to finance sales or stock holdings beyond the seasonal limit applying to the advances made by the Corporation from the Reserve Bank funds.

The main source of finance for the operation of the present Board is obtained from a levy on butter fat used in the production of relevant dairy produce. However, the maximum levy rate for the last 2 years has been insufficient to cover the Board’s costs and it has relied on commission from sales to cover its expenditure. At the request of the industry a review was undertaken of the basis and amount of the levy to provide a more equitable and effective form of financing. I intend to introduce legislation as soon as possible to provide for changes agreed with the industry which will enable the Corporation to obtain the necessary finance for its operations without relying on other measures.

I believe that the proposals embodied in this Bill give the Australian Dairy Corporation more flexibility in its financial arrangements and trading operations and place greater emphasis on the experience and skills needed by Corporation members to carry out their functions than was possible under the structure of the present Board. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned.

page 2915

DAIRY PRODUCE SALES PROMOTION BILL 1975

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to make consequential technical amendments to the Dairy Produce Sales Promotion Act 1958-1973 that have been made necessary by the amendments to the Dairy Produce Export Control Act 1924-1973 as announced in my .second reading speech on the Dairy Produce Bill 1975. The Bill provides that moneys in the Sales Promotion Fund are moneys of the Austraiian Dairy Corporation and also lays down the purpose for which the moneys may be expended from the Fund. There are no other changes. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned.

page 2916

SUPERIOR COURT OF AUSTRALIA BILL 1974 [No. 2]

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

Second Reading

Mr ENDERBY:
CanberraAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move-

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill was passed by the House in July last year, but failed on 26 February this year, on a tied vote, to receive a second reading in the Senate. To meet the requirements of section 57 of the Constitution, the Bill is presented in the form in which it was previously passed by the House. Had it not been for those requirements, some changes to the Bill would have been made now to take account of the creation of the Family Court of Australia under the Family Law Bill. The purpose of this Bill is to establish the Superior Court of Australia. I do not propose to repeat all that I have said before about the long history of this project. I invite the attention of honourable members to my second reading speech at pages 244 to 249 of Hansard of 16 July 1974, when this Bill was first introduced into the House. I do not think it is necessary to go through the provisions of the Bill again in detail. They have been described before.

A considerable range of Federal matters is now dealt with by the High Court and by the other Federal courts. Industrial matters, trade practice matters, some appeals from administrative decisions of Australian Government Ministers and officials and some other matters are dealt with by the Industrial Court. This jurisdiction is exclusive of that of State courts. Developments in the past decade have seen the Industrial Court invested with an increasing load of jurisdiction for which it was not designed. The content of- Federal jurisdiction of a specialised character will continue to increase. New areas of Federal law are rapidly developing and the Parliament must concern itself with how these laws are to be administered in the courts. In family law there will be the choice between establishing special procedures, with judges specially selected for their aptitude for and interest in this field of law, or of leaving the administration of the new family law to the vagaries of 8 different systems of courts, only some of which have begun to move towards specialised family law procedures. Parliament has already recognised this by agreeing to the establishment of the Family Court under the Family Law Bill. In entering the important field of regulating the securities and exchange industry nationally, I believe that Parliament must ensure that there is a court adequately staffed and equipped with whatever resources are required for the effective administration of that law throughout Australia. The Parliament has no constitutional responsibility for State courts and cannot, under the Constitution, intervene in the organisation of these courts. The High Court has made it clear that, in investing State courts with Federal jurisdiction, the Parliament must take those courts as it finds them.

Opponents of the Bill have made much of jurisdictional difficulties, and have alleged uncertainty of knowing whether certain matters may be dealt with at all in a Federal court. It is significant that always the same three or four examples are brought up. The difficulties would not affect the great bulk of jurisdiction the new court would be called on to exercise. When the Bill failed to get a second reading in the Senate, much was made by the Opposition of the United States experience as a reason why the Bill should not be proceeded with. The point was made that, in the United States, a person losing a case in State jurisdiction could then go to the Federal jurisdiction and have the result reversed on a point of Federal law. I need hardly say that this situation could not arise under the proposed Superior Court Bill. It could arise in the United States, because there the State courts do not have, and cannot be invested with, any Federal jurisdiction. Therefore, a point of Federal law could not be raised in a proceeding in a State court. These difficulties have been avoided in Australia by investing State courts with Federal jurisdiction. The Bill does not attempt to deprive State courts of Federal jurisdiction where the need might arise to have part of a case dealt with in State jurisdiction and part of it in Federal jurisdiction.

The way will be open to a claimant, therefore to institute such proceedings in a court in which every aspect of the dispute can be litigated in the same proceeding. For example, a person claiming a payment under a contract as well as under a dishonoured cheque need not go to the Federal court. But there is no reason why all jurisdiction in bankruptcy matters, in Federal industrial matters, in income tax matters, in restrictive trade practices matters, to mention only a part of a large body of Federal jurisdiction could not be confined to Federal courts, because the kind of problem to which I have referred could not arise in such matters. Federal courts have exercised this jurisdiction more than satisfactorily in the past In industrial jurisdiction they have done so for more than 70 years and, in bankruptcy jurisdiction for more than 50 years.

It is said that the new court will be costly to establish and administer. On this by way of answer I make 2 points. Firstly, the growing body of Federal law in new areas, such as consumer protection, administrative law, the regulation of the securities and exchange industry and perhaps even the area of race relations would, if administered by State courts, place an added burden on courts where there are already delays due to the volume of litigation. The work load on State courts and on Supreme Court judges is enormous. The appointment of Federal judges to administer this new jurisdiction would relieve the strain on State courts. There are already 18 judges in the Federal and Territory courts, and the consolidation of these courts into one court would enable a more rational use of the judicial resources we already have. Secondly, the Bill provides a structure which can develop as the work of the Court develops and as the need for specialist jurisdictions within the Court emerges. Thus it is comtemplated that the Court can be built up over a period of time, according to the manner in which its jurisdiction develops. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hunt) adjourned.

page 2917

AUSTRALIAN HERITAGE COMMISSION BILL 1975

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 27 May.

Proposed new clause 7 A.

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

– I move:

The amendment relates to consultation with the States. It reflects the history of administration in my ministry and in the portfolio of the Minister for Environment (Dr Cass). Accordingly I propose the amendment because it will place in the legislation our commitment to consultation. The amendment indicates that we and the new Commission will consult not only with the States but also with local government and the general community.

Mr HUNT:
Gwydir

-The Opposition appreciates the effort made by the Minister for Environment (Dr Cass) and the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) to accommodate the Opposition’s concern that the Commission should, in the exercise of its functions, ensure adequate consultation and cooperation with the States. Last night in my speech on the motion that the Bill be read a second time I tried to demonstrate why it was necessary for the Commission to have mandatory responsibility to confer with the States, particularly in regard to such matters as the development of lists and registers. The point is that if the Commission decides that a place in a State should be placed on a register, that action does not really protect that place from anything other than action taken by the Commonwealth or by the State which could have direct Commonwealth involvement. There are a great number of places which are on registers in the States and which should be on the national register. I have with me a note from the Western Australian Minister for Justice. It refers to clause 29, but it does have a bearing on the point that I made last night and, I think, the point that is accommodated in this amendment. The note reads:

The purposes contained in this clause remain unclear, although it can be argued that the over-riding duty imposed on the Minister may be beyond his power. It appears to refer only to items actually on the register, and does not appear to report on items which may be considered to have sufficient importance to warrant inclusion on the register.

He goes on to say that of course there are a number of places and sites in the States that could well be included in the national register. So I think that, if the Australian Government and the departments concerned approach their task with a degree of co-operation and consultation, the States will very readily assist the Commission in its job of completing its register of known sites and places that should in fact be included in it. I have not had as much time as I would have liked to study this amendment but on behalf of the Opposition I would think that the amendment moved by the Minister for Urban and Regional Development does accommodate the point that I made last night on behalf of the Opposition. The Opposition circulated an amendment to clause 7 which reads:

In the performance of its functions and the exercise of its powers the Commission shall, where it is appropriate to do so, consult with the States.

The Minister has moved to insert: 7a. The Commission shall, in the performance of its functions in relation to any matter, and so far as it considers appropriate having regard to the nature of the matter, consult with Departments and authorities of the States, local government authorities and community and other organisations.

On the face of it that amendment is acceptable to the Opposition. It covers the point of concern that I expressed last night on behalf of the Opposition. I thank the Ministers concerned for their co-operation in this matter.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Proposed new clause agreed to.

Clauses 8 to 10- by leave- taken together.

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

– I want to speak briefly to clause 9 which states in part that the Commission may do all things that are necessary or convenient to be done in connection with the performance of its functions. In its recent report the Interim Committee on the National Estate said:

Wherever possible the Interim Committee tried to deal with urgent issues first.

It also reported that it was asked to make recommendations on a wide range of crisis issues. The planning of our future will be facilitated by this Bill. It will enable us by using adequate foresight to identify the kind of development that is likely to take place. Those features of our environment likely to come under threat can be identified. Then through this anticipation it should be possible for us to secure the heritage assets of the nation at prices more reasonable than if action is taken in a panic atmosphere. Crisis preservation on an ad hoc basis will not enable us to save enough of the best of our environment. At the same time, resources should not be allocated to the preservation of assets which in the foreseeable future are not under immediate threat, especially if the allocation of those resources to assets that are not threatened could be better used to save those that are under critical threat.

The Interim Committee claims that in most instances in which it was called upon to make recommendations on crisis issues it was able to arrange or recommend a solution. In its report it instances its intervention in the issue concerned with the Palace Hotel in Perth, but it makes no reference to those issues to which no solution was found. As the Interim Committee drew attention in other parts of its report to the importance of public involvement, it is somewhat surprising that it failed to list those items that came before it as crisis issues which it did not succeed in solving. Is it to be implied that this failure to list the items means that those items which were considered are now beyond redemption or is there work still to be done? If there is something that can still be done one would have expected the Committee to have drawn to public attention the issues about which there was still some hope if the public attention could be properly directed to their preservation. I would hope that the Heritage Commission in its report would identify crisis issues on which it has found a solution and also those on which it has failed to find a solution.

The report of the Interim Committee contains a summary of its 1974-75 National Estate program but this program includes no allocation of funds to enable a buffer zone to be expanded in the area of scientific significance at Hallett Cove in South Australia, nor is any money provided for the proper management and control of the area which is now being preserved. When one looks at the National Estate program as it applies to South Australia one finds that the South Australian Minister and the Australian Government Minister for Environment (Dr Cass) have said:

It is time for us to act to save what remains unspoiled of our coastline and bush . . .

Yet no money was made available for Hallett Cove. All those assets in respect of which money was provided are worthy of preservation; but how many assets like Hallett Cove are under immediate threat? Many of them are in fact under State Government ownership. Is it suggested that without the money which was provided this year to restore Port Glanville, Old Government House at Belair, Dingley Dell at Port McDonnell and the Old Attorney-General’s building the State Government would allow these priceless elements of our national heritage to be lost? In view of the fact that the State Government has been so heavily supported in these projects, why cannot it allocate additional funds for the preservation of Hallett Cove? Or has it made a positive decision that no more land necessary to provide a buffer zone is worth saving? Has it in the past entered agreements, reached understandings and accepted obligations which now prevent it from taking action to preserve an expanded buffer zone? Hallett Cove was mentioned in the Hope Committee report. It was dealt with in the Jordan report dealing with the environment in South Australia in which it was described in this way:

Certain areas of the coast require conservation. Hallett Cove, the land immediately behind and north of the Cove, is an area with considerable scientific, anthropological and geological interest.

This area is of great national significance and both the Minister for Environment and the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren), who are sitting at the table, have been involved in this issue. I think they would recognise that it is proper to describe Hallett Cove as unique, as a classroom, as a treasure trove rich in history, in rocks and in many other respects. When the Minister for Environment was in Adelaide in 1974 he said that it was the Australian Government’s responsibility to preserve areas of significance at Hallett Cove, south of Adelaide. What has the Australian Government yet done to preserve additional areas beyond that which was under preservation at the time the Minister came to South Australia? The Minister for Urban and Regional Development, when in Adelaide in 1974, talking of the area of scientific interest at Hallett Cove said:

I agree with you that this land should be preserved as part of the National Estate.

Then, when announcing the National Estate funds for South Australia, he said:

It is time for us to act to save what remains unspoiled of our coastline and our bush.

Then, more recently, he visited South Australia and went to Hallett Cove. He appointed an independent consultant to examine the need to preserve further land to provide an adequate buffer zone. He promised an outcome from that examination by the end of this month. When will the report be available and what will be done to preserve additional land? It is interesting to note that the Minister, after visiting Hallett Cove, said:

I was shocked by the scarring of developers, particularly in the area to the east and to the coastscape. I really feel that this is a matter that goes beyond National Estate funds, even if only trying to extend the buffer zone. I do not know if I shall be successful in utilising the alternative funds. I have in mind to preserve the buffer zone and the coastscape

Has the Minister succeeded in obtaining funds to preserve an adequate buffer zone so that this unique geological feature in South Australia- a science laboratory in its own right- can be preserved, or will we go on spending more money in crisis circumstances, because the longer this is left, the more expensive it will become? I urge the Minister to look into this matter, to get his priorities right and to save that which can be saved now while balancing this with the need to preserve sufficient resources for the acquisition and protection of assets which are coming under threat and deferring to future Budgets the allocation of resources to assets which are not, at this stage, under any threat at all.

Mr RUDDOCK:
Parramatta

-My remarks will be brief, Mr Chairman. I am concerned about a matter which the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) considers to be important and which is contained in sub-clause ( 1 ) of clause 9. The Minister said in his second reading speech in respect of this particular clause:

I draw particular attention to the authority proposed for the Commission to accept gifts or bequests. Private individuals and organisations may wish to give property or other items of National Estate quality to the Commission, and the Bill provides for this.

This is provided in sub-clause ( 1 ) of clause 9, which states, in part:

  1. . without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Commission may accept gifts, devises and bequests made to it, whether on trust or otherwise, and act as trustee of moneys or other properties vested in it on trust.

Additionally, in clause 7 (f), reference is made to:

  1. . arrangements for the administration and control of places included in the National Estate that are given or bequeathed to the Commission;

I should like to speak about this in relation to clause 18, which deals with the disclosure of pecuniary interests, because a standard clause is contained in sub-clause (1) of clause 18 which relates to company interests, but a new clause is contained in sub-clause (2), which I commend. Sub-clause (2) states that a Commissioner who is a member of an organisation that has a direct or indirect pecuniary or other special interest in a matter being considered has to disqualify himself. It is quite clear that those Commissioners who have interests in other matters- that is, matters that other organisations are concerned about, such as those Commissioners who might represent the National Trust or otherwise- are not permitted to vote. That sub-clause recognises that that quality of being able to have a special interest in a matter, or a building or a site, can in fact disqualify a person because it causes him to lack the objectivity that is required when making important decisions like this, as to where needs are to be met.

In Parramatta, for instance, 164 properties are considered to be of sufficient importance to warrant inclusion as part of the National Estate: In one community there is that large number of properties for which priorities have to be decided. We have here a situation in which the organisation that is to recommend how moneys are to be disbursed- how grants are to be madecan have bequeathed to it properties which are to become its own pecuniary interest to which it may, as a result of the obligation that it assumes, give greater priority in terms of grants. However, these grants may not, in fact, accord with the real priorities which, if the commission was objective, it would otherwise give in terms of grants. We recognise in the Bill that objectivity is important. In clause 18 it is specifically stated that if members are associated with organisations like the

National Trust they have to disqualify themselves. But when the Australian Heritage Commission is given properties which become its own pecuniary interest, it it not disqualified. It is the organisation that is still going to have to recommend whether money is to be spent there or on some other private property.

The other matter that concerns me and which relates to this matter is the limited extent -

Mr Uren:

– If the honourable member does not sit down soon I will have to move the gag. He said he wished to speak for 2 minutes.

Mr RUDDOCK:

-I am sorry. But if I could just raise this one point I will make it very short. On page 10 of the Interim Report of the Committee, is mentioned the difficulty that private individuals have in receiving grants. That concerns me a great deal because I think private properties ought to have grants made in respect of them. The argument that is put in the report provides one way in which it might be able to be said by the Commission that if this distortion is apparent, it was not really able to give money in this direction. That does trouble me and I think special efforts ought to be made to give to the Australian Heritage Commission, when it is established, wider powers to get covenants that will protect its interests so it can make grants to properties that are still in the hands of private individuals or the National Trusts.

I hope the Minister for Urban and Regional Development and the Minister for Environment (Dr Cass) will look very closely at these matters because I think that this commission ought to make recommendations and that there ought to be a separate organisation to accept bequests. My personal view is that that right ought to be in the hands of the National Trust.

Mr HUNT:
Gwydir

– I should like to ask a question in respect of paragraph (c) of subclause (1) of clause 10, which states that the Commission may acquire, hold and dispose of real and personal property. Is my assumption that the Commission would use the provisions of the Lands Acquisition Act in order to effect an acquisition correct? If not, under what terms would the Commission acquire property, real or personal?

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

– I shall answer the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) first The Acts of the respective State governments are the means of acquisition that have been used up to date and, no doubt, that will be used in the future. With regard to scientific fact, it is not our intention to by-pass the States. I think we stress in clause 7 (a)- the new clause- that what we want to do is to work in close cooperation with the States. Concerning Hallett Cove, it is an area of recognised scientific importance. Even if it were not, if it were just a part of the coastline, the coastscape should be protected. Might I tell the 2 honourable members from South Australia, the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) and the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles), that it would be very wise for those ultraconservative forces of the Adelaide Club that dominate the Upper House of South Australia to give a little more power to the planning authorities in South Australia in order that they themselves might carry out some authority under the planning authorities without having to acquire everything. If we bought all the land surrounding Hallett Cove it would cost $2m. We have tried to recognise that there is an enormous amount of work to be done in a short time in the National Estate because, as the honourable member for Sturt and the honourable member for Gwydir would realise, for 23 years the Government which they supported did nothing to try to protect the National Estate. In the first 2 years that we were in Government, only $2m was made available. Even that could not be spent in the first financial year because of the democratic process we have to go through of acting through the States, local government, national trusts and other conservation groups. All of the $8m made available in the second year has not been spent in the time available. A project to cost $2m would cancel out so many others. We have had something like 1 100 applications. Determinations have had to be made. We allocated $5,000 and engaged consultants to carry out a study in Hallett Cove. The report will be available within the next day or two and I think an important statement will be made within a week by the Minister for the Environment (Dr Cass) and myself and the South Australian Minister for the Environment regarding certain action that we will be taking in Hallett Cove.

But there are other ways in which we want to try to alleviate the problem of Hallett Cove, that is, by trying to get co-operation with the South Australian Land Commission. Even under that proposal a grant to acquire land would not be a 100 per cent grant by the Federal Government; 66% per cent would be provided by the Federal Government and that would have to be matched by 33% per cent from the States. The States may have some problems in finding their money. We are trying to do something to stop the bad development that is occurring. If the honourable member for Sturt who criticised us is as sincere as he sounded, it is about time he got off his tail and got stuck into those conservative forces in the Upper House which will not give real power of planning to the South Australian Government. It is atrocious- if I can use the word, it is quite criminal- to think that in this day and age private developers can cany on the type of development they have done in South Australia, particularly near Hallett Cove.

I turn now to Parramatta. I have noted the points raised. Parramatta is a cradle of our nation. It is a place where great treasures are available. I say to the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr Ruddock), who sits on the back bench, that when I used to sit on the back bench I tried for years to get the Australian Government to do something about this area. I was elected to Parliament in 1958 and in the early 1960s I commenced to agitate against, firstly, the Menzies Government, then the Holt Government, then the Gorton Government and then the McMahon Government, to try to get some money to restore the oldest dwelling in Australia, Elizabeth Farm cottage, built in 1793. Despite long agitation the heartless governments of those days did not make one penny available for the National Estate. This year the Government will start by making $10,000 available to be spent on restoring Elizabeth Farm. We do not think that any more than that could be spent in one financial year. We have given something like $100,000 to acquire land around the experimental farm cottage. I could spell out item after item on which the Government and the National Trust consider money should be spent. We hold the National Trust in high esteem. We have not only made $55,000 available to its Federal body but we have also made $20,000 available to each of the State bodies to strengthen those organisations. A great deal of our work will be done through the National Trust. At least one person from New South Wales who was on the Committee which inquired into the National Estate is now on the interim committee. There may be others. We hold the National Trust in very high esteem.

Some people want to make bequests to organisations. This legislation gives them the power to make bequests to the nation. There has been a suggestion that one side will take over. To avoid that we are making sure that the majority of people in this Commission will not be bureaucrats, if I may use the term. Even though 6 departmental heads will sit on this Commission the majority of members will be outside people. I have no doubt that at all times they will protect not only whatever may be bequeathed to the nation but also the interests of the voluntary bodies. One thing we have found in this whole inquiry is that problems are not solved by pushing a button in Canberra. We have to work together through the Australian, State and local governments, with the local organisations, with the conservation groups, with the National Trust, of course, and even with private firms because only together can we solve this problem and protect the National Estate from the bulldozer mentality that functioned for so long under the 23 years in office of the party which the honourable member for Parramatta represents.

Clauses agreed to.

Clause 1 1

  1. 1 ) The Commission shall consist of not fewer than 12 nor more than 19 members, namely-

    1. the Chairman;
    2. not more than 6 Commissioners each of whom is the Permanent Head of a Depanment or the Chairman of an authority of Australia; and
    3. not more than 1 2 other Commissioners.

  2. The Commissioners, other than the representative Commissioners’ shall be persons having qualifications relevant to, or special experience or interest in, a field related to the functions of the Commission.

Mr HUNT:
Gwydir

-On behalf of the Opposition I move:

This is a further attempt to ensure that there is a degree of consultation and co-operation by the Minister concerned in the appointment of commissioners who will have the advisory function and the essential contact with the States in trying to ensure a general approach to the protection of the National Estate. I know that the Government understands this position and proposes to move another amendment. I am not at liberty to accept the foreshadowed amendment at this stage. However, the Opposition will look at the situation later in the Senate. There is a phrase in the foreshadowed amendment which causes me some concern and without consultation with my colleagues I could not accept it. The phrase ‘so far as he considers appropriate’ still leaves the Minister with far too much flexibility. It could be that the Minister may decide that it is not appropriate to confer with one State, for a reason best known to him, on the appointment of a person from that State. Of course should this happen, the State concerned would take umbrage and regard this as an insult, and we would find that the authorities of that State would not co-operate to the extent that they should in order to achieve the co-operative effort to protect the National Estate. There is an advantage in the foreshadowed amendment of the Government. It gives consideration to the Northern Territory, which the Opposition did not conceive in its amendment. However, I shall proceed to press the Opposition amendment as circulated and give an undertaking to the Government that when the Bill goes before the Senate further consideration will be given to the suggestion contained in the amendment foreshadowed by the Government.

Dr CASS:
Minister for Environment · Maribyrnong · ALP

– As the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) has indicated, he is aware of the amendment we wish to move in place of his own amendment. We accept the basic proposition that is made in the Opposition amendment. We do not feel that the way it is worded is the most appropriate way and I indicate that if the honourable member’s amendment is disposed of I shall move the one which I have circulated. The honourable member made the observation that the words ‘so far as he considers appropriate’ are not adequate. I think this is a realistic assessment of what the situation always would be. We cannot measure it in any other way. We can only consult. How does one measure the degree of consultation? It was always going to be appropriate only insofar as the person who is asked to consult does consult. We can argue about that matter later. It can be discussed in the Senate if need be. We will persist with it because I believe that it is a realistic statement of the situation. I do not believe that it can be done in any other way.

Mr GILES:
Angas

– I wish to speak to this clause because there is a question of appointments and State government sources are involved. I wish to return if I may, to the question of Hallett Cove. It is a constant source of amazement to me to find the Minister for Environment (Dr Cass) blaming anyone from the Legislative Council to conservative forces in South Australia in relation to this question. Both the Minister for Environment and the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) will remember clearly that on several occasions I have sent them telegrams. Hallett Cove is not in my electorate and I hope that my facts are correct. The truth of the matter does not involve conservative forces or Adelaide clubs or anyone else. The State Government declared, from memory, an area of 511/2 acres as a reserve, and it had every right to declare a reserve of 250 acres or 350 acres. I think there is no earthly use the Minister trying to blame forces other than the South Australian Government which declared that area, and which entered into a contract with the developers in that region for areas outside that 511/2 acres. This matter has nothing to do with the Upper House of New South Wales, the Geebung Polo Club or anyone else.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Berinson:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Order! I must call the honourable member to order. The clause with which we are dealing relates only to the constitution of the Commission. I do not think that this is an appropriate clause on which to re-introduce a former argument.

Mr GILES:

-Under that guise, Mr Chairman, I was hoping that you would allow me to speak because of the State implication of the Commission to refer directly -

The CHAIRMAN:

– I am afraid that the connection is too remote. The honourable member may have an opportunity to speak about this matter during discussion on a later clause. I cannot see that he can pursue his present comments in relation to the membership of the Commission.

Amendment negatived.

Dr CASS (Maribyrnong- Minister for

Environment) ( 12.43)- I move:

After sub-clause (4) insert the following sub-clause: (4a) For the purpose of making recommendations to the Governor-General for the appointment of Commissioners referred to in paragraph ( 1 ) (c), the Minister shall-

have regard to the desirability of the membership of the Commission including persons resident in the several States and in the Northern Territory; and

consult, so far as he considers appropriate, with Ministers and authorities of the States, local government authorities and community and other organisations. ‘.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 12 to 21- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 22 agreed to.

Proposed new clause 22A.

Mr HUNT:
Gwydir

– I move:

After clause 22, insert the following new clause: 22a. ( 1 ) Where a person has an interest in the whole or a part of a place and either-

his interest is injuriously affected by the entry of a place on a list or the register; or

he suffers damage or incurs expenditure in respect of that interest as a result of the entry on a list or register- he shall be entitled to receive such compensation as is just in the circumstances.

Where a person is entitled to compensation in accordance with sub-section (1), Australia is liable to pay to him such compensation as is determined by agreement between the person and the Minister or in the absence of agreement by action by that person against Australia in the Supreme Court of the State or a Territory of Australia where the place is located.

The Supreme Courts of the States are invested with federal jurisdiction and jurisdiction is conferred on the Supreme Courts of the Territories to hear and determine any action brought by a person against Australia in any of those courts under sub-section (2). ‘.

There is a very strong reason why the Government should give serious consideration to ensuring that the individual in possession of a place, a site, or an area that has historic importance and should be registered and placed in a national register may have that possession preserved for posterity. In the process of listing such a place in a register or recording such a place on a list, the individual concerned should not be expected to pay a disproportionate cost of having his place, his site or his building entered in a register. I cite an example of a young couple who for instance might buy an old home in Balmain. They might pay $30,000 or $60,000 for it. An action group might find that that old home has an historic value to Australia and that in fact it should be listed in a national register. If the Commission does its job, it will confer with the State concerned and if the State gives its agreement, the property then becomes listed in a register. If the States pass complementary legislation to this Bill, as I hope that they would do, the owner of that property could well be very seriously financially disadvantaged because the value of that building, the value of that site, the value of that area would be lowered as a result of its reduced saleability. Under the legislation as it now stands, the Commonwealth could not buy the property and use it for another purpose, but the State could. If there is complementary legislation of course that will stop any action in the State to use the property that that person may have bought in good faith as a residence, hoping at the same time that he may gain some capital benefit against inflation and other factors.

This is a provision which is not usually found in legislation within Australia. It is common in British legislation, and I believe that there are provisions in the United States of America and in Canada to protect the individual in such a circumstance. I hope that the Government will see the wisdom of protecting an individual who may be holding an area or a site as private property which in fact should be listed and kept for posterity. Of course there are powers of acquisition. The Government may determine to purchase the property, but in the report of the Interim Committee which was tabled in the Parliament last week, the Interim Committee put acquisition as being the last alternative that the Commission should consider in trying to preserve or protect the national estate. I hope that the Government sees the wisdom, and I hope that it sees that it is a matter of natural human justice that some provision of this type should be placed in the legislation to protect an individual. A White Paper was brought down in the House of Commons by a Labour Government some three or four years ago on this very issue. It involved the new town developments which were taking place around Britain to ensure that just compensation was paid to property owners and to people who were in the way of new developments. I think that this sort of principal needs to be adopted in all legislation of this type. I commend it to the Government for its earnest consideration.

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

– The amendment moved by the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) cannot be accepted by the Government. I give the following reasons: The listing of places in the National Estate register is intended as a means of bringing to the attention of Ministers and agencies of the Australian Government the existence of those National Estate places so that Ministers and agencies can give the necessary degree of care and protection to them when engaging in activities of the Australian Government.

The act of including places on the National Estate register cannot directly disadvantage the owners of such places. Many of the places that will be recorded on the National Estate register are already recorded by National Trust bodies in the States. In the States, listings on the National Trust registers do not carry the right to compensation. I stress that point. The listing of these places on the National Trust registers of the States does not carry any right to compensation on the basis of that registration.

The act of including these places on the National Estate register does not impose any duty on the owners of those places. Even with the Victorian Housing Building Act recently passed -I commend that Act to honourable members; I hope other States follow that example by introducing similar Acts- in which duties to care are imposed on owners of property listed in the Historical Buildings Act Register, no automatic right of compensation applies. The Act provides discretion to the Minister to deal with the owners as he sees fit.

In essence, the position of the National Estate register is that it is an inventory designed to record places of National Estate quality. The thrust of the Bill is. towards the actions of the Australian Government- not towards the imposition of constraints on the owners of such National Estate places. I wish to make that point perfectly clear. Frankly, even in this day and age there are still Australian Government agencies that are making mistakes. I do not want to itemise one in particular here, but recently in Hobart I believe there was a very bad case where an Australian Government department acquired what I would think was part of the National Estate to build an Australian Government building. Quite frankly, I do not think that action should ever have been taken.

This Commission will exercise its role only as a last resort. Certainly, its intervention will always be very delicate. I know that honourable members opposite always seem to defend the socalled rights of people who own the land involved. They must always keep in mind that, when land is acquired by public authority, it is acquired in the interests of the people, and the interests of those holding the land should not be the only factor to be considered. Sometimes people who alone own land are guilty of great selfishness. I know that some people who own land in so-called or proposed growth centres believe they are sitting on a gold mine. But we should not forget that any gold for those people at the end of such a rainbow must be paid for in the long-term by the Australian people. Therefore, justice must be done to the people acquiring land as well as to those people who own the land.

Mr CADMAN:
Mitchell

-Mr Chairman -

Motion (by Mr Daly) put:

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr J. M. Berinson)

AYES: 58

NOES: 54

Majority……. 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the proposed new clause (Mr Hunt’s amendment) be inserted.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr J. M. Berinson)

AYES: 54

NOES: 58

Majority……. 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Sitting suspended from 1.6 to 2.15 p.m.

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

Bill reported with amendments; report- by leave- adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr Uren)- by leave- proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr GILES:
Angas

– I will not delay the House for very long but I must take up a point of inaccuracy made by the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) during the debate. He attempted to show in his inimitable fashion that the blame for the problem of Hallett Cove in South Australia should be laid at the feet of the State Upper House, and of a wide variety of other right wing forces, as he put it. Let me say in all fairness that that is not so. It is not only the Minister who has been interested in environmental matters; for many years many people on this side of the House have also been interested. The realisation of the importance of the Australian heritage has been the role in life not only of the Minister over all these years; the community at large has realised, as Australians have grown more mature, that these matters are important. The Minister reflects community attitudes- I give him credit for that- and reflects the attitudes of a lot of people on this side of the House. The Hallett Cove situation in South Australia is a very serious one at present.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I have shown the honourable member a little latitude but I ought to point out that debate on the motion for the third reading can deal only with the substance of the Bill and not with policy matters surrounding the BDI or questions which would normally be raised in the second reading debate.

Mr GILES:

– I accept your ruling, Mr Speaker. I just point out in passing that the issue has been canvassed fairly extensively already on one side during the second reading debate.

Mr SPEAKER:

-But not on the third reading.

Mr GILES:

-That is true. I am the first speaker in the third reading debate. I wish to apply my remarks to a certain clause which I missed. They can be tied in directly to that clause if that is your wish, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The third reading is open to debate only on the actual Bill.

Mr GILES:

-That is right. I can quite readily tie my remarks directly to the Bill by pointing, for instance, to clause 24 which deals with the duties and authorities of Ministers. In regard to that aspect- there are many other ways in which I think I could properly tie in my remarks- I have a document in front of me which refers to the zoning of the Hallett Cove area as R2. The definition of R2 in South Australia is:

This zone is intended primarily to accommodate single family dwellings on individual allotments and semidetached dwelling houses, but certain parts of the zone may be considered for the erection of rows of houses or residential flat buildings of medium density.

As I see it, my remarks are tied directly to the Bill. Mr Hart, the town planner in South Australia, has zoned the area R2. The demand is for a buffer zone to protect these areas of great historical interest which stretch well beyond the boundaries of this country. They are so regarded internationally. It is clear that if the State Government can declare 5 1 acres in order to protect these very important relics- shells impregnated into the cliffs which would be of importance in arriving at the origin and foundation of the world as we know it- it can certainly declare 250 acres if it wishes to do so.

I wish to point out 3 things: First of all, both the Minister for Urban and Regional Development and the Minister for Environment (Dr Cass) will be aware that I am very interested in this matter. I have sent repeated telegrams and I have spoken on it on, I think, 3 occasions and it is unfair for the Minister to pretend that members of the Opposition are not keenly interested in matters such as Hallett Cove. The fault lies not with us, not with the Federal Government and not with the South Australian Legislative Council; it lies fairly and squarely on the State Government of South Australia which has complete powers to declare these areas open space, as it has already used their powers to declare the area R2. What is required is a buffer zone of open space around the area of Hallett Cove-

Mr ELLICOTT:
Wentworth

– I rise on the motion for the third reading as I did not have the opportunity to take part in the earlier debate. The most significant thing about this Bill is that it underlies and underscores the fact that the National Heritage belongs to all of us. It is not a matter that relates to government at only one level. The tenor of the debate has been to recognise the fact that governments at all levels, and all the people, have a great interest in this question. I know that the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) has endeavoured during his ministry to co-operate with the States in relation to this matter. I know that the Minister for Environment (Dr Cass) has indicated his willingness to do so in matters relating to his portfolio.

This debate has been significant in that we have been able to put into the Bill a very significant amendment that underscores the need for complete consideration at all levels of government. We look forward to that. I am sure that it will take place. In the process, I believe that we will be able better to deal with our National Heritage. At the same time I think it is significant to realise that in the community today lots of people are living in places that could easily be declared to be pan of the National Heritage. The result is that their ability to deal with property is hindered. I am not speaking necessarily of wealthy people; I am speaking sometimes of poor people who may have a little bit of Victorian lace on their front verandas. If the house is classified by the National Trust they may not be able to add an additional room or enclose the veranda. There have been situations like that. I think that the National Heritage development demands some form of restraint in that regard. In other words, there is no need to declare large areas of buildings as part of the National Heritage because many of them are still the very personal habitat of a lot of people, and usually of a lot of people whose needs are very great. I do not need to tell the Ministers about such people. I am referring to people, for instance, who live in the electorate of Sydney, people who live in my electorate and people in areas such as Paddington. They have reason to be troubled about this sort of development. I do not say that to create a problem; I say it only because I believe that the development of the National Heritage requires that sense of restraint.

One matter that caused me a little concern was the Government’s rejection of the provision for compensation. It will be expensive to preserve the National Estate. If the effect of declaring a property as being part of the National Heritage or placing it on the register is materially to depreciate its value, it seems to us that that ought to be a matter for compensation. We would press that view on the Government. I am sure that between the time this Bill is passed through this House and the time when it comes to the Senate the Government will be able to give that matter further consideration because it does go to a basic tenet of our constitution; that is to say, when property is acquired it can be acquired only on just terms. If the result of a building being declared as part of the national estate is that the land on which that building stands is materially depreciated in value it is proper from the community’s point of view that the community should compensate the owner of that land. Indeed, it may be part of the restraint that is needed in applying such provisions.

I come back to what I said in the beginning. I hope that we will all see ourselves as protectors of what is our national heritage. I do not think that there is any need to question the sincerity of members on this side of the House. We have thoroughly supported this measure. We hope that the Government is able to implement it with all the spirit that is involved in the Minister’s approach to it and in the Bill itself.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I call the honourable member forSturt.

Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 60

NOES: 55

Majority……. 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2927

POSTAL SERVICES BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27 May 1975 on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KingsfordSmithSpecial Minister of State · ALP

- Mr Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation. Before the debate is resumed on this Bill I would like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill, the Telecommunications Bill, and the Postal and Telecommunications Commissions (Transitional Provisions) Bill as they are related measures. Of course separate questions will be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest, therefore, that you permit the subject matter of the 3 Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is it the wish of the House to undertake this course? There being no objection, it is so ordered.

Mr NIXON:
Gippsland

-These Bills set out to implement the major recommendations of the Vernon Commission of Inquiry into the Australian Post Office. Honourable members will recall that this Commission was constituted on 22 February 1973 and that its report was presented to the then Governor-General on 1 9 April 1974 and to the House of 23 July 1974. The major recommendations of the Commission which are embodied in the present legislation are as follows: To separate postal services from telecommunication services; to establish an independent statutory commission to run each service as a monopoly; to incorporate the Overseas Telecommunications Commission into the Telecommunications Commission although the staff providing the international services will retain their identity as a working group. In each case the proposed duty of the commission is to ‘perform its functions in such a manner as will, in the opinion of the Commission, best meet the reasonable needs of the Austraiian people ‘ for its respective services.

No power is given to the Minister to give general policy directions to the Commission, but the Commission must report to the Minister on request and also make an annual report. The Commissions will have power to determine their own charges but the approval of the Minister will be required for the following charges: Standard postal articles, registered publications, standard telephone rentals, telephone calls and telegrams. If the Minister does not approve the charges submitted by the Commission, the Commission at the end of the financial year is entitled to recover the revenue foregone. This is based on a fairly elaborate formula which is designed to take into account the actual financial performance during the year in question and changes in general economic conditions which may have affected performance in any event.

The Commission in each case will comprise 7 commissioners as follows: The managing director, who will be full time; one commissioner who will be an officer of the Department of the Minister administering the Act; one commissioner representing officers and employees of the Commission; and four others. The Bills also make provision for the position of Chief General Manager of the Commission who is to be appointed by the Governor-General. It appears, therefore, that the 2 chief executive officers of the Commission will not be servants of the Commission but of the Governor-General as appointed by the Parliament. Each Bill establishes a commission service which will have rights equivalent to those of the Public Service in relation to retirement, promotion, superannuation and so on. These arrangements are apparently satisfactory to the existing staff.

Industrial relations are to come under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and not the Public Service Board and Arbitrator. The Commission in each case has to pursue a financial policy directed to cover all expenditure for the year and to provide one half of its capital requirements for the year. The Treasury will provide the balance at interest, although the Commission is given the power to borrow moneys from other sources with the approval of the Treasury. The Commissions will not be subject to taxation under any Federal or State law. They may not enter into a contract exceeding $500,000 or lease land for a period exceeding 10 years without the approval of the Minister. All compulsory acquisitions of land will be made by the Minister for Services and Property.

The Wireless Telegraphy Act will continue to be administered by the Minister and not the Commission. The Commission will have a monopoly on telecommunication services with the exception of such things as railway and tramway authorities for their internal communications, holders of licences under the Wireless Telegraphy Act and the Broadcasting and Television Act and private installations only capable of use on the land of which the person is the owner or occupier. The monopoly of the Postal Commission will extend only to letters up to 500 grams in weight and will not apply to letters relating to affairs of a person and carried by an employee of that person. The Telecommunications Commission will have fairly extensive powers to enter private property and erect telecommunication installations. It must, however, pay compensation for damage, whether temporary or permanent.

The most important sections of the 3 Bills are those dealing with the functions, powers and financing of the Commissions and it is to these sections of the Bills which I now wish to direct some remarks. Before doing so, I will mention that there are important clauses in the Bill dealing with staffing, conciliation and arbitration, offences and the like. Many of the proposals put forward in these clauses would emanate, I have no doubt, from the detailed examination made of the recommendations of the Commission by the inter-departmental working group to which the Minister referred in his second reading speech, and are generally of a non-controversial nature so far as the main thrust of the Bills is concerned.

Before I go on to discuss the 3 Bills in detail I would like to make some general observations about the proposals put forward in all 3 Bills taken as a whole. Firstly, the Opposition is not opposing the establishment of the Australian Postal Commission and the Australian Telecommunications Commission, because this decision embodies the broad principles of the Vernon Commission’s proposals to which the Opposition has already given general support. This support has been given in the hope that the implementation of the Commission’s recommendations would effect an improvement in the efficiency and standard of services rendered by both the telecommunications and postal services. It is anticipated- and this was the hope of the Vernon Committee- that dismantling the unwieldly and in many ways obsolete structure of the Post Office and the creation of 2 statutory corporations would pave the way for a more efficient administrative and organisational structure; that it would foster enthusiasm and enterprise, qualities described by the Melbourne ‘Age’ as being as rare as a Blue Mauritius’ in the Post Office; and that it would do something to improve the black record of persistent industrial unrest.

I turn to the question of improving efficiency. It does not automatically follow that the Post Office will become more efficient because it is going to be run by 2 corporations rather than one Government department. However a reading of the Vernon report and in particular Volume 2 of the consultants’ report confirms the belief that an organisational restructure of this kind is the prerequisite of any improvement in the Post Office’s performance. For example, in their report, Price Waterhouse & Co. say:

We believe that Postal and Communication Services should be treated as business entities. However the required business orientation is unlikely to develop until better business direction and greater management autonomy is developed . . . there is very little decision-making authority given to management to acquire funds for expansion, establish tariffs, recruit staff and negotiate industrial relations matters. All personnel are classified as public servants and this tends to mitigate against the development of a business orientation.

The report by Messrs Cresap, McCormick and Paget recommends separation of the executive direction and management of telecommunications from that of the postal services on the grounds that such separation ‘would reduce to manageable proportions, the scope and variety of issues with which top executives, both centrally and in the field, must deal’.

These and similar arguments no doubt helped to persuade the Commission to recommend the separation of postal services and telecommunications. The Commission’s report reads:

The problems of administration and organisation of the Australia Post Office are unlikely to grow less with the years; indeed they are more likely to increase. The separation of the two services will provide a unique opportunity for the reconsideration of all aspects of their future organisation and financing and hopefully will put them in better shape to cope with future community needs.

The Opposition accepts the Commissioner’s recommendations on this point, and consequently accepts the relevant provisions of the Bills before the House in the belief that the organisational changes do not guarantee greater efficiency, greater enthusiasm and greater enterprise, but that they are prerequisites for the attainment of these desirable ends.

As mentioned earlier, the Opposition believes that any worthwhile reforms of the organisation of the Australian Post Office must face up to the Australian Post Office’s black record of industrial unrest. The Cresap, McCormick and Paget report speaks of ‘the negative effect of industrial relations upon the efficiency of the postal system’. This particularly applies to the Sydney Mail Exchange at Redfern, which has an unenviable record of black bans and work stoppages. The Commissioner’s report states:

During the year ended 30 June 1973 there were 70 1 work stoppages at the Sydney Mail Exchange involving staff engaged in mail processing, resulting in the loss of 10 993 man-hours.

No wonder it is almost impossible to get a letter from Sydney-

Stoppages by craft unions in the same period numbered twenty-one for the loss of 845 man-hours.

. During the 1972-73 year only one other stoppage occurred in a central mail exchange when 93 manhours were lost at Adelaide.

I think there is a story in that. I understand from an article in the ‘Bulletin’ that:

If you want to know how things are at the Redfern Mail Exchange, or whether PMG linesmen are likely to go on strike, you don’t need to wait until you read it in the papers.

You simply (if in Sydney) dial 21 1-2212. If in Melbourne you dial an unlisted number, 328-4274.

I think it says something for the present industrial climate in the Australian Post Office that, at a time when unsatisfied demand for telephone services has been increasing to a total of 105 000 in January 1974- this is according to the Commission’s report- top priority should be given to the installation of a service such as this. It seems that along with the Totalisator Agency Board racing service, stock exchange reports, dialaprayer and tele-bible, telephone subscribers are to be given the advantage of dial-a-strike. Seriously, though, it must be the objective of any re-organisation of the Australian Post Office to investigate and ameliorate the circumstances which have given rise to a situation which would be farcical if it were not disastrous to the Australian public and to the Australian economy.

The Vernon Commission, in its report, states: the proposed formation of 2 statutory corporations to administer postal and telecommunications services respectively and the creation of 2 new management structures, should provide an opportunity for re-organisation of the industrial relations and personnel functions; placing of responsibility for salaries and conditions of employment directly with management should go a long way towards removing staff organisation objectives to some of the rigidities necessarily accompanying Public Service Board jurisdiction …

I can only say Amen to that. It is quite obviously not an easy problem to solve. Apart from the rigidities of the Public Service Board referred to there are also the rivalries, the intransigence and the empire-building of the staff organisations involved. There are no fewer than 28 registered staff industrial organisations with members employed in the Australian Post Office. The Commission reports on this matter in a rather defeatist mood by stating:

It would seem sensible that action be taken at some stage to rationalise staff organisation representation but this seems a matter principally for organisations and their members to decide.

I read somewhere of one well known trade unionist, George Slater, making caustic comments about the activities of other trade unions. It is a pity he does not turn to his own domestic problems and see whether he can resolve some of the problems of the Post Office. One thing is clear: However assiduously the proposed new Commissions apply themselves to the task of streamlining their administration, they will not be able to attain a higher level of efficiency without better co-operation from the trade unions. The Vernon Commission ‘s report states:

Responsibility also falls on the central executives of the staff organisations to control and prevent unauthorised industrial action within the Exchange.

If, as it is to be hoped, greater operational efficiency in the postal and telecommunications services is achieved, it is important to see that the results are enjoyed by the community in the form of better services and more reasonable tariffs. The whole matter sounds too much like a Cinderella story to me. The Bills before the House do not set these benefits up as being the prime objectives of the Commissions. As Senator Durack, the shadow Minister for the PostmasterGeneral ‘s Department in another place, said: the Opposition sees the dangers that by setting up these independent Commissions, by giving them in some cases unrealistic financial objectives, and by putting emphasis on their commercial operation and the ‘user pays’ principlewhich the Government seems to have been doingthere may be in fact a diminution in services. There may be a cut-back of services on the grounds of economy, particularly those services in rural and remote areas of Australia.

I warn the proposed new Commissions that if they start cutting back on services too hard they will have grave political difficulties. It is in this area that the Opposition takes issue with the Government over the provisions in clause 7 of both the Postal Services Bill and the Telecommunications Bill which outline the duties of the 2 Commissions. We feel that to create 2 powerful, monopolistic authorities with a large degree of independence from Government control necessitates the fixing in far more definite terms of the objectives which the Commissions should be seeking to attain. During a debate on 20 May the Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop) stated:

Generally we are not opposed to the general statement that the Australian Postal Commission and the Australian Telecommunications Commission be responsive to what might be called social and rural aims.

I am glad to read the reassurance of the Minister on this matter because the important point which he concedes is not written into the Bill. Insofar as the Bill reflects the views expressed in the Vernon Commission’s report this omission is not surprising because the Commission’s views on the social and rural aims of the Australian Post Office are something less than crystal clear. The report states:

The Commission considers that it is not correct to define the role of the APO today in simple terms which describe it as a social service or as a business undertaking. It clearly has elements of both in its role and the real difficulty in interpretation arises in particular cases when the business responsibility and the social responsibility are not readily compatible.

I am frankly disappointed that the Commission should have discarded this problem into its ‘too hard’ basket. The Special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen) who is at the table has never displayed any social conscience or awareness of the needs of the people who are disadvantaged by living in those rural or remote areas. Right from the time of coming into the Government the Minister has displayed a canny coldness towards those people who are mentioned in the Commission’s report. We in the Opposition will be watching with a great deal of interest that aspect of the Commission’s activities. The PostmasterGeneral, in his second reading speech, spoke of the added challenges of vast areas and sparse populations which characterise much of Australia. I wonder whether he will do anything in order to come to grips with these challenges or whether those words, like the words of the Special Minister of State, are so much rhetoric.

If the Postmaster-General gives an answer will it just be to echo the smug utterances of the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) from his 4 square mile empire of Grayndler that the Post Office customers should cover the cost of the services which they use. That is not the answer which the Vernon Commission arrives at. The Commission says that it sees the Australian Post Office as an organisation which provides for the reasonable cost of its services, to be recouped from revenues received from customers. What is a reasonable cost for having a telephone connected? Is it $80 as it would be for a city subscriber? Is it $2,500 as in the case of a subscriber who lives 15 miles from an exchange? Or is it $10,000 as it is in some remote parts of Australia? I think the figures could be even higher. What is a reasonable price to pay for a daily newspaper? Is it the 10c which it costs in Sydney or is it 18c which it costs to have the newspaper mailed to a person in the country?

It is quite clear from the answer which the Special Minister of State gave to my colleague the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Hewson) at question dme that service will not mean a thing. Cost recovery is to be the new holy cow. In this connection some concern has been expressed about the future of the established category system of determining postal rates for registered publications. On 19 September 1973 agreement was reached for a schedule of charges which was to be in force until 1 October 1976. Will the Bills before the House negative that arrangement or will the terms of the Postal and Telecommunications Commissions (Transitional Provisions) Bill preserve the schedule? On my interpretation of the Bill it would, but I ask the Special Minister of State for reassurance on this point. Is the Minister able to answer the question in relation to the categories?

Mr Lionel Bowen:

-I shall find out for the honourable member.

Mr NIXON:

- Mr Speaker, I remind you of the phrase ‘The Tyranny of Distance’ which is the title of a widely acclaimed book written by an old school mate of mine, Professor Geoffrey Blainey. ‘The Tyranny of Distance’ is one of the great determinants affecting the social, political and economic development of Australia. Nowhere is this more so than in the field of communications. Some people are unfairly disadvantaged by the costs inflicted on them by isolation. It should be the objective of governments dedicated to fostering equality of opportunity to make sure that those in the cities are not more equal than those in the outback. I am sorry that the Commission did not take the opportunity of calling for a report on this question, similar to the expert reports submitted to it by Price, Waterhouse and Company, and by Cressap, McCormick and Paget. I have in mind a study of the social and economic costs of isolation and inadequate communications.

In its own submission to the Commission, the National Country Party wrote:

The Party:

Understands fully that Government policy directs Post Office to render some services at uneconomic rates. The Party submits that the Post Office losses on these services should be recouped by direct Treasury subvention, and not taken from Post Office revenue.

The Commission regrettably did not accept that proposal. The Commission acknowledges that there is a conflict between the commercial and the social responsibility of a statutory authority, and suggests that the best way of resolving such a conflict is by imaginative use of tariff structures.

The Opposition feels that more precise instructions must be given to the Commission on this fundamental issue and has amended the Bill accordingly in the Senate. I am delighted that the Minister and the Government have accepted the amendments and I hope that the Commission will follow the instructions laid down. The other main proposal on which the Opposition joins issue with the Government is the merger of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission into the proposed Australian Telecommunications Commission. The Commission of Inquiry reported that the OTC was a substantial and profitable business which had made only a small initial demand for public funds. It pointed out that, before interest charges the Australian Post Office in 1 972-73 earned 6.3 per cent on funds of $3,070m. The OTC earned 22.4 per cent on funds of $70m. The Commissioners were unable to reach a common view on the question whether the OTC should remain as a separate entity or whether it should be merged into the proposed Australian Telecommunications Commission. The Opposition agrees with the view put forward by the Chairman of the Commission. The Chairman believes that it would be altogether premature to take a decision at this time to merge the well established OTC with an ATC, not yet in being. The situation will be seen in proper perspective only when the new Commission is properly established and when the boards and managements of the 2 Commissions have been able to study the practical interworking of the national and international systems.

The Opposition has moved an appropriate amendment in the Senate to prevent the merger of the OTC into the ATC, only to be told by the Government that it proposes to introduce a separate Bill later that obviously will separate the OTC from the Commission. So we are today giving the Government these Bills and I take it we will be presented with another Bill to take out the OTC. Is that what was proposed in the Minister’s second reading speech last night?

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– We will be introducing a separate Bill which has nothing to do with these.

Mr NIXON:

– Well, you accept the proposal that the OTC should be out?

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– At this stage, yes. We have indicated we will be introducing another Bill.

Mr NIXON:

-To take it out?

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– No.

Mr NIXON:

-A separation Bill?

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– We disagree with the Opposition on that issue. It will be a matter for separate debate.

Mr NIXON:

– We are giving you these -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order ! The honourable member will address the Chair.

Mr NIXON:

-Yes, Mr Speaker. I suspect that this is a matter of vital importance to the nation. We are giving the Government these Bills with amendments. They are being accepted in good faith. Now we are told that another Bill will be introduced which will drastically alter our approach. However, we will deal with that when the time comes.

While on the subject of telecommunications, I would like briefly to raise one particular problem that has been brought to my attention and also, I understand, to the attention of the Minister for the Media (Senator Douglas McClelland). I refer to the high level of charges imposed by the Postmaster-General’s Department for daily news feed on the broad band link between Melbourne and Hobart. I am a little surprised that the honourable member for Denison (Mr Coates) has not interested himself in this question. This link is the standby bearer for the telephone service between Tasmania and Melbourne.

The news staff of television station TVT6 has asked me to point out that the prohibitive charges of approximately $200 a day prevent this station presenting the day’s news on that same day. The staff points out that this broad band link is a national facility paid for by taxpayers, and that the Australian Broadcasting Commission has a dedicated link for its own purposes, costing $ 150,000 a year. On the face of it, this is an anomalous situation where there is discriminatory application of the ‘user pays’ principle. If it applies to television station TVT6, it probably applies to other stations as well. The amendments which the Opposition has moved are aimed at making the proposed Bills more workable and more relevant.

As I have said, the Opposition is of the opinion that radical reconstruction of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department is the necessary prerequisite of restoring efficiency, morale and industrial harmony. But these essential objectives are not ends in themselves; they are the means to an end. That end is better and more economical service to the community. An obvious case is the restoration of Saturday services. The Special Minister of State was fairly long on words on this question of Saturday services but he was a little short on action. He may be able to tell us something about that. The Commissioner’s report, in part, stated:

The postal re-organisations of fully developing the postal services and of achieving the objectives set for it will be inhibited if management is restricted in the hours during which it can provide services.

The report goes on to say:

  1. . provided employees are properly paid, they should have no objection to providing the services called for by management which has the responsibility of interpreting and providing for the public’s postal needs.

If the public’s needs are to be met, it must be the Commissions which run the postal and telecommunication services and not the trade union militants.

In an electronic age there is no excuse for having services of the level of the Pony Express, especially when the Commission’s report shows that the horse is no longer fit for work. If the Commissions, which this legislation is designed to establish, cannot restore communication services particularly postal services to an acceptable level then they had better sell the whole business to the highest bidder to see what private enterprise can do.

The Opposition does welcome the fact that the Government has accepted the amendments that we believe will permit more of the social consequences and the importance of this service to be taken into account. We look to the Commissions and to the Government to take these amendments seriously. We do not oppose the measures.

Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa

– I do not want to cover the ground that has been effectively covered by my colleague the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon). I want to add some comments and to support some of the points that he has made. The Commission of Inquiry, chaired by Sir James Vernon, presented its report in April 1974, some 12 months ago. The Government has accepted the major recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry to establish separate Commissions to conduct the postal and telecommunications sections of the Postmaster-General ‘s Department.

I have my reservations about the value of having separate Commissions. I can see some advantages in having them working separately. They will be, as has been pointed out, able to show exactly where money has been spent or what profit has been made by each department. But that is not the essential factor in relation to the provision of services such as are provided by the Postmaster-General’s Department at the present time in the postal and telecommunications sections. The essential factor in relation to that is the efficient operation of the Department. At the same time it has to provide a service for the community at large.

The point that worries me about the Commissions is this: To what extent will they be compelled, or will feel compelled, to look at the economic side rather than the service side of their operations? The Opposition will not oppose the establishment of the Commissions. The decision has been taken by the Government and the responsibility for the operation of the Commissions will rest with the Government. Their operations will be watched with great interest by the Australian people. The acid test of the value of the Commissions will be whether they can provide a satisfactory service to the Australian community, including those deserving people in the sparsely populated areas of Australia where services are being provided at the present time, and indeed where it is reasonably possible to provide them.

My concern- I repeat this because it is an important factor which I want to stress- is that in an endeavour to get a balanced budget, or close to a balanced budget, the Commissions will reduce those services which are not profitable to them without regard to the contribution made by the less densely populated areas; and without regard to the national prosperity through increases in gross domestic product and the increase in national export earnings which, in themselves, are essential to the welfare and the prosperity of Australia and, through that, to all Australians.

In the Postmaster-General’s Department, as it existed, profitability in the telecommunications section served to offset losses incurred in the postal section. Because of that there was some degree of assistance given to the postal section to enable it to provide services in the postal area that may not have been provided otherwise. The argument is used that people using the telephone should not help to provide these postal services but the point that we should not forget is that a government of this country has the responsibility of seeing that there is a full utilisation of the natural resources of this country. They will not be utilised if the communications throughout the country are not as good as they could be. If we are to sacrifice reasonable communications on the altar of balanced budgets then I say we are doing a disservice to this country.

I could anticipate a reply from the Minister representing the Postmaster-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) saying: ‘Now you want to increase expenditure yet whenever you get up at other times you want to decrease it’. This is the common cry that comes from the Government all the time. But there are essential services which have to be provided. In the case of the telecommunications section, there is a very real responsibility to provide some sort of communications for those people who are disadvantaged by the fact that they live in isolation. Take, for example, a case of a person living some 20 miles from a telephone exchange. What hope has a wife who is living there of getting in touch with anybody in the event of an emergency? I do not think we can cover every case and I am not suggesting that we should. But we should cover every case that it is possible to cover if, in doing so, we are encouraging production and encouraging people to stay in those areas where the great majority of Australians would not be prepared to live.

Under the Commission system the postal section will stand alone. What I am questioning is what will happen under those circumstances. Will the postal services in rural areas, which are already being reduced, be reduced further or eliminated altogether? There is a constant struggle in the area that I represent to try to maintain the postal services which exist at the present time. Only recently a professional man in my electorate told me that it took 10 days for a letter to travel about 120 miles. A little less than 100 miles of that distance would be on a main traffic route where postal services are quite frequent. The reason for the delay was that the letter missed the mail going out and there was not another mail service for another week. As a result of that the notification that the professional person sent had not arrived at its destination when he arrived there and, having travelled all that way, he had to return and go over the same process again. This is the sort of thing that is happening and the feature that worries me is that it is getting worse instead of better. The question I ask is: Under the Commission, will the situation deteriorate even further?

I can understand that neither the PostmasterGeneral’s Department nor the Opposition have ever been anxious that the Postmaster-General ‘s Department should have to carry the burden of providing services where they are not considered by that Department to be economic. We submit that there should be a Treasury subvention; the honourable member who led for the Opposition in this debate mentioned that. I ask the Minister Will the Government be prepared to provide funds for the provision of services which, taken in isolation and purely on an economic basis, would not be provided? Will the Government give some consideration to looking at the value of the utilisation of these areas? That is the only way in which these services can be provided; there is no way in which the people can get them for themselves. I ask the Minister: Will the Government give consideration to providing these funds to enable as many of those essential services to be provided as possible?

In days gone by, the Minister quipped me about the cost of automatic exchanges per head of population. He gave me- I think he called it- the blame, but I call it the credit of being in the forefront of endeavours to get the 15 miles freeline service. I believe that was an essential part of this sort of program because it improved communications. That is what costs the money. People were not asking for these improved communications; they were to the advantage of the Department as well as to the subscribers. The subscribers were given no option about the type of telephone they were to be given, whether they could build their own lines or not. The position was that a person who was at that time living 1 5 miles from an exchange was up against a cost of $5,000 or more to provide a service for himself because the Department insisted upon a certain standard of exchange and of the cables which had to be run out to the subscribers’ premises. We, as the Government of that day, thought it was not unreasonable that that high capital cost which helped to upgrade the whole of the telecommunications in this nation, should be provided by the nation and that from then on the Department would get the benefit of the decreased maintenance cost and of a better service generally.

My worry hinges on this factor. It is a matter of grave concern to me that people are disadvantaged to the extent that they have no professional or medical services available to them except by way of telephone. In most cases they have to pay severely for trunk line charges. I suggest that it is quite probable that both Commissions will not be in operation very long before we will see a substantial increase in charges to try to meet this attempt that the Government seems set on making to see that there is no undue loss incurred by these 2 departments. I believe it is essential that the Government should watch expenditure but it cannot service a nation of the dimensions of Australia, with only 13 million people, and give the services to which they are entitled- a communication service right across the nationwithout incurring some losses.

In recent times, despite the slump in the cattle market, we have seen claims being made that food production will become a very important factor in the not too distant future. If that is to be so, do we not have some responsibility in this national Parliament to do something to provide encouragement to people to go out and live in country areas and not be isolated completely because of their inability to meet the heavy costs which are attached to the provision of their own telephone services? I do not object to progress being made- I do not want that thrown at me. In fact, I welcome it. But the whole point is that if this progress is to be insisted upon in those areas where people will not have the opportunity which they have had over the years of providing their own telephone lines and, if you like, looking after those lines, I believe some compensation should be paid to them.

I do not think it is a fair thing that the Commission should have to be responsible in its balance sheet for that compensation. I do not think it was a fair thing that the Postmaster-General’s Department, in its day, had to be responsible for it. I think these lines of communications should be considered in the national interest and, in those cases where it can be reasonably shown, I think the provision of essential services in outlying areas should be shown on the balance sheet as a cost to the community. Unless we do that, I believe we will have a job to stand up to questioning on the grounds of our utilisation of this country, living as we do in an area which is surrounded by countries of very dense population. I ask the Minister and the Government whether they think it is reasonable to expect people to stay in isolated areas if they are not given whatever amenities can be provided, even if they are provided at some cost to the Australian community. It does not always work put that city people are subsidising the country areas. If I were to digress for a moment, I could say that the metropolitan railways- I know this is so in Queensland- have been subsidised by the railways that run into outlying areas. But because of the advantage of reasonably cheap fares and the competition of other forms of transport the people of the cities were well provided for. This went on for quite a long time. I am not complaining about it.

I believe that we should look broadly at this whole question of communications. I believe that we should look at it nationally. I hope that both of the commissions will be given the opportunity to put a case to the Government for financial assistance which will enable them not only to provide services efficiently and economically in those areas where they can be provided economically but also to be given the opportunity to put a case to the Government for finance to be used mainly in the national interest. Unless we are prepared to allow that and unless the commissions are given this opportunity I say that the commissions will be a failure from a national point of view.

The whole point is that we should be prepared to look at these great national measures from a national point of view. We have to encourage people to stay in the outlying areas. It is an essential part of the Australian tradition and it is an essential part of our contribution as a nation to the benefit of the world community that we do just that. The cost is not all that great compared with the cost of some of the Government ‘s activities. I will not elaborate on them because there is no need. I think I have made the points I wanted to make pretty clearly. The cost of the services I have mentioned are not so very great compared to the costs undertaken in this field. It is all very well for Government supporters to point out what an individual exchange might have cost per head of population. As I said, and I repeat it, the exchange was established in a certain place because the Department wanted it to be put there.

I have been very disappointed also with regard to some of the telecommunications staff accommodation, particularly in Roma. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to 2 members of the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association, Mr McLeod and Mr Fowler. Mr McLeod is the Association’s industrial officer and Mr Fowler is the State secretary of the Association. Those 2 gentlemen waited for some hours to enable me to have a discussion with them with regard to the unsatisfactory telecommunications accommodation in Roma. They have been endeavouring in a very patient way- I pay full credit to them- to try to have these conditions improved for the officers of their organisation. We are sometimes accused of having no thought except for country people. We are sarcastically called possum corner’ or something like that. It gives me special pleasure to be able to pay the tribute that I think is due to the officials of that organisation, to their patience and the effective presentation of their case.

In fairness I also say that the PostmasterGeneral’s Department in Brisbane has been endeavouring to lease accommodation in the

Roma area and so improve the accommodation for its staff in that area. I am pleased to be able to make these points so that it cannot be said that we are always speaking of things with which we are dissatisfied. I am pleased that the report which came out recently stated how the telecommunications and postal districts will be changed around but that the Roma district will be retained in more or less its present form. It is the only really inland district concerned in Queensland and I am pleased that the loss in staff is not expected to be very great. So I have some satisfaction and hope that the employment position will not be changed in that area.

I conclude simply by saying that if in fact we are to have an efficient and effective Postal Commission and Telecommunications Commission let their economic operations be confined to those areas where it is reasonable to provide a balanced budget, but do not ever forget that there is a service responsibility on the nation and that that service responsibility has to come through these commissions if we are to get the type of communication service that the people of Australia are justly entitled to receive.

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

-I rise to speak on these measures because firstly I regard them as some of the most important pieces of legislation that have come before Parliament this session. However, there is no doubt at all that great disappointment will be felt throughout the community, and particularly throughout the postal and telecommunications service, when the full import of the legislation and its application are clearly understood. Of course the 3 Bills are the result of the Government’s decision following consideration of the Vernon Commission of Inquiry into the operations of the Post Office. I believe it is fair to say that this legislation is simply taking a sledgehammer to crack an egg. It is legislation that has no beginning and no end in respect of the effect it will have on the running, the financing and the operations of the postal and telephone services of Australia.

The honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon) has very fully and capably canvassed the important ground which needs to be taken into consideration. For my part, I want to refer to some of the anomalies that were originally contained in the legislation. This is pointed up, of course, by the fact that in another place the Government accepted in toto amendments proposed by the Opposition. To some extent this has shored up the weaknesses in the legislation. But of course an Opposition is limited to the extent that it can only make proposals; it is a matter for the Government to make determinations and then to implement those determinations. It is obvious in this legislation that emphasis is being over-weighted in terms of the administrative approach, apparently in the hope and the expectation that this will resolve the inherent problems which exist in the postal and telephone services. When mentioning problems I refer of course to the tremendous cost factor which has occasioned such steep rises in tariffs in all fields and such steep rises in postal charges and the like, and at the same time we find a debt of no less than $60m being incurred.

It is evident that in order to deal with this very severe loss and to comply with the objectives that are the basis of the legislation the first thing that will happen is that postal charges will be increased substantially. I think it is no exaggeration to say that this will result in the postage on an ordinary letter rising to a figure in the range from 14c to 15c or even more depending on whether the motive in the first place is to create a pay-as-you-go operation on the part of the proposed Postal Commission. Let us take for a moment the effect of that on the community, on the present day circumstances of business in this nation as we know it and the result on business of such an increased cost in postal services. Without a doubt it would spell the end of the operation of the Post Office as it has been traditionally known over the years, the end of it in terms of the usage of the postal service for the dissemination of all kinds of material, particularly those classified articles ranging through all of the publications, newspapers and the like.

In terms of the ordinary letter rate, once an increase of that magnitude occurs a fall-off in business is predictable and alternatives will be found by the community. People will seek these alternatives without a doubt. The first thing that will happen is that the new Postal Commission will be faced with an even greater dilemma than the governments of the present and past have faced in the operation of the Post Office. So I emphasise that this legislation certainly has not tackled the real root of the problem. The Government’s motive with regard to the postal service is to set up a new administrative approach. Despite the recommendations of the Royal Commission that there should be a contraction in the regional management, which the report states in some detail will be a revenue saving operation, what do we find? The proposals go further. They seek to set up a new central administration and the cost of that is already predicted to be very substantial. Then of course the alterations that will flow in terms of the contraction at regional levels, despite what has been said by the Postmaster-General in a statement dated 20 May last, will lead to higher costs.

I put that point forward merely by taking the plain facts of the matter. Firstly, it is suggested that some greater responsibility will be placed on the shoulders of the postmasters in their various gradings. If that is to be done, there has to be some oversight and a situation will develop whereby much larger district postal manager regions will operate. This will mean greater distances and will mean a completely changed approach to the management of these regions. Let us take the basis of them. We believe that they have been created to accord with the regions established by the Department of Urban and Regional Development. This may be a worthy objective, but when we see what it means in terms of the geography of this country we find immediate confusion. We find that the boundary changes will ignore geographical considerations, and will ignore many of the commercial considerations which are important if the postal operation is to accord with the commercial needs of the community.

If we look at the guarantee given to the staff that no one will be disadvantaged by the changes that will occur in the setting up of the 2 Commissions, we find that the status of all those presently employed by the Postmaster-General’s Department is virtually guaranteed and that new positions are to be created in the postal service and in the field of telecommunications. The result will be an upgrading. For those who will benefit, that is commendable. Many of those people will have earned the right to some progression within the service. But is there an economy as a consequence of this move? Obviously there is not. I take as a basis for some of my assertions the appendix to the statement made by the Postmaster-General on 20 May in which there is a listing of the district postal manager offices that are to be closed, together with comparable numbers of people employed in both postal and telecommunications services in each of these centres and the increased staff factor anticipated in telecommunications. This surely is pulling the wool over the eyes of people within the service and the community at large.

When we look at the figure relating to the reduction of the postal staff, it obviously alludes to those at management level. On the telecommunications side the increases can be nothing more or less than the ordinary growth factor that would occur. It is certainly misleading to infer that there is no real disturbance. I believe that when some of those directly concerned have the opportunity of assessing the effect of this proposal, they will be bitterly disappointed. On the other hand, I think the Government is to be commended for having maintained the regional approach that currently exists in the operation of the telecommunications service. The Special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen), in answering a question in this House this morning asked by the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Hewson), asserted that proposals for area management that were put forward in the period of the previous Government had been a drastic change that was not warranted. If the Minister recollects clearly, he will recall that the then Government, by conscious decision, decided not to go ahead with that proposal and for very good reasons. Those reasons were spelt out in this House. Many inquiries were made within the Postmaster-General’s Department and the records will disclose that the decision to cancel the original proposal was well based and that the grounds upon which this action was taken related to costs, the effective administration of the service and its growth requirements.

Today, in this legislation we have a brand new approach, and telecommunications regions will be obliged to produce a revenue result. Had the legislation proceeded as originally introduced, there is no doubt that there would have been a severe adverse impact on many country regions of Australia. That adverse impact would have been the consequence of the requirement that the financial result would be the yardstick in terms of development works, in terms of capital financing, and in terms of what could be done in the more distant parts of Australia. For that matter, it could have had exactly the same effect on rapidly growing industrial areas, on decentralised areas or anywhere where a growth factor or a developmental factor was the basis of the need for the service.

The amendments to the legislation in another place to some extent overcome this, but it will all hinge completely on the interpretation, the use and the administration of what is now termed revenue forgone provisions’. This will impose a very great responsibility on the Minister who will be in charge of the Commissions which are being set up. We do not know who the Minister in charge will be or whether he will be a Postmaster-General. We gather that he will not be; we gather that that office will no longer exist. So some Minister, unnamed, will have the responsibility of receiving reports from the Commissions and of determining what will happen under the provisions of the revenue forgone proposal which was tabled by the Minister last night.

It could be, of course, that a government that has a willingness to recognise the fundamental needs of service will see that there is some balance between the tariffs and the rates that are set by the Commissions, the gap that might arise and the requirements of the community, in the direction of both capital development and of plain service because in this period of ravaging inflation both will turn out to be very costly items in the budgeting of the 2 Commissions. If there is a sympathetic Minister and a sympathetic Government, we might run along for a year or two with some satisfaction to the community; but if on the other hand there is a firm rein on any extra revenue provision, then the community must suffer. It must suffer in one of two ways: Either costs will be astronomical or the service will be cut. In relation to expansion, whether it be for capital purposes in telecommunications or for the business of providing a better mail delivery service, the funds will not be available.

These, I believe, are the fundamental issues which arise with this legislation and which are not adequately tackled, taking into consideration the real recommendations of the Royal Commission. Without a doubt, the Royal Commission was intended to give an answer. It did to a certain extent, but then it devolved on the Government to make decisions, to come up with the answers. What has the Government done? It has shoved the whole responsibility onto 2 Commissions; it has abdicated its responsibility.

The Government has done this in a manner that I think is typified by the answer given earlier in this debate by the Special Minister of State, who is at the table, when the honourable member for Gippsland asked what the real provisions of the foreshadowed legislation on overseas telecommunications would be. It was believed, when this legislation was before another place and when it came into this House, that there would be a clear cut situation: The Government had accepted that there would not be an amalgamation of these 2 services at that juncture. The Government indicated that it wished to bring forward another piece of legislation. The understanding was that this was simply to accord with this broad decision and that that would be that. But I think it is fair to predict that we will now see another piece of legislation which will make all sorts of provisions that have not thus far been described to this House. Yet, we are putting through this legislation when it would be only right and proper for the rest of the story to be revealed. If in fact we find that there is a change of this kind, the Opposition’s attitude to the whole matter accordingly must change as well. There is no doubt that there will be a great interest on the part of all concerned to discover just what else is being proposed.

On the simple issue as to whether these 2 services should be amalgamated, I hold a strong view. I believe that, until such time as it is proved conclusively that there is justification and reason for such an amalgamation, it is fair enough that any action along these lines should not occur. If we want a simple reason for this stand, we should look merely at the action of the Government in relation to postal and telecommunication services. The action of the Government currently is to split these services in two by setting up 2 separate Commissions. It is taking this action on the grounds that the establishment of these 2 Commissions will lead to efficiency by separation so that there will be no distortion between the 2 bodies. For those services which one may operate on behalf of the other body, no doubt there will be a service charge. That has been referred to, as so many other aspects in relation to the staff of the 2 services are referred to in the legislation. Yet, in the very same proposition, we were asked until the proposal was dropped to amalgamate 2 other sections of the service. The Government cannot have it both ways, on the pure basis of logic The Government certainly cannot propose this on the grounds that have been advanced today, that is, that there is something else to be put to the Parliament. Whilst on the one hand I rise to give my support to the legislation insofar as the amendments to it that have been accepted in the other place create a situation as we now know it, I certainly do so with the proviso that until the rest of the story unfolds I have to express a word or two of caution or, to some extent, reservation.

In conclusion, I make only this observation: If we are to see ultimately an operation that will perform the service required, there must be less confusion in the matter of what the real costs are for capital purposes, for expansion and for the provision of what might be termed the community need. Under the present Government, we just do not get that. We just do not receive a fair and honest accounting. All we receive is criticism of what past governments have done and what some political parties believe to be the principle that ought to be predominant in this regard. I do not need to canvass that aspect. The honourable member for Maranoa has referred to it most adequately. But this is the basis and the consideration that must not be overlooked if we are to maintain and to expand the services as we have known them in the past and if those services are to avoid the kind of dilemma that other public services, such as railways in some of the Australian States, shipping to a certain extent around Australia, and other forms of communication, have faced. If that happens to the services which provide telephone and postal communications, it will be a sad day for Australia.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KingsfordSmithSpecial Minister of State · ALP

– in reply- In the first place, I wish to raise the matter of the privacy of mail which apparently is causing a little concern in the community. As all honourable members would be aware, under the existing law there are provisions which say that the mail is sacrosanct. But, nevertheless, in certain circumstances- I refer to articles which end up in the Dead Letter Office and items of mail which are deemed to be suspicious- an opportunity must be provided to open mail. My colleague, the Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop), has asked me to mention that, while there might be some view as to whether this aspect should be specifically placed in the legislation, it is now considered from the point of view of better drafting that such a provision should be placed in the regulations.

We want to allay any fears that there will be any change in relation to the security of letters. The regulations will require articles falling into the categories set out to be opened in the presence of 2 officers authorised by the Commission. Penalties will be provided by the regulations in respect of an officer disclosing the contents of an article, except in the course of his duty. It is noted that approximately 6 million articles go through the Dead Letter Office each year and that there has never been any case where confidentiality of the mail has been abused. As honourable members know, in this day and age, sad to relate there are letter bombs, dangerous reptiles and all sorts of items found in the mail. The postal officers have a duty to perform in this respect. The regulations will be laid on the table of each House of the Parliament. If there is any doubt about them, they will be debated there. If they are contrary to the wishes of either House of the Parliament, they may be disallowed. So no problem arises with respect to officers acting in a proper manner. I wish to make that point at the outset.

I turn to deal with a number of other matters. I think that the debate has been conducted on a very good level. It has not been personal. The fact is that the big issue, the real contest and the reason why so much heat has been generated in this discussion of communications, be they postal or telephone, is that the Government is doing something which the Opposition would never have done. The Government appointed a royal commission to inquire into the Post Office. It has adopted the recommendations of that royal commission. It is to set up 2 Commissions. On those Commissions will be qualified personnel in the fields of communications and business expertise. Trade union representation and user representation will also be provided on those Commissions. If I may say so, while the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon) is entitled to talk about black days and industrial records at Redfern, he surely must ask himself why this occurred only at Redfern and nowhere else in Australia. He created Redfern. He created the so-called monster there. Is it fair for 3000 people working under Public Service regulations to be placed in this area and then just hope that they are going to be happy? I had the doubtful distinction of being the first Postmaster-General to visit the Redfern Mail Exchange since it opened. It is one of the points -

Mr Nixon:

– I doubt that that is right.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-It is true. The workers never saw the boss until that dme, although I do not regard myself as a boss. The Public Service attitude had to be altered. That is one of the lessons to be learnt. Such a business cannot be run on Public Service techniques. The honourable member for Gippsland quite clearly said that. We must get rid of these artificial divisions between people. It does not matter whether a worker is in the Fourth Division, the Third Division or the Second Division. The issue is whether a letter will be sent on its way or whether a telephone service will be provided. We want people to be involved. That is why there must be delegation of authority down the line. Industrial relations are a most important part of the operation. Because people go on strike does not mean that they are wrong. There is something wrong with the business- or with the boss in most cases. We must look at it from the point of view -

Mr Nixon:

– Not that many strikes.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-In regard to Redfern, you painted a bad picture. It was difficult, for the reasons that I have mentioned. I am convinced that if Redfern is to be put on a commercial basis, the people there would readily do that. But they were not going to accept all sorts of difficulties such as others going to do their jobs. Nobody would listen to their grievances. So, consultative councils have been established. This should help considerably.

Amongst a number of other matters raised in this debate, I will mention one put forward by the honourable member for Gippsland. I refer to registered publications. I understand that the present position will be adhered to. But this is a matter on which the Commissions themselves will make a recommendation in the normal course. The Commissions will take account of the fact that, against my better judgment and against my wishes, an amendment was forced through this Parliament some time ago by the honourable member for Gippsland which gave to these people who own these publications some concessions which normally would not have been granted.

I do not want to castigate the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett), but he claimed the distinction of bringing in the old rural line policy. I know it was done in Queensland when a meeting of graziers said that because of the drought at the time they had to get assistance. Nobody ever suggested that the concessions granted would be removed when conditions improved, nor were they removed.

The submissions made to Cabinet by a PostmasterGeneral in the former Government, Sir Alan Hulme, clearly indicated that the whole system could not function unless Treasury gave aid to the post and telegraph section of the Government- in other words, the PostmasterGeneral’s Department. No such aid was ever given. If it was claimed that this was a good policy that could be implemented because aid was given, I think it would have been responsible for the Government of the day to say: ‘We cannot go ahead with that policy because we have denied Treasury assistance’. But it did not do that. It went ahead with its policy. That policy meant that other than people in country areas, everybody using the telephone, particularly the man running a small business in any capital city or country city, had to pay more than was needed to cover the cost of the service he was receiving because the people in the country areas could not find the money to meet the cost of the service they were receiving.

Sir Alan Hulme made an analysis which cannot be disclosed to this Parliament unless the Opposition agrees. It shows that he was urging the Government of the day, his own Government, to give aid because he said: ‘This system cannot last’. Taken to its logical conclusion, the Postal Department was destined to be running at a loss of $250m or $290m within 10 years. This is a system which today honourable members opposite have said is a good system. Their own Minister did not want it. Their own Minister sought aid from his own Treasury and could not get it. On the basis that he could not get it, the system should not have been persevered with.

So I say to honourable members opposite: Do not come into the Parliament today and say that some hard hearted past Postmasters-General never thought anything about people in the country. That is not true. If the former Government wanted to help people in the country it should have done so by making an appropriation from general revenue and should have had it identified in this Parliament as a subsidy to country people instead of adopting a back door approach and making some customers pay a lot more than they needed to pay so that country people could be given a telephone service. It is not fair; it is un-Australian; it is typical of the influence of the Australian Country Party in previous governments. It was able to wheel and deal to get something which no responsible government could possibly give it.

I do not think I need delay the House any longer except to say that I hope the Commissions function very efficiently. They have a number of problems. The Governmernt has endeavoured to help. It has wiped out the postal debt, in the sense that is has alleviated the interest burden, something the previous Government would never have done; in fact it imposed the interest on advances from the Treasury. On the question of area management, when I first took up the position of Postmaster-General I did nothing else but meet area managers who wanted to know why they did not have the jobs that had in fact been created. The previous Government, because of political repercussions, did not go ahead with its scheme openly but went ahead with it secretly. I had to discontinue that scheme. Things have been improved now that the Government has changed. I thank honourable members for their contributions, and I commend the legislation to the House.

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 Lionel Bowen) read a third time.

page 2940

TELECOMMUNICATIONS BILL 1975

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 27 May on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affimative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2940

POSTAL AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSIONS (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 1975

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 27 May on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen:

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 Lionel Bowen) read a third time.

page 2940

SUPERANNUATION BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 15 May on motion by Dr J. F. Cairns:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

- Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation. Before the debate is resumed on this Bill, I would like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill, the Superannuation Act Amendment Bill and the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Bill, 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 Deputy Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of the 3 Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

- (Mr Keith Johnson) Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the 3 measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

-The 3 Bills which are being debated together cover a proposed new superannuation scheme for Commonwealth Government employees and consequential amendments to the present scheme and the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits scheme. These schemes, and matters relating to superannuation, are extremely complex but the Opposition has had the advantage of advice from many persons within the public and private sectors, including discussions with government employee unions. Superannuation for Government employees has been amended a number of times since it was instituted in 1922, and it is natural that from time to dme modifications and up-dating will be necessary. The

This state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue, and in itself would justify agreement to the basic principle in the Bill. Its major defect, long overdue for reform, is the contribution system. Members commence contributions at absurdly low levels- less than 2 per cent- and at older ages need to contribute at absurdly high levels, which has been aggravated by recent high levels of inflation and income tax. Introduction of members contributions at a uniform rate of 5 per cent of salary- with the option of voluntarily contributing up to a further 5 per cent of salary- is a worthwhile change. The Opposition agrees with the need to introduce a new scheme which corrects the deficiency in the contribution rates, and makes other desirable changes.

Another most beneficial result of the new contribution system is the significant reduction in administration. For these 2 reasons alone a change in the present scheme is highly desirable. Other significant and desirable features of the present scheme is a very good scheme with regard to the level of benefits provided. It is however inadequate in one major and one minor respect. Contributors in their final years of service must pay an unreasonably high percentage of their salary to purchase the pension to which their level of government employment entitles them, and they have no opportunity to convert part of their pension to a lump sum. I have before me a schedule of examples of contributors in their latter years of service in which the percentage of superannuation contributions to salary is shown to vary between 14 per cent and 53 per cent. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the table prepared by Treasury.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

proposed new scheme are: Contributors or their dependants have the option of taking part of the benefit on death or retirement as a lump sum; provident fund contributors are to be given the same benefits on retirement as other contributors and much improved benefits on death or invalidity; children and orphans are to get better benefits; and the position of temporary public servants is to be improved. All this is most reasonable.

A number of enquiries into the present scheme have been undertaken. Firstly, a Committee of Treasury under the chairmanship of Mr R. C. Davey was appointed by the then Treasurer of the Liberal-Country Party Government, Mr B. M. Snedden, in 1972 and reported in March 1973. 1 pay tribute to the help and explanation that Mr Davey and Mr Pearson, both Treasury officers, gave to the Opposition during the examination of the Bills. Professor A. H. Pollard, also appointed by Mr Snedden in 1972, reported in

March 1973 on superannuation pension updating. In March 1974 the then Treasurer presented a document of proposals for a new superannuation scheme for government employees which was the basis of a further and detailed examination by Professor Pollard and Mr- not ‘Sir’, as the Prime Minister said the other day- G. L. Melville who reported in June 1974. The then Treasurer in a report dated 5 December 1974 set out his revised proposals after consideration of their report and other representations he had received.

There has been a considerable controversy in the Press about the standards which the proposed new scheme would set for superannuation benefits for government employees. The Opposition has closely examined these criticisms and has come to the conclusion that it must act in a responsible way in relation to those aspects of the proposal which will unreasonably widen the gap in superannuation provisions between the public and private sectors. The Australian economy calls for a level of restraint by all sectors of the community. The Opposition takes its role as alternative government of Australia seriously, and has emphasised time and again that it regards as irresponsible government spending in many areas, and other expenditure resulting from maladministration and waste. In seeking amendment to the undesirable aspects of the Bill, we are conscious that half of the membership of the Senate is composed of Opposition members. The Treasury has advised that if the Government were called upon to fund the new scheme in the same way as the private sector is required to fund its superannuation obligations, it would be necessary for the Government to contribute 23 per cent of the total salaries of all contributors. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a statement prepared by the Treasury, with the assistance of the Actuary, in respect of funding on a private sector basis the superannuation scheme for Australian Government employees.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Superannuation Scheme for Australian Government Employees Funding on a Private Sector Basis

In private sector superannuation schemes a widely adopted method of making provision for the employerfinanced element of benefit payable in the future is for the employer to fund his share of benefits and pay contributions determined as a constant percentage of salary during the service of each member of the scheme.

On the basis of:

using the main assumptions adopted by the actuaries Mr G. L. Melville and Professor A. H. Pollard in their June 1974 Report (these are set out in paragraph 91 of the Explanatory Memorandum on the Superannuation Bill 1 975 circulated by the Treasurer on 1 5 May 1975); and

assuming also that those members achieving normal retirement will, on average, retire at age 6 1 (the average age for normal retirement on pension under the present scheme is 63-64 years); it has been estimated that, if the Government-financed element of benefits payable under the New Superannuation Scheme for Australian Government Employees were to be funded by the private sector method, a contribution equal to 23 per cent of the salary of each member would be payable during the period of his contributory membership of the scheme.

Using the Melville/Pollard assumptions it has been estimated that, if the Government-financed element of benefits payable under the present Pension Scheme were to be funded by the private sector method, a contribution equal to 22 per cent of the salary of each member would be payable during the period of his contributory membership of the scheme.

The Melville/Pollard assumptions have been adopted to provide comparability with other published information. If, of course, other assumptions were to be used the results could well be different.

At 30 June 1974 the sum of the salaries for superannuation purposes of the 2 14 8 10 persons then paying contributions into the Superannuation Fund approximated $ 1 , 467,700,000, giving an average salary for superannuation purposes of $6,832.

The Treasury

May 1975

Mr GARLAND:

– Consulting actuaries have advised the Opposition that contributions at the level of 23 per cent of salaries would be sufficient only if it were assumed that all of the benefits relating to service up to date were fully funded. If this were not the case, as usually applies when major improvements are made, additional contributions would be required. Professor Pollard in his March 1973 report examined the financial implications of retrospectively improving benefits for employees of authorities like the Postmaster-General’s Department, who are required to fund the employer’s part of the benefits. Page 68 of the Pollard 1973 report, ‘Enquiry into Pension Updating’, states:

A substantial lump sum payment (or its equivalent in intalments) would be required in respect of existing pensioners, another in respect of past contributions on behalf of existing contributors, the fortnightly contributions in future would be also based on a higher multiplier than the figure used at present. These lump sums are clearly a commitment which probably no Authority could meet or would be called upon to meet, in one year. It is only reasonable that they should be made in instalments over (say) ten years. Even so, the commitment is one which cannot be lightly undertaken. It gives some idea of the problems which updating causes the private funds and it gives some idea too of the cost which consolidated revenue ultimately would have to meet in respect of persons for whom the Commonwealth is the employer.

The cost of the new scheme will depend upon the contributions which members elect to pay and the extent to which accumulated contributions are converted to pensions. The basis upon which these conversions are to be available is so favourable that it is the opinion of the actuaries that the cost of updating pensions purchased with employee’s contributions will be significantly higher than the $225m estimated by the Government Actuary. They have also drawn our attention to the fact that no allowance has been made in estimating the total effective cost to the taxpayer of the new scheme for the reduction in income tax revenue that occurs if pensions are replaced by lump sums.

While we believe government employees should be allowed to convert pensions to lump sums, the considerable cost involved should not be ignored. Cost and pace-setting are of fundamental importance to the Australian taxpayer. They are also of great importance to the private sector of the economy and the State governments’ cost structure. We are convinced that the implementation of these proposals in full will lead to immediate pace-setting and the private sector and Federal and State government instrumentalities will be forced to follow and to raise costs immediately. I do not think I need to argue at length the case that the scheme is a pace-setter because the Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns) in his second reading speech and in his answer to a question in the House a few weeks ago indicated that he saw the scheme as a leader and a model which he expected others would follow.

There are some aspects of the proposal which are plainly over-generous in existing economic conditions. They are neither necessary nor desirable and would have the effect of putting benefits even further ahead of anything possible in the private sector, particularly in the present conditions of tremendously high inflation and income tax. The consumer price index increased by 13 per cent in 1973, 16 per cent in 1974 and for the first quarter of 1975 the increase is at an annual rate of 18 per cent. This is striking comment on the mismanagement of the economy. It is having a most detrimental effect on all superannuation funds and on the benefits which they provide. Only government pensions can be tied to the consumer price index with impunity because only governments have the seemingly bottomless pit of Consolidated Revenue upon which to draw. I have received a considerable amount of correspondence concerning the proposed scheme. The overwhelming complaint from the public servants about the existing scheme is in respect of the very high contribution rates that they have to make in their last years of service. That is being fully overcome by the new scheme. As a result of the simpler contribution system, comparison with the private sector is easier, and this emphasises the clear superiority of the scheme.

Considerable criticism has been carried in the daily Press, some of which is expressed in letters and comments to me. Some public servants have also commented to me that they believe that some aspects of the scheme are over-generous. The future cost of the amended scheme is a matter of fundamental importance. The Opposition has been concerned to try to determine what this will be. It is important to note that the estimated capital cost set out at the back of the Treasurer’s explanatory memorandum attached to the Bills is based on salaries and membership as at 30 June 1972. It need hardly be said that there has been a tremendous inflation in salaries and a tremendous increase in the number of contributors since then. Furthermore, a great number of new contributors will now be able to join this scheme who have not previously been eligible. So the use of this schedule as a guide for future costs results in very considerable understatement. The Bills introduced yesterday concerning the taking over of the States’ railways by the Commonwealth will enlarge that number even more.

Based on the information supplied by the Treasury and its assumed contribution rate of 23 per cent of salaries, the Government’s annual contributions for 214 810 persons paying contributions into the Superannuation Fund at 30 June 1974 with annual salaries at $ 1,467m would be $337m per annum. Nearly 300 000 persons will be members on 1 July 1975 giving rise, in conjunction with the overall higher salaries, to a greatly increased cost to the Government and therefore the taxpayer.

We have been advised by the senior partners of the consulting actuaries, Mr Bruce Cook and Mr Ken Dodson, that if an employer in the private sector wished to introduce the Government scheme for his staff he would have to pay contributions at much higher rates than the 23 per cent indicated by the Government Actuary. This is because his contributions would have to be closely related to the current ages of his employees and not the lower age at which new staff are recruited, because insufficient assets exist to provide for past service. I seek leave to include in Hansard the table setting out the contribution rates that the actuaries would require.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr GARLAND:

– Calculations they have made at the request of some of their clients who already have good schemes by private sector standards have given rise to contributions of between 30 per cent and 40 per cent of salary being required. It is against this background that the Opposition believes that certain amendments ought to be made to the proposed scheme as set out in these Bills. These would have the effect of not increasing the total cost of the scheme as much as proposed, but at the same time would not interfere with the essential improvements to the scheme concerning the amount of contributions paid by contributors, the capital sum benefits, and a significant proportion of administrative savings.

Firstly, I state that the standard retiring age should remain at 65 years of age. The great majority of schemes in the private sector provide for retirement at 65 years. Over 60 per cent of contributors in the Commonwealth scheme are now paying for retirement at age 65, and slightly less than 40 per cent are contributors at higher rates for retirement at age 60. It is proposed in the Bill that ali members should receive full scale benefits at age 60, and that all will contribute at a standard rate of 5 per cent of salary- with the option to pay a further 5 per cent- or his present rate of contribution if greater.

Retirement benefits at age 60 cost over 30 per cent more than those at age 65. This information is obtainable from the table of contribution rates set out on page 176 of the Superannuation Act 1972-73. Furthermore, a person retiring earlier has to be replaced by another person at that senior level. There are no medical or demographic arguments for reducing the standard retiring age to below 65 years, and there is no real trend for this apparent in the private sector. Importantly, the Hancock Report on National Superannuation recommends 65 years of age as the proper retiring age for the community generally on cost and social grounds. This recommendation is at pages 180 and 182 of the report. The Opposition will therefore be moving amendments to provide for 65 years to be the standard retirement age under the new scheme, with existing members who are contributing for retirement at age 60 being given the option of, firstly, remaining in the existing scheme on the present basis, or secondly, switching to the new scheme on an age 65 basis with a cash refund of excess contributions already paid. It is for the contributor to decide which is best for him. The amendment will also provide existing members who are contributing for retirement at age 65 to elect to remain in the existing scheme, but such contributors must also elect to contribute on the basis of retirement at age 60. The standard retiring age for all future members will be 65 years. We are aware that in some quarters there is a growing demand from Government employees for retirement at 60 years of age, and even 55 years of age. We do not believe the time for that is appropriate. The capital cost at 1972 salaries and membership is stated at $459m.

Secondly, an additional pension is proposed for those working more than 30 years in Government employment. The Opposition believes this proposal is excessive. The basic Government pension for new members after 1 July 1975 is to be 50 per cent for those who serve 30 years, or 20 years for existing members. It is proposed to grant an additional half per cent pension for every year over 30 years with a maximum of 5 per cent. In conjunction with the pension provided by the employees contributions this can be well above the level of benefit in the guidelines set by the Taxation Commissioner as to the maximum amount allowed as a taxation deduction for contributions made by a company into its superannuation scheme. Additional pension for service over 30 years is too generous and too costly. The capital cost was calculated at 1972 figures at $338m. It is to be noted that Professor Pollard and Mr Melville in their report recommended against additional benefit for service over 30 years. The Opposition will therefore propose amendments to keep the Government pension at 50 per cent for 30 years or more service 20 years or more for existing members- on the grounds of cost, the taxation limits set out in the Commissioner’s guidelines, and pace-setting for the private sector.

Thirdly, it has been proposed that the widow’s pension be increased from 62Vi per cent to 67 per cent of a member’s pension plus 1 1 per cent for each child for a maximum of 3 dependent children. The capital cost based on 1972 figures referring to widow’s pensions would be of the order of $ 130m. The widow’s pension formula is at present 62lA per cent of a member’s pension, although widows of some earlier members receive only 50 per cent of a member’s pension. There is an entirely inadequate fiat rate addition for children at present. The Opposition believes the new widow’s basis is over-generous having regard to the benefits available in the private sector and will move amendments to retain the present position. We approve the proposed pension of 11 per cent for each child to a maximum of 3 children -

Mr Stewart:

– You would not do that in International Women’s Year?

Mr GARLAND:

– We will further provide a 4yi per cent pension to the fourth child, bringing the total in such circumstances to 100 per cent of the late employee’s pension. In the light of his interjection, perhaps the Minister will tell us in his reply of the argument that went on in the meeting of the Labor Party’s Economic Committee on this subject and the criticisms that were voiced of some of these over-generous provisions.

Mr Stewart:

– That was a private meeting.

Mr GARLAND:

– Yes. It is amazing how it has got about. Pensions are linked to the consumer price index and would under the proposed scheme be linked to the whole pension available after any lump sum has been extracted. Recommendation No. 5 in the Pollard-Melville report was to the effect that the CPI should be linked only to the Government portion, and the Opposition agrees with this recommendation. Based on the 1972 salaries and membership this would save some $225m. Inflation has grown from an annual rate of 4.7 per cent in the December quarter of 1972 to 18 per cent per annum this year. Private sector pensions cannot hope to keep up with this rate; they have no practical way of guaranteeing automatic CPI increases.

Mr Martin:

– Is that $225m per annum?

Mr GARLAND No, that is total cost. It is also important that government employees do not become entirely insulated from the ravages of inflation suffered by others in the community and have limited interest in its control. We therefore propose to amend the Bill to provide for CPI adjustment on the Government portion of the pension only. The Treasurer in his speech mentioned the advice he had received from Mr Melville and Professor Pollard who made 6 specific recommendations. What was not stated was that very significant recommendations, numbers 1, 5 and 6 and one of lesser importance, number 2, were not accepted by the Government with the result that the new scheme is overgenerous in all the areas referred to. Because the Government has insisted that these complex Bills be debated in haste the amendments that have been drafted to cover the major principles involved may need refinement or subsequent amendment. The Government with its resources of advisers and draftsmen has a responsibility to assist in the final drafting.

Upon return to government the Opposition would undertake to look at the efficacy of this scheme and institute an urgent examination to see how it was working as a whole, in respect of the amendments now suggested, and to see it is fair and just to members and contributors. We are above all conscious of the responsibility on us as an Opposition in this matter to ensure a reasonable balance between the superannuation expectations of the Public Service with those of the private sector.

Public servants and government employees are a valued group in the community. Many work long hours and are dedicated men and women. That is not in dispute, and I take this opportunity of paying tribute to their contribution to the nation. In the matter of providing superannuation benefits, however, it seems unreasonable to expect that their benefits should be significantly greater than is generally available outside government service. The Public Service should neither lead nor lag, but should reflect community standards. I believe that, with the scheme amended as I have indicated, the result will be a generous and highly beneficial scheme for the benefit of government employees. It will be one of which the Parliament and the people can be proud, and it is surely in all our minds to safeguard against a situation developing in which there are 2 classes of people- those employed by government and those not.

The Opposition has given this matter a most sober assessment and suggests that the Government should give close examination to the amendments we propose to the Superannuation Bill 1975 with a view to their acceptance in the interests of the nation as a whole.

Mr FRY:
Fraser

– I believe it is a great pity, but not altogether unexpected, when the Government proposes a forward and progressive piece of legislation such as this Superannuation Bill, a Bill that is designed to remove distortions and inequities from the present superannuation scheme to make the working conditions of Australian public servants more acceptable, that public servants should be the subject of a rather vicious and vindictive attack by the Opposition through its proposed amendments. I think that it would have looked better if members of the Opposition had come out and said: ‘We are opposed to the Bill’. But, of course, they did not do that. They came out very quietly and said: We are not opposed to it’. But they then put up a series of amendments which they know are quite unacceptable and which in some respects will turn the clock back and leave public servants in a much worse position than they are under the present scheme. I will give details of that later.

I think that the move by the Opposition is terribly irresponsible. I think it is irresponsible in the extreme because it cuts right across the assurances which were given by the latest Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) that it was not his intention as Leader to stand in the way of legislation which this Government had a mandate from the people to cany out. Although the present Opposition could claim that it initiated action to review the superannuation schemeand we do not deny that for a minute- this Government recognised the need for a review and it was determined to stop talking and to get on with the job of doing something about it. This was a very important plank of our platform at the elections of 1972 and of 1974. It was a particularly important topic in the election campaign of 1974 in which the 2 Australian Capital Territory seats of Fraser and Canberra were contested. Of course, the voters indicated how they thought about this subject on that occasion. There is no doubt that the Government has a mandate to reform the superannuation scheme and to produce a scheme which removes some of the many inequities of the old scheme.

It is good to see that the Opposition acknowledges the inequities of that scheme because many people were not aware of them. I was made very aware of the position, of course, as I represent an electorate in which many public servants reside. Literally hundreds of people made representations to me and produced documented figures to show that they were in fact paying 30 per cent to 40 per cent of their salaries in superannuation. The scheme has inflicted great hardship on them. In some cases it has prevented them from spending money on education for their children. In some cases fairly highly paid public servants have been unable to take annual holidays because of the inroads that superannuation was making into their take home pay. They had to pay high contribution rates in order to try to maintain a satisfactory standard of living on their retirement. Of course, in many cases, pay rises are absorbed in superannuation contributions. Many documented cases show that the take home pay is less than it was before a pay rise.

The basic need for reform has been well established. The manner in which the unsatisfactory aspects of the present scheme are planned to be overcome is also well established. The main change proposed is the transfer of the contribution system based on the purchase of units of pension to a uniform contribution rate not requiring actuarial calculations to match contributions to benefits. This involves just a change of the structure and does not add greatly to the costs. Many examples of how this system will operate have been given in letters to the Press throughout Australia. The other main reform, of course, is the extension of full benefits to members with lower medical standards, people who are now admitted only to the Provident Fund. It is proposed that these people will become eligible for the benefits after 20 years contributory service. This is the change that is responsible for most of the extra cost. The extra cost will not arise because of extra benefits given to the majority of members. Under the old scheme, of course, people contributing to the Provident Fund were treated unfairly.

The capital cost of the new scheme is estimated at 13.7 per cent greater than the existing scheme. But the important thing to remember is that only 4.8 per cent of this extra cost is in respect of pension scheme contributors, excluding Provident Fund contributions. So it is the admission of the Provident Fund sector that contributes to the increased cost, not increased benefits that relate to existing members. Everyone associated with the scheme, including members of the Opposition and independent actuaries, seem to agree that these reforms are desirable.

The Opposition, of course, is being quite inconsistent with the stated policy of its Leader in now attempting to emasculate this Bill. Members of the Opposition are not only being inconsistent but they are also being quite vindictive against a section of the Australian work force, the Australian Public Service. Their duplicity, of course, will not be appreciated by the Liberal Party machine in the Australian Capital Territory which to its credit has supported the superannuation scheme as put forward by the Government. Apart from ourselves, I think that the only person who would derive any great satisfaction from the Opposition’s action in now trying to emasculate the scheme will be the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton), a former colleague of honourable members opposite. The right honourable member must be rubbing his hands with glee as he is going to stand as an independent candidate for another place. The right honourable gentleman has stated his support for the proposed new superannuation scheme and his disagreement with the tactics of the Opposition on this occasion. So he must, of course, be very pleased at what is happening, especially in view of the Senate election next year. Members of the Opposition, of course, must be quite horrified at this despicable attempt now to undermine this most progressive legislation.

Let us look briefly at the nature of the proposed amendments and at the manner in which the Opposition wants to emasculate this scheme. Of course, the first amendment relates to the question of indexation. This is another example of the duplicity and inconsistency of the Opposition. We have become quite sickened in this House by the continual bleating of the Opposition about the manner in which inflaton is undermining the living standards of people on fixed incomes. We are well aware of this. That is why we are indexing pensions. The whole trend these days is towards indexation. But despite the professed support for indexation by the Opposition, when it comes to the Public Service the Opposition does not want indexation at all. It wants to tie indexation to the Government contribution only and to limit it to 5 per cent. The Opposition wants to forget about the workers’ contribution altogether. It has to be excluded from indexation. This is a preposterous proposition. It is just not acceptable. It would put members of the Public Service behind their present conditions. We all know that now public servants are being indexed on the cost of living on a basis of 1.4 times. What is proposed is considerably less than that, so the amendment must be quite unacceptable. It would be unacceptable to any workers organisation in Australia. I cannot understand why the Opposition should put up this amendment unless it wishes to effectively block the scheme altogether. It is discriminatory; it is against the flow of events and I am sure it would not be tolerated by any group.

Another Opposition proposition relates to the retiring age. This is a progressive scheme. We wish to give some incentive for people to retire at a reasonable age so that they can enjoy their retirement. But the Opposition has gone against this principle. It has said that we should not give any incentive for people to retire at 60 or to have the option of retiring between 60 and 65. The Opposition says that we should not encourage people who are not in the best of health to get out early and so preserve their life and enjoy it to the full. The Opposition says that we should have something less than the States have. If honourable members look at the State situation, they will see that in New South Wales the Liberal Government has a 60-years retirement provision. It has even provided a 55-years option for women which is far in advance of what the Pubhe Service is suggesting. Victoria has an age 60 or 65 option. So the Opposition’s proposed amendment is really turning the clock back. It is lessening the opportunity for young people for promotion or advancement in the service. It means that a lot of people who should retire, who feel they have done a fair share and whose health might not be the best, have had the incentive to retire at 60 removed by the Opposition. This is reactionary and it not acceptable.

Another proposed amendment relates to the widow’s pension. In International Women’s Year the Opposition wants to discriminate against the widows. I do not know how their wives would feel about this. We want to increase the widow’s pension from 62.5 per cent to 67 per cent. Certainly this is an advance, but it is nothing outrageous. There is nothing terribly radical about this. In New South Wales the widow’s pension is 66% per cent, in Victoria it is 66.7 per cent, in South Australia it is 66.7 per cent and in Tasmania it is 66.7 per cent. All we are doing is coming into line with those 4 States. The matter of the 5 per cent bonus seems to concern the Opposition. This is merely an acknowledgment of the very poor position in which people who joined the Public Service at a very early age, and who have not advanced to a very high salary, find themselves. Mostly it affects people on the lower wage scales who have been in the Service for a long time. These are the people the Opposition wants to deprive of a little extra benefit. It is given in recognition of long service by people who have stayed on fairly low salaries because of lack of education qualification or for reasons of this nature. Of course, the Opposition says that the tall poppies get this benefit too, but we know that the tall poppies are subject to a means test the same as anybody else and they would get very little of the 5 per cent. The 5 per cent means a lot to people on low salaries; it means very little to people on high salaries because of the means test.

Let us look briefly at the benefits of the scheme as proposed. The important point made by most defenders of the scheme is that the basic level of benefits provided in the new scheme is a little higher than is provided in the existing scheme which has been in operation for half a century. In particular, there has always been a maximum government financed pension of 50 per cent of final salary and the option of retirement at 60 on full pension. This required slightly higher contribution rates than for the age 65 retirement but the cost to the Government was no less than that under the new scheme. Since December 1973 there has been an adjustment of the government financed part of the pension by 1 .4 times the consumer price index. Prior to that, there were occasional adjustments in line with salary movements. The adjustment to 1.4 was strongly supported by the Opposition. The right honourable member for Lowe (Mr McMahon) spoke very strongly about this. He said what a wonderful thing it was. But now when it comes to the Public Service the Opposition has changed its spots and wants something completely different. It is completely inconsistent in relation to indexation.

The new scheme is less generous in one respect in that 30 years service, rather than 20 years, are required before eligibility for full benefits. So the proposed scheme is not a 100 per cent improvement; in some respects it is less beneficial. The existing superannuation scheme gives reasonably generous benefits to most contributors, but this must be viewed in the light of the Government’s proper role. The Australian Government as a major and socially responsible employer must provide overall terms and conditions of work so that it can attract sufficient staff to carry out its functions with satisfactory employer-employee relations. We should not have to apologise for putting up a scheme which will attract the sort of employees we need in the government service. Superannuation is one of the normal conditions of long term employment. So one would expect the Government to offer superannuation and other terms to match those offered by major competing employers. Those employers include the State Governments. The aim of a good superannuation scheme is to allow employees, after a full career, to maintain their personal and immediate family’s standard of living on retirement. The existing scheme’s maximum pension of 70 per cent of final salary, with widow’s pension of 62.5 per cent of the contributor’s pension- it is 67 per cent in the new scheme- is designed to do just this.

While the scheme is undoubtedly one of the best in Australia, a number of other government bodies and large private employers offer benefits closely comparable. This has been well documented. The Conzinc Riotinto of Australia staff provident fund referred to in a recent exchange of letters in the ‘Australian Financial Review’ provides, after 30 years service, a pension of 63% per cent of average salary in the last 3 years prior to retirement at age 62. Some small private schemes for executives- the top hat schemes as we call them- give even better benefits that the Australian Public Service scheme. There are many examples of golden handshakes to top executives in the big private and public companies of Australia. Critics of the Australian Public Service scheme who asked whether the benefits given under the scheme could be borne in a national scheme for all workers do not apply the same test to the more generous private schemes. They apply a standard to the public sector which is different from that applied to the private sector.

Most private schemes provide mainly lump sum benefits which are not as satisfactory from the viewpoint of income security, but the people concerned are taxed on only 5 per cent of the amount whilst superannuation pensions as paid under the Public Service scheme are fully taxable. The Government’s new scheme tries to fulfil its proper role of acting as a model for other schemes in respect of its structure and the fairness between different groups of employees. To this end the new scheme aims for equity between those contributing for a varying number of years, between those with different rates of promotion, between males and females, between members of different medical standards, and for those leaving the Service for different reasons at different ages. It is a much more flexible scheme. It provides for differences between contributors and surviving dependents and between members at different income levels, etc. The new scheme provides for a greater avenue of choice and a wider range of options. It allows members greater choice according to their needs in being able to commute part of their pension- that financed from their own contributions- to a lump sum.

The new scheme has improved provisions for the preservation of deferred benefits and for transfer to other funds for members resigning. We have already discussed the question of protection against unpredictable future rates of inflation since contributions are to be made at the uniform rate of 5 per cent of salary and pensions are to be updated in line with the consumer price index. The updating of pensions, although desirable for all pensioners, is undoubtedly difficult for private funds to guarantee. But the new Government scheme will probably lead to pressure on the Government to sell annuities indexed to the inflation rate to private funds.

The Opposition’s proposal that the inflation adjustment be limited to a maximum of 5 per cent on the government financed pensioners’ income would go against the erosion of inflation. Full protection is all the more necessary when the inflation rate reaches more than 15 per cent, as it has recently. Pensioners are one of the few groups in the economy without any economic bargaining power to raise their income share during inflation. If the inflation adjustment for Australian Public Service employees was arbitrarily limited, they might even end up worse off than pensioners with private funds whose earning rate on invested funds could even increase by more than 5 per cent if rapid inflation continued. I should like to refer to a few common criticisms that have been voiced in the Press and other areas. I refer to a headline which appeared in the Australian’ on 26 April which stated: $3m pensions in new public service scheme.

This may have given a misleading impression. The amount referred to the total payment of pensions over a retirement period of 17 years. The calculations assumed salary rises of 9 per cent a year and the adjustment of the pension for inflation of 10 per cent a year. If the assumptions turned out to be correct, then all wages, invested funds and private pensions and so on would also grow to seemingly vast compounded sums. It is rather misleading to say simply ‘$3m pensions in new public service scheme ‘.

Mr Alan Robson in the study referred to in that article suggested that the Government’s cost out of Consolidated Revenue would be much reduced if it paid its own contributions towards the pensions into a fund earning interest throughout the employee’s period of service. However, the funding method need not be any cheaper overall since, by not funding, the current contributions not paid by the Government are thereby made available.

In conclusion, we are not bringing in a scheme simply for the purpose of this Budget. We are bringing in a scheme which has to last for a long period. We do not have to apologise for a scheme which is marginally progressive but certainly not disastrously radical as the Opposition has claimed. Government today is a highly complex and sophisticated- (Quorum formed).

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

Mr McMAHON:
Lowe

-For 18 months during my tenure of the Prime Ministership I tried unsuccessfully to introduce a national superannuation scheme that would cover not only the public sector of the Australian society but also the private sector. As I said, I was unsuccessful because the technical experts, or some unidentified persons, were not able to produce the goods and I was not able to introduce a Bill in this House. During the last few days I have got my file from the National Library. It is about 18 inches high and is crammed with documents of a very interesting type. I can assure honourable members that the philosophy of the LiberalCountry Party Government was at that time that there was a natural right of every person- and a proper expectation- to be able to enjoy an effective and fairly generous superannuation scheme after he retired from his occupation in the civil service or in private enterprise. We wanted to be generous. We felt that a superannuation scheme should be on a contributory basis. We did not want it to distinguish between the various sections of Australian industry and society.

We wanted to be certain that if we introduced a Bill that was not, in effect, a privileged type of a Bill- a Bill that granted benefits to one section of the community and not another- then we had to be cautious that we did not permit the public sector to get too much out of step with the private sector. We also would have drawn it up in such a way that we could be able to join the 2 sectors together when a Government finally introduces a national superannuation scheme for all.

I hope we will do that as a result of the final report of the Hancock Committee. It was stressed by senior civil servants- mainly permanent heads of departments- in arguments they put to me that 2 difficulties had to be overcome. The first was that they wanted to ensure that their take-home pay was not decreased or did not fall significantly when they had the right to increase their pension units, whether by contributory or non-contributory means.

As was stated by my colleague, the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland) who opened this debate for the Opposition, Commonwealth civil servants can find that their contributions were increased by between 14 per cent and 53 per cent of their salary in the latter stages of their employment. The second point that senior civil servants were worried about was that they were not entitled to receive lump sum payments. I like both of those ideas. I believe that those difficulties should be removed. I think they will be removed if our amendments to the Bill are accepted.

What features do I like about the Bill? I do not like the idea of buying units, contributory or not. I believe that the concept of a 5 per cent compulsory contribution of salary with 50 per cent of the final year’s salary indexed at 1 per cent of the consumer price index is a sensible basis on which we can approach the new measure, particularly when we are considering whether the community can pay the full amount as proposed by the Government. I agree with that proposition. I agree with the transfer of the Provident Fund to the main fund at a cost of about $534m. I believe that those who are invalided, belong to the agencies or who have been in temporary employment, ought to be able to receive benefits on the same scale as others. I believe these are worthwhile changes. I believe also we should increase the widows’ pensions, widen the eligibility for spouses and increase children’s pensions. I believe all these gaps have to be filled. They will be filled when this Bill becomes law. I agree, similarly, to the option of guaranteed pension for widows and children in the case of death in service and a guaranteed pension on invalidity retirement during service.

But there are many features of the scheme with which I do not agree. I do not believe that full benefits at the age of 60 at an extra cost of $45 9m should be paid. I do not believe in the introduction of a 5 per cent supplement, which was criticised by the Pollard-Melville Committee. I would not eliminate tapering. I do not believe that we should update pensions purchased with accumulated contributions over and above the basic contributions of 5 per cent and a pension of 50 per cent of final salary indexed in accordance with the Consumer Price Index. I do not agree with the idea that a member should be able to increase the reversionary pension the higher the income. In other words, I do not think a person on $4,200 should have his income increased by 2 per cent, but on $17,500 by 19.6 per cent. Those percentages appear to be wrong. The Pollard-Melville Committee pointed out that it ought to be looked at again. I would do so. Let me analyse some of the benefits, particularly full benefit at the age of 60 years. I ask whether it is right and proper that a person should get a pension at the age of 60 years, retire with that pension and take other employment, still holding on to the pension to which one is entitled under the proposals now before us. Is 60 years a proper age? You will probably know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the Hancock Committee, in its report said this:

Firstly, a lowering of pensionable age would not appear to be an appropriate step in the face of trends towards lower mortality and extended longevity which have been observed over the last generation and which appear to be continuing.

That view is also held, in a very muted sort of way but nonetheless clearly, by the other 2 gentlemen whose names I mentioned earlier.

I would like now to have a look at the costs involved and the benefits. I do not want it to be thought that these costs will represent the final cost to the Government and, through the Government, the amount that will have to be paid by the Australian taxpayer. I shall quote from the Pollard-Melville report. I want honourable members to remember that that report is based on 30 June 1972 figures, and much has happened between 1972 and today. The assumptions on which the report is based are these. There is an interest discount factor of 5’/i per cent. Yet we know that the recent Government loan- the May loan- failed and the Government could not collect enough money to pay for redemptions, let alone get anything for itself. In fact, the Government has a deficiency of $50m because of redemptions which it will have to pay out of deficit financing.

There is no doubt that interest rates are going up and certainly not coming down to the rather miniscule level of 5’^ per cent. The consumer index increases are assumed at 3.9 per cent as a basis of indexation. There is not a Labor member who does not know that inflation is running at 1 6 per cent per annum and probably will go to 25 per cent next financial year. I mention those figures because it is against this background that the problems have to be considered.

I want to illustrate what can happen. I am indebted to Alan Robson, a very well known actuary, for giving me figures. I want to prove by these figures that the present proposals by the Labor Government are beyond capacity of the nation and the taxpayers to pay. When I give these figures most honourable members will be a little hesitant to agree to the Bill except in a changed form based on the amendments which we on this side of the House favour and are prepared to vote for.

I take the case of a bloke who enters the Public Service at age 25 years on a salary of $7,500 a year and retires after 35 years with his full pension of 50 per cent of his final rate of salary. He would have a life expectancy of 17 years. It is an historical fact that over the 21 years that we in the Liberal Party were in Government, his salary would rise by 9 per cent. I add here that I have assumed the cost of living would rise at a rate- I do not believe it could be anywhere near as low as this while the Labor Party is in Government -of, say, 10 per cent. This contributor would leave the Public Service with a final salary ofwhat do honourable members think? Not just $14,000, not $28,000, but $153,066. That is the actuarial amount and a pension of half that amount would be $76,533. He would also receive a refund of contributions with interest if he wanted it. If we capitalise the total amount over the whole period, he would receive over $3.4m. But that is not the end of the story.

I gave honourable members the figures on which I based this assessment. They were the figures, or somewhere about the figures, for increases in the consumer index while we were in power and were associated with a 9 per cent increase in salary. But if one looks at it on the basis of the later figures, that is, the increases taking place today under the Labor Government, it will be found that the final salary will be- sit in your seats and hold tight to your hats- $6,096,000. Average weekly earnings are now rising at the rate of something like 27.7 per cent per annum.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– Your authority must be an unemployed actuary.

Mr McMAHON:

– No. He is one of the great actuaries and you have not contradicted the statements when they have been made. Either you do not read, you do not understand, you do not care, or you just want to blab out, not knowing what you are talking about.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Order! The right honourable gentleman will address the Chair.

Mr McMAHON:

- Sir, you permitted him to interject without comment. Let me take one other illustration, coming from the tongue of none other than that very notable gentleman, Dr Cairns, the absent Treasurer. He became involved in an argument in the ‘Australian’ associated with some advertisements that had been made. He stated that that 4-line advertisement, costing $5.90 a line now, would be $120 after 35 years of inflation at a compounding rate.

So much for the genius of this man and for his actuarial qualification. Would it be $120? No. In fact, it would not. It would get to the level of something more than $2m. That is what happens if we have inflation of the continuing order of 1 5 per cent or more- inflation running riot, as it is and is likely to run riot in the future, as a result of the economic actions of this Government.

I want now to go back, Sir, to first principles and ask who will pay for these extraordinary increases? Those who pay will be the young people of this country. The scheme is not to be funded and the money is to be paid out of taxation as and when the liabilities accrue and have to be paid. So the young- those whose votes the Labor Party set out to win in order that they could succeed at the 1972 elections- are to pay in future. They are the ones who will pay, who will have to forfeit their holidays, the right to own their own homes and property to educate their children. They are the ones who, instead of being encouraged to save and to invest and ensure a better hie for themselves and for the future generations of Australia, will have to shoulder the burden.

I cannot understand why the scheme has not been funded. If one takes the figures that I have mentioned- that is the case of a man who works for 35 years, commencing at $7,500 per annum, with calculations made on an interest rate of something like 10 per cent- then, over the total period of 35 years, $331,655 would be paid by the contributors to the fund. But with a compound interest rate of 10 per cent, the result would cover the payout of $3m and an annual pension of $76,500. In other words, the public unfunded scheme would be 10 times more expensive that a funded one. I read from a recent statement:

It is a financial fact of life and it has been for a long time, long before socialism and its academic geniuses were ever thought of, that if investments earned 10 per cent a year, then on the salary projection used, that is, of $7,500 a year at the rate of 9 per cent, an annual contribution of 20.5 per cent for 35 years or just over $330,000 in aggregate will produce a present value or capital sum of $1,300,000, at the age of 60, sufficient to fund the $76,000 increasing with 10 per cent per annum increases for 17 years- it is a self-extinguishing fund.

The second point I want to make clear relates to duplication and redundancies, I believe this creates problems of a kind the Government does not seem to have cared or thought about. We who think about the overall picture, about the amount that the taxpayers have to pay, about future generations of Australia, want to ensure that those who get the benefits of superannuation, whether it is public or private, will get a fair go- even a generous go- but will not be able to push their good fortune and good luck too far to the detriment of the young. I mention some of the possible duplications: A contributor can also get present social services, as well as national superannuation pensions free of means test, national compensation benefits, preserved benefits from prior employment, and benefits for a spouse already eligible for other benefits. I illustrate this by saying that in the case of a husband and wife, who are both receiving pensions if one dies, one pension is inherited and the other is continued. Such people would get not enough to keep the two but more than enough to sustain one.

I do believe in national insurance. I hope that the Government will present a national insurance scheme covering all, not the Public Service alone. I also think the Government in inflationary times, has a responsibility to sell pensions to members of the public who want to buy them- in other words that it give the same privilege to the private sector as it does to the Public Service. I also believe that for those who want to contribute to private funds the Government should introduce some system of indexing of Government or official bonds sold or traded on the market, whether it is based on a long term of 20 years or a short term of two or three years.

I come now to a report I have been reading which issues a warning. The Pollard-Melville report, recommendation 6, states that if we do make provision for national superannuation payments which are a right, then we must take action to ensure that it can be fully offset against a benefit payment under the proposed superannuation scheme for Australian Government employees. I also refer to the statement of one of those famous men on the other side of the House who is more often wrong than right but nonetheless creates a reputation for himself in saying so much so frequently. When speaking on the subject of national superannuation last year he estimated that, with a retiring salary as low as $6,000 to $8,000 and a life expectancy of only 10 years, to introduce the same benefit in the private sector as in the public sector would cost $550m a year. He went on to say that a government had no right to require the community to give its Public Service conditions of employment which the community could not afford to give itself. That was said by none other than the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron), who says he likes to look after everyone. His love for humanity is allegedly tremendous. I have no doubt at all that with his love of humanity he will exercise his right to see that the private sector and the public sector are treated on the same basis and that we do not compromise the position by this Bill.

I now want to put all this in a national economic context. We live in a community in which there are 2 great evils besetting us economically and financially. The first one relates to the quantity of money being pumped into the economy. We expect next year, 1975-76, a deficit, based on the last 2 Supply Bills, of at least $3,750m. That amount will be increased by about $750m as taxation will be increased next year automatically, because the double amount of deductions in 6 months to permit total deductions for the year to cut out on 30 June will then increase by half the amount. Also, because it is likely the Government will try to have the taxation schedules changed to permit other benefits to be indexed, we will swim in the money supply. The second evil is that the Government professes to be anxious to divert assets from the public sector to the private sector. This Superannuation Bill with the compensation scheme and Medibank and others will transfer about $4,400m from the private to the public sector. That is, it will take away the money that must necessarily be invested in the private sector for growth purposes.

Could there be a more unbelievable economic and financial policy as this- one which is so totally inconsistent. We now know from reading the Mathews and Asprey reports, that unless the trends are reversed and unless a responsible government that knows what it should be doing is elected, the prospects will remain gloomy. It is not difficult to imagine. As the Asprey and Mathews reports indicate, that the actual present trends of diverting money from the private to the public sector will lead to economic disaster. Sir, I will be surprised, because of what I am saying, if you do not vote against the Government and with the Liberal Party.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage)Order! The right honourable gentleman should know that he should not address the Chair in that manner.

Mr RIORDAN:
Phillip

-At the outset perhaps one should remind the Opposition that this is a Bill concerned with whether Australian public servants are to have a particular kind of superannuation scheme. We are not at this stage debating how to attack inflation or what the rate of inflation is likely to be. I notice that the right honourable member for Lowe (Mr McMahon) fell into the trap of being one of the crystal ball gazers- a task which he perfected during many years in ministerial office. But he was usually wrong and he still is wrong.

It is not by any means impossible to raise absurdity when arguing against almost any proposition. In this case the Liberals have outdone even themselves. They have been able to project absurd results simply by compounding absurd rates of inflation and absurd rates of price and wage increases over a long period. It is not reasonable to suggest that because there is a particular rate of price increase in 1975 there will be a similar increase in 1976, 1986 or 1996, as the right honourable gentleman from Lowe attempted to suggest. He followed the lead of the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland) in that exercise in absurdity.

This scheme is the result of long, careful, detailed and independent examination. I believe that the Liberal and National Country Parties do themselves and this Parliament a grave disservice by attacking the scheme with criticism which is ill-informed, illogical and absurd. The root cause of their criticism is the question of cost. The community cannot afford to pay for this scheme,’ said the right honourable member for Lowe. At the same time as he was telling this Parliament that the community could not afford this scheme for a minority in the community he was telling us that the community as a whole should have a generous scheme, that every citizen is entitled to expect the provision of a superannuation scheme which is effective and reasonably generous, to use his words.

Only a few days ago every gentleman on the opposite side of the chamber voted against the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Corporation. They were saying then that these things should be left to their wealthy friends outside in the private insurance industry. Now they are saying that the Government should offer insurance to every citizen in the community. Where do they stand? They are opportunistic in the extreme. They change their arguments to suit the mood of the day. They lack sincerity and conviction. That is why they are in opposition and that is why they will stay there, which is their place.

The right honourable member for Lowe said that for 18 months he tried to introduce a national superannuation scheme but he failed. He also said that the Liberals were in office for 2 1 years. I think it was for 23 years, but he probably wants to forget the last 2 years. Nevertheless, there they were for 18 months trying to take up a new idea for a national superannuation scheme. It is no surprise to any member on this side of the chamber, and it will be no surprise to any officer or employee of the Austraiian Public Service, to realise that the previous Government found that an impossible task. I say to the Liberal-National Country Party Opposition, which exercises great influence in another place, which has the capacity to destroy this scheme, that it ought to think carefully about what it is doing and try to ascertain the real facts of the matter. After all, they have been published far and wide.

It is not just a Government move; it was initiated by honourable gentlemen opposite when they were in government. This scheme is the result of a review initiated by the McMahon Liberal-Country Party Government. Having set up a commission, an independent body, surely honourable members opposite will give some credence to its findings. It is all very well for honourable members opposite to come into this chamber and to quote the views of actuaries from here and there. Any honourable member who has had any experience with superannuation schemes- and some honourable members opposite must have- would know that actuaries do come up with different results, and their projections can be very widely variable. I say to honourable members opposite that if they throw out this scheme, they are doing a grave disservice to this community. It is not an over generous scheme; it is not a scheme which will cost the world, as it were. In fact in actual cash payments in the next financial year, if this scheme is introduced, the Government will pay $5.4m less than it will pay in the current financial year. These figures have been supplied by the Department of the Treasury and have been made available to honourable gentlemen opposite, and they should take the trouble to read them.

It seems very unjust and unfair that honourable members opposite should adopt this attitude. This new scheme has been developed in the public gaze over the last 2 years. The report of the departmental committee which was appointed in 1971 by the McMahon Government was tabled in this House on 8 May 1973. On 5 March 1974, the then Treasurer and now Minister for Overseas Trade (Mr Crean) tabled his proposals for a new scheme. On 1 8 June 1 974 the then Treasurer again released a report by the actuaries, Mr Melville and Professor Pollard. On 4 December 1974 the then Treasurer released the details of the new scheme approved by the Government to come into force from 1 July of this year. During all of this time, these proposals have been in the open and under public gaze. The booklet which was prepared on the scheme was given very wide circulation.

What happened in September of last year? The then Leader of the Opposition, the right honourable member for Bruce (Mr Snedden), attacked the Government. He said that we were taking too long to introduce this scheme. ‘Where is it?’ he thundered. ‘Where is this scheme which the Government has not brought in?’ he cried. Now when we are introducing the scheme, where are his loyal supporters? Where are those who would follow him through the valley of death, who would walk over hot coals? Where are they? Not only have they assassinated him, but they will now assassinate the scheme which earlier they were prepared to approve. To put it in the Austraiian vernacular, I say to honourable members opposite: ‘You are not being fair dinkum on the issue’. To coin a phrase, what honourable members opposite ought to do is to think again’.

Mr Howard:

– You use that phrase every time.

Mr RIORDAN:

– I am getting a bit tired of telling honourable members opposite to think again. In fact what I should be saying to them is: Think’. Not think again, but think, for the first time.

Mr Cope:

– That would be an exhilirating experience for some of them.

Mr RIORDAN:

-For some of them, without question. But for others it would be beyond thencapacity. The criticism with regard to cost is not valid. The whole emphasis in this debate so far from the Opposition has been placed on the additional benefits which are to flow to members of the Australian Public Service. But there are some balancing features of this scheme. For example, at present Australian Public Service pensions are adjusted by 1.4 times the increase in the consumer price index.

Dr Edwards:

– It is 1.4 on part only- not on the whole pension.

Mr RIORDAN:

– To adjust by 1.4 times the increase in the consumer price index. The honourable member for Berowa who interjects had something to say about this at the time. In 1973 when this legislation was introduced, the honourable member said that the Commonwealth was giving a significant and, in itself, admirable and praiseworthy lead. That is what the honourable member for Berowra said then. The right honourable member for Lowe said: ‘I congratulate the honourable gentleman’- he was referring to the Treasurer- ‘on the proposals which he has put before the House’. Those honourable members praised the Government for all of it, for the total pension. Now honourable members opposite come into this House, having only half read the proposition, and say: We are going to move an amendment which adjusted in accordance with the consumer price index on the Government portion only’. We do not disagree with that where a member takes a lump sum payment as a refund of his own contributions. In other words, if he takes a lump sum payment, that payment will not be adjusted.

Mr Howard:

– How can it be? We are talking about a lump sum.

Mr RIORDAN:

– The honourable member should listen. The contributor takes a lump sum payment and, as the honourable member for Bennelong says, that cannot be adjusted and no attempt will be made to adjust it. The contributor will have the balance of his pension adjusted not at 1.4 times the increase in the consumer price index, but at 100 per cent of the increase in the consumer price index. That is a reduction to 100 per cent of the increase in the consumer price index. However, if the member elects not to commute and to take out a pension, what is the possible justification of saying that he shall receive only five-sevenths of it- the Government portion- adjusted in accordance with movements in the consumer price index? What possible justification can there be? After all, the man who takes the lump sum payment will presumably invest it in some enterprise or in some commodity. He will at least have the opportunity of protecting that amount of money against the ravages of inflation. But honourable members opposite say that if he does not do that, if he takes his money in weekly or annual pension, then that money has to suffer the ravages of inflation and that man is to have no opportunities to guard against this. Surely that is an ill-considered, illconceived proposition. Surely my friend, the exprofessor of economics, the honourable member for Berowra will not try to justify that proposition. He has tried to justify some rough ones in the past, but I think that even this would be beyond his capacity.

Then the Opposition tells us that what should happen is that we should make everybody stay at work until they are 65 years and that there should be no provision to retire at 60 years. Opposition members talk about this lazy lot in the Public Service wanting to grab for themselves an earlier retirement. Where have honourable members opposite been? What have they read, if anything? Do not the honourable gentlemen opposite know that since 1922 those who contribute to the fund to retire at 65 years may have that retirement age changed to 60 years on the payment of a capital sum? Do not honourable gentlemen opposite know that since 1924 it has been possible to contribute in order to retire on full pension at age 60 years? Do they not know that since 1 954 for the bulk of members, a pension of 70 per cent of final salary has been attainable on retirement at age 60 years? Do these things all escape honourable gentlemen opposite? Do they not realise that on 18 September 1974, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch), who has clung to his office with great tenacity, with great skill and with rare courage, made the statement that the Opposition intended to ensure that, whenever possible, existing contributors would not be disadvantaged on transferring to a new superannuation scheme. Having made that promise, having given that pledge, having given that undertaking, the Liberals now move for a serious turning back of the clock. Let the record be clear. Not only are the honourable members opposite intent on attempting to prevent an improvement of the existing scheme; they are intent, in this Parliament, on reducing the advantages which presently apply to members of the Australian Public Service.

What is wrong with age 60 retirement anyway? The South Australian and the New South Wales governments do not see anything wrong with it. Both governments have introduced age 60 retirements. Western Australia and Victoria have a retirement age of 65, with an optional retiring age of 60 years. Tasmania and Queensland have age 65 retirement. Where is the pace setting in that? Where is the extravagance not followed by anyone else? How in this proposition will all of these State governments and State government instrumentalities be forced to follow suit?

The honourable member for Curtin cried his eyes out on behalf of those in the private sector. Let me tell the honourable member a thing or two. His friends in the upper eschelons of management in the private sector are looking after themselves very well, thanks very much. They do not need his tears in this place to do so either. The practice is now widespread indeed, where staff superannuation funds- some of them with very narrow application and others with slightly wider application- have fairly generous provisions. It is not uncommon to see a retirement benefit of $100,000. The recipient does not have to wait 30 years, or in many cases contribute for them either. In many cases, they are noncontributory; in other cases the organisation provides $2 or $3 for every $1 from the employee; in other cases, the contributions are equal, but with an annual bonus tossed in. I know. I have seen retirement benefits of $100,000, of which 95 per cent is tax free. Compare that with the existing Public Service scheme or with that which is proposed, and you will not see such a proposition. Look at the New South Wales scheme. It makes this scheme look like a disadvantaged scheme. Compare the large lump sum payments which senior public servants in New South Wales can obtain with what is obtainable by members of the Australian Public Service.

The Opposition at least has conceded something, namely, that we should shift away from the unit system to the percentage of salary basis for payment into the scheme. But what the Opposition does in the amendments that it proposes to move is virtually to wreck the scheme put up by the Government. The Opposition knows that its amendments will result in such a deterioration in the scheme that the officers and employees in the Service may say: ‘We do not want the new scheme. We will keep the present scheme’. So, in this deceitful way the Opposition proposes amendments which on the surface look innocent, which cry: ‘We are really protecting the public interest’. That claim is false. It is really setting out to destroy the scheme. The Opposition is engaged in a campaign of destruction of schemes which is long overdue for review and for upgrading and modernisation.

It is a scheme which is steeped in financial antiquity. It is a scheme which is an actuarial nightmare. It is a scheme which is worked out on the basis that people when they can afford most pay the least, from 2 per cent to 20 per cent on the average. In fact, 20 per cent of salary is not uncommon for officers and employees in later years. The honourable member for Curtin said the payment could be up to 53 per cent. There are many people in the Australian Public Service who dread the thought of a salary increase because they will take home less pay. There are people who, because of financial commitments, illness in the family or for other factors beyond their control, cannot afford to take advantage of the scheme in its present form. Because they cannot afford to take advantage of the present scheme, they not only miss out on the benefits that they are entitled to from their own saving but they miss out also on what is virtually a right to receive a government contribution. For current employees, the cost increase of the proposed scheme is almost nil. It is negligible. It is between one per cent and 2 per cent. Certainly there is some increase in costs over time. Certainly, by bringing in people who have been wrongfully denied the right to join a pension scheme over the years some increased costs will be involved. The right honourable member for Lowe, the honourable member for Curtin and other honourable members who sit on the Opposition front bench who previously held power in government, ignored for a generation, for almost a quarter of a century, the right of Australian public servants to have a modern pension or superannuation scheme. But the Opposition, confronted with a scheme which is reasonable, just and fair, brings forward amendments to try to destroy in a very deceitful manner the concept of that scheme. I hope that honourable members opposite will think out the scheme. I hope that they will change their minds. Otherwise I am afraid that they will have caused a very great disservice to Australia and to the Australian community.

Mr GORTON:
Higgins

– I do not propose to take up the time of the House for very long. This Bill, as other speakers before me have said, is a Bill to provide superannuation for Commonwealth employees. That is all it is. Honourable members can fulminate about inflation and how many millions of dollars the scheme will cost if they run inflation for 30 years ahead. That does not matter a bit. This is simply a Bill to give Commonwealth employees a proper superannuation. We have here proposals which, when we extend them across the public sector of all the States, are very decent proposals indeed. It is of little use comparing this proposal with a private sector proposal. How do we work out what the private sector can pay or does pay? We have one section of private enterprise which pays high salaries and another which pays low salaries. Are we to take the average? Are we to take the lowest point? It is of no significance at all. But compared with State superannuation schemes this is, I suggest, not a bad scheme at all.

The maximum contribution under this scheme as proposed is 10 per cent of salary. In Victoria it is 9 per cent of salary; in Queensland 6.5 per cent of a male’s salary; in South Australia 6 per cent of salary and in Tasmania 5.5 per cent of salary. If we take the Bill and ask: How does this compare across the public employment stratum generally, we find that 10 per cent is a reasonably high payment to make. That is the maximum payment.

The maximum retirement benefit proposed under this scheme is 70 per cent of final salary. The corresponding figures on percentage of final salary are: Victoria 70 per cent; Queensland 75 per cent; South Australia 66.7 per cent; and Tasmania 66.7 per cent. This proposal is not far out of the general run of State controlled superannuation schemes if we compare it with that which I suggest we should compare it.

I turn to the widow’s pension which, I understand, is to be the subject of some proposed amendment by the Opposition. The widow’s pension is to go up to 67 per cent of the pension received by the husband before he died. The relative widow’s pensions in the other States as a percentage of the husband’s pension are: New South Wales 66.7 per cent; Victoria 66.7 per cent; Queensland 62.5 per cent; South Australia 66.7 per cent; Western Australia 62.8 per cent and Tasmania 66.7 per cent. We are going up 0.3 per cent on most of the State widow’s pensions. Yet this aspect is to be the subject of an amendment by the Opposition to try to prevent the proposal coming into practice.

We have the annual pension adjustments which on the Austraiian Public Service proposal should be based on the increase in the consumer price index. Annual pension adjustments in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania are based on the consumer price index, though in the case of Tasmania the adjustment is made twice yearly. There is nothing really outrageous in that proposition as far as I can understand it.

I turn to the commutation of retirement pension. The Bill says that an employee can commute the Government payment and then he does not get any increase as a result. But in New South Wales, part of the pension, in excess of $34 a week, can be commuted. In Queensland, the whole of the pension can be commuted. In Victoria, anything above $46.50 per fortnight or 30 per cent of the pension can be commuted. So it is with the other states.

I cannot for the life of me see what the objection is to this Bill as it is written. It is a Bill initiated by a Liberal Government, the McMahon Government. It was sent to independent actuaries. The Bill, as it now comes down, by and large carries out the suggestions of those independent actuaries. Yet we are told it is going to be amended and prevented from being passed because the Chairman of the Council of Australian Government Employees Organisations has let it be known in the Press that if it is amended as it is proposed to be amended he would sooner drop it and not have another Bill at all. We have carried on for a long time now. We have been talking about a superannuation Bill for Commonwealth public servants. We have now got a Bill which, as I said, is very little different from the State Bills. Surely the Commonwealth can be allowed a small improvement on what the States give.

For my part, I propose to vote for the Bill as it is brought in, and I strongly oppose the amendments which are being moved from this side of the House, with one exception. The Bill takes out the optional retirement at 65. 1 think myself that there should be an optional retirement at 65 and that should continue, but this is not even to be the subject of an amendment moved by the Opposition. I suggest that an Opposition amendment could be drafted to cover this matter. This is a Bill which was initiated by the McMahon Government, which went to actuaries, and which they reported on. I think it should be supported and I propose to support it and to vote for it as it is written.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-Whatever else may be said about the Liberal Party and its relationship now with the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton) one thing can be said. Even though the Liberal Party may have expelled him from the Party, he must still have a lot of friends in the Party, because at the very meeting at which it expelled him it decided to oppose this legislation to make quite sure that he will get into the Senate as a representative of the Australian Capital Territory at the next election. It has certainly made it very easy for Mm.

I wish to deal with one aspect of this legislation very briefly. In passing, I note the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Sullivan) sitting in the chamber. What hypocrisy it is on the part of people like him who strongly support the huge benefits which are paid under the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme to officers of the Services who are trained at our expense, resign at the age of 40 to 50 with amounts of about $40,000 and then get on their high horse to complain about public servants. It is all right if you are an officer but it is not OK if you are a public servant.

I want to deal with the question of the temporary public servant. The Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns) in his second reading speech said:

Persons of lower medical standard on entry who, under the present arrangements would be required to join the Provident Account will come under the new scheme as will those members at present contributing to the Provident Account. Benefits from the scheme may be reduced on medical grounds in the event of their death or invalidity retirement before completing 20 years of contributory service.

This seems a very reasonable proposition to me. At the present time temporary employees who have been in the Public Service for 3 years and who have reasonable prospects of continuing in the Service for another 7 years are admitted to the Provident Account. It is now proposed that these periods be reduced to one year and 3 years respectively. My objection to what is happening in the Public Service al the present time concerns the rejection of people for permanency because of a medical condition, often a very minor medical condition. When I was in medical practice I was consulted by people, especially young people, who had been rejected for permanency in the Public Service. When I checked them over I could not find anything wrong with them. Maybe I was not a good doctor, but I found them perfectly all right. When I checked with the doctor from the Commonwealth Public Service I found the reason for their rejection was a very minor thing such as a varicose vein or a potential varicose vein. Women who were rejected may have had pre-menstrual pain when they were young. These people were rejected for permanency in the Public Service. This is a quite ridiculous position.

The Australian Public Service discriminates against workers with minor disabilities. It should not do that, because who is going to employ them? The important thing is to provide people with minor disabilities, and for that matter major disabilities, with employment. It is quite reasonable to make it more difficult for them to benefit from superannuation, as is proposed under this legislation. Under this Bill certain restrictions are imposed on them. Their premiums may be higher but surely they ought to get permanency in the Public Service. A friend of mine had been a crane driver in the Australian Public Service for over 20 years, and he is still temporary. The reason is that he has varicose veins and does not want to have them operated on. I do not blame him. He has had the condition for 20 years. He cannot get permanency. Whenever he is promoted to any new position where he obtains more pay, as soon as any permanent crane driver appears on the job he loses that promotion and goes back to the lowest rung of the ladder. This is a quite ridiculous position if we want to deal with people in a reasonable fashion.

I therefore appeal to the Minister to talk to the Public Service Board with a view to ensuring that the practice ceases of not admitting people with disabilities to the permanent Public Service because they would make a big difference to the Superannuation Fund. Under the present proposals benefits for such people will be reduced on medical grounds if certain conditions occur arising from pre-existing medical conditions. If that is accepted those people should be eligible for permanency in the Public Service the same as anybody else. I appeal to the Minister to do as I have suggested. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr LUSHER:
Hume

-Along with the Opposition, I am not going to support the legislation as it has been introduced into this chamber. It seems to me that some problems certainly exist in the Commonwealth superannuation scheme as it now stands and that there is plenty of scope for improvement in the scheme. To my mind the benefits provided under the existing scheme are quite satisfactory. Problems arise when contributions in the latter stages of a public servant’s career become quite unbalanced. There is also no provision for a lump sum payment on the retirement of a member of the Public Service. I believe that these are aspects of the current scheme which could stand scrutiny and which could be improved. Any moves to improve these aspects would certainly be supported by the Opposition.

We are looking at a Bill which has been based to some extent on the report of Professor Pollard and Mr Melville. The Government has not accepted the report in its entirety. To my mind it has taken the parts of the recommended scheme which appear to be more generous and has left out the parts of the recommendations by the actuaries which would have sought to have brought some moderation into the scheme. There can be little doubt that this scheme will be a pace setter. Despite what may have been said by other honourable members on the Government side in this debate that it would not be a pace setter, we have it from the mouth of the Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns) that in fact it would be.

It has been put that some of the State schemes which have been referred to in this chamber today have been brought in in anticipation of the scheme which is being debated in this chamber at the moment and that, had this scheme not been proposed, the States would not have taken the steps which they have taken in respect of their own superannuation schemes. This scheme will pose significant problems for the private sector of the economy. In this Bill we are talking about 250 000 public servants. A considerably greater percentage of the work force is engaged in private enterprise and private employment. It is those people who will have a carrot dangled in front of their noses in the form of this scheme.

Without any doubt, it would be the most attractive scheme operating in this economy for a significant number of members of the work force. About 250 000 people would benefit from the provisions of this scheme. I do not believe one should argue that the Defence Force Retirement Benefits scheme or the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits scheme are better than this one and, therefore, the rest of the Public Service should be brought up to that standard. I believe that the arguments for the DFRB and the DFRDB schemes are valid. Those men were prepared to put their lives on the line for this country. As a result, I believe that they are entitled to some extra consideration from the community. I do not think that there is any resentment towards the serving men who gain a benefit which is in excess of what would normally be regarded as reasonable in the community.

Reference has also been made to the parliamentary pensions scheme. I do not mind saying that I would be prepared to swap my security for the security of some of the beneficiaries under the scheme that is being debated at the moment. Without doubt, the scheme before the House is an over-generous scheme. It will put pressure to a large extent on private enterprise, particularly at a time when private enterprise is not able to afford those pressures. It is a difficult time for industry, when inflation is running at extremely high rates, when investment is running down and when people are being laid off to try to maintain the bare existence of corporations, companies and businesses. It is a time when profits are being squeezed, when Government policies are applying pressures which have hitherto not been experienced in that sector. At the same time to impose upon the private sector a requirement to compete with another major sector of the economy in a fashion such as is laid down in the provisions of this legislation I think is totally uncalled for in the present climate.

A series of relative standards of retirement benefits under different types of superannuation schemes has been drawn up. I think it is worth taking a few minutes of the time of the House to run through some of these standards and to see where the proposed Commonwealth scheme stands in relation to those standards. Under the different schemes the retiring age varies from 60, 62, 63 to 65. Those are the generally accepted retiring ages under differing schemes which are in operation in the community. The greatest number of people who are covered by these schemes retire at the age of 65, and some at 63. Where does the Commonwealth’s scheme stand in this respect? It stands at the top of the list, in position No. 1 , with a retiring age of 60.

The standard of maximum pension formula ranges from 55 per cent plus 20 per cent for 40 years service down to 50 per cent for 40 years service with differing standards in the middle such as 66% per cent for 40 years service and 60 per cent for 40 years service. Again the Commonwealth comes at the top of the list. Three different standards of salary for pension determination have been used in the example I am looking at. They are the final year’s salary, the average of the last 3 years and the average of the last 5 years. Most of the people covered in private funds have their pension determination based on the average salary of the last 5 years, but the Commonwealth’s scheme works on the basis of the final year’s salary. The list goes on to updating for the cost of living. There again the Commonwealth’s scheme is the best scheme available. The standards range from automatic consumer price index adjustments to adjustments with certain percentage maxima for any one year, to ad hoc yearly increases or ad hoc increases on a 3-yearly basis.

I do not intend to argue in this debate that the public servants are not entitled to a good and satisfactory retirement scheme. There can be no doubt that they are entitled to it. We in this House are familiar with a large number of dedicated public servants who serve this chamber. I think that those men and their colleagues are certainly entitled to a good scheme. I have been a public servant myself and I have certainly been impressed with the dedication of a large number of public servants. The argument is not about whether or not these people are entitled to an adequate superannuation scheme; the argument is about the cost to the community of an over-generous scheme, the cost to private industry of a pace setter scheme being brought into operation. Nobody denies that public servants are entitled to a first rate scheme. They are, but they are not entitled to a scheme such as that proposed in this legislation whereby, on any standard at which one chooses to look, the Public Service scheme shapes up as being the best of any comparable scheme that is available. It is a scheme in relation to which the Government has not accepted, as it tends to do in other instances, in toto a report which has been submitted to it. It has selected from the report those provisions which are most acceptable to the Public Service and has rejected other parts of the report which have not been acceptable.

I have in front of me a communication from the Professional Officers’ Association of the Commonwealth Public Service dated 20 September 1974, which is about 8 or 9 months ago. The Association was putting forward an argument in favour of the proposed scheme. It said that the Treasurer’s proposals do 4 separate things:

  1. Simplify and rearrange the scheme for existing contributors tothe Superannuation Scheme.
  2. Provide for current contributors to the Provident Account to be admitted to ‘The Treasurer’s Superannuation Scheme’.
  3. Extend the scope of eligibility to include more temporary employees.
  4. Extend the scheme to Semi-Government establishments not currently included in the present Superannuation Scheme.

Nobody would dispute those principles or guidelines. They are agreeable. The dispute arises on meeting the situation that is arrived at. The Professional Officers’ Association give some comments on these 6 recommendations of Melville and Pollard. The Association lists all the recommendations and states that after detailed study it regards all these 6 recommendations as being unacceptable. It did not like any of them. Yet, the Government is going to introduce some of the measures and we, as an Opposition, are suggesting that others be introduced. But it seems to me that the Professional Officers’ Association was not happy with the situation that the Government is putting forward in this Bill.

Mr Young:

– They are less happy with your proposals.

Mr LUSHER:

-Perhaps they are. It is time that people in this country came to realise that there is a limit on the amount that can be offered to any sector-

Dr Klugman:

– All except for wool growers.

Mr LUSHER:

-I will tell the honourable member a thing or two about wool growers, because the wool growers are in a position in which they are prepared-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MartinOrder! Interjections will cease.

Mr LUSHER:

-The Government is faced with a massive budgetary problem. During the months of June and July when the Parliament is in recess the Cabinet will be meeting in Canberra to thrash out what the size of the deficit for 1975-76 will be. The Government will have to take a rational approach to what it will do with the limited amount of resources that are available to it. That is exactly what the 27 Ministers that the Labor Party has elected will be doing during the Cabinet discussions on the Budget in July. The Government has a situation before it in which it has an ideal opportunity to update the present superannuation scheme to provide the 250 000 Commonwealth public servants with a better than adequate scheme without going overboard in so doing. Yet, the Government has opted to go overboard with these proposals. As a result the scheme that has been proposed under this legislation will cost literally hundreds of millions of dollars more than is necessary.

Mr Lamb:

– That is not right.

Mr LUSHER:

– It is right. This has been documented in the report of Melville and Pollard. There is no dispute about this. Yet, when the Budget is introduced the Government will say that it is prepared to cut down on expenditure in other directions. It was not prepared to support the wool price. The Government is not prepared to do other things unless they are forced upon it. But the Government is prepared literally to throw away hundreds of millions of dollars in a way that is not necessary. All I am doing is suggesting to the Government that it should give some consideration to restraint in this situation. The Government is calling on everybody to show restraint and it ought to start showing this restraint in regard to its own officers. There is no question about this.

The Opposition will put forward an amendment that the retirement age for public servants should be at 65 years. As we understand the position at the moment, 40 per cent of public servants pay higher contributions to have the option to retire at the age of 60 years and 60 per cent of the contributors currently retire at the age of 65 years. It has been put forward that the cost of the benefits to retire at the age of 60 years is 30 per cent more than it costs to retire at age 65 years. The report of the Hancock Committee on national superannuation, which the Government commissioned, agreed that, based on cost and based on social grounds, 65 years of age was the proper age at which members of the community in general could be expected to retire. If it is good enough for Hancock and the rest of the community, why is not it good enough for public servants? Sixty per cent of them are perfectly happy to retire at 65 years of age now and there are some who are prepared to pay a significantly high amount in order to retire earlier for some private reasons. Yet, the Government is not prepared to be consistent in the application of a principle as to the retiring age.

Mr Sullivan:

– It is a political gimmick.

Mr LUSHER:

– That is true. I may as well draw the attention of the House to that interjection. The honourable member for Riverina (Mr Sullivan) has said that it is a political gimmick. The Government is advancing this proposal because it knows that the Opposition will not be able to support it as a responsible Opposition. The Government knows that we will be forced to vote against it. Therefore, the Government will be solidifying and strengthening the support that it receives from the Public Service organisations. I say that it is very difficult to refute that argument. We have a situation in which Melville and Pollard recommended against the consumer price index adjustments in regard to superannuation payments. The Opposition will move an amendment to the legislation to provide that the CPI adjustment will apply only on the Government portion of the pension. This is another area in which the Government has chosen not to accept the report as it has been put to it. The Government has taken parts of it. I submit to the Government that the parts that it has taken and accepted have been the parts which have tended to be more generous rather than less generous.

I will not detain the House any longer. I know that there are other honourable members who would like to speak in the debate in the brief time that is available. I submit that the Opposition has no objection to public servants in general and any public servant in particular being adequately catered for in terms of retirement provisions. We have no argument about that. The dispute that this debate revolves around is the dispute about the over-generosity of the provisions of the legislation that is under debate at the moment. This is simply the point at issue. We have a responsibility as an Opposition to see that the Government it not allowed to make payments to run to excess. That is why the amendments which the Opposition proposes to move in the Committee stage will be moved. I will support them.

Mr MARTIN:
Banks

-I wish to expose the hypocrisy of the Opposition -

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 61

NOES: 53

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Administrator recommending appropriation announced.

In Committee

Clauses 1 and 2- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Clause 3. maximum retiring age’, in relation to a person who is, or has been, an eligible employee, means the age of 60 years or such lesser age as, under the regulations, is the maximum retiring age applicable to him or a class of persons in which he is, at the relevant time, included; pensioner’ means a person who is entitled to pension under this Act;

Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

-The Opposition proposes a number of amendments. We do not intend to pursue all of them unless the Government indicates that it will view them favourably. There are several amendments standing in my name in relation to clause 3. We propose to test the principle of the age of 60 years being the age which applies under the new Commonwealth employees superannuation scheme. We will call for a vote on the first amendment. The amendments were explained during the debate on the second reading. I do not repeat them at any length. The Opposition believes there is ample evidence to show that, in terms of cost, social issues and comparison with other schemes, there is nothing to justify an age of retirement of 60 years.

I draw attention to an aspect which I noticed some newspapers this morning were unclear about. One hopes that this might be corrected tomorrow but experience in this place leads one to believe that that will not happen. As far as existing members are concerned those contributing to retire at the age of 60 under these amendments are to have the option of remaining in the existing scheme on the present basis or of switching to the new scheme on the basis of a retirement age of 65 years and getting a cash refund of the excess contributions already paid.

It is provided that there will be a period when an option can be exercised by those who are contributing to the present scheme to retire at 60. They can opt to continue with that scheme in exactly the same way. Additionally, anyone in the present scheme who is paying contributions with a view to retiring at 65 can also, within that time, opt to continue with the present scheme and pay contributions in order to retire at 60 years of age. So the present members are not affected. They have the option of staying with the present scheme whether at present they are planning and paying to retire at 60 or 65. If they do not take up that option they take up the conditions of the new scheme with the retirement age of 65. Of course all future members would conform with that principle.

As I said during the debate on the second reading that principle is recommended by Professor Hancock in his report in which he sets out views on methods of instituting a national superannuation scheme which, one assumes, this country will see before very long. That raises the question which a number of people have raised in Press comments, namely, whether this great revision of superannuation for government employees ought to have been brought forward before the Hancock Committee had finished its recommendations and before the Government had decided what scheme it would implement. National superannuation is important to everybody in this country not just to those who are members of one scheme or another. If this had been done it would have been possible to see the scheme in context. I suggest to the Committee that any such proposal which could be financed for the whole nation would be nowhere near this standard. This scheme could not be afforded if every person came into it.

As I pointed out during the debate on the second reading this is one of the aspects which goes too far beyond what is available virtually everywhere else in the community. It accepts a principle of a lower retiring age which I understand is the ambition of a number of people including union activists in this country who already are planning a retiring age lower than 60. 1 do not know where that sort of thing ends in terms of social value but I know where it ends in terms of cost. It is a tremendous cost as somebody pointed out earlier. I think it was the right honourable member for Lowe (Mr McMahon). He said that the last 5 years a person works are the years when he is the most experienced and the most highly trained for his task. To retire earlier not only adds 5 more years of payment of pension but also means that his services have to be replaced.

Of course, there is a loss of the contributions he would have made in that period. So there is a three-fold increase in cost of significant proportions. The cost set out in the Treasurer’s memorandum is based on the calculations of the 1972 costs. Membership is also based on 1972 which is very much under the membership which will be in the new scheme. Cost is calculated by the Government actuary at $459m. I am rash enough to assert that the current figure would be likely be more than double that figure. It can only grow and grow as the numbers covered by the scheme increase, as they surely must.

We are seeing many authorities and other groups of employees included in the scheme, and the average level of their salaries and wages increases. By way of aside I point out that I said during the debate on the second reading that one noticed when Bills were introduced into the

House yesterday for the Government to take over the railway systems of South Australia and Tasmania, that the employees of those systems are to come under this scheme. I repeat that this provision is one of 4 elements we have closely examined and which we regard as over generous. This would put government employees in a highly favoured position when compared with the rest of the community.

Mr Riordan:

– They could be worse off.

Mr GARLAND:

– I would like the honourable member for Phillip to demonstrate that in this debate. I think he will not find that that is the case for the reasons I have already given. I have carefully read the arguments made in the reports. I must say that having read them I just cannot see that they have made a case. Maybe that is because whether one should retire at 65 or 60 is a matter of opinion and it cannot be proved one way or the other. Perhaps that is the position. I thought that the arguments put were singularly unconvincing. Perhaps Professor Hancock came to that conclusion because he referred not only to the additional cost but also recommended against it on social grounds. I have not been able to find any medical or demographic argument for reducing the standard retiring age below 65 years of age. In this House we have a number of honourable members who are older. That may or may not be a good benchmark. Certainly many people desire to work and do work up to that age and beyond it. So the Opposition believes this is an important matter. We will pursue it vigorously. I move:

In sub-clause (1), in the definition of ‘maximum retiring age ‘, omit ‘ 60 years ‘, substitute ‘ 65 years ‘.

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation and Minister Assisting the Treasurer · Lang · ALP

– Before I deal with the arguments that have been advanced by the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland) in support of this amendment, let me put into the Hansard record again a short precis of how long this superannuation scheme for Australian public servants has been under discussion. The report of the departmental committee appointed by the McMahon Government in 1971 to review the existing scheme was tabled in this House in May 1973. In March 1974 the former Treasurer, Mr Crean, tabled bis proposals for a new scheme and announced the decision of the Government to obtain expert advice on the proposals.

In June 1974 the former Treasurer, Mr Crean, released the report of the actuaries, Mr G. L. Melville and Professor A. H. Pollard on the proposed scheme. In December 1974 Mr Crean released the details of the new scheme approved by the Government to come into operation on 1 July 1975. The Australian Government published a booklet setting out the details of the new scheme which has been widely distributed and widely studied- studied by private superannuation people, by all the Australian government unions and federations and by most members, I would suggest, of the Australian Public Service.

Mr Graham:

– And the Parliament as well.

Mr STEWART:

– The interjection reminds me that perhaps many of the members of the Parliament did not study this scheme until the Bill was introduced and the second reading speech was delivered on 15 May this year. If that is not the case, why is it that we have amendments moved by the Opposition that have been well and truly discussed in the media, in the associations and in the private insurance and superannuation fields. The scheme that is before us at the moment was approved by the Government with most of the changes recommended by Mr Melville and Professor Pollard in the scheme. The Parliament itself has had the opportunity to study a 12-page second reading speech in which most of the arguments counteracting the arguments that have been advanced in the debate on the second reading of the debate today were put forward. The Parliament has also had an opportunity to study a 34-page memorandum which explains the provisions of the Bill.

The amendment that has been moved by the honourable member for Curtin is not acceptable to the Government. It is not acceptable for the following reasons: This amendment, together with the other amendments proposed, would make the benefits of the new scheme clearly inferior to those of the present scheme. Overall, the existing scheme contributors would be about 1 1 per cent worse off.

I want to nail a misconception to the wall. Australian public servants have always been able to retire at age 60. This Bill does not make it compulsory for Australian public servants to retire at 60. They have a choice as to whether they will work to age 60 or age 65. Who amongst us in this Parliament would dare suggest that anyone should compulsorily retire at age 60? Who, in particular, on the Government side would suggest that 60 be a compulsory retiring age when m the Opposition our best weapons, those who give us the greatest advantage, are members who are more than 60 years of age. Since 1924 members of the superannuation scheme have been able to contribute to units on the basis of retirement on full pension at age 60. Forty per cent of the present membership is doing so at the moment. I believe that it is compulsory for members of the police force to retire at age 60.

Since 1922 contributors of 65 years of age have been able to retire on full pension at any time after reaching age 60 by paying up their contributions in a lump sum. For the bulk of members a 70 per cent of final salary pension 50 per cent being the Government’s financed element- has been attainable on retirement at age 60 since 1954. Changes to the scheme in 1969 made it easier to achieve the 50 per cent Government’s financed element of pension on retirement at age 60.

I can give honourable members many more arguments. I will pass over those, having nailed the misconception that has been preached by a number of members of the Opposition that this scheme makes it compulsory to retire at the age of 60. The Government does not accept the amendment because it is not based on fact or reason.

Mr LUSHER:
Hume

-I should like to refer briefly to clause 3 of the Bill which relates to the definition of maximum retiring age. I ask the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart) to explain the definition to the House in the light of what he has just said. The definition of ‘retiring age ‘ in the Bill states: in relation to a person who is, or has been, an eligible employee, means the age of 60 years or such lesser age . . .

That to me implies that that is the maximum age. It is not the minimum age. I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify that particular point.

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation and Minister Assisting the Treasurer · Lang · ALP

– I cannot find the exact position in my notes but the information I have and which I have just given honourable members is that the choice is still there. A person can retire at age 60 or age 65. The definition is purely for the purposes of defining when the benefit will become available. The choice as to whether an Australian public servant shall retire at age 60 or age 65 is still available.

Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

-The point the Opposition is trying to make is not that of compulsory retirement dates. Retirements are governed by the Public Service Act. The question is: What superannuation benefits should be paid at what age? The Opposition is attempting, by its amendments, to preserve the position of present members. They have the option to which I referred. Under our proposal, in future the age at which full benefits will be received will be 65 years and if anybody retires at an earlier age, as permitted by other legislation, they would get a lesser benefit or, if honourable members like, would pay a penalty- as one newspaper today reported me as saying- for retiring at that earlier period. That penalty is set out in the Bill and, from memory, I think it is of the order of 4 per cent for each year under 65. 1 interpose that to clear up that point.

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation and Minister Assisting the Treasurer · Lang · ALP

– In answer to the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland), the argument he just advanced is hard to reconcile with the attitude that has been taken by the Opposition. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch) stated in September 1974 that the Opposition intended to ensure that, wherever possible, existing contributors were not disadvantaged on transferring to a new superannuation scheme. The honourable member is suggesting now that certain employees should be disadvantaged by transferring to this scheme. The Government does not accept that.

Question put:

That the figure and word proposed to be omitted (Mr Garland’s amendment) stand as part of the clause.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr J. M. Berinson)

AYES: 59

NOES: 53

Majority……. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation and Minister Assisting the Treasurer · Lang · ALP

– I move:

This amendment is intended to correct a minor drafting error in the legislation. The other amendments which the Government is proposing are also intended to correct minor drafting errors. I should like at this stage to pay a compliment to the Parliamentary Counsel and his staff for the magnificent job they have done on this Bill and on many others during the lifetime of this Government. They have been working under extreme pressures and for so few minor drafting errors to appear in a Bill of this complexity is a compliment to the Parliamentary Counsel and his staff. At the same time, I should like to pay a compliment to the staff of the Treasury who, since 1971, have been working quite diligently on this legislation. Alterations have been proposed from many sections of the community. The Treasury staff has had to prepare reports for various committees, including the last one, the Melville-Pollard inquiry. The officers of the Treasury, as well as the Parliamentary Counsel and his staff, deserve to be complimented on the work they have done.

Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

-The Opposition accepts the amendment and wishes to be associated with the acknowledgements that were made by the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart). I should like to say too that having voted on the principle in this one of 4 areas, the Opposition will not pursue the proposed amendments on this matter and ask for them to be put to a vote; we will simply confine our debate to representative clauses of the areas that we wish to see amended.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 4 to 56- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 57.

  1. Where-

    1. a person is entitled to standard age retirement pension by virtue of section 56; and
    2. his period of contributory service is not less that 30 years, then, subject to sub-section (2) of this section, the annual rate of that pension is 50 per centum of his final annual rate of salary.

  2. Where-

    1. a person is entitled to standard age retirement pension by virtue of section 56; and
    2. his period of contributory service before attaining the age of 60 years was not less than 3 1 years, the annual rate of that pension is such percentage of his final annual rate of salary as, having regard to the number of complete years included in that period of contributory service, is applicable in accordance with Schedule 1 .

  3. Where-

    1. a person is entitled to a standard age retirement pension by virtue of section 56; and
    2. his period of contributory service is less than 30 years, the annual rate of that pension is such percentage of his final annual rate of salary as, having regard to the number of complete years included in that period of contributory service, is applicable in accordance with Schedule 2.
Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

-I move:

Omit sub-clauses ( 1 ) and (2), substitute the following subclause:

a person is entitled to standard age retirement pension by virtue of section 56; and

b) his period of contributory service is not less than 30 years, then the annual rate of that pension is 50 per centum of his final annual rate of salary. ‘.

This clause provides the opportunity to put the Opposition’s view in respect of the second area that it wishes to see amended. It relates to the proposal to provide an additional government pension to a maximum of 5 per cent to those who in future have beyond 30 years of service and to those existing members of the Public Service who have beyond 20 years of service. It is in fact an additional government pension of one-half of one per cent per annum for each year of service over 30 years for new members. The Opposition’s view is that a pension of 50 per cent for a government employee is adequate. There has to be an end somewhere. The argument that there ought to be provision for employees with up to 40 years of service only begs the question about service in excess of this period, and such cases do exist. It is believed that, in comparision with other schemes, this provision is over generous and therefore an unjustifiable burden on the taxpayers.

I am advised that the Commissioner of Taxation has guidelines which he imposes in assessing the deductibility of contributions to private pension schemes by companies. The basis is the provision of a pension of 70 per cent of the average income of the 3 previous years. That is a less generous provision than that contained in the Bill. It has been suggested to me that with this legislation before us those guidelines perhaps are being revised. So be it. But in any case, I am advised by many people that they have been unable to get the Commissioner of Taxation to regard a pension of this magnitude as reasonable. That surely is one of the few guidelines. In terms of cost, on 1972 figures the provision will cost $338m. Compared with other schemes this scheme is superior and pace setting. We believe that this additional government pension is unjustifiable in present circumstances. Therefore, the Opposition has moved this amendment. Of course there are consequential amendments involving the proposed alteration to what after all is a very complex Bill, as are the 2 Bills associated with it. We put forward the amendments on that ground.

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation and Minister Assisting the Treasurer · Lang · ALP

– The Government does not accept this amendment. I shall not go into the grounds for not accepting it. I think they were well canvassed this afternoon inside this House and also outside the House. The honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland) said that this is pace setting legislation in this direction. Examples have been given on many occasions to show that this supposedly pace setting legislation is well matched by State government schemes and is perhaps- if one could get the information from private superannuation schemes- still below the pace setting that private enterprise has shown to some of its employees.

Mr LUSHER:
Hume

-This is quite a crucial clause in the whole framework of this Bill. I think it needs to be said that the Public Service itself has to realise what the implications of this provision are. The Opposition’s proposed amendment will provide public servants with a far better scheme than that to which they are subscribing at the moment and if the Government is allowed to introduce the proposals in this legislation it can only be done at a cost. I think it must be understood by everybody that if this provision is introduced the extra cost that is part and parcel of it must be reflected in the Government ‘s program and will also be reflected in the higher taxation that public servants and everybody else in the community will have to pay. I think that this is a point that must be brought home when we are considering this clause. There can be little doubt that there is justification for upgrading the Commonwealth superannuation scheme. The amendment that has been proposed to this clause would certainly improve it. But the Service itself and the Government should be aware that there must be a cost attached to the provision of any improved benefit and the cost of that will have to be borne. I submit that, when taxation rates are increased and when taxation collections are increased, this legislation will have been a part of the cause of that action.

Dr EDWARDS:
Berowra

-I have not any particularly strong views one way or the other on this provision except that it is one further element in the additional costs that add to the high cost of the scheme. In fact the estimated capital cost of the provision is $338m. That is a very significant proposal. The whole thrust of the Opposition’s approach to this Bill is that we support the move to change the method of payment, and other aspects for which the Bill provides. But that having been done, the scheme that would then prevail would be a fair one and indeed a generous one. Our basic view is that in the present difficult economic situation, this is not the time substantially to enlarge the benefits accruing to contributors and thereby to widen further the already large gap between superannuation benefits in the public sector and those in the private sector. For my own part, that is the basic reason for supporting the Opposition’s view that this provision ought to be rejected.

After all, there is widespread throughout the community a lack of provision for superannuation of any sort. In fact, it was only the other day in the Parliament that the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) stated that some seven out of ten of the 5.7 million people in the Australian work force are not yet covered by superannuation, and that this is true of four out of five manual workers. The priority in public expenditure in this area lies there- to get superannuation arrangements available for the mass of ordinary men and women, for whose interests the Government constantly professes its concern. That is basically our position- that priority should be given there rather than to any further upgrading in benefits, although, as I have said, we strongly support the provisions of this Bill to change the basis of contributions and other aspects.

Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

-The Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart), in making some remarks a moment ago, seemed to be endeavouring to convince us that in fact the scheme is not leading. The Minister suggested too that it was hard to get figures relating to private schemes and that some of them, I think, were equal to or ahead of the government scheme. As the Minister will perhaps see when Hansard is printed, I tabled a statement that had been prepared by some actuaries who certainly are in a privileged position to obtain such information. I am surprised that the Minister should endeavour to show that the scheme is not ahead of those in the private sector in virtually every case. I know that one will find the odd scheme where a few well placed directors and others can use their positions, but I am talking about the great bulk of the people. On this occasion, the Minister is representing 300 000 people who will potentially become members of this scheme. I am surprised that the Minister makes that case because right at the beginning of his speech when introducing this Bill, the Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns) used the words ‘Indeed the National Government should lead’. That is not an argument that can be interpreted in any other way than that the Treasurer believes the Government is leading the way. He suggested that honourable members look up the Hansard record of a reply to a question which was asked, I think, before the last 2-week recess in which he said he regarded the proposed scheme as a model which others would follow. He then went on to say, and I listened to him carefully- incidentally he spoke very carefully and deliberately, and obviously he was giving a prepared answer- that he thought others would follow, but slowly. I do not agree with that part of his statement. I am sure from all I have heard, that the pace setting and the follow on will be pretty quick. I made those points in the second reading debate. I really do not think that we can accept the argument that there is no pace setting involved. Of course, Professor Pollard and Mr Melville whose names have been much invoked in this whole area recommended against this addition. There really does not seem to be much to justify it, but a lot of cost is involved.

Mr CONNOLLY:
Bradfield

-I wish to make just a few points. Being an ex-public servant myself, I am very conscious of the implications of this Bill, but frankly I agree entirely with the argument adopted by the Opposition that at this stage, in view of Australia’s unfortunate economic situation, one has to be realistic and ensure that the reforms which we are debating or to the existing government superannuation scheme will overcome the very real problems which exist in the present scheme. At the same time we must question as to whether the reforms are fair and equitable, and should the government scheme take pride of place over the private sector and set an impossible standard to emulate. It has been brought to my attention, in particular by retired members of the Public Service, that we should question the validity of accepting 30 years as the base period upon which this additional payment should be made. Many people who are now retired have served the Commonwealth for 40 years or 45 years, and in some cases for perhaps as long as 50 years. They are to be completely ignored under this proposal. It is not therefore equitable to those who have already served and extremely generous to those who have their pension calculated on a much more beneficial basis. I would urge the Government to consider the case of those who have retired and to consider more seriously than apparently it has to date whether it is equitable to include a clause of this nature in the Bill before the Parliament.

Question put:

That the sub-clause proposed to be omitted (Mr Garland’s amendment) stand part of the clause.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr J. M. Berinson)

AYES: 60

NOES: 53

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 58 to 82- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 83.

The CHAIRMAN:

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

Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

-Mr Chairman, I move:

In sub-clause ( 1) omit ‘67 per centum ‘, substitute’ 62 !4 per centum’.

In sub-clause ( 2 ) omit ‘ 67 per centum ‘, substitute ‘ 62 Vi per centum’.

In sub-clause (2), paragraph (a), omit ‘78 per centum’, substitute ‘73V4 per centum’.

In sub-clause (2), paragraph (b), omit ‘89 per centum’, substitute ‘ 8414 per centum ‘.

In sub-clause (2) omit paragraph (c), substitute the following paragraphs:

where there are 3 eligible children- 95% per centum; or

where there are 4 or more eligible children- 100 per centum. ‘.

These amendments relate to the widows’ pension formula and the children’s pension formula.

I will speak specifically to my first amendment which seeks to substitute ‘62¥i per centum’ for 67 per centum’. The present position is that 62 te per cent of a member’s pension is paid to his widow. Widows of some members who were in the scheme prior to that percentage being set receive 50 per cent of the member’s pension. There is a flat rate addition for children. The Bill proposes to increase the widow’s pension to 67 per cent of a member’s pension, with an additional

I I per cent per dependent child to a maximum of 3 children. In other words, for a widow with three dependent children the payment would be 100 per cent of the member’s pension.

In the private sector, the common basis for a widow’s pension is 60 per cent of a member’s pension, 50 per cent in some cases and in many cases no pension at all unless the member’s own pension is reduced to provide for a widow’s pension. Therefore, in the opinion of the Opposition, the present formula providing a 62 te per cent pension is generous by private sector standards. The additional cost of the proposal is substantial. Again on 1972 costs and 1972 membership it is $138m. My first amendment and the consequential amendments propose to retain the present 62 te per cent formula, but to agree with the proposal that the first 3 dependent children should each be paid 1 1 per cent of the pension. Because there is a residue of 456 per cent, to make a 100 per cent pension we propose that the balance be paid where there is a dependent fourth child. I think that the reasoning behind my amendments is clear as to what the position was, what it is in the private sector and what is proposed by my amendments. I will not elaborate further on them.

Mr RIORDAN:
Phillip

-Surely clause 83 is a reasonable proposition. Perhaps the Opposition is not aware of the fact that in New South Wales the widows’ pension benefit is 66.7 per cent of the member’s pension. The same situation applies in Victoria where 66.7 per cent of the member’s pension is payable to the widow. The same figure is applied in South Australia. Certainly Queensland has the current Australian Government pension provision which is 62te per cent. Western Australia pays 62.8 per cent of the member’s pension and under the defence forces retirement benefits scheme the figure is 62 te per cent. Surely the question is not one of the Australian Public Service being a pacesetter but rather the APS trying to keep up with the pace.

The Opposition, in moving these amendments, is getting right away from the premise on which it based its original opposition to this scheme. I put it that way quite advisedly because what the Opposition is attempting to do is to emasculate this scheme by sneaking in an amendment here and an amendment there. The effect of these amendments really is to distort and to disturb the whole proposal which is before the Parliament. I certainly hope that, before the colleagues in the other place of Opposition members here come to vote on this issue they will give it a little more thought than has obviously been given by the gentlemen sitting opposite. We are now in a position where the Opposition says that if there is a fourth dependent child it will agree to pay to a widow with 4 dependent children what the Government is proposing to pay to a widow with 3 dependent children. Really, gentlemen, are you not being a little pedantic? If you look at the facts, surely you will not pursue these amendments.

Mr LUSHER:
Hume

-The honourable member for Phillip (Mr Riordan) comes back into the chamber with his weak and soppy arguments to try to put the Opposition under some sort of threat of what may or may not happen in the other place. There is no dispute- it has previously been said in the debate- that the schemes of the State governments to which the honourable member has referred have been introduced in anticipation of this scheme being implemented by this Government. If these proposals had not been put forward by this Government, those schemes would not have been introduced in the States.

The fact is that a significant proportion of public servants are still employed in the Commomwealth Public Service. The cost of this proposal which will provide an increase of 414 per cent in the present widow’s pension will be $138m. Every day, the honourable member for Phillip comes in here whingeing about where cuts are to be made, where expenditure will be saved and asking what the Opposition would do. I put it to the honourable member that what the Government ought to do to be responsible is to consider making cuts in the proposals that are in the Bill.

What the BUI proposes is more than generous. These proposals are far and away better than anything honourable members Will find provided in public enterprise. Yet this Government proposes to spend $ 1 3 8m to provide through this legislation payments over and above what can be regarded as being fair, adequate and reasonable. This proposal will add to the budgetary problems that the Government has already. It will add to the taxation bill that the nation as a whole will have to meet. It will add to government expenditure. It will add to every conceivable thing . The Government must take a responsible approach to the way in which it presents legislation. By its action, the Government is dangling a carrot in front of private employees in this country. This will cause industrial unrest- that is what this legislation will lead to- because people in private industry Will say: ‘We want what they get in Canberra’. The way to cause that reaction is demonstrated in this clause where $ 138m in expenditure Will be required to meet a one-line provision in the Bill.

Mr Riordan:

– It is a capital cost.

Mr LUSHER:

– Do not talk to me about capital costs. This money will come out of Con.solidated Revenue in the next Budget for the financial year 1975-76. It Will come from taxpayers’ money; there is no dispute about that at all.

Mr Cope:

– Apart from what you have said, it is a good clause.

Mr LUSHER:

– It will be a good clause if the Opposition’s amendments are agreed to. I believe that public servants would be perfectly content with the provisions that are in the amendments that the Opposition is putting forward. Members of the Public Service are entitled to a superannuation scheme, but as has been pointed out several times in this debate- this is the crux of the Opposition’s argument- there are bad flaws in the present superannuation scheme and members of the Public Service are entitled to major improvements in that scheme. What we propose by our amendments is a scheme which would be infinitely better than the scheme which now operates. The Government is trying to go even further than what the Opposition would like to see in respect of this scheme. The Government is being irresponsible. We are not being obstructive. We are being reasonable.

As I have already pointed out, $138m will be required by the provisions of clause 83. A great deal could be done in this country if that $ 138m were allocated to other areas. An awful lot could be done with that money. The next time honourable members opposite talk in this place about where to cut expenditure and how the devil to do something about the $3,000m deficit, let them cast their minds back to the extravagances of this legislation.

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

– The Government does not accept these amendments. I would like the wives and/or widows of all Australian public servants, plus their children. to appreciate that the Opposition believes that the widows of Australian public servants should not get the amount that is offered under this scheme. I will put it to the Government that we amend this legislation as long as someone in the Opposition is prepared to move that a retiring scheme that gives fivesixths of the salary to the widow be introduced. Five-sixths is something like 83 per cent. Here we are offering 67 per cent, which near enough coincides with a lot that is being offered to widows understate superannuation schemes.

Question put:

That the amendments (Mr Garland’s) be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr J. M. Berinson)

AYES: 53

NOES: 59

Majority……. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 84 agreed to.

Clause 85.

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

– I move:

There has been a minor drafting defect which is now being corrected by this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 86.

  1. where the period of contributory service of the eligible employee was less than 8 years- to a lump sum benefit in accordance with sub-section 93 (2) and, where the eligible employee had paid supplementary contributions, an additional lump sum benefit in accordance with sub-section 93 (3).
Mr STEWART:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation · Lang · ALP

– I seek leave to move together 2 amendments to this clause.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Berinson:

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

Mr STEWART:

– I move:

These amendments are to correct minor drafting errors.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 87 to 92- by leave- taken together.

Mr CONNOLLY:
Bradfield

-There is one specific point I want to bring to the attention of the House in relation to these clauses. Although the Bill is fairly all encompassing in its attempts to improve the lot of the public servants, there is one area which is not covered. There are many public servants, specifically in departments which have overseas responsibilities, whose wives are not members of the Public Service. At the same time there is a growing percentage of wives who are members of the Public Service and who therefore have the advantage of serving overseas in missions with their spouses. The advantage they gain under this legislation is selfevident, especially if they are in a war zone or an area where they could be the unfortunate victims of physical injury. Both spouses are covered if they are members of the Public Service but, as I mentioned before, the majority of wives are still not in this situation. We even have cases now where the husbands of wives in the Public Service are also serving overseas. Likewise, they are not covered under this legislation. I realise that this is the exception and has to be taken as such, but I ask the Government to consider seriously the situation of these people. In Saigon for instance rockets were flying around the place and rockets have a terrible tendency not to tell anyone where they are going to land. If one’s home happens to be the unfortunate target and one’s wife and children are killed- fortunately this did not happen but it could happen- there is no provision at aU under the old Act, nor is there satisfactory provision in this Bill, for an adequate coverage in respect of these dependants, I suggest that the Government examine this matter and that appropriate arrangements be made to cover the second party to a marriage and other dependants who may lose their lives while overseas on government service.

Clauses agreed to.

Clause 93.

  1. Where the spouse of a deceased eligible employee (being an eligible employee whose period of contributory service was less than 8 years) is entitled to lump sum benefit by virtue of sub-section 86 (2), the lump sum benefit payable in accordance with this sub-section is an amount equal to the lump sum benefit to which the deceased eligible employee would have been entitled under sub-section 74 (2) if he had not died, but had, on the day immediately following the date of his death, become entitled to invalidity benefit and made an election under section 74.
  2. Where a spouse referred to in sub-section (1) is the spouse of a deceased eligible employee who had paid supplementary contributions, the lump sum benefit payable in accordance with this sub-section is an amount, payable out of the Fund, equal to the accumulated supplementary contributions of the deceased eligible employee.
Mr STEWART:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation · Lang · ALP

– I move:

The amendment seeks to correct another minor drafting defect.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 94 to 150- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 151.

  1. 1 ) In this Part, unless the contrary intention appearspension’ does not include partial invalidity pension; prescribed year’ means the year commencing on the commencing day, or a subsequent year.
Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

– I move:

This clause and other consequential clauses relate to the fourth of the matters which the Opposition wishes to amend in the proposed superannuation scheme for government employees. It relates to the pension updating in accordance with the cost of living. The present law provides for no increase in a member’s portion of the pension but that the Government’s portion of the pension shall be increased by 1.4 times the increase in the consumer price index, or the actual change in the average weekly earnings if that is lower.

What the Bill proposes is that the government’s portion of the pension- 50 per cent for a full period of service- be increased annually, according to the increase in the CPI, and that if a member, under the new and desirable provisions of the legislation, exchanges his accumulated contributions for a pension- it would not be more than 20 per cent of final salary- that too should be varied in accordance with the CPI. That is, the total pensions would be increased according to the CPI. The private sector practice is that automatic CPI adjustments are rare but there are schemes with CPI limits of 3 per cent or 5 per cent. I understand that they are becoming more prevalent, for obvious reasons. We are in the midst of a tremendous inflationary period. Some funds make ad hoc increases which cannot be put into categories, but many private funds have no increase provisions at all. The Pollard and Melville report, recommendation No. 5, suggested that only the Government portion of the pension be linked to the CPI. The Opposition believes that to be a more justifiable positionsome sort of a compromise. Linking the CPI increase to the Government portion only will provide some comparison with what is happening outside government service.

The honourable member earlier picked out one issue and criticised it in terms of pace-setting. Of course, pace-setting is the total of a lot of features of a scheme. In fact it is quite a complicated procedure to compare 2 superannuation schemes. They are complex within themselves; they are very hard to compare. We believe it is clear that there is pace-setting in the totality of this scheme and that just to pick out one thing and to say: ‘I know a scheme that has a percentage more’ does not really prove a case. That is perhaps most relevant in the area of automatic increases because private sector pensions really have no way with keeping up. There is no way they have of guaranteering automatic CPI increases. That can be done under this scheme only because the Government can draw on Consolidated Revenue- that great reservoir of taxes which are gathered- just to top it up. It can meet whatever the costs come out to be.

Although a number of calculations have been made as to what those costs may be- some of them are very old- they are at best an estimate. Depending on the assumptions used, the estimate can be very much astray. We have come to the conclusion that tremendous and unreasonable costs will be involved in this scheme. We are now in a situation of tremendously high inflationinflation of a height that I believe was really not envisaged by those who reported earlier. Those reports are dated 1973 and 1974, before the real impact of inflation hit us. We now have senior economists, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and other bodies predicting that there will be even greater inflation, perhaps 20 per cent, in the period ahead. Surely therefore we ought to ask ourselves on this point whether these recommendations are justified in the light of the experience we have had and the position in which we may find ourselves. So the Opposition’s aim is to try to reduce, firstly, the cost and, secondly, the widening gap between the benefits which will be received by government employees on the one hand and by those outside the government service on the other. That is the purpose of the amendment. We believe that the phenomenal inflation rate we have at the moment brings with it a new situation which calls for this action. There is no way that private schemes can keep up with the proposed scheme. Of course, indexation is terribly attractive to those who can get their incomes and their taxes indexed. It leaves everybody else right out in the cold and worse off than ever. Indeed it would make a section of the community immune from the ravages of inflation. It would inflation-proof their position, if you like, and leave them with little interest in having inflation reduced because they would not be directly affected by it.

I suppose that we will hear now what we have heard before, that is, how can we possibly be against giving something to somebody? I thought the Minister showed such relish and enthusiasm in being emotive about widows. That is terribly easy. But the response to that argument is surely this: What is magical about 67 per cent? Why not make it 167 per cent? It is a question of the level. It is not a question of sympathy and it is not a question of being more sincere because you are more emotive. Obviously, there has to be a limit on what is paid and the limit has to be set with some regard to what is going on around us in the world. We believe that such a payment is not justifiable in terms of comparison, and that it is not justifiable in terms of the costs which the taxpayers have to meet.

Mr RIORDAN:
Phillip

– I oppose the amendment. The honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland) really gave an excuse to try to justify an injustice. That is the sole benefit that the Committee receives from his speech. Just a few months ago the honourable member and all of his colleagues voted in this place very enthusiastically for a scheme to adjust the total pension by 1.4 times the consumer price index. The spokesman for the Liberal-National Country Party Opposition praised the proposition to the highest.

Mr Garland:

– What was the inflation rate then?

Mr RIORDAN:

– I would have thought that if the honourable member was talking about justice rather than adopting some sort of cheap expediency, in a time of high inflation there was an even greater need to adjust the pension than at a time of low inflation. It seems to me that the honourable member’s argument is completely illogical. What the honourable member is saying is that the retired people, and the pensioners, the people who have the least voice in the community, the least articulate group in the community, can bear the greatest burden. Presumably, those people have the least capacity to hit back. That seems to me to be a pretty shabby way of dealing with people. This legislation is alleged to be another pace setting move. Almost every State- certainly the majority of Statesadjust pensions strictly in accordance with consumer price index movements, and others base adjustments on the consumer price index. The honourable gentleman talks about these privileged people in the Australian Public Service. They will be only following what is given to employees in the various State public services and in the various State instrumentalities.

The honourable gentleman also talks about their privileged position compared with people in private enterprise. I wonder whether he would disclose to the Parliament at some appropriate time how many Australian Government public servants he knows who have motor cars provided at their employer’s expense and tax free? How many Australian Government public servants does he know who are provided with expense accounts, tax free, which are passed without any requirement for accountability? I want him to make that known to this Parliament. I do not propose to be diverted by the prejudice of the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) who obviously has some pathological hang-up about people who work for the Australian Government. I sympathise with him in regard to that. I hope that it does not get him down. I am putting to this Committee that this is a reasonable proposition. The Government’s proposal is that the election as to how he will take his pension is for the contributor to make. The contributor may make an election to take part of his pension by way of lump sum payment, in which case adjustment to cater for inflation is a matter entirely to him. The manner in which the contributor invests to guard against inflation and erosion of capital is a matter for his own care. But that part of the pension which the contributor takes as a weekly, fortnightly or annual payment is the responsibility of the Fund. We have to recognise that this Fund will continue to earn. It is not simply a matter of saying that only the Government portion is involved. In fact, the employee’s contribution is perhaps better equipped than any other to meet this amount because it will be earning and will have been earning for many years past. I hope that the Government will reject the amendment, and I hope that the Committee will reject the amendment.

Dr EDWARDS:
Berowra

– I rise to speak in the debate, stimulated in part by the remarks of the honourable member for Phillip (Mr Riordan) who referred to the earlier, 1973, Bill providing for cost of living adjustments of pensions paid under the Commonwealth Public Service scheme and the factor of 1.4 introduced in that Bill with a view, of course, to providing for the whole pension. But the Government portion, which was upgraded by the factor of 1.4, would also thereby provide for the cost of living adjustment for the remainder of the pension. I am stimulated by the honourable member’s remark, that that was received with enthusiasm. It is true to say that honourable members on this side of the chamber welcomed that as a measure in its own right. Of course, we welcomed it. But at the same time we stressed the pace setting effects of the measure. I have before me the Hansard record of 15 May 1973 which contains my remarks on that Bill. I estimated the impact of that measure on the Australian Post Office. Using some figures of Professor Pollard and other data, I estimated that the effect of the Post Office reproducing the same benefits in its own superannuation scheme would be to increase the cost of the provision for superannuation from something like 10 per cent of the Post Office annual salary bill to 30 per cent of its annual salary bill. I went on to say: 30 per cent of the salary bill is no mean impost. It could be said that something of a rod is being created for everybody’s back.

I went on to stress that it was not right that pensioners in particular should bear the effects of inflation, and that therefore there was justice in the measure, but I pointed out also that there were many other matters to be attended to in the community. I said that the Government had programs of various sorts and it had to decide things on the basis of priority. That is what we are doing tonight. We are raising the question of priorities. We have said that we agree with the change in the method of payment to 5 per cent of salary plus anything elected above that by the contributor. We agree to the option for a contributor to opt for a lump sum payment. That having been done, the scheme as it stands is a good and generous one. But in the present difficult economic situation this is not a time to enlarge substantially benefits accruing to contributors to this scheme and to further widen the gap between the Public Service and the private sector. There are many other things to do in this very area. I earlier quoted the Minister for Social Security, the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) as saying in this Parliament only last week that seven out of every ten of the 5.7 million people in the Australian work force are not yet covered by superannuation. There is a lot to be done. I repeat that this is a question of priorities.

That brings me to a point I would like to make in this respect. As I have said, the present scheme provides in intent for a government pension of 50 per cent and a contributory pension not greater than a further 20 per cent of final salary, with the whole pension updated in accordance with the consumer price index. At present that updating is being done indirectly by the 1 .4 times the consumer price index factor applied to the Government portion and it does involve the Government in some unintended extra cost because not everybody in fact has additional pension equal to 20 per cent of salary. So one can say that the ‘true’ cost of achieving the purpose of the existing scheme, plus the extra advantage of the option to take out part of the benefit as a lump sum, is put down in the Explanatory Memorandum as $6,553m for the existing contributors, less the $ 1,204m as one reduces the factor from 1 .4 to one, and then one adds on item (i) for the updating of pension purchased with accumulated contributions by those who wish to do so; and that is the $200m.

So on that basis the true cost of providing the existing scheme is $5,549m. This is the figure on a capital cost basis. What the Government proposes is to add to that for the existing pension tributors, additional benefits contained in items (a) to (h) inclusive in the Memorandum totalling $1,3 16m. I invite the Committee to observe that the cost of these additional benefits amounts to 23.7 per cent of what I said is in fact the true cost of providing the existing scheme. The Treasurer said that the existing proposals will add only 4.8 per cent. However, as I have said, the Govern.metn is involved in an amount of some unintended extra cost. But if we take the true cost of the existing scheme according to these figures, the proposed additional benefits amount to something of the order of 23.7 per cent. Mr Deputy Chairman, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a table setting out the rearrangement of figures from the Memorandum.

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

Dr EDWARDS:

– I believe that the estimate of the increase is a valid one. As my colleague, the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland) pointed out, the situation in which we find ourselves today is vastly changed from the situation when the calculations were made in relation to the increased rate of inflation and interest charges. The calculations presume a rate of interest and discount of 5 per cent and of inflation, as I recall, of 3.9 per cent. If we keep the group of assumptions together the substantial validity of the capital cost for relative purposes can, I think, be accepted. But I point out that inflation at the moment exceeds the rate of interest and that would have a startling effect on the calculations if taken into account. It would involve a vast increase in cost. Hopefully this position will not persist even under the present Government. At any rate, the Government will not be in office long enough to keep costs rising. But if this state of affairs did persist we would see the end of the capitalist system as we know it.

My point is that the additional cost of the measures proposed is exceedingly large. While in many ways I would have suggested that it might have been better for the proposers of this Bill to have settled for the sort of situation that I set out- the change in payments and the consolidation of benefits provided by the existing scheme- what has been put up involves so large an increase that in the interests of our responsibility to the nation it has been necessary for the Opposition to choose to put forward amendments to the legislation so as to reduce the benefits within a reasonable compass. The amendment before us seeks to reduce one of them.

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation (9.34 · Lang · ALP

– It grieves me greatly that again I have to announce that the Government does not accept this amendment. It grieves me greatly also that the Opposition is so inconsistent in its attitude on policies. Members of the Opposition have changed their minds on a number of occasions over this legislation. As the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Edwards) admitted, he spoke on legislation in 1973 which was designed to update to 1.4 the formula recommended by Professor Pollard. He quoted the extracts of his speech that he wanted to quote. However, I will quote something else that the honourable member said. He stated:

In this matter the Commonwealth is giving a significant and in itself admirable and praiseworthy lead.

Mr Reynolds:

– I like that. Read it again.

Mr STEWART:

– An encore:

In this matter the Commonwealth is giving a significant and in itself admirable and praiseworthy lead.

The right honourable member for Lowe (Mr McMahon), who appointed Professor Pollard, said during the course of the same debate, referring to the then Treasurer, Mr Crean:

I congratulate the honourable gentleman on the proposals which he put before the House.

The right honourable gentleman virtually took credit for the fact that the 1.4 formula had been introduced. I want to stress the fact that this 1.4 formula applies to existing pensions and that in 1954, 1963, 1967 and 1971 when there was a different government in office, increases were made in the rate of existing pensions under what was then called the notional salary increase.

The then assistant to the Treasurer, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), in introducing legislation in 1 97 1 for the notional salary increase said that a simpler method needed to be found. So I come back to the point about consistency. I come back to answer some of the accusations about looking into crystal balls and going back and updating these figures. The fault, if there is one, is as much on the Opposition’s shoulders as it is on Professor Pollard’s or ours. I stress that in this Bill the formula for new pensions which will come into operation after 1 July 1975 is much less beneficial than the present 1.4 times the consumer price index formula which the Opposition is now criticising.

Dr EDWARDS:
Berowra

– I wish to come back to the point that the proposed enlargement of this scheme is a very significant factor at a time when there are many other urgent priorities and that the effect will be pace setting to a considerable extent.

Mr Stewart:

– You said it was admirable.

Dr EDWARDS:

– The Minister interjects that in 1 973 1 said it was admirable. I will quote from the speech that I made in May 1973. I asked: What about the cost of this proposal?’ It is always important to look at the cost. This Government still does not stop very often to look at the costs and to weigh the priorities and balance matters. I referred to the one figure of $8.4m that we had at the time. Then I am reported at page 2118 of Hansard as saying:

But that cost- the $8.4m- is by no means the whole story. Indeed, it will be the beginning and not the end of the impact. This measure, like the granting of 4 weeks annual leave, will become a pacesetter in the field. In this matter the Commonwealth is giving a significant, and in itself -

The Minister for Tourism and Recreation quoted that- admirable and praisworthy, lead. In respect of the impact of this measure there will be immediately the impact on the socalled approved authorities under section 145 of the Superannuation Act which will be under pressure to provide the same sort of benefits.

I then went on to estimate the direct impact on the Post Office. It is a significant estimate because I believe the figure is still not entirely irrelevant.

Mr Stewart:

– Is this tedious repetition?

Dr EDWARDS:

-In this matter people come up with estimates from actuaries and other sources as to the impact on the private sector’s costs of attempting to match those benefits. In my speech in 1973 1 went on to such an estimate. In this respect- I repeat myself- I arrived at a rough figure of 30 per cent. I still do not think this is too far out.

Mr Howard:

– No, it is pretty accurate.

Dr EDWARDS:

– I think it is, as my colleague the honourable member for Bennelong says. At that point I was working with some of Professor Pollard’s figures which envisaged an inflation rate of- I ask honourable members to hold their breath- 3.5 per cent. In my speech I said the figure would be higher still if the rate were 5 per cent. I ask honourable members to imagine how much higher it will be with the current rate of 1 5 per cent edging up to 20 per cent. It is repetition to quote this again, but I went on to point out:

It could be said that something of a rod is being created for everybody’s back.

That is exactly what is happening. The effect to which we are drawing attention is the effect of attempts within the private sector to match the benefits of the existing scheme, let alone the additional benefits provided for in the Bill.

Mr King:

– When did the honourable member say that?

Dr EDWARDS:

-That was said on 15 May 1973.

Mr Cope:

– Will the honourable member read it again?

Dr EDWARDS:

– I shall read some other parts for the benefit of the honourable member for Sydney. I then went on to state:

Let me say that the community, conscious of its obligations to the aged, doubtless wants the very considerable net transfer, which is growing fast and will progressively grow, from current income earners to retired persons involved in this process. . . . Accordingly the Opposition supports the Bill. But I stress that the procedure of the Government in relation to this Bill is part of the comntinuing pattern of action by the Government that we have seen in this House. The Government wants to do this, that and the othereverything all at once.

Mr Kelly:

– This sounds very sensible stuff.

Dr EDWARDS:

-Yes. I hope the House appreciates the point made by my colleague, the honourable member for Wakefield. I continued:

Put before us one by one, the Opposition supports these measures -

That is what, in effect, the Minister chose to quote- the proposals for 4 weeks annual leave, higher age and repatriation pensions, additional finance for housing and so on. But does the Government realise that these things must all fit together and that it will frustrate its own purpose if it does not think this thing through?

Mr Kelly:

– Did the Government answer that?

Dr EDWARDS:

-There was not a word. Have the Government’s actions benefited at all from my rhetoric on that occasion? Unhappily they have not. The Government goes on in the same sort of way. I stressed this matter at the time when I stated:

Take the Government’s policy with respect to the ordinary age pension. If the rate of inflation accelerates further, the proposal for an increase of $1.50 each autumn and spring will not result in achieving the avowed policy objective of the Government of raising pensions to a level of 25 per cent of average earnings.

I ask honourable members to remember that there was a proposed increase of $1.50. Naturally the amount has had to be increased just to keep pensioners up with the rate of inflation generated by this Government. I went on in this vein. I do not want to bore the House, but I continued:

It is desirable, but so are many other objectives and if these are not carefully thought through, each and every one of them may be frustrated -

As they tend continually to be-

What I am trying to say is that it would be enlightening once in a while for the Government, and the Treasury in particular, to give us the picture whole- to give an account to the nation of its economic policies. I say to the Treasurer (Mr Crean) -

I venture to say this to the present Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns) -

Mr Kelly:

– And to the next one, Mr Hayden.

Dr EDWARDS:

-And to the honourable member for Oxley and to the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, who is at the table and who assists the Treasurer. I further stated:

  1. . that there is a lack of communication and a great deal of uncertainty on every side, contrary to the professed intentions of this Government to communicate and provide open government.
Mr Daly:

-Who wrote that?

Dr EDWARDS:

-Modesty really inhibits me from answering that interjection from the Leader of the House, but just to give him the good oil I point out that it was myself. I finished that speech on this note:

It is time that that lack was put right.

It would be of great advantage in this debate if again that lack were put right and if some of the more urgent, social objectives of the Government were pursued. We have before us the proposals to enlarge the existing scheme. It is the order of the enlargement to which the Opposition basically objects.

Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

-I want to take up one or two points mentioned by the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart) and by the honourable member for Phillip (Mr Riordan). The honourable member for Phillip seemed to me to be trying to say that because certain persons in the private sector were getting advantages this scheme ought to exceed that in order to compensate in some way. I think if the honourable member reads what he said -

Mr Riordan:

– It was a matter of discrimination.

Mr GARLAND:

– I shall answer that interjection so that it will be on the record. I think the honourable member talked about discrimination in the latter part of his remarks. Tomorrow when he reads in Hansard what he said he will find there was a pretty strong implication that he was trying to see this as some sort of compensation. He talked about people getting the advantage of cars. Incidentally, he said ‘tax free’ or ‘they do not pay tax’ or something like that. I think he ought to refer those cases to the Commissioner of Taxation who has a way of dealing with people who get company cars and use them privately. I think he mentioned other advantages.

Mr Young:

– Expense allowances.

Mr GARLAND:

– Was that it? Anyway, does the honourable member see what I am getting at? I think the honourable member for Port Adelaide follows my argument. The honourable member is saying that people are getting that sort of advantage, so they cannot complain if there is something on the other side. As I have pointed out, the Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns) has come down four square, openly and honestly and has indicated that that is what was in his mind. The Minister for Tourism and Recreation gave us some historical information about the topping up system. He quoted some remarks made by the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) who was then the Minister Assisting the Treasurer. The honourable member made the comment- that was then Government policy or he would not have said that- that the matter needed to be simplified. I think that was the word he used. We are not suggeting a complicated system here. As a matter of fact, what we are attempting to amend will have the same practical application if it is not carried to many people. They will be the ones who seek to take part of their pension as a lump sum. That portion of the pension they take as a lump sum, of course, will not be indexed. It will be paid to them and that will be the end of it. To those people, there will not be a linking to an index of that part of the pension which is the result of their contributions; it will only be on the Government portion. That is what we are asking for. Do not tell me that is not a simple system. Anyone can relate the consumer price index to the Government portion of the pension as readily as they can do it to the whole pension. Simplicity is not the problem.

The Minister tried to say that the last system was a bad one or it was not a simple system. If there is any fault, it is on both sides. Honourable members accept that if they will. The fact of the matter is that the Bills before us propose a new scheme for consideration. If anybody is seeking the best system, this is the time to look for it. It is no use saying that the system before last did not work as well as it should have. One could agree or disagree with that view. As a matter of fact, it was a similar system to that which the private funds have to use. The private funds have no alternative because they do not have a bottomless pit such as Consolidated Revenue from which to top up their schemes.

The amendment I have moved is in accord with the Pollard-Melville recommendation. It will apply, in any case, to those who take all their contribution in a lump sum. It is a fairer system. It is not illogical. It is not particularly harsh because it breaks down, to a small extent, the tremendous advantage public servants have over those outside the government service by having their pensions linked to the consumer price index.

Question put:

That the amendment (Mr Garland’s) be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr G. O’H. Giles)

AYES: 53

NOES: 60

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 152 to 194- by leave- taken together and agreed to.

Clause 195.

Where, by force of sub-section 69 (3) of the Superannuation Act Amendment Act 1975, a life policy that was assigned by a person to the Superannuation Board under section 119ZC of the superseded Act is transferred to the Commissioner, section 149 of this Act applies, with such modifications as are determined by the Commissioner, to and in relation to that person and that policy as if the policy had been assigned to the Commissioner by the person under that section.

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

– I move:

Omit “sub-section 69 (3)”,insert”sub-section68 (2)”.

This amendment seeks to correct another drafting defect.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

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

Bill reported with amendments; report- by leave- adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2978

SUPERANNUATION ACT AMENDMENT BILL 1975

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 15 May on motion by Dr J. F. Cairns:

That the Bil be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message received from the Administrator recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Motion (by Mr Stewart) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

-The Opposition does not pursue its amendments, which are consequential amendments. In view of the decision of the House on the principal Bill, it is not our desire to pursue any of the other amendments in our name.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2978

DEFENCE FORCE RETIREMENT AND DEATH BENEFITS BILL 1975

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 15 May on motion by Dr J. F. Cairns:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2978

CHILDREN’S COMMISSION BILL 1975

Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.

page 2978

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP

- Mr Speaker, I seek leave of the House to make a one minute statement on the sittings of the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr DALY:

– I wish to advise the House that it is proposed that the House should meet again next Monday at 10 a.m. I will be moving a motion to that effect tomorrow but formally advise honourable members now in order that they can make their arrangements.

Mr Garland:

-Not this Friday?

Mr DALY:

– No.

page 2978

NATIONAL CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 14 May 1975 on motion byMrUren:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

-The Opposition will vote for this Bill. We understand the reasons the Government has for bringing it forward. From time to time legal doubts can arise and in this case the issue is whether there is any conflict of interest. There is doubt as to whether the terms of section 8, sub-section (2), paragraph

  1. of the National Capital Development Commission Act do or do not permit the Commissioner or Associate Commissioner to engage in paid employment outside the duties of his office. We recognise that there is a doubt. There is nothing certain about a conflict of interest. As the Chairman of the Darwin Reconstruction Commission, we naturally wish Mr A. J. W. Powell well in his work. We think that the principle that has been established here- that there is no conflict of interest in this type of case- is correct. One might even be bold enough to say that it ought to be the principle embodied in our own Constitution; but that is not for present discussion. Certainly I see nothing wrong in allowing this situation to exist. I have consulted a number of people and they see nothing wrong in it either. As stated in the Minister’s second reading speech, the Bill contains a number of formal amendments related to audit, remuneration and allowances. We see nothing wrong with those amendments and we accept the Bill.
Mr HUNT:
Gwydir

– I want briefly to give my support to the legislation and, in so doing, to extend my compliments to this very skilled Commission which was set up in 1957 by Sir Robert Menzies to plan, develop and construct the city of Canberra as the national capital. The record of the National Capital Development Commission has been almost without equal in the world. It is a body of very highly skilled and dedicated men and women. I believe that the amendment to the legislation is timely. I think that the services of the NCDC could well be offered to States in which there is a need for expertise in the area of town planning. It has been suggested in some quarters that perhaps the services of the Commission could be used overseas. I think that before we make such a generous offer it would be wise indeed to ensure that the services are not made available overseas when there is a great shortage of town planners and of people with expertise in this field in Australia.

In paying my compliment to the NCDC and to its personnel I in no way take away from the efforts of town planners and other organisations that exist in the States. But the NCDC is a very skilled body and I am sure that Mr Powell will play a very important part in the reconstruction and development of Darwin. I know that he will have behind him the resources of a very skilled organisation and I wish him and the NCDC well in this new venture.

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 Uren) read a third time.

page 2979

HOUSING LOANS INSURANCE BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 15 May on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr McLEAY:
Boothby

-The purpose of the Housing Loans Insurance Bill is for the Government to absorb the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation into the Australian Government Insurance Corporation. In his second reading speech the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Les Johnson) stated that the affairs of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation will be administered by the AGIC. But there is no doubt in our minds that the intention of the Government is to absorb totally the HLIC into the AGIC. For this reason we are certainly not pleased with the Bill. What I am concerned about at this early stage in the debate is the fact that it seems unlikely that a number of members of the Opposition will be able to take part in the debate. The following honourable members are listed to speak in the debate: The honourable members for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh), Bradfield (Mr Connolly), Parramatta (Mr Ruddock), Stirling (Mr Viner), Deakin (Mr Jarman), Petrie (Mr Hodges) and Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron). They all wish to take part in this debate on housing. On the last 2 occasions this opportunity was denied them by way of the gag. We rather suspect that this could happen again tonight, so I place on record once again my protest at our treatment by the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) when we want to debate Bills on housing.

Getting back to the Bill, we take the view that the Government is acquiring the assets of the HLIC on the cheap. There are significant assets amounting to something like $ 15.5m. We think this is a rather sneaky way of acquiring those assets for the proposed Corporation. We feel unhappy about that. We are also concerned that the board members of the HLIC will be phased out, I suppose would be the expression. We believe that the HLIC has been a highly successful Corporation, and the success of the Corporation must be due to the people who run it, the board members. So we express some concern about this. We note that the board members at some stage will be given jobs in some other government corporation, but we make the point that with a staff of 37 the HLIC has been one of the most successful government corporations that has ever been set up.

We also make the point that it was set up by the Liberal-Country Party Government in November 1964. The Minister for Housing at the time was the honourable Les Bury. He made the point that the purpose of the HLIC was to underwrite loans for persons who require mortgages and in that way to assist the lending institutions, such as building societies and banks and other institutions, and to give them some confidence in making advances to people on low incomes. I think the activities of the HLIC have endorsed the confidence of the then Government. To that extent, I refer to the 1973-74 report of the HLIC which indicates that borrowers of HLIC insured loans were generally those of average means with just on one-half having incomes of less than $125 a week and two-thirds having incomes of less than $150 a week. So the aim of the then Government- a Liberal-Country Party Governmentto make this facility available for low to middle income earners has, I think, been achieved. It is a credit to the board and to the Government of the time. It was also one of the aims of the Corporation, as explained by the then Minister, to eliminate the need for second mortgages. I think we can say that has been another successful element of the HLIC right up until the last two or three years. Since Labor has been in government however, we have seen inflation galloping from 4 per cent to 22 Vi per cent in the building industry. I was interested to note, I think some time in March, that a regulation was gazetted which now gives the HLIC power to underwrite second mortgages. This would certainly be something we would do in government.

The then Minister made the point that the intention of the Corporation was to help bridge the deposit gap. I think that over the years we were in government, until two or three years ago, we were successful. But no longer can young people buy a home and successfully bridge the deposit gap. We are concerned that with inflation in the building industry running in excess of 22 Vi per cent, the Government should take steps to abolish the homes savings grant. There is now no legislation which makes it possible for young people, or in fact any person without a home, saving to buy a home, to attract some government subsidy to assist in bridging the deposit gap. We deplore the Government’s action in abolishing the homes savings grant and we place on record once again our intention when we get back into government, which will be within the next 2 years, to reintroduce that grant and to take at least that step towards bridging the deposit gap, which was one of the intentions of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. Another of the things we will do in government will be to lift the statutory limit for eligibility for the homes savings grant, which at the moment is only $22,500. That limit applied in 1972 when Labor took office. It is quite unreal and was unreal when it was decided to phase out the grant. A house in Sydney which was worth $22,500 in 1972 is worth $39,000 today. I do not think that reflects very great credit on the Labor Government.

We shall eliminate some of the unsatisfactory features of the scheme such as the residential qualification which requires a person to have lived in Australia for 3 years. We believe that requirement is unreal. We shall phase off the statutory limit so that persons will acquire some grant even though their houses may be worth more than the statutory limit. We shall abolish such things as the 36 years age limit.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– That is a good one.

Mr McLEAY:

-The Special Minister of State says he endorses that. I cannot understand why he abolished the grant. We shall also eliminate the restriction on single persons because we believe there is strong discrimination against women and men who are unmarried. We will expand the activities of the HLIC. We will not destroy it. We believe that by absorbing the HLIC into the Australian Government Insurance Corporation the Government in fact will destroy it. It will disappear as a viable separate entity.

Another of the things we would like to do in government would be to expand the HLIC activities in respect of low income earners. At the moment a person with a high income is eligible for a higher mortgage than is a person on a low income. This seems to be contrary to the spirit of the intention of the original Housing Loans Insurance Corporation Act. We will do something about reversing that procedure. We cannot understand why- perhaps there is a reason for it and we will look at it in government- in special circumstances it is not possible to insure 100 per ent of a mortgage.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– There is some deposit.

Mr McLEAY:

– In South Australia the Housing Trust- I believe there are similar provisions in some other States- sells homes to some families on low incomes for what was £50 deposit. It was known as the Playford scheme. That exists today. I have been told by the Manager of the

South Australia Housing Trust that he does not think they have had a single default. People will tend to give up just about everything before they will give up their home. These are the things that we would look to see happen in relation to the HLIC.

In government we would also look at the possibilities of having a secondary mortgage market. This was mentioned by Mr Bury in his second reading speech back in 1 964. There has not been a great deal done on this, but this is the sort of thing we believe will assist people to obtain homes because it will assist the building societies in remaining liquid. The question of the deposit gap does concern us. At the moment the cost of a modest home in Australia is increasing at 22Vi per cent a year. This situation has been consistent for months and months. In the case of a home costing, say, $25,000, the cost is increasing by over $ 100 a week. There was a report in a South Australian newspaper only two or three days ago that the cost of a modest home in South Australia is increasing at $ 1 50 a week. Similarly, there has been a report that in Victoria the cost of an average modest home is increasing by $160 a week, and in some cases, depending on the suburb, by $180 a week. So it is obvious that it is not possible for people to save at this rate and be able to bridge the deposit gap.

The Minister for Housing and Construction said at some stage- I think it was two or three years ago, probably in October 1973- that the Labor Government would build one million homes in the next 5 years. We believe that this is absolutely impossible at the moment. I say ‘at the moment’ because only yesterday building approval figures were released which indicated that the building approvals for this calendar year are averaging about 10 000 a month. If we relate that figure to commencements, which is what one shold do when considering the number of houses that will be built in the country, and take the base year of 1973 for Australia’s requirements, in 1973 we find that 176 000 homes were commenced. Last year only 138 000 homes were commenced, which means that last year we were short by 38 000 homes. At the present rate of approvals and bringing that down to what we believe would be commencements, we will finish this year with about 108 000 homes, which is 68 000 short of what would be reasonable requirements.

This means that by the end of this year Australia will probably be short by over 100 000 home dwelling units of one form or another. At the same rate of building, by the end of next year we will be one full year’s supply behind. I think this is a really deplorable record on Labor’s part since it has been in office. I do not think it is any good blaming the Minister for Housing and Construction or singling him out for criticism. The whole of the Labor Government- the ministry, the members and the Caucus- are equally responsible. It is not just a single Minister involved, it is the Labor Party’s policies which are ruining the economy. It is the Labor Party’s policies which are ruining the building industry.

I think that the Minister for Housing and Construction was out of touch about a fortnight ago- on 6 May to be precise- when he commented on last month’s approval figures. The Minister said that the second half of the year should see a return to a buoyant level of activity in the housing industry’. I say that the Minister for Housing and Construction is superbly positioned to put out Press releases of bad news dressed up as good news. I have never known anybody so good at it. The building industry is not buoyant; the building industry is at the point of destruction. This is very bad news not only for the building industry, for those who are employed in the building industry and the supporting industries which represent 20 per cent of the work force, but also for all those who are the consumers in the area of building. Those are the people who are seeking accommodation.

One of the important duties of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation and one of its most outstanding successes has been the way it has helped into a home people who did not have a home. On behalf of the Opposition I compliment the Government for the way the Board has operated the HLIC. For two or three years, ever since the Labor Government has been in office, the Minister for Housing and Construction and in particular the Minister who represents him in the Senate- the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh)- have continued to talk about the 93 000 people who are waiting for accommodation in Australia. They say that there are 93 000 people who are listed on Housing Commission or Housing Trust waiting lists. So today I canvassed the Housing Commissions around Australia to find out just what the position was at the end of March, because the March figures are the most recent figures I could get. The position at the end of March was that almost 107 000 people were waiting for accommodation on the various Housing Commission and Housing Trust waiting lists around Australia.

It is interesting to note that the second highest figure is recorded for South Australia which of course has a socialist Labor Government, of the same type as this Federal Government. Here is a situation where the Government could introduce all its socialist policies in the federal sphere and have them supported in the State sphere and there has been total non-success as far as housing is concerned. There are almost 27 000 people in South Australia on the waiting list for Housing Trust accommodation. Of course this is even more serious than it first appears because the needs test applied by this Labor Government to the Housing Trusts and Housing Commissions eliminates many people who deserve to be on the waiting list. Because of the needs test. There must be thousands and thousands of people who are really in need of accommodation and who are not counted as statistics.

I believe that the situation in Western Australia is serious. My colleague the honourable member for Stirling has told me that in addition to the 15 500 people waiting for accommodation in Western Australia, there are thousands of unknown people who are pensioners because the figures in Western Australia do not include pensioners. The principal criticisms which we have are that we believe that the HLIC should remain as it is and be an independent corporation. It functions efficiently and we do not believe that it will function any better when it is absorbed by the Australian Government Insurance Corporation. We feel strongly about the establishment of the AGIC. The Bill to set it up was drafted without any consultation with the insurance industry. It will add to public spending; it will add to inflation; it will add to the long list of people waiting for accommodation. There are no new benefits in having a Government Insurance Corporation. In South Australia last year- I believe it is the same in one or two other States- the Government Corporation lost $4m. So we have ridiculous competition. We have a State Government Insurance Corporation, a Commonwealth Government Insurance Corporation and then a private industry. Every time a government instrumentality is set up funds are taken away from the private sector. I would like to quote what the New South Wales President of the Terminating Building Societies had to say about the housing situation in Australia and what is happening to housing funds. As honourable members will know, terminating building societies- a group of entirely responsible building societies- have been handling funds for low income housing in some places for 100 years. I believe that at the moment 46 per cent of the Commonwealth-State housing funds are distributed through the terminating building societies.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You are getting a long way from the Bill.

Mr McLEAY:

– The point is relevant because we are talking about the AGIC and how we believe that it is undesirable that the HLIC should be absorbed into the AGIC. I shall quote what the New South Wales President of the Terminating Building Societies had to say in his annual report. He said:

The economic situation, particularly high interest rates, has been a major factor in the reduced funds made available from traditional institutional lenders. We are therefore more dependent than ever on funds from the CommonwealthState Housing Agreement.

If one examines that report it will be found that the insurance companies, the superannuation funds and the banking institutions are making less and less money available to the terminating building societies. One of the reasons is that the Government is placing that sort of pressure upon the private sector. We believe that this sort of legislation should not be passed until the Senate inquiry on supernnuation and national compensation is presented to the Parliament. We do not believe that there is any need for legislation of this sort. There are 45 life insurance companies in Australia.

Debate interrupted.

page 2982

ADJOURNMENT

Australian Government Insurance Corporation-Medibank- Wool Industry

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! It being half past ten o’clock, in accordance with the order of the House of 1 1 July 1 974, 1 propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr VINER:
Stirling

-On this adjournment debate I wish to refer to 2 petitions which I have received from many public spirited people of Perth, a great number of whom are within my own electorate. These petitions concern 2 matters which have been before this House, and are matters of considerable discussion, as a result of programs instituted by the present Labor Government. Those 2 matters are the Australian Government Insurance Corporation and Medibank.

It may well be that members of the Government are being persuaded by their own propaganda that these measures are acceptable to the Australian people. But let me demonstrate by the petitions that I have here in front of me, and by those many other petitions which have been presented to this House and to the Senate, that the people do not accept these 2 programs introduced by the Labor Government. The first petition that I have comes as a protest from the people, by the people, against this Government in relation to the Austalian Government Insurance Corporation. This protest was spontaneous. It was not engineered, nor was it coerced by anybody. It was a spontaneous protest by the people of Australia, right across Australia. Some enterprising people from the electorate of Stirling presented this petition to me. With the help of the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr Ruddock) I will show the House what I mean by that statement. The petition is 9 feet long, as I now demonstrate, and contains some 300 signatures from people who wish to protest against the Australian Government Insurance Corporation. Thus these people demonstrably have registered their protest.

Let me quote some of the things that are said in this petition. For instance, the petition says:

We are of the opinion that this is an invasion of the insurance industry and would amount to unfair competition.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

-I rise to take a point of order. Provision is made in the Standing Orders for the presentation of petitions. Petitions are not to be used as some display of paper on an adjournment debate. My second point is this: Is not the Australian Government Insurance Corporation Bill still subject to debate before the Parliament? If it is, would it not be more appropriate for the honourable member to reserve his remarks on that legislation for another time?

Mr SPEAKER:

– -Firstly. there is a procedure for the presentation of petitions. I do not think the honourable member said they were petitions to this House. They certainly have not been presented to the House, as I understand it.

Mr McLeay:

– I think he was only making a passing reference.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– Yes, a passing reference that is 9 feet long.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Honourable gentlemen will wait until I have said what I have to say. I will wait until honourable gentlemen are prepared to listen. I turn to the relevance of the second point taken by the Special Minister of State. The matter has been before the House and it has been debated by this House, but to my knowledge it will not be debated here again. If the honourable gentleman refers to the debate which has taken place in this House, he will be out of order. I trunk that, at the moment, he is in order but only marginally so.

Mr VINER:

-Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do not intend to transgress your ruling. I do intend to present this petition to the House in the normal way, but I thought that the enterprise of these people of Perth should be shown to the House so that their protest may be dramatically known to the House. Let me say finally that what these petitioners object to, among other things, is expressed as follows:

We think that the Government should stick to the role of umpire in these fields and not attempt to take part in the game.

That is a very pertinent observation. It is one which the present Labor Government could well take account of. Instead of endeavouring to find an alternative to nationalisation through the means of public enterprise, let the Government set the rules of the game for private enterprise to take part. The Government can then watch over the game, see that it is fairly played, and see that it is played to the benefit of the people of Australia. If private enterprise is given the chance, that is what it will do.

Let me pass on to the other petition which I have here tonight and which in due course I shall be presenting to the Parliament. I have this bundle of petitions 2Vi to 3Vi inches thick registering a protest against Medibank and containing some 5 341 signatures. Those signatures were collected by 5 people. The petition resulted from a protest meeting at Mount Lawley within my electorate on 28 April 1975 which was attended by some 500 public spirited people who wanted to show to this Government their objection to Medibank. These people were not persuaded by the mass of propaganda by which Government members have been persuaded that Medibank is good for the Australian people. This petition for which these 5 people collected 5 000 signatures in barely two weeks to three weeks has been given to me to present to this Parliament. Let me read what the petitioners say:

The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That Medibank should not be forced upon an unwilling Australian people.

That taxpayers’ money should not be used to mount an unprecedented propaganda campaign to sell Medibank to the people.

That any system of comprehensive health care in Australia should not be based upon salaried general practitioner or specialist services or allocated hospital staff as proposed by Medibank but upon the principle of freedom of choice of doctor at the surgery and in the hospital.

The private hospitals should be supported and maintained as a viable, independent and necessary part of national hospital service.

The third paragraph that I have read out is probably the most important of all. It is one aspect which the Medibank propaganda glosses over. It is one point which is not spelt out to the people of

Australia by this Government. By the introduction of Medibank, the Government does intend to introduce a system of health care in Australia which is based upon salaried general practitioner and specialist services. I emphasise those words.

The Labor Government’s Medibank health scheme is to be based upon allocated hospital staff. We have recently had admissions by the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) that this is to be the case. It must be the case with regard to the provision of public standard beds. What members of the Liberal Party and the National Country Party believe is that health care in Australia should be firmly based upon the principle of freedom of choice of doctor, at the surgery and in the hospital -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman is now starting to debate questions which have been before this House.

Mr VINER:

– But, Mr Speaker, there is no legislation, as I understand it, relating to - Medibank now before the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The limitation on debate is applicable to debates which have taken place in the House in the current session.

Mr VINER:

– Then, let me simply put my argument on this basis: The effort of these 5 people, who were able to find people at shopping centres and street corners ready to condemn the Medibank scheme by placing their signature upon these plainly worded petitions, has made abundantly clear that the Government’s spending of $500,000 of taxpayers’ funds trying to sell Medibank to the people has not been successful. One wonders how long this Government will continue to persuade itself by its own propaganda that its proposals are for the benefit of the people of Australia. It certainly has not woken up to that fact yet, and no doubt it will not wake up to that fact until the next election. I am quite sure that at that time the people will firmly, clearly and unequivocally then tell the Government that what it is doing with taxpayers ‘ money by way of Medibank and the Australian Government Insurance Corporation is not what the people of Australia want. They do not want this kind of socialism intruded into their lives. But if the Government introduces, for example, a Medibank scheme based on freedom of choice of doctor at the surgery and in the hospital, then it might be able to obtain the support of the people of Australia. That is the kind of policy which the Opposition Parties have presented to the people already and will be presenting to the people at the next election, and it is that kind of policy based upon principle which will be acceptable to the people.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr COPE:
Sydney

-Listening to the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Viner), it was interesting to hear that the Opposition is still keeping the old bogey about nationalisation going after so many years. Being a lawyer, the honourable gentleman should know that the Australian Government does not have the power to nationalise a lolly shop. It was proved that section 92 of the Constitution prevents it when attempts were made by Chifley to nationalise the banks. Strange to relate, State government insurance offices which were initiated by Labor governments and maintained by anti-Labor governments, have proved to be quite successful. Every State has the power to nationalise any business conducted within its borders if it wants to do so. The honourable member for Stirling knows that he is basing his argument on a false premise when he talks about nationalisation. He knows that the Australian Government cannot nationalise anything unless a change is made to the Constitution.

Mr Viner:

– I will debate that with you some time.

Mr COPE:

-We cannot do it. Section 92 stopped the nationalisation of the banks. Surely the honourable member should know a little about history. Section 92 provides that trade between the States must be free. It is remarkable that the Bjelke-Petersen Government has never tried to abolish the Queensland State Government Insurance Office. The Liberal and Country Parties have been in office in New South Wales for 10 years, but they have not tried to abolish the New South Wales Government Insurance Office.

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

– What about the State brick works? They wiped it out.

Mr COPE:

– I am talking about one particular industry at the present time. The State governments have kept the State insurance offices going because they have proved a great success. They provide healthy competition for the private insurance company. That is why they have been maintained by Liberal-Country Party governments. The honourable member for Stirling has reintroduced the old bogey of nationalisation, but he does not know what he is talking about. If he is a lawyer, he should know that section 92 prevents nationalisation of industry by the Australian Government. Unless there was a change in the Constitution by way of a referendum we could not nationalise a lolly shop. I repeat that the New South Wales Government, when it introduced the Government Insurance Office, if it so desired could have nationalised everything in New South Wales, if it did not cross the border. The States have the power to nationalise. The Australian Government does not have the power to nationalise.

Mr KING:
Wimmera

-I am sure that a lot of people throughout Australia would agree with the comment of the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Cope) that the Australian Government does not have the power or ability to control a lolly shop. During the last 5 days there has been a great deal of comment about the wool industry. Mr Speaker, I want to put you at ease right from the beginning. I am not going to speak about the wool Bills that are before the House at the present time. They deal with a special wool tax, and I have no intention of discussing that subject. Tonight I want to raise the question of costs and returns to the wool industry. It has been said that as a result of a decision by the Labor Caucus this week the wool industry had a victory. I do not know whether I would go all the way with that view. I think I could say that the industry has had a partial victory insofar as it has prevented the Government from reducing the floor price of wool below what it has been in recent times. I think I can sum the situation up by saying that the Government has moved the industry from a calamitous position to a disastrous position, or a doubtful position if you do not like the word ‘disastrous’. It has pushed the problems of the industry into the ‘too hard’ basket. To my mind and to the minds of a lot of growers throughout Australia 250c a kilogram for clean 21 micron wool is not a payable proposition. People say that when the Opposition was in government it was guaranteeing 30c-odd per pound.

Mr Fisher:

– The figure was 36c

Mr KING:

– I am reminded by the honourable member for Mallee that it was 36c. Of course what people do not realise is that a lot of things have happened since then. Firstly, inflation has taken over, and the money received now from the sale of a pound of wool will not buy as much as it would have in those times. The 250c to which everyone is referring is for a kilogram, not a pound of wool. That is the guaranteed price for clean wool, not greasy wool. For the benefit of those people who do not understand wool, 21 micron is not a fair average; 2 1 micron wool is well above average quality.

Last weekend a number of graziers spoke to me about the possibility of a reduction in the floor price. I took particular notice of one very efficient grazier who made a very thorough check of his costing because he was approaching the end of the financial year. He had checked his figures with his accountant, so what he had to say was pretty factual. He indicated to me that he was running 18 000 sheep, selling 600 vealer cattle a year and cropping about 1500 acres of wheat, oats and barley. If his non-sheep activities were converted to sheep equivalent he would be running approximately 30 300 sheep. Running 1 8 000 sheep would return him $8 1 ,000 for wool or $4.50 per head. It must be remembered that the average price of wool is 250c a kilogram. Added to the $81,000 were the proceeds from the sales of surplus sheep at an equivalent of $2.50 a head over the lot, not over the sales.

On the costs side he explained to me and convinced me that it was costing him $2 per sheep for superphosphate alone. We all know what has happened to the price of superphosphate since we have had a change of Government. Shearing costs per head were $1.20, and labour, rates, repairs, etc. $1.50 per head, bringing the total to $4.50. These figures balanced with the sale of his wool, but we must remember that there were 2 other items. The first was the sale of surplus stock at $2.50 a head, which I mentioned, but the important thing is the interest on the investment. No business man is prepared just to put money into an investment and not get some sort of return. According to the latest sheep survey carried out by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics for the year 1972-73 the unimproved value of land, excluding fences, buildings, water and all these sorts of things, on average throughout Australia works out at $20.26 per sheep. In the high rainfall area it was up to $30.47 per sheep. A further survey was carried out on improvements and this worked out to almost $9 per sheep. In my mind the capital value of stock would be about $6 to $8, bringing the total capital cost per sheep, according to the carrying capacity, to $47 in the high rainfall area, or $37 on the average. It would be below that again in the lower rainfall areas. A farmer must take into consideration interest on his money. It does not matter a hoot whether he is borrowing money or whether he has paid for the property.

Mr McVEIGH:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– It is exactly the same thing.

Mr KING:

-It is exactly the same thing. The only difference is that if a person has to borrow money he might have to pay a higher rate of interest than he would on an investment. To be fair, let us take as a basis 10 per cent. In the high rainfall areas 10 per cent works out at $4.70 per sheep according to the carrying capacity per acre. If that is added to the other amounts I have just mentioned, it proves very easily that the total revenue received would be about $8.20 while total costs, including interest, would be $9.20. So there is a deficiency in that area. The amount of $2.50 will not make up the difference in the deficiency. In other words, the price of wool must be increased by about 10 per cent if one wants to come out square.

The honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Whan) and the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Kerin) said 12 months ago that $2.50 was a satisfactory price. What has happened since that time? Surely if they know the industry at all they will recognise from the figures I have just given that it is impossible to grow wool at $2.50. Yet we find people like the honourable member for Eden-Monaro rushing around, and getting on the radio program ‘AM’ and on television and saying: ‘I have had a wonderful victory for the wool industry’. He has not had a victory for the wool industry. Anyone who believes that he has had a victory does not understand the situation. The same thing applies to wool growers who think that they are making a go of it today. They do not seem to realise that they are not making a go of it but rather they are biting into their capital. Instead of receiving a reasonable return for such capital ‘ they are finding that it is gradually being whittled away.

A couple of weeks ago I raised the question of farm costs within a municipality in my electorate. Unfortunately on that occasion I did not have sufficient time to relate the details. It seemed to be a rather good article when the newspaper wrote it up. I am not criticising the newspaper because it was quoting factual figures. The article said that there was a profit of $3,346 per average farm within that municipality. Of course, it did not take interest into consideration. If one includes interest costs for the farm properties within that municipality, based on about $100,000 worth of capital- that is a very small farm in the Wimmera area, and it would probably be closer to $200,000- one has to add to the costs another $10,000, or $20,000 if it is a property worth over $200,000. That shows how much profit there is in the wool industry today and how much profit there is in primary industry today. This is one of the reasons members of the Liberal and National Country Parties are everlastingly trying to remind the Government of the problems facing the industry.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KingsfordSmithSpecial Minister of State · ALP

– I would like to reply to some of the matters raised in the adjournment debate this evening. Firstly, the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Viner) spoke about Medibank and said that it was deemed to be a nationalisation of the medical profession. He was answered effectively by the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Cope) who said that there was no such proposition. Surely the honourable member for Stirling realises that his own Party supported the Medibank legislation in the end. If he was so worried about the situation why did he allow the legislation to be passed? The real issue of Medibank is that insurance for health was virtually not on the basis of guaranteeing health but of guaranteeing the payment of doctors’ fees. It also meant that the insurance companies concerned were making substantial profits. In fact, the directors of some of the funds have made more world trips than a number of members of Parliament have made. One fund bought an aeroplane just for the exercise of flying within New South Wales. The surpluses were never returned to the purposes for which they were intended but became the subject of real estate investment.

Is it any wonder, when the people of Australia began to look at this situation, that they felt there ought to be a better scheme? One million people were not even availing themselves of insurance, yet they were entitled to health. Pensioners were regarded as second grade or third grade citizens because if you were a pensioner you were not going to get the best medical treatment. Let no one tell me that any reasonable Australian would regard that as being an effective health scheme. The Government was happy that the Opposition agreed with us in the finish that Medibank was a reasonable proposition.

Let me turn now to government insurance. We heard the farmers’ friend talking this evening about disasters in the rural area. The Government’s national disaster insurance fixed up that problem for the man on the land if he has bushfires or floods. That has never been done under any insurance cover before. The honourable member for McMillan (Mr Hewson) used to practise in that profession. I suppose he is a bit disappointed to see some competition coming into it. Nevertheless, the facts are that the Government can offer cover in the national interest where there is a national disaster, even in specific areas. Legislation dealing with Darwin and other matters will give benefits to people which no insurance companies can offer. The Government has put forward an effective, reasonable proposition to give Australians proper cover in these areas.

The honourable member for Wimmera (Mr King) spoke about the wool industry and the great problems of that industry. He did not want to give any credit to the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Whan) who made a great contribution towards assisting the market in wool. Honourable members should bear in mind that taxpayers’ money to the extent of $333m has already been utilised in wool acquisition. We now have 1.8 million bales. Do not run away from the fact; that is the amount of the appropriation. That was never done when honourable members opposite were in government. Is it not one of the basic problems of the wool industry -

Mr King:

– It is not your money.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

– The point is that it is appropriated from the taxpayers.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Wimmera has made his speech.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I seem to have touched the honourable member on a sore spot.

Mr King:

– It is a sore spot.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I warn the honourable member for Wimmera.

Mr King:

– He ought to stick to the facts.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I warn the honourable member for Wimmera. If he answers me back once more, which is his regular habit in this House, I will deal with him.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do not want to have him suspended but the point is that the honourable member is a principal exponent of the private enterprise system, and the wool grower is always in jeopardy when he is relying on the auction system. He has no set market; he is in the hands of the middle man as to who is going to bid for his wool, and he is in the hands of all those people who regard themselves as helping the grazier but who, in the main, are more interested in making a profit than in selling his wool. That applies to Elder Smith Goldsborough Mort Ltd and the whole lot of them. Is it not time that the wool industry had a look at what it could do for itself? Is it not a tragedy to think that in Orange, for example, the only way to get a secondary industry to process wool is to invite the Japanese there? What did the National Country Party do to assist secondary industry to process its own wool? One can go all the way to Japan to see Australian wool being processed there and sold to Russia. The National Country Party has done nothing about that industry. It is frightened to have a secondary industry in any country town because it thinks that the workers might vote Labor. What is the National Country Party’s attitude on trade? Why does it always leave the wool industry in the position of being subject to bids by entrepreneurs?

In West Germany the complaint is made against the National Country Party that a fixed price is put on the wool. The complaint is not made on the basis that the West Germans think that we should be assisting the grower. But the fact is that the growers profits are being hurt. The Opposition, if it is to be an effective government and if it is to assist primary industry in this country, must look at what it can do for the industry in world trade and not leave it to the wolves of the world which work in a cartel or a pie and do not bid. The Opposition cannot go on the way it is going by saying: ‘We will help you. We will get some money out of the tax pool’. There is 1.8 million bales accumulated now, and that is the problem.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! It being 1 1 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 2988

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Overseas Loan

Department of Services and Property: Publications (Question No. 2013)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Services and Property, upon notice:

When will he answer my Question No. 1580 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 13 November 1974.

Mr Daly:
ALP

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

I refer the right honourable member to the answer supplied to Question No. 1580 which appeared in Hansard 6 March 1975, page 1240.

The Economy (Question No. 2252)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763), has his attention been drawn to the book of Mr. J. J. Spigelman entitled ‘Secrecy- Political Censorship in Australia’ and, in particular, ‘An Inside Dopester ‘s Index of 100 Examples of Secrecy ‘, on pages 1 77 to 1 80.
  2. Has his attention also been drawn to indexed item 2- Interdepartmental committee report on the state of the economy.
  3. In respect of that item, has it been made publicly available since 1972; if so, when, and in what manner, and by whom was the disclosure made.
  4. If the item has not been made publicly available, what is the reason for the continuing secrecy.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. No.
  4. I refer the honourable member to part (3) of the answer given by the Prime Minister to question No. 2243 on 13 May 1975 (Hansard page 2198).

Superannuation Benefits (Question No. 1705)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the maximum pension a Commonwealth public servant can receive on retirement, as a percentage of final salary, under the existing superannuation scheme.
  2. What is the average level of pension, expressed as a percentage of final salary, received by existing pensioners of the existing scheme.
  3. What is the average contribution rate of a public servant who joins the service at age 20 and retires at age 60, expressed as a percentage of earnings during his career, under the existing scheme.
Mr Hayden:
ALP

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

  1. The maximum pension entitlement under the existing scheme is about 70 per cent of final salary for contributors whose salaries fall below a prescribed level (currently $ 1 3, 1 30 p.a.) tapering to about 60 per cent of final salary for Permanent Heads of Departments.

To qualify for maximum benefits on age retirement, contributors entering the existing scheme must complete 20 years contributory service at retirement and contribute for all units of pension.

  1. The President, Superannuation Board, has advised that an average level of pension, expressed as a percentage of final salary received by pensioners of the existing scheme, is not available and to an extent would be misleading. However, statistics included in the Superannuation Board’s Fiftieth Annual Report for former contributors who became pensioners during 1 97 1 -72 provide averages as shown below:

These averages are below the maximum by reason of reductions in possible benefits because of service of less than 20 years, the exercise of options (available as early as age 40) to reject units of pension or to substitute the lesser valued non-contributory units of pension and the ‘difference’ benefit under the preservation arrangements when benefits are also received from other schemes.

  1. An average contribution rate expressed as a percentage of earnings received during the career of a contributor who joins the Service at age 20 and retires at age 60, is not available. However, calculations can be made for hypothetical cases which would involve average percentages of salary payable as contributions related to the following table included in the report by the Australian Government Actuary to the Superannuation Board on the Tenth Quinquennial Investigation of the Superannuation Fund as at 30 June 1972, page 27, Appendix A:
  1. These percentages are calculated as the ratio of fortnightly contributions to the fortnightly salary corresponding to the number of contributory units held. If the salary corresponding to non-contributory and rejected units were included, the average percentages of salary for ages above 40 would be lower than the figures shown in the Table.

Calculations related to final salaries ranging from $4,097 th $12,721 have been made for contributors who would enter the Scheme at age 20 and retire at age 60, assuming contributions for maximum unit entitlements. For these cases total assumed contributions payable divided by the total assumed salary over the period of 40 years expressed as a percentage range from 14.3 per cent to 24.1 per cent. Because of the contributions structure of the scheme any significant salary inflation particularly in the years approaching age 60 tends to inflate the final percentages. Also the percentages would have been considerably lower if the calculations had been based on the reduced rates of contributions recommended by the Australian Government Actuary in his Tenth Quinquennial Report to the Superannuation Board. They would be lower still if a flat percentage rate of contribution were to apply as a condition of the scheme because of the cumulative effect of interest.

Pig Meat (Question No. 1286)

Mr Lloyd:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, upon notice:

  1. What was the tonnage of pig meat imports into Australia for each of the last 3 years.
  2. What was the form of these imports e.g. canned or frozen, hams, shoulders or rashers.
  3. 3 ) What duty or other tax was charged on these imports.
  4. What was the landed price for the various types of pig meat in 1973-74.
  5. Can the Minister say whether any government price support was provided in the country of origin.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

– The Minister for Manufacturing Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: (1), (2) and (3) Imports of pig meat, in terms of quantity and free on board value, together with duty paid on these imports since 1 97 1-72 are detailed in the table below.

  1. As information concerning freight and insurance costs is not published I am unable to advise the landed price for the various types of pig meat in 1973-74.
  2. I am unaware of any Government price support schemes in the countries of origin. However, allegations of dumping against imports of Canadian canned hams have been referred to the Department of Customs and Excise.

D’ Notice System (Question No. 2293)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Defence upon notice:

  1. With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763), has his attention been drawn to the book of Mr J. J. Spigelman entitled Secrecy- Political Censorship in Australia and, in particular, An Inside Dopester’s Index of 100 Examples of Secrecy, on pages 177 to 180.
  2. Has his attention also been drawn to indexed item 1 - ‘ D ‘ Notice system: existence, number and subject matter.
  3. In respect of that item, has it been made publicly available since 1972; if so, when and in what manner, and by whom was the disclosure made.
  4. If the item has not been made publicly available, what is the reason for the continuing secrecy.
Mr Barnard:
Minister for Defence · BASS, TASMANIA · ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes. .
  3. and (4) Information on the ‘D’ Nonce system was made publicly available on 11 December 1973 following a meeting of the Defence Press and Broadcasting Committee of which I am Chairman. The number of ‘D’ Notices was reduced from seven to four, and the Notices were declassified. I issued a Press Release on these matters on 11 December 1973. My Department prepared subsequently a booklet providing a general introduction to the essential elements of the ‘D’ Notice system and including the texts of the current Notices. This booklet has been given wide distribution among the media.

Defence Standards Laboratories (Question No. 2294)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Defence upon notice:

  1. With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763), has his attention been drawn to the book of Mr J. J. Spigelman entitled Secrecy- Political Censorship in Australia and, in particular, An Inside Dopester’s Index of 100 Examples of Secrecy, on pages 177 to 180.
  2. Has his attention also been drawn to indexed item 27- Defence Standards Laboratories consumer products tests.
  3. In respect of that item, has it been made publicly available since 1972; if so, when, and in what manner, and by whom was the disclosure made.
  4. If the item has not been made publicly available, what is the reason for the continuing secrecy.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. I refer the honourable member’s attention to the answer provided to question No. 266 (Hansard, page 196 of 12 February 1975).
  4. See (3) above.

Conscription (Question No. 2295)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Defence upon notice:

  1. With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1799 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763), has his attention been drawn to the book of Mr J. J. Spigelman entitled Secrecy- Political Censorship in Australia and, in particular, An Inside Dopester’s Index of 100 Examples of Secrecy, on pages 177 to 180.
  2. Has his attention also been drawn to indexed item 56- Advice and analysis on reintroduction of conscription.
  3. In respect of that item, has it been made publicly available since 1972; if so, when, and in what manner, and by whom was the disclosure made.
  4. If the item has not been made publicly available, what is the reason for the continuing secrecy.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. and (4) I refer the honourable member to the comments in paragraph 3 of the Prime Minister’s answer to Question 2243. (Hansard, page 2 1 98 of 1 4 May 1 975 ).

Armed Services: Civilian Substitution (Question No. 2296)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Defence upon notice:

  1. With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763), has his attention been drawn to the book of Mr J. J. Spigelman entitled Secrecy- Political Censorship in Australia and, in particular, An Inside Dopester’s Index, of 100 Examples of Secrecy, on pages 177 to 180.
  2. Has his attention also been drawn to indexed item 57- Review of civilian substitution in armed services.
  3. In respect of that item, has it been made publicly available since 1972; if so, when, and in what manner, and by whom was the disclosure made.
  4. If the item has not been made publicly available, what is the reason for the continuing secrecy.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. and (4) The review was not a formal definitive exercise but rather an on-going application of the policy to substitute civilians for servicemen in those positions not demanding predominantly military skills or expertise as each military establishment was reviewed on a position by position basis. The results of this continuing action have been reflected, in general terms, in the civilian and military manpower statistics contained in the annual ‘Defence Reports’ since 1965.

Service Careers (Question No. 2297)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Defence upon notice:

  1. With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1 779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763), has his attention been drawn to the book of Mr J. J. Spigelman entitled Secrecy- Political Censorship in Australia and, in particular, An Inside Dopester’s Index of 100 Examples of Secrecy, on pages 1 77 to 1 80.
  2. Has his attention also been drawn to indexed item 58- Independent consultants ‘ report on community attitudes to service careers.
  3. In respect of that item, has it been made publicly available since 1972; if so, when, and in what manner, and by whom was the disclosure made.
  4. If the item has not been made publicly available, what is the reason for the continuing secrecy.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. and (4) I refer the honourable member to the comments in paragraph 3 of the Prime Minister’s answer to Question 2243. (Hansard page 2 198 of 13 May 1975).

Army Recruits: Medical Tests (Question No. 2298)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Defence upon notice:

  1. With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page4763), has his attention been drawn to the book of Mr J. J. Spigelman entitled Secrecy- Political Censorship in Australia and, in particular, An Inside Dopester’s Index of 100 Examples of Secrecy, on pages 1 77 to 1 80.
  2. Has his attention been drawn to indexed item 59- Detail of medical tests applied to army recruits.
  3. 3 ) In respect of that item, has it been made publicly available since 1972; if so, when, and in what manner, and by whom was the disclosure made.
  4. If the item has not been made publicly available, what is the reason for the continuing secrecy.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. and (4) The medical tests required to be undertaken by applicants for entry into the three Armed Services are kept under review in the light of medical developments. The present standards may be found in a Joint Service Publication JSP(AS)701- Joint Services Manual of Recruit Medical Procedures. This document incorporates the results of recent revision and is not classified.

Armed Forces: Medical Services (Question No. 2302)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763), has his attention been drawn to the book of Mr J. J. Spigelman entitled Secrecy- Political Censorship in Australia and, in particular, An Inside Dopester’s Index of 100 Examples ofSecrecy, on pages 177 to 180.
  2. Has his attention also been drawn to indexed item 88- Report on integration of armed forces medical services.
  3. In respect of that item, has it been made publicly available since 1972; if so, when, and in what manner, and by whom was the disclosure made.
  4. If the item has not been made publicly available, what is the reason for the continuing secrecy.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. The Committee of Inquiry into Integration of the Medical Services of the Armed Forces was tabled by me in the House of Representatives on 25 July 1974, (Hansard page 638).
  4. See answer to Question (3) above.

Defence Legal Services (Question No. 2303)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. 1) With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763), has his attention been drawn to the book of Mr J. J. Spigelman entitled Secrecy- Political Censorship in Australia and, in particular, An Inside Dopester’s Index of 100 Examples ofSecrecy, on pages 177 to 180.
  2. Has his attention also been drawn to indexed item 89- Report on defence legal services.
  3. In respect of that item, has it been made publicly available since 1972; if so, when, and in what manner, and by whom was the disclosure made.
  4. If the item has not been made publicly available, what is the reason for the continuing secrecy.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. The report on Defence Legal Services Committee of Review was tabled by me in the House of Representatives on 7 November 1973, (Hansard pages 2887-8).
  4. See answer to Question (3) above.

Defence Services: Flying Training Program (Question No. 2304)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763), has his attention been drawn to the book of Mr J. J. Spigelman entitled Secrecy- Political Censorship in Australia and, in particular, An Inside Dopester’s Index of 100 Examples of Secrecy, on pages 177 to 180.
  2. Has his attention also been drawn to indexed item 90- Report on the defence services flying training program.
  3. In respect of that item, has it been made publicly available since 1972; if so, when, and in what manner, and by whom was the disclosure made.
  4. If the item has not been made publicly available, what is the reason for the continuing secrecy.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. and (4) I refer the honourable member to the comments in paragraph 3 of the Prime Minister’s answer to Question 2243 (Hansard, page 2 198 of 1 3 May 1975).

Army Reorganisation (Question No. 2305)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763), has his attention been drawn to the book of Mr J. J. Spigelman entitled Secrecy- Political Censorship in Australia and, in particular, An Inside Dopester’s Index of 100 Examples of Secrecy, on pages 177 to 180.
  2. Has his attention also been drawn to indexed item 9 1 - Hassett Committee report on army reorganisation.
  3. In respect of that item, has it been made publicly available since 1972; if so, when, and in what manner, and by whom was the disclosure made,
  4. If the item has not been made publicly available, what is the reason for the continuing secrecy.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. and (4) I refer the honourable member to the comments in paragraph 3 of the Prime Minister’s answer to Question 2243, (Hansard page 2198 of 13 May 1975).

Army Structure (Question No. 2306)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974 page 4763), has his attention been drawn to the book of Mi J. J. Spigelman entitled Secrecy-Political Censorship in Australia and, in particular, An Inside Dopester’s Index of 100 Examples of Secrecy, on pages 1 77 to 1 80.
  2. Has his attention also been drawn to indexed item 92- Moreshead Committee report on army structure.
  3. In respect of that item, has it been made publicly available since 1972; if so, when, and in what manner, and by whom was the disclosure made.
  4. If the item has not been made publicly available, what is the reason for the continuing secrecy.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. The Moreshead Committee Report was tabled by me in the House of Representatives on 30 May 1973. (Hansard page 2873).
  4. See answer to Question 3 above.

Armed Services: Housing (Question No. 2307)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763), has his attention been drawn to the book of Mr J. J. Spigelman entitled Secrecy- Political Censorship in Australia, and, in particular, An Inside Dopester’s Index of 100 Examples of Secrecy, on pages 1 77 to 1 80.
  2. Has his attention also been drawn to indexed item 93- Interdepartmental study of housing problems of services.
  3. ) In respect of that item, has it been made publicly available since 1972; if so, when, and in what manner, and by whom was the disclosure made.
  4. If the item has not been made publicly available, what is the reason for the continuing secrecy.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. and (4) I refer the honourable member to the comments in paragraph 3 of the Prime Minister’s answer to Question 2243. (Hansard page 2 198 of 13 May 1975).

Tri-Service Academy (Question No. 2308)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Defence upon notice:

  1. With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763), has his attention been drawn to the book of Mr J. J. Spigelman entitled Secrecy- Political Censorship in Australia and, in particular, An Inside Dopester’s Index of 100 Examples of Secrecy, on pages 1 77 to 1 80.
  2. Has his attention also been drawn to index item 94- Reports on the proposed Tri-Service Academy.
  3. In respect of that item, has it been made publicly available since 1972; if so, when, and in what manner, and by whom was the disclosure made.
  4. If the item has not been made publicly available, what is the reason for the continuing secrecy.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. and (4) I refer the honourable member to my statement on 25 July 1974 (Hansard page 638) when I presented the Report by the Tertiary Education (Services’ Cadet Colleges) Committee.

Army Base in Western Australia (Question No. 2309)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Defence upon notice:

  1. 1 ) With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763), has his attention been drawn to the book of Mr J. J. Spigelman entitled Secrecy- Political Censorship in Australia and, in particular, An Inside Dopester’s Index of 100 Examples of Secrecy, on pages 1 77 to 1 80.
  2. Has his attention also been drawn to indexed item 95- Submissions on proposed Army base in Western Australia.
  3. ) In respect of that item, has it been made publicly available since 1972; if so, when, and in what manner, and by whom was the disclosure made.
  4. If the item has not been made publicly available, what is the reason for the continuing secrecy.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. and (4) I refer the honourable member to the comments in paragraph 3 of the Prime Minister’s answer to Question 2243 (Hansard 2 1 98 of 1 3 May 1975).

Department of Defence (Question No. 2310)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Defence upon notice:

  1. With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763), has his attention been drawn to the book of Mr J. J. Spigelman entitled Secrecy- Political Censorship in Australia and, in particular, An Inside Dopester’s Index of 100 Examples of Secrecy, on pages 177 to 180.
  2. Has his attention also been drawn to indexed item 96- Administrative directive on the responsibilities of the Department of Defence.
  3. In respect of that item, has it been made publicly available since 1972; if so, when, and in what manner, and by whom was the disclosure made.
  4. If the item has not been made publicly available, what is the reason for the continuing secrecy.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. and (4) I refer the honourable member to the comments in part 3 of the Prime Minister’s answer to question No. 2243 ( Hansard page 2 1 98 of 1 3 May 1975).

HMAS Leeuwin: Judge Rapke’s Report (Question No. 2311)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763), has his attention been drawn to the book of Mr J. J. Spigelman entitled Secrecy- Political Censorship in Australia and, in particular, An Inside Dopester’s Index of 100 Examples of Secrecy, on pages 1 77 to 1 80.
  2. ) Has his attention also been drawn to indexed item 97- Report of Judge Rapke ‘s inquiry on HMAS Leeuwin.
  3. In respect of that item, has it been made publicly available since 1972; if so, when, and in what manner, and by whom was the disclosure made.
  4. If the item has not been made publicly available, what is the reason for the continuing secrecy.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. and (4) The enquiry was conducted in camera as to do otherwise would defeat the whole concept if the young lads interviewed during the enquiry felt that they were speaking on the record. The Judge’s findings were made public but the report itself was kept confidential as it included names of children, events, times and places which should not be made public. This was in line with most juvenile courts procedures when dealing with youthful offenders or suspects whereby the accused and witnesses are protected from publicity. At that time, I, as Deputy Leader of the Opposition, was given access to the Report and I accepted the reasons for which it was not being made public. These reasons are still valid.

RAAF Laverton: Court of Inquiry (Question No. 2312)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763), has his attention been drawn to the book of Mr J. J. Spigelman entitled Secrecy- Political Censorship in Australia and, in particular, An Inside Dopester’s Index of 100 Examples of Secrecy, on pages 177 to 1 80.
  2. Has his attention also been drawn to indexed item 98- Report of Court of Inquiry on RAAF Laverton.
  3. In respect of that item, has it been made publicly available since 1972; if so, when, and in what manner, and by whom was the disclosure made.
  4. If the item has not been made publicly available, what is the reason for the continuing secrecy.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. and (4) I refer the honourable member to the comments in part 3 of the Prime Minister’s answer to question No. 2243 (Hansard page 2 198 of 13 May 1975).

Household Paints (Question No. 2338)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763), has his attention been drawn to the book of Mr J. J. Spigelman entitled Secrecy- Political Censorship in Australia and, in particular, An Inside Dopester’s Index of 100 Examples of Secrecy, on pages 177 to 180.
  2. Has his attention also been drawn to indexed item 30- Commonwealth Paint Committee’s tests of household paints.
  3. In respect of that item, has it been made publicly available since 1972; if so, when, and in what manner, and by whom was the disclosure made.
  4. If the item has not been made publicly available, what is the reason for the continuing secrecy.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. and (4) I refer the honourable member to my answer to Question No. 266 on 12 February 1975 (Hansard, page 196). Since 1970 Paint Manufacturers have been required to undertake their own testing for approval purposes and to make the results available to the Government Paint Committee. The Materials Research Laboratories carry out selected tests to validate the Manufacturers ‘test results.

Anti-Corrosive Coating (Question No. 2339)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to my question No. 1779 (Hansard, 5 December 1974, page 4763), has his attention been drawn to the book of Mr J. J. Spigelman entitled Secrecy- Political Censorship in Australia and, in particular, An Inside Dopester’s Index of 100 Examples of Secrecy, on pages 1 77 to 1 80.
  2. ) Has his attention also been drawn to indexed item 3 1 - Central Testing and Research Laboratories tests of anticorrosive coatings.
  3. 3 ) In respect of that item, has it been made publicly available since 1972; if so, when, and in what manner, and by whom was the disclosure made.
  4. If the item has not been made publicly available, what is the reason for the continuing secrecy.
Mr Barnard:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. and (4) I refer the honourable member to my answer to question No. 266 on 12 February 1975. (Hansard, page 196). Prior to 1970 the Central Testing and Research

Laboratories was the laboratory responsible for testing of anti-corrosive (long-life protective) coatings for the Government Paint Committee. Since 1970 the Paint Manufacturers have been required to undertake their own testing for approval purposes and to make the results available to the Government Paint Committee. The Central Testing and Research Laboratories carry out selected tests to validate the Manufacturers’ test results.

Rationalisation of the Australian Aircraft Industry (Question No. 2364)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) When does the Minister expect to be able to announce the Government’s proposals for the rationalisation of the Australian Aircraft Industry.
  2. Is this matter regarded as one requiring the earliest possible finalisation.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) I am hopeful that the matter will be brought to the stage where it can be considered by the Government in September 1975. Two actions have been in course concurrently for some time: the Industry Assistance Commission reference and the development of proposals involving a rearrangement of facilities.
  2. Yes, but the matter is both important and complex.

Government Factories: Additional Workload (Question No. 2365)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, upon notice:

  1. When did the Minister or his predecessor receive the final report of the committee of inquiry examining additional workload for Government factories.
  2. When will the Government reach a decision on the report.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. In October 1974.
  2. The report deals generally with the problem of maintaining a stable workforce in the Government factories. This is a problem of long-standing and one which calls for continuing attention. An important task of the Committee of Inquiry was to investigate suitable work opportunities for the factories. It will be noted from the answer provided to Mr Anthony’s question 1081 about non-military output of the Government factories that such work has increased substantially over the past year. Greater effort is being put into developing all sources of work, including the local proportion of defence requirements, work for other departments, overseas sales of the products of the factories and commercial work for private enterprise.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 28 May 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1975/19750528_reps_29_hor95/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant