29th Parliament · 1st Session
Mr SPEAKER (Hon. G. G. D. Scholes) took the chair at 2. 1 5 p.m., and read prayers.
page 1
-On 14 July 1975, I received the following letter from the honourable member for Perth (Mr Berinson):
I hereby resign my position of Chairman of Committees of the House of Representatives and, in doing so, I desire to express my appreciation for the help and courtesy extended to me by all honourable members and officers of the House.
Yours faithfully, J. M. BERINSON
The office of Chairman of Committees being vacant, it is now necessary for the House to elect a Chairman of Committees. I call for nominations for the position.
-I move:
That the honourable member for Scullin, Dr Jenkins, be appointed Chairman of Committees of this House.
-Is the motion seconded?
– I second the motion.
– Is there any further nomination?
-I move:
That Mr Lucock, the honourable member for Lyne, be appointed Chairman of Committees of this House.
-Is the motion seconded?
– I second the motion.
-Is there any further motion? There being no further motion, I call the honourable member for La Trobe.
-Mr Speaker, we on this side of the House believe that our candidate, the honourable member for Scullin (Dr Jenkins), is a most admirable and honourable member to fill the office of the Chairman of Committees. Unlike the previous Chairman of Committees, he is not a lawyer, although he does come to the Parliament with a duo of academic successes, in the fields of medicine and science. I say this because while it is not important to hold legal qualifications to be a Chairman of Committees, the qualifications of the honourable member for Scullin do indicate the self-discipline and objectivity possessed by him, characteristics displayed so well by the honourable member for Perth (Mr Berinson) during his tenure of office as Chairman of Committees. Primarily it is parliamentary experience rather than legal experience or academic qualifications that is the prerequisite for the holder of the office of Chairman of Committees or of Speaker- and one of the tasks of the
Chairman of Committees is to deputise for you, Mr Speaker. I believe that the honourable member for Scullin possesses the necessary requirements- an intimate understanding of parliamentary life, of the problems of members individually and collectively, and of the atmosphere of this House.
The honourable member for Scullin has had a long and distinguished apprenticeship inside and outside Parliament in the way of preparation for holding this position. He has served 14 years in Australian parliaments, 8 years as the member for Reservoir in the lower House of the Victorian Parliament, and the last 6 years, since 1969, as the honourable member for Scullin in this House, having been re-elected in 1972 and 1974. I believe that in all that time he has served his electorate with dedication, sincerity and distinction. Moreover, he is a person well versed in the committee system of Parliament. He was a member of the Printing Committee of the Victorian Parliament and was Deputy Chairman of the Statute Law Revision Committee in that State. He was appointed Deputy Chairman of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Wildlife Conservation on his election to this Parliament. I have served on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, under his chairmanship, for more than 2 years, as have members on the other side of the House. He has been Chairman of the Joint Committee on the Parliamentary Committee System since that Committee was established 1 1 months ago. He is also a member for the Privileges Committee of this House. I have mentioned all of those matters because it is in that extraordinary record of Committee service and as one of our former Deputy Chairmen of Committees that we have observed the qualities that make him an ideal candidate- integrity, judgment, a sense of humour, common sense and firmness tempered with understanding.
The honourable member for Scullin is a man of integrity, a virtue he demonstrated when he stood down as a Deputy Chairman of Committees this year over a matter that has forced all honourable members on both sides of this House to re-examine their conceptions and understanding of the chairmanship of this House. The persons who preside over the proceedings of this House are the protectors of the rights of the Parliament- not of the Executive or a political party- while acknowledging that the Government must control the business of the House.
In my maiden speech in this House a few years ago I said that this Parliament was in danger of being seen by the public as an anachronistic gas chamber where politicians make wordy speeches, throw around inane interjections and manipulate parish pumps. That is a constant danger. Its avoidance depends upon the members themselves and the chairmanship of this House. Honourable members on this side of the House believe that their candidate- the honourable member for Scullin- possesses the qualities required to complement your own contribution, Mr Speaker, towards constantly raising the standards of this place in the eyes of the public, particularly at a time when the number of supporters of the Government and the Opposition is fairly close and the potential atmosphere is highly charged. We commend his candidature to the House.
-Mr Speaker, I regard it as being an honour to commend to you and to the House the appointment of Mr Philip Ernest Lucock, Commander of the Order of the British Empire and the honourable member for Lyne, as the Chairman of Committees of this House. For the smooth and efficient running of the House I think we should be looking at the aspect of service. In this respect I do not intend to go into such detail as did the honourable member for La Trobe. Service falls into 2 parts. Over a period of 23 years, Mr Lucock has provided a fully effective service to those whom he represents in his electorate of Lyne. It is not given to many to have the opportunity of serving the people for such a length of time. As we all know, periodically we have to face the public. The people of Lyne have continued to send Mr Lucock back to this place to serve them. Over that period he has demonstrated without doubt a knowledge of and an ability in relation to matters of Federal import over a very wide field.
Further, and more importantly, I refer to the qualifications he has for the specific task for which I have had the honour to nominate him. He served for a record term in the history of this Parliament- I emphasise that- as Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees. That service commenced from 8 March 1961 and, without going into further detail as to the exact date, I emphasise that it continued for a period of approximately 12 years. In addition he was associated with the work of the Chair in this Parliament before he was appointed Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees and he has been associated with it since that time, and this has given him an association either as a Deputy Chairman, of Committees or, as the position used to be called, a Temporary Chairman, and then Chairman of 1 7 or 1 8 years in all. There are many members of this Parliament who have witnessed the efficient and impartial manner in which Mr Lucock has conducted his work from the Chair.
I would like to go to the words not of somebody from his own political party but of somebody from outside it. I refer to the last election of a Chairman of Committees when the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson) said: . . . having seen both contenders for the position in operation in the chair both as the deputy of the Speaker and as the Chairman of Committees, I would find it very difficult, I suppose, to choose between them in respect of their competency. The honourable member for Lyne during the period of his occupancy of the chair, in my view, performed very fairly and within the Standing Orders.
The person with whom he was comparing him, Sir, was you. I feel that that speaks for itself. The honourable member’s record is a magnificent one; it would be very hard to beat. I firmly believe that that record will be added to on a further occasion. I commend to the House the appointment of Mr Lucock to the position of Chairman of Committees.
– I rise to endorse the nomination of the honourable member for Scullin for the position of Chairman of Committees. I will not traverse the historical facts that have been given by the honourable member for La Trobe. However, if you will forgive me, Mr Speaker, I would like to make one or two personal reminiscences. I have known Dr Jenkins for many years in the Australian Labor Party and my comments relate to my personal experience with him in that period and particularly to his capacity as a chairman. Many of us aspire to be chairmen. We all like to think that we know how to control things and people, and I can be accused of that; but, sadly, very few people are competent in this field.
I am reminded that the very first occasion on which I got to know Harry Jenkins was when he was chairman of a Labor Party committee that was dealing with a very controversial topic, a topic which was known to be of an explosive nature. The people appointed to the committee were all at sixes and sevens. It was a measure of Harry’s skill as a chairman that the committee brought in a unanimous report. He has shown that same skill in his time in this Parliament as chairman of committees which have dealt with quite controversial topics relating to the environment. He has managed so to encourage- not suppress- the full expression of points of view, and yet at the same time to maintain relevance on the part of the contributors, that he has succeeded in getting a large measure of unanimity or consensus of opinion on most of the committees with which he has been concerned. In short no doubt I will suffer like the rest of the members of this place if Dr Jenkins is appointed to this position because he will force me, I hope like the rest of the members of this place, to be relevant. For these reasons I endorse his nomination.
-In rising to second the nomination of the honourable member for Lyne for the position of Chairman of Committees I can only endorse the remarks that have been made by the honourable member for Calare (Mr England). I and other members of the Opposition have seen Mr Phil Lucock in operation during the last 2lA years and we know how very effective he has been both as a Deputy Speaker and as a Deputy Chairman. When he has been in charge of proceedings the House has always run very smoothly. He has a very sound knowledge of the operations that are required of the House and he carries them out to the very best of his ability. I feel somewhat like the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson) felt when he was in a similar position last year, because I realise that the honourable member for Lyne and Dr Jenkins are people who are both very capable and very able to carry out the duties of the position. If Phil Lucock is unfortunate enough not be be elected, then I am sure that Dr Jenkins will be a good second string. I heartily endorse and recommend Phil Lucock for the position.
-Mr Speaker, I think that nothing could be said which would detract in any way from the personal merits of either candidate for this position. I am sure that personally both honourable members are qualified to occupy the position. I think that perhaps the Labor Party has been wise in nominating one of the few of its members who is likely to retain his seat after the next general election.
On a more serious note, may I say this: There is generally a tradition in this House that the Chairman of Committees should come from the Government side. On the whole, I think that that is a good tradition. I am wondering whether in these particular circumstances, that tradition should be observed. The particular circumstances arise because of the habit of the Prime Minister of hectoring and intimidating the occupants of the chair or the Chairmen in this House.
-Order! I suggest that the honourable gentleman debate the question which is now before the Chair and that is the nomination of the 2 honourable members concerned. The subject matter upon which the honourable gentleman is now embarking is one which he can take up in other circumstances.
– Indeed, Sir. While I concede that both honourable members have personal merits, I am now debating the question as to whether we should follow the tradition of the House in electing somebody from the Government side as Chairman. I am saying, Mr Speaker, that this is generally a good tradition but in these particular circumstances I doubt that it is because I looked at the way in which the Prime Minister assassinated your predecessor in the chair.
– Order! If the honourable gentleman continues on that line, I will ask him to resume his seat.
- Sir, I am trying to make my point as relevant as I can.
– I realise the honourable gentleman is having great difficulty with relevance and I will help him with it if he continues on that line.
– My point has a very great relevance to whether or not we should vote for the nominee from the Government side. That is the question before the House. What I am saying is entirely relevant to that question. I am saying that in these circumstances, Mr Speaker- and your predecessor in the chair would know the circumstances very well- there is something to be said for having in the chair as Chairman of Committees, somebody who does not come from the Government side. Sir, what I am saying, with all respect, is entirely relevant to that question. I remind the House and you, Mr Speaker, of the way in which the present Prime Minister, who continues as Prime Minister, assassinated your predecessor, and that is relevant.
– Order ! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. In accordance with the Standing Orders, the bells will be rung for 2 minutes. ( The bells having been rung)-
-The ballot papers will now be distributed. Will honourable members please write on the ballot papers the name of the candidate for whom they wish to vote. The candidates are Dr Jenkins and Mr Lucock. (A ballot having been taken)-
– The result of the ballot is: Dr Jenkins 62 votes, Mr Lucock 58 votes. I therefore declare Dr Jenkins elected as Chairman of Committees and offer him my congratulations.
-Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Government, and I have no doubt on behalf of all honourable members, I should like to congratulate the honourable member for Scullin on being elected as Deputy Speaker. It was a difficult choice for honourable members to make because we had to choose between 2 experienced parliamentarians and 2 gentlemen who are respected by every member of the House. It was a secret ballot. I suspect that the result would have been the same if there had been a division.
The honourable member for Lyne has held the office of Deputy Speaker for, 1 believe, a record term. The honourable member for Scullin has not been a member of this House nearly so long- barely a quarter of the time- but he had been for 8 years earlier a member of the Legislative Assembly of Victoria. He has already been a Deputy Chairman of Committees for 2 years in this House. He had been a member of parliamentary committees in the Victorian Parliament and, as we all know, he has been a member of many committees- standing committees, select committees and joint committees- as a member of this Parliament. He has been a member of the House Committee, he was the Deputy Chairman of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Wildlife Conservation, he is the Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation and he is the Chairman of the Joint Committee on the Parliamentary Committee System. He has, moreover, been a member of the Australian delegation to the annual conference of the InterParliamentary Union at Paris in September 197 1 and a member of the Third International Parliamentary Conference on the Environment in Nairobi in April last year. It will be seen that he is an experienced and diligent parliamentarian. I congratulate him, as will all honourable members. There is only one other comment I must make: He is one of those doctors who are frank in acknowledging their politics and rational in advocating them.
– For the Opposition I congratulate the honourable member for Scullin who has had a wide experience and who, I believe, will serve the Parliament well. The Prime Minister pointed to the fact that it was a difficult decision for honourable members of this House and that the honourable member for Lyne also is exceedingly well qualified to fill this position. So he is. I say to the Prime Minister that the House will be given an opportunity at some stage for the decision to be reversed. I have no doubt that it will be. That in no way indicates ill will to the honourable member who has won the vote on this occasion. It is not indicating any ill will to him to say that I believe that his holding of the position will not be all that long lived. Nothing should be read into that remark.
The honourable member for Scullin, as Chairman of the Joint Committee on the Parliamentary Committee System, has a real concern for the arrangements of this House; he has a real concern to see that there is reform, to bring the procedures and practices of the House of Representatives into the 20th century and to equip it to go into the 2 1st century. I hope that his new responsibilities will in no way delay the report which I know he has been pursuing, with his Committee members, with diligence. There is a real need for reform in many areas and avenues of the work of this House. This is not the time to canvass the sorts of things which should be done, but the need for reform is very clear. It cannot come about unless there is a government which has a will to make the Parliament work. If there is a government or a Prime Minister who seeks to by-pass the Parliament, then presumably the report of the Committee on the Parliamentary Committee System will be left aside and not acted upon. I say again that there will be a government which will be concerned for the procedures and practices of this House. I hope that the report which Dr Jenkins will be tabling at the appropriate time will lay the ground work for reform which will complement his chairmanship of the committees of this House.
The Opposition will co-operate with the Chairman. We will support his decisions always when we believe them to be right. We will uphold the dignity of the chairmanship, as we do in relation to yourself, Mr Speaker, because propriety of performance in this House is something about which I believe every honourable member is concerned. I am glad that the Government has put forward a candidate of whom I hope all members of this House can be proud in his performance in the position.
- Mr Speaker, I add my congratulations to the honourable member for Scullin on being elected Chairman of Committees and your Deputy. He has had a good deal of parliamentary experience, although we have not seen a great deal of his experience in this position in the House. However, we wish him well in the new position. I know that he hopes he will be in the position for some time. I have to warn him that there is nothing very permanent about positions in this Government, where ministerial changes are a regular pattern of government and where the Speaker and the Chairman of Committees seem to hold their positions for only a very short time. However, we hope that he displays a good deal of capacity either as the Deputy Speaker or Chairman of Committees in seeing that the procedures of the House are carried out quickly and succinctly and that Ministers do not use this chamber as a forum for party political purposes or for filibustering. There would be one or two exceptions. I would not mind if Ministers were to spell out the Government’s policies in a few areas. I am thinking particularly of minerals and energy, an area in which we have been waiting for Vh years to hear a policy. It would be a pity, after such a distinguished record of national development, for us not even to know the policies and why we have no national development. I should like to say again that we are pleased with the election of the honourable member although we are disappointed that our own nominee was not elected. He is by far the most distinguished and the most experienced person in the House for this office. We know that in the fullness of time he will be back in that position.
-Mr Speaker, I take the opportunity of joining with the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Country Party of Australia in offering the warmest congratulations to the honourable member for Scullin on his appointment. I must confess that when one of the Government supporters walked across the aisle just a few moments after the vote had been taken my heart rose and I thought: ‘Ah, it has happened at last’. But it was not to be. I do congratulate Dr Jenkins. I can assure him of my support. It is not an easy task to hold this office. I think sometimes that the Deputy Speaker has a harder task even than the Speaker himself. Dr Jenkins can be assured of my fullest support and assistance on any occasion on which he feels it may be an advantage to have advice.
-Mr Speaker, it is with some humility that I thank the House for the honour that it has paid me in electing me to this position. I thank the honourable member for La Trobe and the Minister for the Media who put forward my name to the House. I am grateful for the words they had to say. I am even more grateful, after having chaired committees of which the Minister for the Media was a member over the years, to find he admits that there may have been occasions when I had to place a rein on his exuberance. I thank you, Sir, for your congratulations. I thank the Prime Minister for the words he had to say. Of course I must also thank the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Country Party of Australia for their remarks.
As was indicated, I have been a member of parliament for a good many years. I have seen fortunes wax and wane. I am under no illusions about what happens in parliaments. I am grateful, however, that the Leader of the Opposition made some remarks with regard to the question of parliamentary procedures. I believe that we are facing an era in which changes have to be made. I trust that the Joint Committee on the Parliamentary Committee System, which he mentioned, will very soon be able to make worthwhile, sensible and dignified suggestions. To the Leader of the National Country Party of Australia I say that term of office does not worry me. The thing is that the task is ahead and that the task should be properly carried out. I trust that, the House having given me its confidence, I will be able to carry out my duties, to maintain the dignity of the parliamentary institution and to allow the proper conduct of its business, the business for which we are all here. I thank the House.
page 6
– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers:
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:
Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.
And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Clyde Cameron.
Petition received.
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 the nationalisation of the Insurance Industry.
Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Drury and Mr Killen
Petitions received.
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That the insurance industry is already faced with
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Killen.
Petition received.
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:
6 ) That the insurance industry is already coping with:
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Jacobi.
Petition received.
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 enable this and every future Government to control absolutely all private enterprise, both corporate and private.
Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Bill 1975.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. byMrStaley.
Petition received.
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:
Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. byMrStaley.
Petition received.
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 people of Australia do not want the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office.
The private insurance industry adequately caters for the needs of all Australians.
The A.G.I.O. is the first step in a program to socialise and nationalise insurance in Australia and this can only be to the great detriment of individual Australians.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives rejects the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. byMrViner.
Petition received.
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:
Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ellicott, Mr Fisher, Mr Graham, Mr McVeigh and Mr Donald Cameron.
Petitions received.
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:
That the insurance industry is already faced with
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Clyde Cameron, Mr Graham and Mr Staley.
Petitions received.
To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens and foreign students respectfully showeth:
That the undersigned most strongly agree with the changes proposed to the tertiary education scheme in the submission to the Committee to review the scheme presented by the Australian Union of Students, and see the following specific changes as being immediately necessary:
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beazley, Mr Charles Jones, Dr Cass, Mr Riordan, Mr Coates, Mr Hurford, Mr Mathews and Mr Ruddock.
Petitions received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectively sheweth. That we wish to protest most vigorously at the proposed increases in postal and telephone charges.
Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to:
Diminish the size of the increase or, if possible, leave charges as they are.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lynch, Mr Davies, Mr Ellicott, Mr Erwin, Mr Kelly, Mr Kerin and Mr Luchetti.
Petitions received.
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 petitioners 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. by Mr Riordan, Mr McMahon, Mr Ellicott and Mr Staley.
Petition received.
To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That present and proposed development of limestone mining at Precipitous Bluff, tin mining at Coxs Bight, woodchipping in the remaining native forests and damming of South West rivers to produce power, will significantly affect the wilderness quality of South West Tasmania necessitating extensive road systems and damaging irreparably one of the last great wilderness areas of the world.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives will protect this national heritage by refusing Australian Government financial assistance to any project which will further alienate this wilderness.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Coates, Mr Davies and Mr Duthie.
To the Speaker of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of residents of Australia respectfully showeth:
That we believe the plight of the world’s great whales to be desperate; that we are convinced that they need conservation now, and that exploitation should cease; that we agree with Dr Sidney Holt of FAO, who says that a complete re-assessment of all scientific data on whales is needed; and we further submit that substitutes to all whale products are available, and could, with Government encouragement, be made in Australia. We are convinced that the great whales, as a significant part of the World’s Wildlife Heritage, and being on the verge of extinction, now need our complete and wholehearted protection.
We, your petitioners, therefore humbly pray that you will:
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Berinson and Mr Kerin.
Petition received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectively showeth:
That the insurance industry is failing to cope with:
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will support the Bill.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Malcolm Fraser and Mr Bennett.
Petitions received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That an Omega navigation station in Australia would be an integral part of the United States nuclear weapons delivery systems.
That Australian collaboration in such a navigation facility would endanger the people, and negate any Australian initiatives towards nuclear disarmament, nuclear free zones and the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take all steps to acquaint the people with the dangers of nuclear warfare and to work internationally for nuclear disarmament. And that it will refuse to diminish Australia’s independence and standing through the construction of an Omega station in Australia.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Coates and Mr Newman.
Petitions received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Division of Wakefield respectfully showeth:
Those children living in isolated country districts arc suffering disadvantages because:
So that disadvantages suffered by children living in isolated country districts may be lessened, there is need for:
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives will review the assistance given to help the education of isolated children.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kelly.
Petition received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned electors of the Division of Wakefield respectfully showeth:
Those children living in isolated country districts are suffering disadvantages because of this isolation and need more financial assistance than is now available and more accommodation for them.
They would also be helped if an Information Centre where country parents and students could obtain:
Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives will review the assistance given to help the education of isolated children.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kelly.
Petition received.
To the Honourable the Speaker, and the members of the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That the progressive taxation scale is seriously reducing the ability of wage earners to keep up with ever increasing costs, and by forcing them to apply for large gross salary increases in order that their nett take home pay will meet these costs, is a major cause of inflation.
With these considerations in mind, we urge that the Australian Government adopt, at the earliest possible date, the recommendations of the Mathews Committee Report on taxation indexation.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Coates.
Petition received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Represenatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That the undersigned persons believe that:
The $300 limit on income tax deductibility in respect of personal residential statutory outgoings is unrealistic and is a discriminatory income tax penalty.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take steps to see that the aforesaid limitation is removed entirely or substantially increased.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Connolly.
Petition received.
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:
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government will grant to the State College of VictoriaInstitute of Catholic Education such funds as will ensure the continued efficient operation of Aquinas College during the triennium 1976-78.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. byMrErwin.
Petition received.
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 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.
That private hospitals should be supported and maintained as a viable, independent and necessary part of national hospital service.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Viner.
Petition received.
Petition to the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament.
We the undersigned the citizens of Australia humbly petition the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia that they do take such steps as necessary to continue the school cadet movement and actively promote the same; which we do humbly petition the honourable Parliament to make sure, and your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Viner.
Petition received.
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:
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray.
Petition received.
page 11
– I inform the House that on 14 July His Excellency the Governor-General accepted my resignation as Minister for Environment and appointed the Hon. Joseph Berinson as Minister for Environment.
page 11
-I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration. Is it the case that the Regional Employment Development scheme is being wound down because unemployment has reached such levels that the scheme can no longer be funded at an acceptable cost?
– The question is not one which I can answer at this stage because the matter of the funding of the RED scheme is a matter contained in the Budget, as I would expect the honourable member to know. However, I do want to say that the unemployment figures were certainly disappointing but I do not believe that it is appropriate to look at them in their totality and to say there is doom, gloom and nothing more. For example, there has been a significant increase in employment in the clothing and textile industries. I think that should be emphasised. I also think it should be emphasised that, whereas the figures are quite high and unacceptably high at the present time for unemployed persons, those figures should nonetheless be considered in conjunction with the figures that have applied previously. For example, as at July 1972, let the record be clear, under the LiberalCountry Party Government there were 95 732 unemployed persons, excluding school leavers and we are, therefore, looking at something less than 150 000 extra.
– That means nothing! What is another 150 000! Goodness me.
– I take the point of the Leader of the National Country Party: What is an extra 150 000? It is a very great number indeed. It is a matter of very great concern to this Government that such a situation should have developed. I want to say this: The right honourable gentleman has little to crow about. If he looks back through the history of his Government when in office he will see a generation of neglect in terms of employment planning and labor planning and a complete lack of any manpower policy. The point I am wanting to raise at this time is that whereas the figures are extraordinarily high- my own view is that they have reached about the height and will go little if any further, and will start to improve significantly- the fact of the matter is that under the full employment program of the Liberal-Country Party Government almost 100 000 people were out of work. That is what those opposite call ‘full employment’. I would say this: After this Government’s policies are implemented and inflation is stabilised, there will be a significant improvement in the employment position.
page 12
-I ask the Minister for Minerals and Energy: Is there any justification for the claim recently and frequently made by Sir Gordon Chalk, the Treasurer of Queensland, that the Minister is favouring coal producers in New South Wales at the expense of coal producers in Queensland?
-The answer is definitely no. I am the Minister for Australia, and I do not favour any State. In particular, in the period in which this Government has held office, there has been a distinct forging ahead of coal exports from Queensland. It is a very distinct one. In the current year, of a total of 30 million tons to be exported, no less than 1 7.5 million tons will come from Queensland. As for the innuendo- and the repeated innuendo- that somehow I am favouring the South Coast district, in point of fact in this year there will be a reduction in its exports of coal from 4.5 million tons to 4 million tons. As I see the future, Queensland will forge ahead. It has huge resources easily won and, by the very nature of orthodox technology, it will continue to progress.
page 12
– My question is directed to the Minister for Transport. Is it a fact that the Minister is refusing the Holyman shipping company consent to charter the roll-on roll-off vessel Wanaka and that this refusal could lead to further increased freight rates to Tasmania? Is it a fact that Tasmanian primary industry and secondary industry are being crippled by the freight rate increases approved by the Minister in recent months? Will the Minister tell the House what steps the Government proposes to take to relieve the crippling freight rate burden on Tasmania?
-It is perfectly true that the William Holyman company has made several approaches to me concerning bringing new ships, or imported ships, on to the Australian coast. I have given the company a number of extensions of time with respect to a ship it already has on the coast- a ship that was built overseas and imported into Australia. I have cooperated with the company. The former honourable member for Bass, the Honourable Lance Barnard, spoke to me about this matter on a number of occasions and I co-operated with him and gave the company every assistance possible. It is true to say that at this stage I have not approved the importation of the ship from New Zealand that the company is desirous of bringing to Australia. The matter is still under consideration. It will be interesting to hear what the Opposition has to say on whether it believes in the importation of second hand ships to the disadvantage of the Australian shipbuilding industry. If the Holyman company is prepared to build a replacement ship in Australia, we will be able to give the matter more favourable consideration.
I will deal now with the other part of the honourable member’s question, which was about the freight rates that apply to Tasmania being crippling. Let me say to the honourable member that when the Party of which he is now a member was in government it did nothing whatsoever to assist Tasmania as far as freight rates are concerned. It continually increased freight rates and gave no assistance whatsoever in this place. As far as the actions of the present Government are concerned, the recent 40 per cent increase in freight rates was applicable throughout Australia. It was applicable not only to Tasmania but also to other people using the Australian National Line for the carriage of general cargo. That increase was necessary because of the increases that had occurred in port charges, the cost of fuel and the cost of labour and as a result of industrial disputes. Those matters placed an additional burden on the ANL and on other shipping companies. The real position, as the Prime Minister has said, is that the present Government will endeavour to assist the people of Tasmania.
Let us look at the real facts. This year we will be subsidising northbound freight to the extent of $4m to $5m. That is $4m to $5m more than the Party of which the honourable member for Bass is now a member was ever prepared to pay. We are paying a subsidy of $ 1 m a year in respect of the Empress of Australia. That is $lm more than the honourable member’s Party was ever prepared to spend. The carriage of wheat from the mainland to Tasmania will be subsidised to the extent of about $1.8m. Let us boil down the matter in facts and figures. Every Tasmanian family is receiving from the present Government a subsidy of about $80 a year. On a per capita basis that represents about $22 for every man, woman and child in Tasmania. As a result of action taken by the Whitlam Labor Government, freight rates are being subsidised.
Representatives of the paper manufacturers saw me and said that they were being disadvantaged by the increase in freight rates. I asked them with whom they were in competition. They certainly are not in competition with any other Australian paper manufacturer, because there is none. I explained to them that if they were experiencing problems with respect to paper imports the way to go about overcoming them was to approach either the Temporary Assistance Authority or the Industries Assistance Commission and to seek an increase in tariff protection. That is up to them. It is not up to the Department of Transport to determine the extent and the degree of disability that they might incur. As far as the other bulk commodities that are being exported from Tasmania are concerned, the Tasmanian exporters are not in competition with anyone else. Other Australian bulk commodity handlers have to pay the increase. There is no reason why the Tasmanian bulk section should not likewise be required to carry it. As far as southbound traffic is concerned, it was clearly established in a Bureau of Transport Economics study that was carried out late in 1972 and presented to the Parliament in 1973 that a considerable amount of the southbound freight comes under price equalisation and therefore Tasmania is not disadvantaged. All the bunkum that has been printed about the effect the increase will have on prices in reality cannot be borne out by the facts.
So that the people would get a fair go the Government appointed Mr Nimmo to carry out a study of the requirements of the situation and what should be done about it. But the real answer to the problem is the establishment of an Inter-State Commission so that the facts and figures can be established and so that all the details can be brought out. It is the Opposition which is frustrating the establishment of an Inter-State Commission. In fact if the Opposition had allowed the legislation to go through the Senate, the Inter-State Commission at this stage would have been operational and would have been in the position to carry out a detailed investigation into any disability from which Tasmanians suffer and which the Liberal and Country Party governments in 23 years of office were not prepared to tackle.
page 13
– My question is addressed to the Minister for the Media. The Minister will recall the 2-hour suspension imposed by him on TVT6 of Hobart last Saturday night. I ask: Under what section of the Broadcasting and Television Act was this penalty imposed? Who introduced the provisions of that Act? Had the station transgressed before and has the Government in fact attempted to amend some of the more anachronistic sections of the Broadcasting and Television Act? Finally, were any alternatives offered to the station management for this breach of the law on 3 occasions?
– I had a sneaking suspicion that such a question might arise in view of the fact that I am depicted as a goateed Goebbels, or words to that effect, in seeking to control what the Press says and does and so on.
– That is incredible.
– I thought it was incredible too. However, it was offered in a humourous fashion so I did not take offence. In November last year the station broke the rules as laid down by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. The breach was of the rules laid down in regard to the time for which advertisements can appear on television stations. I might point out that those rules were laid down by the Control Board long before we came into power. They are the sorts of rules that the Opposition when it was in government lived with and we are still living with them. That is not to say that the Opposition when in government necessarily liked them any more than we necessarily like them, but that is the situation. As a result of the breaking of the agreement which every other commercial television station seeks to observe- and I want to point that out- the Minister at the time wrote to this station in the following terms:
In view of the fact that TVT has had a very satisfactory record of compliance with the Board’s standards you will understand it is not my desire to exercise my power under Section 86 of the Broadcasting and Television Act -
This is the answer to the question raised by the honourable member about which part of the Act we are operating under- to take action to suspend the licence for the operation of the station. However, as I have stated publicly on several occasions, the Australian Government is not prepared to countenance breaches of the standards. In the present case, therefore, I have decided to take no action pending an assurance from you that steps have been taken to bring the seriousness of the matter to the attention of the management and that adequate procedures have been established to ensure that there will be no further cause for complaint in this area.
That was written in November 1974. Sure enough, a letter was received from Mr McRae pointing out that the letter was acknowledged, stating what had happened and assuring the Minister at the time that this would not happen again. Mr McRae wrote:
We have critically reviewed our procedures in order to ensure that breaches do not occur.
That is not very long ago. However, it was drawn to my attention that on 3 and 4 May this yearless than 6 months later- the same sort of thing had happened. So I wrote another letter pointing out the situation and suggesting that something had to be done because, after all, the station has been warned and it had undertaken not to let it happen again.
I personally do not care much about this particular regulation. I think that people who look at commercial television have to expect to view advertising. I take it that the rule was brought in because people, while they want to look at commercial advertising and are prepared to accept the screening of advertisements as a penalty for doing so, still want limitations placed upon the amount of time during which advertising can be shown. Limitations were placed by the previous Government and we are still abiding by the same rule and regulation. The station concerned gave an explanation as to why the breach had occurred and I accepted its explanation. But it does not alter the fact that the station had broken the rules.
So we are faced with the question as to whether we should ignore the law. If we should, I will stop the Control Board bothering trying to implement that particular law. Why waste money having people sitting in front of television sets timing the length of advertisements if when one discovers that someone has broadcast an advertisement for longer than he should have, one does nothing about it? Let us stop pretending. However, that is a different question.
The fact is that the law is as it is. So I chose to suggest to the station that I would require it to go off the air unless it could make some alternative suggestion. I will not bother reading the letter. Needless to say, I gave warning that I intended to suspend the station. I again want to point out that there is no alternative for me. I either ignore the station’s transgression or I suspend the station. As one critical letter to me pointed out, any school child could have suggested an alternative penalty. I quite agree. But the law does not allow me to impose an alternative penalty. That is the fact. Needless to say, the gentlemen from the station came over to talk to me. I made it quite clear, after they had agreed that they had broken the regulations- they did not deny it- that something had to be done. I gave a very broad hint that as far as I was concerned, I had no desire to impose a penalty. If, in recognition of their transgression, they were prepared to -
– I rise to order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister for the Media, but 1 wonder whether he would table the documents which he is consulting in this connection.
– Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. He cannot ask the Minister to table the documents while he is using them. It would deprive the Minister of the documents.
– Well, I will ask the Minister afterwards.
-With the greatest of pleasure, I should like to have the documents incorporated in Hansard. There is no secret about them at all.
-Order! Is the Minister seeking leave to incorporate the documents in Hansard?
-Yes, Mr Speaker.
-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The documents read as follows)-
TVT 6 HOBART
Extract from a letter addressed from Senator Douglas McClelland to Mr G. F. Davies, Chairman of Directors, Tasmanian Television Limited, sent on 16 December 1974. (Breaches of the Advertising Standards were summarised in the letter as below).
Sunday 10 November 1974
In view of the fact that TVT has had a very satisfactory record of compliance with the Board’s Standards, you will understand that it is not my desire to exercise my power under Section 86 of the Broadcasting and Television Act to take action to suspend the licence for the operation of the station. However, as I have stated publicly on several occasions, the Australian Government is not prepared to countenance breaches of the Standards. In the present case, therefore, I have decided to take no action pending an assurance from you that steps have been taken to bring the seriousness of the matter to the attention of the management and that adequate procedures have been established to ensure that there will be no further cause for complaint in this area.
Extract from a letter from E. G. McRae, now Chairman of Directors of Tasmanian Television Limited, to Senator Douglas McClelland sent on 20 December 1974.
Your acknowledgement of our station having a satisfactory record of compliance with the Australian Broadcasting Control Board ‘s Standards and the statement that you do not desire to suspend our licence is very much appreciated. However, the threat and the danger is clear in what you have said. We have critically reviewed our procedures in order to ensure that breaches do not occur.
Dear Mr McRae, 29 July 1975
I have received a report from the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, advising me that station TVT has again been found to be in breach of the Board ‘s Advertising Time Standards. You will recall that, in replying on 20 December 1974, to a letter from my predecessor, Senator Douglas McClelland, regarding breaches which occurred on 10 November 1974, you stated that you had critically reviewed station procedures in order to ensure that further breaches would not occur.
The latest excesses which occurred on Saturday and Sunday, 3 and 4 May, have been taken up by the Board with the station management, and in the opinion of the Board the explanations received from the station did not satisfactorily account for the breaches.
Details of the breaches are set down below:
I am told that your General Manager, Mr D. Carter, has informed the Board that, as a result of these breaches, he has established a continuity department under the direct supervision of the station program manager, whose responsibility it will be to ensure that the Board ‘s standards will be observed at all times.
Notwithstanding this action by Mr Carter I am satisfied that in all the circumstances the appropriate course open to me is to consider suspending the licence granted to Tasmanian Television Ltd, in respect of the operation of the station. Accordingly I am enclosing a formal notice of my intention to take such action pursuant to the provisions of Section 86 of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942-1975. As required by sub-section 2(b) of Section 86, before reaching a final decision in the matter, I will take into consideration any action by Tasmanian Television Ltd, to prevent the recurrence of similar breaches.
Yours sincerely, (Moss Cass) Minister for the Media Mr E. G. McRae, Chairman of Directors, Tasmanian Television Ltd, Box 1209M,G.P.O., Hobart, Tasmania 700 1 .
BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION ACT 1942-1975
NOTICE UNDER SECTION 86
I, MOSES HENRY CASS, Minister of State for the Media, hereby give Tasmanian Television Limited notice that after the expiration of seven days after the date of service of this notice I intend to suspend the licence numbered 1974/10 dated the 27th day of November 1974 granted to the said company under the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942-1975 on the ground that the said company has failed to comply with sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 100 of the said Act in that the said company has failed to comply with the standards determined by the Australian Broadcasting
Control Board in relation to the televising of advertisements. The standards referred to are those set out in paragraphs 46 and SO of the second edition of the booklet entitled ‘Television Program Standards’.
DATED the
MOSES HENRY CASS
Minister of State for the Media
TO:
Tasmanian Television Limited, 52 Newtown Road, Newtown, Tas. 7008
MINISTER FOR THE MEDIA CANBERRA, A.C.T.
5 August 1975.
Dear Mr McRae,
Thank you for your letter of 1 August, in response to my letter and notice of 29 July.
I have noted your comments on the factors surrounding your station’s breaches of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board’s Advertising Standards. It is clear from your letter that you are in no way challenging the fact that the breaches, as outlined in my earlier letter to you, did in fact occur. I note that you have not been able to supply any information in explanation of these breaches additional to that already provided to the Australian Broadcasting Control Board and to me in our meeting on 3 1 July.
I reiterate my conviction, which I expressed to you at our meeting, that a licensee must assume full responsibility for the conduct of its television station. This responsibility extends to ensuring that staff, at all levels, comply with applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. The application of these provisions must be uniform and universal. It was my impression that, at our meeting, you accepted this proposition.
I did, however, indicate to you that I was prepared to differentiate between an inadvertent and a deliberate infringement of a regulation in terms of the penalty applicable. On the advice tendered to me by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, I am prepared to accept that your station’s breaches of the regulations were inadvertent rather than deliberate. However, I am also convinced there is an element of negligence involved. In view of this I believe 1 have no course other than to apply some form of penalty.
The Broadcasting and Television Act provides only one penalty; suspension of a licence for a period not exceeding 7 days. I would rather avoid .applying such a penalty in this situation. However, I am convinced that some action must be taken.
Unless I receive from you by 5.00 p.m. Thursday 7 August, an acceptable alternative suggestion as to some action you will undertake which will demonstrate public acknowledgement of the breaches and will penalise the station in some way, I am obliged to suspend your licence for an appropriate period.
Yours sincerely, MOSS CASS
Mr E. G. McRae, Chairman of Directors, Tasmanian Television Ltd, Box I209M.G.P.O., Hobart, Tas. 7001
– Having had this informal discussion with representatives from the station, I made it clear that if they were prepared to make a gesture it would resolve the difficulty. For example, they could refrain from having advertisements on for the period for which they had transgressed. As I got a bit of feedback that might put them in a difficult position with their advertisers, I would have let them put their advertisements on and donate the proceedings to a charity. I was perfectly happy to accept that proposal.
-To the Labor Party?
-No, not to the Labor Party-to an acceptable charity which they could nominate themselves. I ask the honourable member not to get scungy about it. I was perfectly happy with either of those possibilities, in which case I would not have imposed a penalty. That would have signified that the station had recognised that a mistake had been made. That was all that I thought ought to be done. However, I subsequently learned- I cannot vouch for this, but I have been told- that the station representatives were leant on by somebody and told not to do this sort of thing. They had to stand up and resist the monster from Canberra, I take it. So, in my view, I had no alternative but to flick them with a feather duster. That is all it was really; let us face it. I could have taken the station off the air for a whole week. The suspension was for only 2 hours to make the point. If all the commercial networks are in an uproar about it, I am perfectly happy to meet them and discuss alternative proposals so that we can introduce a Bill into this House to change the Act. Hopefully honourable members opposite will endorse the proposal, as we will. We will then get more adult, sensible and intelligent means of control- if control is needed -for commercial stations.
– Order ! I ask honourable members to make their questions somewhat shorter. I ask Ministers to make their answers considerably shorter. The answers so far this afternoon have been exceedingly long. The questions have provoked long answers. I think Ministers should refrain from going into a complete historical analysis and should seek to answer the questions in a shorter form.
page 16
-I ask the Minister representing the Postmaster-General: Has the Government given consideration to the proposals in connection with the new Postal Commission to alter the title of non-official post offices to postal agents? If the changes are made, will the present rights and privileges be retained to protect the non-official postmaster, and will his duties remain the same?
-As I understand the position, there will not be any real change. I have not had the benefit of discussing the matter with the Postmaster-General but I am assured that the Australian Postal Commission itself has discussed the matter. There have been a lot of groundless fears and a lot of suggestions that changes are going to be made, but I understand there is no truth in them. If there is anything I have to add which I can acertain by further inquiry, I will let the honourable member know.
page 16
– My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Following the passing of the Family Law Bill by the Parliament, I and many other honourable members have received numerous inquiries regarding the future operation of the Family Law Act. Can the AttorneyGeneral inform the House of the progress to date in introducing the Family Court of Australia and the likely date of commencement of the Family Law Act?
– I thank the honourable gentleman for the question because I too have had a number of inquiries about the matter and it has been the subject of speculation in the Press. Honourable members will recall the passing of the Family Law Bill through this House. It received the royal assent on 12 June 1975. There is a section in it, section 41, that requires me to confer with the various State Attorneys on the subject to give them the option of setting up family courts within the various States of the Federation. That consultation has been going on. I have attended personally on each of the State Attorneys, which has taken time in itself. The matter has been the subject of correspondence, and I can tell the House now that I have been informed by the Attorneys in each of the States, other than Western Australia, that they do not wish to set up a family court in their States. I imagine that the decisions in the States had to be considered by the respective Cabinets. New South Wales and Victoria were fairly early off the mark, but I was informed by the Minister for Justice in Queensland only a week or 10 days ago that Queensland does not wish to set up a family court in Queensland but would prefer the Family Court of Australia to operate there. Mr McNeill in Western Australia has told me that he prefers to set up a family court of Western Australia, and no doubt that will be done in due course there.
There are other aspects that have to be considered. For example, the Act in its present form puts a limitation on the number of judges that may be appointed. It restricts the number to seven. In view of the developments I have outlined to the House, the number will now have to be increased. That will be the subject of regulations that I will be introducing into the Parliament in the not too distant future. There are the problems of acquiring premises, recruiting staff, having interviews, placing advertisements and providing for appeals within the Public Service for people who might want to claim that they should have a position. However, I am happy to tell the House now that the date when we hope to have, or will have, the Family Law Act operating is 5 January 1976.
page 17
-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Labor. I refer to his refusal to answer the question whether there will be an allocation of funds to the Regional Employment Development scheme in the Budget. Is the RED scheme funded by Supply until 30 November? Has the RED scheme in fact already run out of money voted for it, which was to last until 30 November, because of the huge increase in demand for RED funds resulting from the Government’s causing over 250 000 people to be unemployed?
– I repeat what I said earlier. The RED scheme and its future activities and funding are contained in the Budget. I want to take up again the point that the honourable gentleman raised about unemployment created by the Government. I categorically deny his assertion. Horse laughs from the Opposition do not add any more credit to that assertion. The fact of the matter is that the economy has been through a period of downturn in the same way as similar economies in western Europe, North America and Japan have gone through a downturn. The Government has illustrated over recent monthsand I believe it will illustrate it even more clearly in the immediate future- its very great concern to bring inflation under control. There is simply no doubt that the level of inflation has been responsible for a significant increase in the rate of unemployment. I believe that this is now being accepted by large sections of the community. I would simply say this to the honourable gentleman who asked the question: If he believes that unemployment in Australia can be rectified simply by having bigger and better RED schemes, I have less respect for him than 1 had previously.
page 17
– My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Did he see an article in the West Australian newspaper this morning which suggested that the Government was rocked by the July deficit? Is there any substance in the suggestion? If not, in the interests of raising the standard of economic debate in Australia will the Treasurer arrange for some special instruction to be made available for the journalist on the subject of the interpretation of national accounts?
-I noted the comment in the West Australian this morning. The Government was not rocked. We were well aware of the dimensions of the deficit for the month of July. It is usual for the July monthly deficit to be bulging in comparison with other months. On this occasion there was an added reason. I ought to point out that it is also usual for the development of the deficit to be more significant in the first half of the financial year than in the second half. However, there were special circumstances that affected this July. Unusually in the second half of last financial year there was a substantial increase in Government outlays consciously injected into the economy for the purpose of supporting the private sector. In fact, over the 12- monthly period the additional outlays over those proposed in the Budget were of the order of $ 1 ,600m. It is possible to identify about $ 1 ,300m of that amount as having a fairly direct stimulatory effect for the private sector. I wonder whether anyone on the opposite side of the House would argue that stimulation should not have been provided. If honourable members opposite do argue that way I would ask them: From under what sectors do they propose to pull the pins?
The facts are that the level of the deficit in July was anticipated. The people who advise us, the technical people who assist this Government, are the same technical people who assisted previous Liberal-Country Party governments. They were competent in these things then; they are competent now. We were well informed. As honourable members will discover from the Budget tonight, an appropriate calculation has been made for this and for all other factors in the economic management of the country over the next 12 months. The last proposition put forward by the honourable member is an interesting one and I will consider it.
page 18
– My question to the Prime Minister comprises 5 sentences. What arrangements for profit sharing have been made between the participants in the Ranger project? How will supervision of the accounts and the revenue from the project be exercised? What part will the Auditor-General and/or the Government play in that supervision? What are the proposed sources of public money for the project? Have any efforts been made to obtain loans overseas or is it intended to obtain loans overseas for the Ranger project?
-The arrangements for Ranger are the same as announced to the House last October. I expect that within the next few weeks there will be further discussions between the Australian Government and the Ranger interests.
page 18
– I ask a question of the Prime Minister. Have the pleas of the Leader of the Opposition for ‘minimum controls over the pursuit of alternative life styles compatible with human dignity’ had any impact upon the Government’s priorities or will the Government regard this advice, as the Melbourne Age does, as imprecise, disturbing waffle?
– If the Melbourne Age can bring itself to making that comment about the Leader of the Opposition I should of course hasten to endorse it. I must say that I have not followed all the vagaries of the honourable gentleman’s philosophy. The one that particularly remains in my mind, of course, is this idea of imposed equality- that is, the idea that people should attain those positions to which they were born and the devil take the hindmost. It is quite clear that in the interstices of his philosophy there is an itch to dismantle those things which the Labor Government has introduced to bring equality of opportunity to all people in Australia, whether they were born here or migrated here, wherever they live in Australia and whatever their parents’ means were. The creation of equal opportunities should be the first task of any government, and it will continue to be the first preoccupation of the present Government.
page 18
– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. Is it a fact that many thousands of young Australians are drawing full unemployment benefits and living in our coastal areas? Has the number of young people living in the areas mentioned and seeking social security benefits doubled in the past 7 months? What action does the Government intend to take to make sure that these people can be gainfully employed or work for the social security assistance being given to them, thus making a contribution for the benefit of the nation?
– It is not true that many thousands of young people living on the coast of Australia are drawing unemployment benefits. It is the intention of the Government to make absolutely certain that anyone who is in receipt of social security benefits receives them because they are due to him and not because he is infringing the regulations in any way. The Department of Social Security carries out work tests and makes checks on the people who are receiving unemployment benefits. In the last few months in particular many young people and others have had their unemployment and sickness benefits discontinued because they have been detected infringing the regulations. It is the Government’s intention to review continuously the payment of social security benefits to make certain that they are paid only to people who are entitled to receive them.
page 18
-I ask the Prime Minister: Did the Cabinet have before it last week the Industries Assistance Commission interim report recommending restoration of the superphosphate subsidy? Was a decision made by Cabinet for or against that recommendation, or did Cabinet refer the question to the Government Resources Committee? If the latter is so, were not Press reports that Cabinet had rejected the recommendation wholly, utterly and mischievously false?
– I do not remember seeing many reports on the subject; so I will not venture to categorise any reports as mischievous. The Government did not consider the Industries Assistance Commission interim report on superphosphate. I expect that it will be doing so at the next Cabinet meeting or the one after. The honourable gentleman mentions one of the Government committees. I have no doubt that that committee would bring down an overwhelming endorsement of the majority opinion of the IAC I am equally certain that the Government Economic Committee would bring down an overwhelming endorsement of the minority IAC opinion. So, if the honourable gentleman is seeking to give the Cabinet the benefit of committee advice on this, perhaps he could get the 2 committees together. I would imagine that then we would be dealing with a majority report and a minority report. As the honourable gentleman knows, in all these matters the Government publishes the report as early as possible. It also seeks the advice of all the relevant departments.
page 19
– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is it true that only 4 members of the 27-man Ministry met representatives of primary industry for pre-Budget discussions and that one of those members could not or would not spare the time to sit through those discussions? Is it true that the 3 Ministers who sat through the discussions were the Minister for Environment, the Minister for Tourism and Recreation and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs?
– I do not know, Sir.
page 19
-I ask the Minister Assisting the Minister for Social Security: What action can the Australian Government take to prevent the heartless, callous and iniquitous practice being followed by some general practitioners in demanding payment in advance, at rates oftentimes in excess of the scheduled fee, from invalid and age pensioners before they will provide medical attention?
– I do not know what one can do with people who deliberately set about to infringe an Act of Parliament and who refuse to abide by the regulations which are laid down. That is not the only thing which is happening with doctors under the Medibank system. Some doctors are refusing to refer patients to a specialist because that specialist is bulk billing. It is entirely unjust for people to suggest that we are wrong in introducing Medibank. We are trying to introduce in Australia a health scheme which the people want. For the medical profession to take the action it is taking to try to sabotage Medibank is, to me, absolutely callous, as the honourable member has said. We will continually review the activities of the medical profession and of chemists who act as agents under Medibank to see that the people of Australia receive the benefits of a health system to which they are entitled.
page 19
– Is the Minister for Urban and Regional Development aware that the Government has a commitment to appoint a nominee of the Returned Services League of Australia to the
Board of the Australian Housing Corporation? If so, what steps are being taken to make that appointment?
– The Government has no commitment in this respect. The nomination of the Returned Services League of Australia was considered by Cabinet. It made its decision. At no time was there any commitment by the Government to the RSL. That is a falsity.
page 19
-Has the Minister for Services and Property studied the recent South Australian election for the Legislative Council which, for the first time, was elected on a system of optional preferential voting? Has there been any complaint about the system used or any suggestion by any political party that the system should be altered for future elections?
– I have studied the results of the South Australian elections. They were very satisfactory from every point of view. They even resulted in a change of leadership in the Liberal Party. The results of the elections, particularly for the Upper House, indicated that optional preferential voting is a very effective method of giving democracy in a real way to all people in the country. I noticed that in South Australia 6 Australian Labor Party members were elected to the Upper House, with 3 Liberal Party members and 2 Liberal Movement members. Under the optional preferential system one had only to vote on a group basis for one candidate. As a matter of fact, on one occasion in this Parliament that method was suggested to this House by that outstanding radical, the honourable member for Sturt. It is a method which commends itself to a lot of people throughout the country.
Until 1973 in South Australia the Liberal Party had 16 members in the Upper House and the Australia Labor Party 4 members. In other words, voting for the Legislative Council was under restrictive franchise and most undemocratic. Thanks to the optional preferential system real democracy prevails in South Australia as far as the election of members to the Upper House is concerned. It has now 10 members of the Australia Labor Party, 9 members of the Liberal Party and 2 members of the Liberal Movement. I believe the optional preferential system of voting is one of the most democratic advances which this country can endorse. It was opposed by the Opposition in another place, and here also, when we sought to introduce it for Senate elections, but in South Australia there has been no complaint by any section of the community or any political party about the result or the methods employed.
Might I just give a bit of advice, which I rarely give to those opposite? They should follow the example of South Australians, introduce an optional preferential system in accordance with what has been presented to the Australian Parliament by the present Government, and in that way we would get the democratic results that have come on this occasion to the South Australian Upper House.
page 20
-For the information of honourable members I present, as I promised in my statement in the House on 13 May, a paper prepared for the Government by the Department of Foreign Affairs entitled: ‘Australia’s Military Commitment to Vietnam’.
Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed:
That the House take note of the paper.
Debate (on motion by Mr Peacock) adjourned.
page 20
-For the information of honourable members I present the final declaration made on 30 May by the review conference of parties to the Treaty on Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
page 20
-For the information of honourable members I present the report on radio by the Priorities Review Staff made in August last.
page 20
-Pursuant to section 16 of the Superannuation (Papua New Guinea) Ordinance 1951-71I present the Twentieth and Twenty-first Annual Reports of the Papua New Guinea Superannuation Board for 1970-71 and 1971-72 respectively.
page 20
– For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Cattle Tick Control Commission on ‘Cattle Tick in Australia’.
page 20
– Pursuant to section 16 of the Chicken Meat Research Act 1969 I present the fifth annual report of the Australian Chicken
Meat Research Committee for the year ended 30 June 1974.
page 20
– For the information of honourable members I present the resolution of the ninety-second meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council held in Melbourne on 28 April 1975.
page 20
– Pursuant to section 52 of the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act 1972-73 I present the annual report of the Commonwealth Teaching Service for 1974.
page 20
– For the information of honourable members I present the fourth triennial report on advanced education by the Commission on Advanced Education, together with a statement on that report.
page 20
– For the information of honourable members I present reports of the Industries Assistance Commission on cosmetics and toilet preparations, new land farms, production of gold and heat transfer printing paper.
page 20
– Pursuant to section 7 (7) of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973-74 I present 5 determinations by the Remuneration Tribunal, each dated 12 May 1975.
page 20
– Pursuant to section 25 of the Grants Commission Act 1973-75 I present the report by the Grants Commission on applications for financial assistance for local government for the financial year 1975-76.
page 20
-Pursuant to section 9 of the Medical
Research Endowment Act 1937 I present a report titled ‘ Medical Research Projects, 1973’
page 21
– For the information of honourable members I present a report of a committee of review on the School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine.
page 21
Mr ENDERBY (CanberraAttorneyGeneral) Pursuant to section 171 of the Trade Practices Act 1974-75 I present the first annual report of the Trade Practices Commission for the year ended 30 June 1975.
page 21
The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request:
Grants Commission Bill 1975
Australian Bureau of Statistics Bill 1975
Australian Heritage Commission 1975
Health Insurance Bill 1975
National Gallery Bill 1975
Loan (War Service Land Settlement) Bill 1975
Trade Practices Bill 1975
Conciliation and Arbitration Bill 1975
Dried Fruits Export Charges Bill 1975
Dried Fruits Levy Bill 1975
Victoria Grant (Seymour Flood Mitigation) Bill 1 975
National Capital Development Commission Bill 1975
States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill 1 975
States Grants (Universities) Bill 1975
Railways (South Australia) Bill 1 975
Railways (Tasmania) Bill 1975
Tasmania Grant (Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd) Bill 1975
Customs Tariff( Anti-Dumping) Bill 1975
Customs Bill 1975
Customs Tariff Validation Bill 1975
Ship Construction Bounty Bill 1975
Urban and Regional Development (Financial Assistance) Bill 1975
Income Tax Assessment Bill 1975
States Grants (Beef Industry) Bill 1975
Wool Tax Bills (Nos 1 to 5) 1975
Dairy Produce Bill 1975
Dairy Produce Sales Promotion Bill 1975
Northern Territory Supreme Court Bill 1 975
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Bill 1 975
page 21
Assent to the following Bills reported:
Racial Discrimination Bill 1975
Children’s Commission Bill 1975
Trade Union Training Authority Bill 1975
Family Law Bill 1975
Postal Services Bill 1975
Telecommunications Bill 1975
Postal and Telecommunications Commissions (Transitional Provisions) Bill 1975
Australian Heritage Commission Bill 1975
Health Insurance Bill 1975
Grants Commission Bill 1 975
Australian Bureau of Statistics Bill 1975
National Gallery Bill 1975
Loan (War Service Land Settlement) Bill 1975
Trade Practices Bill 1975
Conciliation and Arbitration Bill 1975
Victoria Grant (Seymour Flood Mitigation) Bill 1975
National Capital Development Commission Bill 1 975
States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill 1 975
States Grants (Universities) Bill 1975
Railways (South Australia) Bill 1975
Railways (Tasmania) Bill 1975
Tasmania Grant (Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Limited) Bill 1975
Dried Fruits Levy Bill 1975
Dried Fruits Export Charges Bill 1 975
Urban and Regional Development (Financial Assistance) Bill 1975
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Discriminatory Laws) Bill 1975
Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Bill 1975
Customs Bill 1975
Customs Tariff Validation Bill 1975
Ship Construction Bounty Bill 1975
Income Tax Assessment Bill 1975
States G rants ( Beef Industry ) Bill 1975
Dairy Produce Bill 1975
Dairy Produce Sales Promotion Bill 1 975
Northern Territory Supreme Court Bill 1975
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Bill 1975
Wool Tax Bills (Nos 1 to5) 1975
page 21
– I have received advice from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate that he has nominated Senator Davidson to be a member of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson.
page 21
-I have the honour to bring up the eighth report by the Publications Committee of this House sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report have been circulated to honourable members in the chamber.
Report-by leave- agreed to.
page 21
– I move:
The customs tariff proposals I have just tabled relate to proposed amendments to the Customs Tariff 1966-1974. These proposals formally place before Parliament, as required by law, tariff changes introduced by gazette notices during the last recess. The changes arise from the Government’s decisions on the recommendations of the Textiles Authority in its report on certain yarns and textile products and of the Industries Assistance Commission in its report on nitrogenous fertilizers.
Also included in the proposals are the addition of further commodities to Schedule A of the New Zealand- Australia Free Trade Agreement and a modification of the developing countries’ preference in respect of toy balloons. Changes of an administrative nature in the footwear area of the tariff have also been made to remove certain redundant provisions. A comprehensive summary setting out the nature of the changes and the origin of each of the alterations contained in the proposals is now being circulated to honourable members. I commend the proposals.
Debate (on motion by Mr Adermann) adjourned.
page 22
Message received from the Senate intimating that it insists upon the amendments made to this Bill by the Senate and disagreed to by the House of Representatives.
Motion ( by Mr Stewart) agreed to:
That the amendments be taken into consideration in the Committee of the Whole forthwith.
In Committee
Consideration of Senate’s amendments. Senate’s amendmentsNo. I- In clause 3, sub-clause (1), leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years’.
No. 2-In clause 3, sub-clause (1), leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years’. .No. 3- In clause 3, sub-clause (I), leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years’.
No. 4- In clause 3, sub-clause (I), leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years’.
No. 5- In clause 3, sub-clause (1), leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years’.
No. 6-In clause 3, sub-clause (1), leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years’.
No. 7- In clause 3, sub-clause ( 1 ), leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years’.
No. 8- In clause 7, sub-clause (2), leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years’.
No. 9- In clause 9, sub-clause ( I ), leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years’.
No. 10- In clause 9, sub-clause (2), paragraph (d), leave out ‘ 60 years ‘, insert ‘ 65 years ‘.
No. 1 1- In clause 9, sub-clause (3), leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years’.
No. 12- In clause 9, sub-clause (4), paragraph (b), leave out ‘ 60 years ‘, insert ‘ 65 years ‘.
No. 13- In clause 9, sub-clause (5), paragraph (b), leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years’.
No. 14- In clause 56, sub-clause ( 1 ), leave out ‘60 years ‘, insert ‘65 years’.
No. 15- In clause 57, sub-clauses (1) and (2), leave out the sub-clause, insert the following sub-clause:
No. 16- In clause 59, sub-clause (2), paragraph (a), leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years ‘.
No. 17- In clause 59, sub-clause (2), paragraph (b), leave out ‘60 years ‘, insert ‘65 years ‘.
No. 18- In clause 59, sub-clause (3), leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years’.
No. 19- In clause 59, sub-clause (3), paragraph (a), leave out’60 years’, insert’65 years’.
No. 20- In clause 6 1 , leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years’.
No. 21- In clause 61, leave out ‘60th anniversary’, insert ‘65th anniversary’.
No. 22- In clause 62, sub-clause (1), paragraph (a), leave out ‘ 60 years ‘, insert ‘ 6 5 years ‘.
No. 23- In clause 62, sub-clause ( 1 ) paragraph (a), leave out ‘60th anniversary’, insert ‘65th anniversary’.
No. 24- In clause 62, sub-clause (3), leave out ‘60th anniversary’, insert ‘65th anniversary’.
No. 25-In clause 62, sub-clause (3), leave out ‘60 years’, insert’65 years’.
No. 26- In clause 67, sub-clause (1), leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years’.
No. 27- In clause 67, sub-clause (2), paragraph (a), leave out ‘ 60 years ‘, insert ‘ 65 years ‘.
No. 28- In clause 67, sub-clause (3), leave out ‘60 years’, insert’65 years’.
No. 29- In clause 68, sub-clause (2), leave out the subclause.
No. 30- In clause 69, sub-clause (3), leave out the subclause.
No. 31- In clause 75, sub-clause (1), leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years’.
No. 32- In clause 77, sub-clause (2), paragraph (c), leave out ‘ 60 years ‘, insert ‘ 65 years ‘.
No. 33- In clause 79, sub-clause ( I ), leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years’.
No. 34- clause 86, sub-clause (1), leave out ‘60 years’, insert’65 years’.
No. 35- In clause 86, sub-clause ( 1 ), leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years’.
No. 36- In clause 86, sub-clause (2), paragraph (a), leave out ‘60 years ‘, insert ‘65 years ‘.
No. 37- In clause 98, sub-clause (1) paragraph (a) leave out ‘60 years ‘, insert ‘65 years ‘.
No. 38- In clause 99, sub-clause (1), paragraph (a), leave out ‘60 years’, insert ‘65 years ‘.
No. 39- clause 100, sub-clause (1), paragraph (a), leave out ‘ 60 years ‘, insert ‘ 65 years ‘.
No. 40- clause 101, sub-clause (1), paragraph (a), leave out ‘60 years ‘, insert ‘65 years ‘.
No. 41- clause 102, sub-clause (1), paragraph (a), leave out’60 years’, insert’65 years’.
No. 42- clause 103, sub-clause (1), paragraph (a), leave out ‘60 years ‘, insert ‘65 years ‘.
No. 43-clause 103, sub-clause (2), paragraph (a), leave out ‘ 60 years ‘, insert ‘ 65 years ‘.
No. 44-clause 104, sub-clause (1), paragraph (a) leave out ‘ 60 years ‘, insert ‘ 65 years ‘.
No. 45- clause 104, sub-clause (2), paragraph (a), leave out’60 years’, insert’65 years’.
No. 46- clause 105, sub-clause (1), paragraph (a), leave out ‘ 60 years ‘, insert ‘ 65 years ‘.
No. 47- clause 105, sub-clause (2), paragraph (a) leave out ‘ 60 years ‘, insert ‘ 65 years ‘.
No. 48- clause 143, sub-clause (2), paragraph (d), leave out ‘ 60 years ‘, insert ‘ 65 years ‘.
No. 49- clause 143, sub-clause (6), leave out ‘60 years’, insert’65 years’.
No. 50- clause 144, sub-clause (1), leave out ‘60 years’, insert’65 years’.
No. 51- clause 145, sub-clause (1) paragraph (b), leave out ‘ 60 years ‘, insert ‘ 65 years ‘.
No. 52- clause 149, sub-clause (9), leave out ‘60 years’, insert’65 years’.
No. 53- clause 149, sub-clause ( 10), paragraph (a), leave out ‘60 years ‘, insert ‘65 years’.
No. 54- clause 151, sub-clause (1), after ‘pension’ (second occurring), insert’, additional age retirement pension by virtue of section 58, additional early retirement pension by virtue of section 62, or spouse’s additional pension by virtue of section 84’.
No. 55- clause 153, leave out the clause.
No. 56- after clause 185, insert the following new clause: ‘ 1 85a ( I ) Any eligible employee referred to in the last preceding section who immediately preceding the commencement day would have been entitled to benefits under the superseded Act upon his retirement on attaining the age of either 60 or 65 years may elect to continue his contributions under that Act and to receive benefits in accordance with the provisions thereof. ‘(2) The contributions of any eligible employee making an election under sub-section ( I ) who would have been entitled to benefits under the superseded Act upon attaining the age of 65 years shall be increased to the level of contributions applicable to persons who have been entitled to benefits under the superseded Act upon attaining the age of 60 years. ‘(3) An election under sub-section (1) shall be made by notice in writing served on the Commissioner within such period as is prescribed. ‘(4) An eligible employee who makes an election pursuant to this section and who complies with the requirements of that Act shall be entitled to receive benefits under the superseded Act and the superseded Act shall continue in force and apply in relation to such requirements and entitlements as if this Act and the Superannuation Act Amendment Act 1975 had not been passed. ‘.
No. 57- Schedule I , leave out the Schedule.
No. 58-Schedule 3, leave out the Schedule.
– I move:
On 5 June 1975, the House disagreed to the amendments that the Senate had made earlier that day to the Superannuation Bill 1975. The reasons adopted by the House for disagreeing to the amendments were:
Because the superannuation arrangements for Australian Government employees that would result from the amendments proposed would be detrimental to many existing contributors to the present superannuation pension scheme: would compare unfavourably with the superannuation schemes maintained by the State governments for their employees; and would result in complex and difficult administrative arrangements.
The Senate, however, on 1 1 June 1975 decided to insist on the amendments.
The Senate amendments change the new superannuation scheme in the following way: The standard Government-financed retirement pension benefit of 50 per cent of final salary would be available only on retirement at age 65 after 30 years contributory service with reduced benefits for retirement before that age so as to provide a 40 per cent of final salary pension at age 60. Because this would result in a reduction in benefits presently attainable on retirement before age 65, existing pension scheme contributors would be allowed to continue under the conditions of the present scheme providing that they contributed at the higher age 60 retirement rates. The supplementary Government-financed pension of one-half of one per cent of salary for each year of contributory service in excess of 30 years before reaching age 60, which would lift the maximum Government-financed pension from 50 per cent of salary after 30 years to 55 per cent after 40 years, would be eliminated. The one times consumer price index post-retirement updating of new age retirement pensions would be confined to the Government-financed element.
It is estimated that, with the amendments of the Senate, contributors to the present pension scheme, overall, would be 9.8 per cent worse off under the new scheme. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard estimates prepared by the Treasury of capital costs of the new scheme, as amended by the Senate, compared to present scheme costs.
-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-
NEW SUPERANNUATION SCHEME IF AMENDED AS PROPOSED BY THE SENATE ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS COMPARED TO PRESENT SCHEME COSTS Note. The following estimates have been prepared on the same general basis as those contained in paragraphs 90 to 93 of the Explanatory Memorandum on the Superannuation Bill 1 975 circulated by the former Treasurer
– I thank the House. By far the worst feature of the Senate amendments is the option provision that would allow contributors to the present pension scheme to remain in that scheme providing they contributed at the higher age 60 retirement rates. The problems and defects of the present pension scheme are well documented. It is most complex and expensive to administer and is rapidly becoming unworkable. Yet the option provision would require the scheme to be continued for many years into the future, conjointly with the present scheme. Moreover, for older contributors the option would be largely worthless. The choice for the older age 60 contributors would be either to accept the lower overall benefits of the new scheme, as amended by the Senate, or to condemn themselves to penury by remaining in the present scheme and trying to meet rapidly escalating contributions in their last years of service. The older age 65 contributors would be faced with an immediate substantial increase in their contributions to the age 60 basis if they elected tc remain in the present scheme, in most cases far beyond their capacity to pay.
Older contributors therefore would have little alternative but to accept transfer to the new scheme. Younger contributors, particularly those already contributing on an age 60 basis, faced with higher immediate contributions under the new scheme and not attracted by the lower overall benefits of the new scheme, would be most likely to elect to remain in the present scheme. It is these contributors who would ensure that the present scheme would need to be continued with all the attendant administrative problems and complexities. The situation would be worse than that which existed with defence forces retirement benefits from 1959 until 1972.
I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a statement providing 34 examples, calculated by the Australian Government Retirement Benefits Office, of the immediate increases in contributions, expressed for convenience as percentages of salary, that would result upon members of various ages, salaries and length of service changing from age 65 to age 60 contributions.
-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-
– I thank the House. The schedule also illustrates the very low contribution rates at young ages and the punitive rates at older ages that are characteristic of the present pension scheme. There is an urgent need to replace the present superannuation scheme for Australian Government employees but the new scheme, as amended by the Senate, would not be a reasonable alternative. An already difficult situation would be aggravated and widespread dissatisfaction throughout the Public Service and the other areas of Australian Government employment already covered by the Superannuation Act would surely result.
The Government considers that, in the Superannuation Bill 1975, it has a reasonable solution to the problem of superannuation for Australian Government employees. The Senate ‘s failure to pass the legislation has meant that the new scheme could not come into operation on 1 July 1975, the date of commencement specified in the Bill. Because of the very serious difficulties that would be associated with retrospective operation of the new scheme the Govenment therefore proposes to put aside the present Bill and shortly to introduce a new Bill in the same form, but providing for the scheme to come into operation from a date to be proclaimed.
-The Opposition will vote against this motion. I want to draw attention immediately to the attitude displayed by the Minister for Tourism and Recreation and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Stewart) in the prepared speech which he delivered in this House, a copy of which he handed to me 2 minutes ago for the first time. His speech underlined the attitude taken by the Government in this matter from the beginning which is that it is the perfect scheme. The Government offers this scheme to the Parliament, to the taxpayers as well as to Government employees on a take it or leave it basis- an all or nothing approach. That has been the attitude of the Minister and of other Ministers not only in this House but in the Senate. Their attitudes have been revealed as the debate has unfolded.
We, of course, have just had a lengthy recess. This matter reached a deadlock situation because of the action taken by the Government in June this year. At no time during that recess did the Government mention to the Opposition what it was thinking about this matter. It did not indicate whether there could be a meeting of the minds on some of the points. The Government’s attitude is that there is nothing to be said for any of the Opposition’s amendments and that it will bring in a new Bill to deal with the situation. The Australian Labor Party is the Government. It has to govern and has to deal with the existing situation. The attitude that, after all the discussions that have taken place, Parliament should not be permitted to make any amendments to the Bill, that there ought not to be any changes to this scheme because it is of such great perfection, is obviously silly. Indeed, representations have been made to me by people relying on advice that has been given by the Government and, indeed, by some of its advisers that that is the attitude of the Government and that we, in the Opposition, had something of a cheek to disagree in any way with these proposals. If that were the case what is Parliament for?
I should like to refer to one or two matters in the relatively short time I am permitted to speak because this matter will continue obviously in the future. It must. I start off with the point that an all or nothing approach was the attitude of the
Government. When I stood in this place last, in June, the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, who is sitting at the table, could not wipe the grin off his face. He thought he had an election winner and that it would see the Government through because of the great number of Commonwealth employees concerned. The AttorneyGeneral (Mr Enderby) who is in the chamber- I am not sure whether he made a speech or interjectedindicated he was very pleased that this situation had arisen. Now, of course, they are not so sure that they are on an election winner and the tone is more muted.
The Minister for Tourism and Recreation talked about what happened on 5 June. He did not add, as he could have, that when we sought to respond on 5 June the debate was gagged by his colleagues who are sitting on the benches behind him at this moment. The Minister went on to recite the reasons adopted by the House. I hope that he will be gracious enough to recall that the Opposition voted against those reasons and that what he calls the decision of the House was a motion supported by Labor Party supporters only. Of course, the way the motion reads is biased. It talks about our proposals being detrimental to existing contributors- although that has been explained- and speaks of our proposals comparing unfavourably with superannuation schemes maintained by the State governments. We have explained ad nauseam that changes made in the schemes in two of the States flowed from the proposals of this Government. The changes in those schemes were as a result of those proposals. I believe that those States will rue the day they took that action.
We in this place have a responsibility to look at Government proposals and proposed laws and to decide what is responsible and what is not. We recognise that the present superannuation scheme needs to be changed. We have emphasised every time this matter has come up for debate, and on behalf of the Opposition in Press releases and statements that I have prepared, the features of the new scheme that we think are desirable. But, when our amendments were moved, who was it who allowed the deadlock to continue so that the new scheme could not come into operation? It was the Government. The Government’s insistence on that deadlock has meant members in their latter years of service will have to keep on paying the onerous contributions. The Minister for Tourism and Recreation has described these contributions as punitive rates. Of course they are punitive rates. This is the main disability in the present scheme. For the needs of most people, it must be changed. But, if the Government allows a situation to develop in which it will not accept amendments dealing with 3 areas of the whole superannuation package, that position will continue.
In its statement, the Government says that it has found a reasonable solution. We believe that the solution that was found to the problems was unreasonable. In any package of superannuation proposals there is in each feature a range from generous to less generous. What the Government did in its proposals, we believe, was to choose the most generous aspect of every feature. We have pointed out four of these over-generous aspects and the Senate has agreed with three of them. We believe that those 4 aspects were overgenerous. We have sought to amend not the whole scheme but the proposals in those areas. There has been a deliberate muddying of the pool by the Government.
– You sound as though you are regretting your action.
– You read your speech. It was carefully written by someone else. Perhaps you will allow me, in the 7 minutes that I have left -
– Order! I suggest that the honourable gentlemen on my right remain silent and that the honourable gentleman who is addressing the House address the Chair.
– I was doing that, as you are aware, Mr Speaker -
– Order! I do not think you were. I have asked you to do so.
– I was doing that. I wish to touch on some of the points which have been raised. My time is limited. No doubt the Minister for Tourism and Recreation will not seek to give me an extension of time to deal with these points which have been raised by way of criticism.
I refer, first of all, to the policy of the Opposition in respect of the normal retiring age. We took considerable interest in the evidence that exists as to what should be the normal proper retiring age and came to the conclusion that the proper one was 65 years. The new scheme put forward by this Government proposed a normal retiring age of 60 years on full pension. The adoption of that retiring age would have resulted in a 30 per cent increase in the cost of the scheme. This increase would have been brought about by paying a pension for an additional 5 years and meeting the consumer price index adjustments to that pension. We referred to a schedule that was attached to the Bill as there was an indication in that schedule that people were to be encouraged later to retire at 55 years or between 55 years and 60 years. We noted that there was a discounting of 4 per cent of the pension for each year below 60 years. We thought that that was an appropriate discounting to make in respect of the pension paid to any contributor who retired at an age earlier than 65 years. That scale relating to a retiring age between 55 years and 60 years is indicative of the direction in which the Government was pointed in its approach to this matter. In this one area there would be a 30 per cent greater cost to the Australian taxpayers if a contributor was to retire at age 60 instead of age 65.
We believe that the proper retiring age is 65. years. To say, as many people have, that by our proposal we are forcing employees to work to age 65 is playing fast and loose with the truth. The terms and conditions of employment are laid down in the Public Service Act and other Acts. It is for a member to decide when he wishes to retire. The question here is what amount of pension a member should receive on retirement at a given age. The Opposition says that, for a member retiring at 60 years, the payment of 80 per cent of full pension is a reasonable discounting as it is the rate of discounting which the Government was prepared to introduce for a lower age of retirement. The new scheme provides for a contributor the right to take a lump sum payment, together with other rights. The Minister would be aware that most of the conditions concerning existing members were to be covered by regulations. He has not let us see any draft regulations. We do not know what those details were to be. We would have envisaged that members who under our scheme opted to stay in the existing scheme would have perhaps some of those rights given to them including, among others that we could consider, the change in respect of the position of widows.
This raises a matter of which I spoke earlier, namely, the need for some give and take and some discussion on this matter. By its whole manner and attitude, the Government has refused to do this. I might add that this is demonstrated particularly by the antagonism the Government displayed in the debate on these proposals in the Senate. As a result, these matters cannot have been fully discussed in a reasonable way because there has been no reasonable approach. Apparently we must now wait until this new Bill is presented to see what range of features it offers and how much the Government may wish to see itself in the role of buying votes and of being over-generous again. Perhaps it will be’ identical.
At times when I hear Ministers and other Labor supporters speak about these proposals I wonder whether they really know the costs that are involved in this scheme. What about the unions representing blue collar workers and also pensioner organisations which are complaining so much about these proposals? They are properly asking: Why is it that this Labor Government should be giving such advantages to one sector of the community? Why is it putting those in the Government service in such a superior position to those in superannuation schemes outside the Government service or indeed to those who have no superannuation schemes at all? The figures from the Government Actuary- these were produced pretty well at the last minute, when the debate on this matter was last heldshowed that if the Commonwealth were to set aside money for a funded scheme, which it does not do, approximately 23 per cent of the salaries and wages paid to Government employees would be required to meet the cost of that scheme. That is based on certain long range assumptions, including an inflation rate of 3.9 per cent and an interest rate of 5.5 per cent. It is very difficult to believe in the present conditions that even over a long period such rates are likely to be the case.
We recognise that there would be some members in the existing scheme who would wish to stay where they are. On the principle that a promise has been made to them in that respect we believe that it is right to say to those people that if they want to stay in it is reasonable for them to opt for the existing scheme, although frankly I do not believe that many would stay in the existing scheme, in spite of some of the comments that have been made in this place. It can be a matter of judgment only. I do not believe that many would stay in the existing scheme. I think that some contributors in their last year or two of service might contemplate it. I doubt whether younger people would want to be locked into a position in which they thought they would remain for the rest of their service. There is a limit to what can be done in relation to the making of some sort of amendment from the Opposition side of the chamber. We of the Opposition are not in the position to make sweeping changes to the scheme and to look again at some of these things from the beginning. Broadly speaking, we can only lay down the general principles of what we believe should be the case and identify areas of over-generosity. If the Government digs in its heels and will not do anythingthat has been the situation until now- there is very little that we can do about it. The AttorneyGeneral refused in writing to give drafting assistance.
People can point to this aspect and to that aspect and complain, but I believe that we have tried to adopt a reasonable approach to the matter. I believe also that many of the people who have been complaining have been anxious to believe the propaganda that has emanated from the Australian Labor Party and, indeed, have been misled by a few of their own trade union leaders. I think that they do not understand the cost involved and how relatively badly off are the people outside of the service of the Government who, after all, are also paying high income taxes and having their take-home pay reduced. They are not getting into a scheme that will allow them to be index-linked- tied to the consumer price index- and proofed against the ravages of inflation that is affecting the rest of the community. I have no time to go on further. The Opposition maintains its view. It is open to further consideration of the details if that is what the Government wishes. It is the Government. It has to govern. It has to face up to the situation. I think 1 have referred to enough items to make clear the Opposition’s view and in general the principles behind its adoption.
– I would be remiss for no other reason than the fact that I am the honourable member for Canberra in this House if I were not to say a few words in reply to the remarks of the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland), who has just resumed his seat. One is continually surprised by the ability of the honourable gentleman to take a set of facts and twist them to his own advantage. The facts here are quite clear. One knows that there is indeed a great degree of inequity in the existing superannuation scheme. The honourable member for Curtin has conceded that. Yet he has said that in seeking to remove those inequities the Government is trying to win votes. The Government will always seek to remove inequities. The honourable gentleman has had the gall to say in defence of the action of his colleagues in the Senate that they are trying to save the taxpayers’ money and that they are trying to think of other interested groups in the community. It is well known that this proposal will not cost the taxpayers any more money. It is just a more efficient and more rational use of the existing resources of the contributions being made.
– Look at your own figures.
– I can tell the honourable gentleman that the measure was thoroughly thrashed out in the party rooms of the Australian Labor Party before the final decision was taken on it because within the ranks of the Party there were a number of people who had expressed interest and concern lest the situation be what he had said it is. Every one of those doubts was put to rest because the measure was subjected to a thorough scrutiny and a thorough examination. It was referred to auditors and costed out. The Government went ahead with the measure in order to give a greater degree of equity to the quarter of a million or so public servants of the Australian Government.
Lest the honourable gentleman should underestimate the feeling on this subject, I point out that it is my understanding that the Australian Capital Territory Branch of the Liberal Party of Australia took the view that the Government takes on the subject and made representations to people on his side of the House not to be stubborn, not to be foolish and not to try and. win votes in the way in which honourable members opposite are obviously trying to win them- by appealing to some kind of prejudice outside against public servants. I understand that that branch of the Liberal Party made such representations but that its appeals fell on deaf ears. The arrogance that so often comes forward from the Liberal Party when it deals with its own colleagues in the Australian Capital Territory and that we saw manifested over 23 years revealed itself on this issue.
I should also tell the honourable gentleman another fact of life. When one speaks with the officers of the various white collar unions that speak for public servants on these matters one finds that they are almost united and speak with almost one voice on one aspect of this matter; that is, that if the amendments in the form that they have come to us from the Senate were to be accepted their acceptance would cause an even greater amount of inequity and place an even greater financial burden on public servants than the present scheme casts upon them- the present scheme that the Government knows to be wrong and wants to change and that the Opposition knows to be wrong but, speaking with 2 voices, finds a reason for opposing. That is all I wanted to say. The facts will speak for themselves. No doubt the people of Canberra and the other parts of Australia in which public servants live and work will also speak for themselves.
-The contribution that I make to this debate will be short. In view of the aspersions cast by the AttorneyGeneral (Mr Enderby) on the motives of the Opposition in relation to this matter I think it is only proper that I should say 2 things. The Opposition has not approached this matter in a political sense, in the sense of solely being concerned with currying political favour. If the Opposition had approached it in that manner the very simple, expeditious, easy option would have been to adopt the Government’s scheme in toto.
The Opposition realises that there has been criticism of its stand. I, along with other members of the Opposition, have received submissions which, I might say, have been in the main very courteously and helpfully put by leaders of the Public Service unions throughout Australia. We have listened to their points of view and can understand their interest in the matter. The fact of the matter is that the Opposition has decided that, having regard to all of the implications for the Australian economy at the present time, the stand it has taken is a reasonable one. In no way does it cut across the very many reforms which are contained in the 2 Bills which were debated during the last session. In no way does the Opposition’s stand represent a punitive attitude towards Commonwealth public servants. The Opposition believes that it does have a responsibility to all sectors of the Australian community. It believes that it has an obligation not only to those employed in the public sector but also to those employed in the private sector.
If there is one argument in the whole debate on this superannuation scheme that has not been answered by the Government and that in my belief has not been effectively answered by the leaders of the Public Service unions in Australia it is the argument that if the benefits provided under this scheme were to be matched by the private sector an intolerable financial burden, particularly in the light of present economic difficulties, would be placed upon the private sector. In all responsibility to the Australian people we cannot put aside consideration of the impact of this scheme upon the private sector. It may suit the convenience of the Government to do so but it does not suit the convenience of the Opposition. We believe that the impact of this scheme upon the private sector is a relevant consideration. That is one of the matters that weighed so heavily upon the Opposition in formulating its attitude.
I want to make one other comment about the remarks of the Attorney-General. He talked about the passage of a resolution at the Canberra Branch of the Liberal Party of Australia. I know that a resolution was passed in relation to this matter and that it was carried by a vote of something like 22 to 18, as was pointed out by the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland), but I really do not think that that sort of selective choosing of the actions of a particular branch of the Party really contributes very much to the debate. I could just as easily point out- I know it to be true- that some of the honourable members who sit opposite are still privately opposed to this scheme and that so are some blue collar unions. I do not think that that really contributes a great deal to the debate. It is inevitable in any matter of some controversy that there is going to be a division of opinion inside political parties, but the overwhelming consensus within the Liberal Party and the National Country Party of Australia is that whilst we warmly support the improvements contained in this scheme and the elimination of the many anomalies in it we believe that in certain defined areas it goes too far, having regard to the present economic circumstances. We believe that an intolerable financial burden would be placed upon the private sector if it tried to match the scheme. Given the newfound concern which has been expressed by some supporters of the Government towards the economic health of the private sector we are frankly surprised that they have not paid more regard to this aspect of the argument.
Question put:
That the House insists on disagreeing to the amendments insisted upon by the Senate.
The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)
AYES: 61
NOES: 53
Majority……. 8
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Motion (by Mr Stewart) agreed to:
That the Bill be laid aside.
page 30
Message received from the Senate intimating that the Senate insists upon the amendment made by the Senate to this Bill and disagreed to by the House of Representatives.
Motion ( by Mr Enderby ) agreed to:
That the amendment be taken into consideration in the Committee of the Whole forthwith.
In Committee
Consideration of Senate’s amendment.
Clause 3.
Section 3 of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section substituted:
Senate’s amendment-
At the end of the proposed section 3 of the Principal Act, add the following new sub-section:
In discharging the functions of the office a section of not less than two of the professional staff shall be seconded to draft proposed laws, amendments and instruments at the request of Members of the Parliament in priority to services for Ministers.
-I move:
Honourable members will recall this measure which proposed to make certain changes to the Parliamentary Counsel Act. The Opposition in this House sought to impose an obligation on the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to provide certain assistance to Opposition members. The amendment proposed by the Senate is to the effect that a section of not fewer than two of the professional staff of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel should be seconded to draft proposed laws and amendments at the request of private members.
The Government’s reasons for moving that the House insist on disagreeing to the Senate amendment are the same as those which I put to the House on 3 June 1975 when the House considered the Senate amendment and disagreed to it. In short, those reasons are that the needs of private members would be less adequately met under the amendment than they are at present and that the amendment would prejudice the legislative program of the government of the day, without giving to private members a corresponding benefit.
I should add once again to what I have said before, that it is the Government’s intent to give every possible assistance to honourable members, including backbenchers, whether they be on the Government side or on the Opposition side. Honourable members will appreciate that the strains on the office of Parliamentary Counsel these days are immense. They are immense because of the Government’s very energetic and industrious program of law reform. The measures that are put into this House which go to the Senate, sometimes to be rejected there, sometimes to have amendments made there and sometimes to pass there, cast a burden of legislative activity on the office of Parliamentary Counsel which has never been equalled in the history of Australia since Federation. Although we do try to make the services of officers available, it would be counter-productive to write in a law that they must be available in the ways in which the Opposition puts forward. As I have said before, the Government could not possibly accept that situation.
-The Opposition regrets that the Government will not accept the amendment which was inserted during the Senate debate on this Parliamentary Counsel Bill 1975. The argument advanced by the Opposition is, in our belief, a very strong argument. Having regard to the remarks that were made on an earlier occasion today regarding the dignity of the procedures of this House, the Opposition wonders whether some of the things said by Government members were completely sincere. One of the important things that has to be achieved if the procedures of this House are to become more effective and if the Executive is not to have a completely untrammelled run- be it an Executive of the present Government’s political persuasion or an Executive at some time in the not too different future of the opposite persuasionthen more effective parliamentary facilities must be provided for private members. I repeat what was said in the earlier debates on this measure: The Opposition is in no way critical of the efforts of Parliamentary Counsel to assist the Opposition at present. But as the AttorneyGeneral (Mr Enderby) rightly pointed out, the legislative burden at the present time is such that it is just not possible for the type of assistance that ought to be provided to be provided. In the Opposition’s view, that is all the more reason for the insertion of the amendment that was placed in this Bill during the Senate debate.
The Attorney-General spent some time talking about the massive legislative program that the Government had undertaken. Whilst that is acknowledged, I think that many honourable members on this side of the House and people throughout the Australian community, might well think that had there been a little less legislation from this Government in many areas and a little more responsible government, we would all be a great deal better off. So it is hardly a very good excuse for the attitude that the Government is taking towards our amendment just to refer to the sheer quantity of legislation that has been passed during the lifetime of this Government. The Opposition regrets that the Government will not agree to the Senate amendment. The Opposition does not intend to change its attitude in this place on the Senate’s amendment and will accordingly vote against the motion moved by the Attorney-General.
Question put-
That the House insists on disagreeing to the amendment insisted on by the Senate.
The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. G. G. D. Scholes)
AYES: 61
NOES: 56
Majority…….. 5
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Motion (by Mr Enderby) agreed to:
That the Bill be laid aside.
page 32
Bill received from the Senate with a request.
page 32
RESOLUTION AGREED TO BY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON 5 JUNE 1975
-I have received from the Senate the following message:
The Senate having considered Message No. 323 of the House of Representatives has agreed to the following Resolutions in connection therewith, viz.:
1 ) That the Senate concurs in the Resolution transmitted to the Senate by Message No. 323 of the House of Representatives relating to the appointment of a Joint Standing Committee on the new and permanent Parliament House, subject to the following modifications:
office space for a secretarial/legislative assistant.;
That the provisions of the Resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders.
The Senate requests the concurrence of the House of Representatives in the Senate’s modifications of the Resolution transmitted to the Senate by the House.
page 33
Motion (by Mr Uren) agreed to:
That the message be taken into consideration forthwith.
– I move:
For too long now this Parliament has paid lipservice to the long standing goal of building a permanent Parliament House in Canberra. Once again we are on the way to being diverted from this main role. The time has come for immediate action. The Senate has transmitted a message to us today which contains an Opposition amendment seeking to add a further term of reference to the terms of reference of the proposed Joint Standing Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House and thus add to the Committee’s task. The effect of this amendment will be to put the Committee under immediate pressure to resolve the very difficult question of accommodation in the present House. This can only mean that the special client committee will be diverted from its primary task, that is, to build the new Parliament House on Capital Hill as soon as possible. This is a goal for which we all are striving- a permanent Parliament House to serve parliamentary democracy in Australia. This is the important point we must now consider and resolve.
To reassure all honourable members on both sides of the Parliament that the unsatisfactory accommodation situation at present in the House is not being neglected, I point to the existence of the Joint House Committee whose role it is to examine questions such as that raised in the Senate amendment. It would be an appropriate task for this Committee to decide as soon as possible on which departments and people could be removed from the House to ensure that the members of the Parliament have adequate facilities to carry out their elected duties until the new Parliament House is built.
For these reasons the Government intends to oppose the amendment. It hopes that the Senate sees the wisdom of this and accepts the resolution of appointment as first proposed by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam). This will mean that we can get on with the job of building a new and permanent Parliament House without any further delay.
-I support the view that has just been put forward by the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren). I think those who have been in the Parliament for a number of years and have heard the matter of a new and permanent Parliament House debated a number of times would agree that the Minister is right when he says that there should be no further delay in proceeding and making a decision and taking the necessary steps to enable the new Parliament House to be got under way. I think one of the most important points to make is that in this matter there will be no major outlay of finance for several years, even after the decision is made to proceed. I admire the attitude that has been taken by the Minister in his attempt to get a decision made on this very important matter for Australia. I do not want to prolong the debate. I merely want to indicate where I stand myself. I believe the Minister is moving in the right direction, and I for one am completely with him.
-I rise in support of the attitude expressed by the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren). I very much support the remarks made by the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Drury), whose interest in this matter is well known to the House. He has expressed a consistent view over a number of years. The purpose of the proposed Joint Standing Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House is to get on with the job of designing and building a new and permanent Parliament House for the Parliament of Australia. The present building is inadequate. Those who live in it know that very well. The opening comment of those who visit it always is: ‘What a very old and archaic building it is’.
The comfort of honourable members is not my prime concern. It seems to me that the amendments suggested by the Senate go more to the subject of the comfort of honourable member’s at the moment than it goes to what in my view is the principal subject, and that is a building far more contemporary with political life in Australia and certainly far more contemporary with a parliament in a developing country in the last quarter of the 20th century and one that we trust will serve well into the 21st century. The present building not only has limitations in accommodation for members but in my view it has grave limitations in the way in which it causes the parliamentary system to operate. The present building places a great deal of restraints and constrictions upon the very function it is supposed to assist the Parliament to carry out. It constrains and restricts the members in the carrying out of their tasks; it constrains and restricts the Parliament in its deliberation on a very wide variety of subjects.
For those reasons I support the attitude expressed that the amendments suggested by the Senate ought to be rejected and that the proposition that was carried by this House is a sound one because it goes to the very root of the problem. It goes to the problem of getting a permanent Parliament House constructed on the site that has been decided by this Parliament, and that is Capital Hill. The Minister for Urban and Regional Development has pointed out already that there is in existence a committee to care for this building; that is, the Joint House Committee. If. the proposition as agreed to by this House is changed in accordance with the modification suggested by the Senate the proposed committee will start to lose its effectiveness and it will divide its efforts between 2 jobs. Some honourable members may be of the view that the committee can function properly by exercising its mind in deliberating on 2 matters at the same time, but I am afraid that that is not my view and I am sure that it is not the view of the House. As I said, there is in existence a committee to care for the present Parliament House.
It is proposed that a committee be formed to look after, to investigate and to oversee the design and construction of a new parliament house. I hope that this House, without disagreement, will report back to the Senate that it does not agree with the suggested changes. I also hope that at a very early date the proposed committee will be set up so that it may get on with the task of devising a new parliament house that will be far more in line with what is required in Australia from the 1970s right through to the year 2000. It is my hopeful wish that the same sort of institution will be in existence in the year 2 100. 1 commend the motion to the House.
– I basically support the resolution but I more particularly support the resolution as amended by the Senate which not only is in favour of a joint committee proceeding with plans for the new parliament house but also includes a reference to investigate and make recommendations in respect of the provision of better and reasonable facilities for members in the present building here and now. I do not believe that the Senate’s amendment is contradictory. I believe that the acceptance of the suggested modification is necessary for 2 reasons. One is that no matter how quickly any committee proceeds there will be quite a time lag before a new parliament house is constructed. With the best will in the world I think it would be 10 to 1 5 years before members were able to move into the new parliament house. There is a time lag between the design specifications, the construction and the movement of members and staff to the new building. I would think that in some ways 10 to 15 years could be a conservative estimate.
What is to happen to the ordinary members of Parliament who occupy this building? The facilities available to them will not improve in that time. Their work load is increasing. The membership of the House of Representatives is restricted to 127 at the present time. On many occasions while I have been a member of this House- I am sure that ordinary members who have, been here for much longer than I also have seen this- I have seen the rights of and the facilities available to the ordinary members come last in the list of priorities in what is actually provided in this building for those who occupy it. When one looks at other parliament houses and what is provided for members one can see the perhaps lavish provisions in the United States, but I will refer to Canada which is probably the most comparable country to Australia. In Canada a federal member represents about half the number of people that a federal member in this country represents. Every ordinary member of the Federal Parliament in Canada has a separate double office with a staff of two to assist him in his work, and he considers that to be by no means a generous provision. Yet ordinary members here, with twice the number of electors of Federal members in Canada generally, have no support facilities at all in this building. One sees room after room in this place occupied by two and even 3 members.
I believe that the previous Government was neglectful in this area, just as it appears that the leadership of the present Government is being neglectful of the rights and privileges of the ordinary members of Parliament in this place. Putting to one side the Ministry and the facilities provided for it, if there is a restriction on space in this building then a reasonable requirement- as suggested in the Senate’s amendment- is that ordinary members of Parliament should have first priority and that every other requirement for space in this building for the various officers and departments should come second. If the Parliament is to be the place for members of Parliament to carry out their duties rather than the place . for all the additional facilities and requirements that appear to have been tacked on over the years, then the rights of ordinary members of Parliament on both sides should come first. It is because of this time lag in processing details for and creating a new and permanent parliament house, even with the best will in the world, that I think it is important that this amendment of the Senate be agreed to so that something can be done.
In reply to a question during question time today the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) laid stress on equality. I hope he will have a look at equality in this place and see the differences between the facilities available to himself and the Ministry and those available to ordinary members. I would say the same thing if my Party were in government because this was true when it was in office. When one talks about travelling economy class and equality, does it mean that as members of Parliament we are all to travel VIP? Does it mean that the Prime Minister also will travel economy class? One could also talk about travelling in Mercedes-Benz cars. I believe that the Senate ‘s amendment should be supported.
– I am a little surprised that the Senate, after its long battle to get some action on this matter, should delay it by this method. In a long history of parliamentary endeavour there is nothing more designed to delay things than seeking to amend running affairs. The Senate itself has played a fairly effective part in having a decision made on the location of the new permanent parliament house. I think it is fairly obvious from all our experience that if you want something done you hand it to someone whose function it is to determine that question and that question alone. This resolution from the Senate and the support from some members of the Opposition will only help to confuse matters because it is a different question altogether.
The question of accommodation in this building at the present moment is under review by the Joint House Committee, as I understand it. I also understand that submissions have been made already and are in the process of being made ready for presentation to the appropriate authorities. In fact, expenditure on this building is a matter that involves serious architectural constraints. It is a very difficult question and one which can be resolved only by close study by the appropriate authorities and the experts. There is not all that much that we can do about it. Consideration of a new and permanent parliament house and the function of the committee that we want established as soon as possible will call for the greatest possible intellectual effort and continual study, work and consideration. It will not be a sinecure. In the first instance we are going to erect a building which will be totally different from any other building in this country- not because it will be contemporary but because for the first time someone will be setting out to construct a building for a modern parliament and for that alone.
I was a member of the original committee which examined the requirements of a new and permanent parliament house and brought down its report some 7 or 8 years ago on the functional relationship of the building and the accommodation that would be required. We travelled around the world and we investigated a number of other parliament houses. The thing that struck me- I presume it made the same impact upon the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Drury) who was a member of that committee- was that although some very fine buildings had been designed and built they did not cater for the functions of parliament. The Parliament House building in Kuala Lumpur, for instance, looks well on a postcard. The building in Delhi represents another architect’s vision of what a parliament house ought to be, but it has been designed without much consultation with parliamentarians. In Rome and Bonn the staff are working under constraints imposed by old buildings. The British Houses of Parliament are a magnificent building but totally inadequate, as is the building in Ottawa which was mentioned by my friend the- honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd).
The function of parliament as an institution is totally different from its function in the past. Great demands are placed upon the people who work in it. The general public are increasingly attracted to visit it. The people in it have an increasing workload and there is an increasing work force. In a way the parliamentary institution now has to include executive functions, legislative functions and the general accommodation of the people who work in it. The Committee that has been set up has a very difficult and involved task before it. I can only hope that it will get on with the job and, in the not too distant future, produce designs which will be a substantial advance on anything that has been produced so far anywhere else. I fondly hope that it will create a new style of architecture for Australia.
This matter has been fraught with unusual and unnecessary delays. The Committee produced its report about 7 years ago. This House decided by a small majority that the new parliament house ought to be on Camp Hill. The Senate decided by a large majority that it ought to be on Capital
Hill. I think that the majority in favour of the Capital Hill site was about thirty, there being a total of 185 members at that time. The then Prime Minister, the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton), perhaps acting in concert with his Cabinet but perhaps not, just announced in the House that as the Parliament could not make up its mind about the matter the Government itself would decide on it. He said: ‘We will put it on Camp Hill’. One would have thought that even a Liberal Prime Minister would have been able to add up two simple numbers.
– That move was not one of his finest moments.
– That is right. One would have thought that there were only two ballot boxes in that election- one in the Senate and one in the House of Representatives- and that even a Liberal Prime Minister, dedicated to electoral inequality as all Liberals are- all except my friend from Griffith- would have been able to add them together and say that the majority was in favour of Capital Hill. But he did not do that. The result is that for 7 years there has been a complete delay, and the person principally responsible must be the right honourable member for Higgins. If it had not been for his intervention in that way the building would now be half completed. So I think that it would be an important contribution to alacrity in this matter if the Opposition did not vote against the motion and if we relayed to the Senate the unanimous view of this House that the Committee should get on with the job as it was defined by this House in the first place and that the function, the subject of the Senate’s resolution, be returned to the respective House committees to establish the accommodation needs. As I understand it from information I have received, submissions have been largely completed on the matter. This is a totally different function from the design of the new and permanent parliament house. Therefore I suggest that this House carry the motion without division so that the Senate will be encouraged to make its decision without delay.
-Mr Chairman of Committees, may I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment?
-We are in the House at the moment.
-Thank you, but I still take the opportunity. I will be very brief. Shortly after I arrived in this Parliament in 1 966 discussions on the siting of the new parliament house commenced. Here we are in the mid-1970s still discussing it. I feel that I share the view of the vast majority of Australians who have heard the various debates on this subject, that the nation is well convinced of the need for a new parliament house but is disgusted at the lack of ability of the Parliament itself to come to grips with making such a simple decision. I hope that today’s debate will be the final one on this subject and that in the very near future we will get on with the job.
– At the outset I would like to congratulate the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) on one of the few really good speeches I have heard him make in the Parliament. I support the view put forward by the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) that we should reject the Senate’s amendment. The honourable member for Griffith and the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Drury)- and all honourable members for that matter-must realise that no one would imagine that a parliament could be properly conducted with the sort of accommodation and facilities that are available here for members and others. It is true that we suffer greatly in comparison particularly with Canada and the United States of America. The British House of Commons does not offer much in the way of facilities for private members. As the honourable member for Griffith said, for a long time- almost since the time I entered the Parliament- there has been a demand for a new parliament house. The facilities are not available for Ministers and private members adequately to provide for the staff that is necessary. The real purpose behind the resolution, which was moved and carried by the Parliament, was to get the proceedings under way and to commence the erection of a new parliament house. I thought that we had gone a long way when this matter was decided by a vote on nonparty lines; undoubtedly this delaying tactic will upset our hopes and aspirations.
The amendment refers to matters relating to facilities in this House at the present time. The fact is that at the present time a committee is investigating what can be done. But not much can be done in this building unless it is extended another storey or sideways or unless the walls are turned into concertina walls. All the inquiries in the world would reveal that it is necessary to erect another building, either by adding to this one or by building a new parliament house. Why the Senate should consider just investigating the possibility of improving the facilities here is quite beyond me. I suggest that that is completely out of order with what was meant by the original motion. Where will we get if we just keep on inquiring about what we can do in this Parliament House? Why not be more constructive and say: ‘When can we commence to lay the foundation stone of a parliament house that will do justice not only to the people of this country but also to those who are honoured to represent them here?’ Those people who have seen the Canadian building appreciate what has been done there. It is a magnificent Parliament House with good facilities for members. The same thing applies in the United States Congress.
We have been asked to go into certain matters in the resolution. The honourable member for Murray mentioned the neglect of accommodation for honourable members. He criticised governments in which his own Party participated but he was also somewhat critical of the present Government and said that it also had gone to sleep in regard to facilities for honourable members. I do not want to push the matter any further but all honourable members know that in the last few yea.rs, right throughout the length and breadth of the country, the facilities for honourable members in their offices in their electorates and in other places have been substantially increased, and the secretarial legislative research assistance mentioned has been provided by the Labor Government. For 23-odd years Liberal governments did not bother to do anything about that. The criticism by the honourable member for Murray does him no credit. It is easy to see that he did not suffer as other honourable members did from the complete lack of facilities not only in this Parliament but also in the electorates.
This Government has not gone to sleep on the matter. It has put forward this motion regarding a new parliament house in order to improve and continue the progress it has made in providing adequate facilities for members in this Parliament. Consequently these delaying tactics do little credit to the Senate and will not help those who seek to improve conditions for honourable members here. Every Minister and every private member wants additional accommodation. Those who work within the Parliament, such as the clerks and others, need additional facilities. The staff and all those associated with Parliament who work for the people of this country certainly look forward to a better parliament house, better facilities and surroundings. I do not wish to say more than that I hope the Parliament will reject this suggestion and that the Senate, in good sense, will accept the original motion which was sent forward and let a new Parliament
House get under way. From what I have seen of the Senate, it could do with some improvements in its own facilities over there, as far as honourable senators are concerned. This offers the Senate that opportunity.
I suggest again to the honourable member for Murray that while it does him little credit to criticise honourable members on this side of the House for what has been done, by all means he should aim his darts at those who sat on this side for a long time and those in ministries who enjoyed to the full what a Minister could get in regard to facilities. Honourable members then on this side, as well as those of us who were then in Opposition, were given nothing at all in regard to what is needed by private members. I well remember that a member of the Opposition when he was defeated said: ‘Do not blame us if you never get anything over there. Our Ministers did not give us anything either.’ So it was all a one-way traffic. Under the previous Government 27 men had all the facilities that mattered and private members got nothing inside or outside the Parliament. This practical attempt by the Government to see that we get under way with the new Parliament House deserves to be supported. Motions aimed at delaying the commencement of the important construction of a new Parliament House deserve to be opposed. We should send this resolution back to the Senate. We should advise the Senate that we want to get under way and that we hope it wants the same thing and supports the original motion which was sent there.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
page 38
– I have received from the Senate the following message:
The Senate transmits to the House of Representatives the following Resolution which was agreed to by the Senate this day:
That the Senate affirms the decision taken by resolution of the Senate on 31 May 1973 that the Australian Parliament join with the Parliaments of the States in the Constitutional Convention to be convened to review the Australian Constitution in September of that year, and at such subsequent times as the Convention from time to time determined, and agrees:
1 ) That, for the purposes of the Convention-
That-
That a member of the Delegation cease to be such a member if-
JUSTIN O ‘BYRNE President
page 38
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.
Motion (by Mr Enderby) agreed to:
That the amendments be taken into consideration in the Committee of the Whole forthwith.
In Committee
Consideration of Senate ‘s amendments.
Clause 3 (Interpretation).
Senate ‘s amendment No. 1 -
At end of clause add the following sub-clause: ‘(3) A reference in this Act to a decision includes a reference to-
making, suspending, revoking or refusing to make an order or determination;
giving, suspending, revoking or refusing to give a certificate, direction, approval, consent or permission;
issuing, suspending, revoking or refusing to issue a licence, authority or other instrument;
imposing a condition or restriction;
making a declaration, demand or requirement;
retaining, or refusing to deliver up, an article; or
doing or refusing to do any other act or thing.’.
Clause 8.
Senate’s amendment No. 2-
In sub-clause (3), leave out ‘the Governor-General determines ‘, insert ‘ are prescribed ‘.
Senate’s amendment No. 3-
In sub-clause (4), leave out the sub-clause.
Clause 9 (Status of presidential members).
Senate’s amendment No. 4- leave out the clause.
Clause 12.
A full-time member shall not, except with the approval of the Minister, engage in paid employment outside the duties of his office.
Senate’s amendment No. 5-
Leave out ‘ , except with the approval of the Minister, ‘.
Clause 19 (Application of Judges’ Pensions Act).
Senate’s amendment No. 6-
Before sub-clause ( 1 ), insert the following new sub-clause: ‘(1a) Subject to this section, the Judges’ Pensions Act 1968-1974 has effect as if a presidential member had the status of a Judge of the Australian Industrial Court. ‘.
Clause 23.
Senate’s amendment No. 7-
In sub-clause (2), line 25, after ‘sub-section 26(6)’, insert ‘ or a provision of the Schedule ‘.
Clause 26.
Senate’s amendment No. 8-
In sub-clause (2), leave out the sub-clause, insert the following sub-clause: ‘(2) An enactment (being an Act, on Ordinance of a Territory, or regulations made under an Act) may make provision under this section that is inconsistent with a provision of the Schedule and, where such an enactment so makes provision, any provision of the Schedule that is inconsistent with that provision of the enactment is of no effect. ‘.
Senate’s amendment No. 9-
In sub-clause (3), lines 40 and 41, leave out ‘or (2), that enactment, or another enactment having effect under that enactment ‘, insert ‘ , that enactment ‘.
Senate’s amendment No. 10-
In sub-clause (6), paragraph (a), lines 12 and 13, leave out ‘, or another enactment having effect under that enactment,’.
Senate’s amendment No. 1 1-
In sub-clause (6), paragraph (b), lines 20 and 21, leave out ‘, or another enactment having effect under that enactment,’.
Senate’s amendment No. 12-
After clause 26, insert the following new clause: ‘26a. (1) The provisions of the Schedule have effect according to their tenor notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act (other than sub-section 26(2)) or in any provision of any other enactment in force at the commencement of this Act. ‘(2) A reference in sub-section 26(4) to an enactment includes a reference to the Schedule. ‘(3) The regulations may amend the Schedule-
by inserting in the Schedule-
provisions authorizing the making of applications to the Tribunal for review of decisions made in the exercise of powers conferred by an enactment; and
where a provision authorizing the making of such an application is contained in the Schedule- provisions, having effect in relation to the application, of the kinds mentioned in paragraphs 26(6) (a) and (b);
b ) by inserting in the Schedule a provision modifying or excluding the operation of any provision of an enactment in force at the commencement of this Act that provides for the review otherwise than by the Tribunal of decisions in respect of which applications may be made to the Tribunal for review; and
by omitting any provision of the Schedule that has ceased to have effect by virtue of the operation of any other enactment. ‘(4) An amendment of the Schedule made by the regulations applies only in respect of decisions made after the amendment takes effect. ‘.
Clause 27.
Senate’s amendment No. 13-
In sub-clause (1), leave out ‘an’ (first occurring), insert ‘ this Act or any other ‘.
Clause 28.
Senate’s amendment No. 14-
In sub-clause (2), leave out ‘a Minister’, insert ‘the Attorney-General ‘.
Senate’s amendment No. 15-
In sub-clause (2), paragraph (c), leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraph:
for any other reason specified in the certificate that could form the basis for a claim by the Crown in right of Australia in a judical proceeding that the contents of the statement should not be disclosed, ‘.
Clause 36.
Senate’s amendment No. 16-
In sub-clause (1), leave out ‘a Minister’, insert ‘the Attorney-General’.
Senate’s amendment No. 17-
In sub-clause ( 1 ), paragraph (c), leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraph: ‘(c) for any other reason specified in the certificate that could form the basis for a claim by the Crown in right of Australia in a judicial proceeding that the information or the contents of the documents should not be disclosed,’.
Senate’s amendment No. 18-
In sub-clause (S), leave out ‘, but does not affect any rules of law relating to privilege in relation to the disclosure of information or of the contents of documents in such proceedings ‘.
Clause 40.
Senate’s amendment No. 19-
After sub-clause (3), insert the following new sub-clause: ‘(3a) A person summoned to appear before the Tribunal may request that he be represented by counsel or a solicitor and upon such request being made the tribunal may allow such person to be represented. ‘.
Clause 43.
Senate’s amendment No. 20-
In sub-clause (6), leave out ‘Superior Court of Australia’, insert ‘Supreme Court of a State or Territory’.
Clause 44.
Senate’s amendment No. 21-
In sub-clause (1) leave out ‘Superior Court of Australia’, insert ‘Supreme Court of a State or Territory’.
Senate’s amendment No. 22-
In sub-clause (2), leave out ‘Superior Court of Australia’, insert ‘Supreme Court of a State or Territory ‘.
Senate’s amendment No. 23-
In sub-clause (3), leave out ‘Superior Court of Australia’, insert ‘Supreme Court of a State or Territory’.
Senate’s amendment No. 24-
In sub-clause (4), leave out the sub-clause.
Senate’s amendment No. 25-
In sub-clause (5), leave out ‘Superior Court of Australia’, insert ‘Supreme Court of a State or Territory’.
Senate’s amendment No. 26-
In sub-clause (6), leave out ‘Superior Court of Australia ‘, insert ‘Supreme Court of a State or Territory’.
Clause 45.
Senate’s amendment No. 27-
Leave out ‘Superior Court of Australia’ (wherever occurring), insert ‘Supreme Court of a State or Territory’.
Clause 46.
Senate ‘s amendment No. 28-
Leave out ‘Superior Court of Australia’ (wherever occurring), insert ‘Supreme Court of a State or Territory’.
Clause 47 (Temporary exercise of jurisdiction by Australian Industrial Court).
Senate’s amendment No. 29-
Leave out the clause.
Proposed new Part IV A.
Senate’s amendment No. 30-
After Part IV, insert the following new Part: ‘PART IVa-ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW COUNCIL ‘47a. (1) In this Part, unless the contrary intention appears- ‘appointed member’ means a member referred to in paragraph 47c (l)(d); ‘Council’ means the Administrative Review Council; ‘ member’ means a member of the Council. ‘(2) A reference in this Part to an administrative decision or an administrative discretion includes a reference to an administrative decision made, or administrative discretion exercised, otherwise than under an enactment. 47b. There is hereby established a Council by the name of the Administrative Review Council. ‘47c. ( 1 ) The Council shall consist of-
the President;
the Australian Ombudsman holding office under the Ombudsman Act 197S;
the Chairman of the Law Reform Commission established by the Law Reform Commission Act 1973; and
not less than 3 or more than 7 other members. ‘(2) The members referred to in paragraph ( 1) (d) shall be appointed by the Governor-General and shall be appointed as part-time members. ‘(3) The performance of the functions or the exercise of the powers of the Council is not affected by a vacancy in the office of a member referred to in paragraph (1) (a), (b) or (c) or by reason of the number of appointed members falling below 3 for not more than 3 months. ‘47D. A person shall not be appointed as a member referred to in paragraph 47C(1) (d) unless he has had extensive experience in public administration or has an extensive knowledge of administrative law. ‘47e. ( 1 ) The functions of the Council are-
to ascertain, and keep under review, the classes of administrative decisions that are not the subject of review by a court, tribunal or other body;
to make recommendations to the Minister as to whether any of those classes of decision should be the subject of review by a court, tribunal or other body and, if so, as to the appropriate court, tribunal or other body to make that review;
to inquire into the adequacy of the law and practice relating to the review by courts of administrative decisions and to make recommendations to the Minister as to any improvements that might be made in that law or practice;
to inquire into the adequacy of the procedures in use by tribunals or other bodies engaged in the review of administrative decisions and to make recommendations to the Minister as to any improvements that might be made in those procedures;
to make recommendations to the Minister as to the manner in which tribunals engaged in the review of administrative decisions should be constituted; (0 to make recommendations to the Minister as to the desirability of administrative decisions that are the subject of review by tribunals other than the Administrative Appeals Tribunal being made the subject of review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal; and
to make recommendations to the Minister as to ways and means of improving the procedures for the exercise of administrative discretions for the purpose of ensuring that those discretions are exercised in a just and equitable manner. ‘(2) The Council may do all things necessary or convenient to be done for or in connexion with the performance of its functions. ‘47f. An appointed member shall be appointed for such period, not exceeding 3 years, as the Governor-General specifies in the instrument of his appointment, but is eligible for re-appointment. ‘47g. (1) An appointed member shall be paid such remuneration as is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal but, if no determination of that remuneration by that Tribunal is in operation, he shall be paid such remuneration as is prescribed. ‘(2) An appointed member shall be paid such allowances as are prescribed. ‘(3) This section has effect subject to the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973-1974.
*47h. An appointed member may resign his office by writing signed by him and delivered to the Governor-General. ‘47j. (1) The Governor-General may remove an appointed member from office for misbehaviour or incapacity. ‘(2) If an appointed member is absent, except by leave of the Minister, from 3 consecutive meetings of the Council, the Governor-General may remove him from office. ‘47k. (1) The Council shall hold such meetings as are necessary for the performance of its functions. ‘(2) The President may at any time convene a meeting of the Council. ‘(3) The President shall, on receipt of a request in writing signed by 3 members, convene a meeting of the Council. ‘(4) At a meeting of the Council, 4 members constitute a quorum. ‘(5) The President shall preside at all meetings of the Council at which he is present. ‘(6) If the President is not present at a meeting of the Council, the members present shall elect one of their number to preside at that meeting and the person so elected shall preside accordingly. ‘(7) Questions arising at a meeting of the Council shall be determined by a majority of the votes of the members present and voting. ‘ ( 8 ) The member presiding at a meeting of the Council has a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of votes, also has a casting vote. ‘(9) The Council may regulate the conduct of proceedings at its meetings as it thinks fit and shall keep minutes of those proceedings. ‘(10) A person acting in the office of the Australian Ombudsman may attend a meeting of the Council and, in relation to a meeting of the Council that he attends in pursuance with this sub-section, shall be deemed to be the Australian Ombudsman. ‘47l. The staff of the Council shall be persons appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1 922-1 975. ‘47m. ( 1 ) The Council shall, as soon as practicable after 30 June in each year, prepare and furnish to the Minister a report of the operations of the Council during that year. ‘(2) The Minister shall cause the report of the Council to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 1 5 sitting days of that House after the receipt of the report by the Minister. ‘(3) The first report by the Council shall relate to the period commencing on the date of commencement of this Act and ending on 30 June 1976.’.
Clause 58.
Senate ‘s amendment No. 3 1 -
In sub-clause (2), leave out the sub-clause, insert the following sub-clause: ‘(2) Where an application is made by a person under subsection ( 1 ), the Attorney-General may, if he is satisfied that it would involve hardship to that person to refuse the application and that, in all the circumstances, it is reasonable that the application should be granted, authorize the provision by Australia to that person, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as the Attorney-General determines, of such legal or financial assistance in relation to the proceeding as the Attorney-General determines. ‘.
Proposed Schedule.
Senate ‘s amendment No. 32-
Add the following Schedule: ‘SCHEDULE Section 26a
‘PART I- INTERPRETATION
‘1. (1) This Schedule applies only in respect of decisions made after the commencement of this Act. ‘(2 ) Expressions used in a succeeding Part of this Schedule have, unless the contrary intention appears, the same respective meanings as those expressions have in the Act specified in the heading to that Part. ‘(3) A reference in this Schedule to a decision by the holder of an office includes a reference to a decision by a person for the time being acting in or performing any of the duties of the office. ‘(4) This Schedule applies to a decision made by a person to whom the power to make the decision has been delegated in like manner as it would have applied if the decision had been made by the person who delegated that power.
‘PART II-AIR NAVIGATION ACT
‘2. (1) Applications may be made to the Tribunal for review of decisions by the Director-General of Civil Aviation
refusing to grant a licence or certificate referred to in regulation 254 of the Air Navigation Regulations; or
varying or cancelling such a licence or certificate or suspending such a licence or certificate otherwise than under regulation 257 of those Regulations. ‘(2) A person is not entitled to-
have a matter to which a decision relates submitted for review to a board of review; or
appeal against a decision, in accordance with regulation 259 of the Air Navigation Regulations if an application may be made to the Tribunal in respect of the decision by virtue of sub-clause ( 1 ).
‘PART III-AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT
‘3. (1) An application may be made to the Tribunal for review of the revocation by the Commissioner of Taxation under section 20 of the Australian Capital Territory Taxation Administration Act 1969-1973 of an authority granted to a banker under Division 2 of Part III of that Act. ‘(2) A person is not entitled to appeal under section 2 1 of the Australian Capital Territory Taxation Administration Act 1969-1973 against the revocation of an authority in respect of which an application may be made to the Tribunal by virtue of sub-clause ( 1 ). ‘(3) For the purpose of reviewing a revocation of an authority referred to in sub-clause ( 1 ), the Tribunal shall be constituted by a presidential member alone.
‘PART IV- AUSTRALIAN FILM COMMISSION ACT
‘4. An application may be made to the Tribunal for review of a requirement made under section 10 of the Australian Film Commission Act 1975.
‘PART V- BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION ACT
‘5. (1) Applications may be made to the Tribunal for review of decisions of the Minister made under section 86 of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942-1974 or decisions of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board made under section 1 1 9 of that Act. ‘(2) A person is not entitled to appeal under section 87a of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1 942- 1 974 against a decision in respect of which an application may be made to the Tribunal by virtue of sub-clause ( 1 ).
‘PART VI-CUSTOMS ACT
‘6. (1) In this clause, ‘Customs Act’ means the Customs Act 1901-1974. ‘(2) Applications may be made to the Tribunal for review of-
a demand made by a Collector under section 35a of the Customs Act;
a decision by the Minister under Division 1 of Part V of the Customs Act;
a decision by the Minister under section 1 19 of the Customs Act not to grant a certificate of clearance;
a refusal by a Collector under section 126 of the Customs Act;
quota orders, and variations of quota orders, made by the Minister under sections I 32b and 132c of the Customs Act;
a decision by the Minister under section 160 of the Customs Act;
a direction by the Minister under section 164b of the Customs Act;
a decision by a Collector under section 183a of the Customs Act; and
a decision by the Minister under section 183b of the Customs Act. ‘(3) Where a dispute referred to in sub-section 167 ( 1 ) of the Customs Act has arisen and the owner of the goods has, in accordance with that sub-section, paid under protest the sum demanded by the Collector, an application may be made to the Tribunal for review of the demand made by the Collector for that sum. ‘(4) For the purposes of the reviews referred to in paragraphs (2)(b), (h) and (j), the Tribunal shall be constituted by a presidential member alone. ‘(5) Sub-section 119(3) of the Customs Act does not apply where a Certificate of Clearance is granted to the owner of the ship or aircraft referred to in that sub-section as a result of a review by the Tribunal. ‘(6) A person is not entitled to apply for a review under section 1 32e of the Customs Act of a quota order, or a variation of a quota order, if an application may be made to the Tribunal under paragraph (2)(e) in respect of the quota order or the variation, as the case may be. ‘(7) An application may not be made to the Tribunal under sub-clause (3) unless the application is made within the time specified in paragraph 167 (4) (a) or (b), whichever is appropriate, of the Customs Act. ‘(8) Where the owner of goods has made an application to the Tribunal under sub-clause (3), he is not entitled to bring an action under sub-section 1 67 (2 ) of the Customs Act. ‘(9) Where, on an application made under sub-clause (3), the Tribunal has made a decision reviewing a demand made by the Collector, the power duty payable in respect of the goods concerned shall be deemed to be-
the sum determined to be the proper duty by, or ascertained to be the proper duty in accordance with-
the decision of the Tribunal; or
an order of a court on appeal from that decision; or
b) the sum paid under protest, whichever is the less. ‘( 10) A person is not entitled to appeal under sub-section 183c ( 1 ) of the Customs Act against a suspension, further suspension or revocation of a licence in respect of which an application may be made to the Tribunal under paragraph 2(j).
‘PART VII-CUSTOMS TARIFF
‘7. Applications may be made to the Tribunal for review of-
a direction given by the Minister under section 7 of the Customs Tariff 1 966- 1 974; and
determinations made by the Minister under sections 8 and 3 1 of the Customs Tariff 1 966- 1 974.
‘PART VIII-DISTILLATION ACT
‘8. Applications may be made to the Tribunal for review of-
a decision by the Collector under section 20 of the Distillation Act 1901-1973; and
b) a cancellation of a licence by the Minister under section 24 of the Distillation Act 1 90 1- 1 973.
‘PART IX-EXCISE ACT
‘9.(1) In this clause, ‘Excise Act’ means the Excise Act 1901-1974. ‘(2) Applications may be made to the Tribunal for review of-
a decision by a Collector under section 5a of the Excise Act;
a decision by the Collector under section 40 of the Excise Act;
a cancellation by the Minister under section 43 of the Excise Act;
quota orders, and variations of quota orders, made by the Minister under sections 59a and 59b of the Excise Act; and
a demand made by a Collector under section 60 of the Excise Act. ‘(3) Where a dispute referred to in section 154 of the Excise Act has arisen and the owner of the goods has, in accordance with that section, deposited the amount of duty demanded by the Collector, an application may be made to the Tribunal for review of the demand made by the Collector for that amount. ‘(4) A person is not entitled to apply for a review under section 59p of the Excise Act of a quota order, or a variation of a quota order, if an application may be made to the Tribunal under paragraph (2) (d) in respect of the quota order or the variation, as the case may be. ‘(5) An application may not be made to the Tribunal under sub-clause (3) unless the application is made within a period of 6 months after the making of the deposit referred to in that sub-clause. ‘(6) Where the owner of goods has made an application to the Tribunal under sub-clause (3)-
the consequences referred to in paragraph 1 54 (2 ) of the Excise Act shall not ensue and the owner of the goods is not entitled to institute against the Collector an action referred to in that paragraph; and
the proper duty payable in respect of the goods shall be deemed to be-
the amount determined to be the proper duty by, or ascertained to be the proper duty in accordance with-
the decision of the Tribunal; or
an order of a court on appeal from that decision; or
the amount of the deposit, whichever is the less, and where the amount of the deposit exceeds the amount referred to in subparagraph (a), the excess shall be refunded by the Collector to the owner with interest at the rate of 5 per centum per annum.
PART X-INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT
‘10. ( 1 ) An application may be made to the Tribunal for review of the cancellation by a Tax Agents’ Board under section 251k. of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1975 of the registration of a tax agent. ‘(2) A person is not entitled to appeal under sub-section 251k (5) of the Income Tax Assessment An 1936-1975 against a cancellation of the registration of a tax agent in respect of which an application may be made to the Tribunal by virtue of sub-clause ( 1 ). ‘(3) For the purpose of reviewing the cancellation of the registration of a tax agent, the Tribunal shall be constituted by a presidential member alone.
PART XI- MARRIAGE ACT
‘11. (1) An An application may be made to the Tribunal for review of a decision of a Registrar of Ministers of Religion refusing to register a person who has applied for registration under Division 1 of Pan IV of the Marriage Act 1 96 1 - 1 973 or removing the name of a person from a register in pursuance of section 33 of that Act. ‘(2) A person is not entitled to request a review under section 34 of the Marriage Act 1961-1973 of a decision in respect of which an application for review may be made to the Tribunal by virtue of sub-clause ( 1 ). ‘(3) For the purpose of reviewing a decision referred to in sub-clause ( 1 ), the Tribunal shall be constituted by a presidential member alone.
PART XII-MIGRATION ACT
‘12. (1) Applications may be made to the Tribunal for review of decisions of the Minister made under section 12, 13 or 48 of the Migration Act 1958-1973 other than a decision made on a matter remitted by the Tribunal for reconsideration in accordance with sub-clause (3). ‘(2) A person is not entitled to make an application under sub-clause ( 1 ) in relation to a decision made under section 12 or 13 of the Migration Act 1958-1973 unless-
the person is an Australian citizen; or
the continued presence of the person in Australia is not subject to any limitation as to time imposed by law. ‘(3) After reviewing a decision referred to in sub-clause ( 1 ), the Tribunal shall either affirm the decision or remit the matter for reconsideration in accordance with any recommendations of the Tribunal. ‘(4) For the purpose of reviewing a decision referred to in sub-clause ( 1 ), the Tribunal shall be constituted by a presidential member alone.
PART XIII-NATIONAL HEALTH ACT
‘13. (1) An application may be made to the Tribunal for review of a decision of the Director-General of Health under section 90 of the National Health Act 1953-1975 rejecting an application of a pharmaceutical chemist under that section. ‘(2) A person is not entitled to appeal under sub-section 90(5) of the National Health Act 1953-1975 against a decision in respect of which an application may be made to the Tribunal by virtue of sub-clause ( 1 ). ‘(3) An application may be made to the Tribunal for review of a decision of the Minister under section 95 of the National Health Act 1953-1975 suspending, further suspending or revoking the approval or authority of a medical practitioner or a pharmaceutical chemist. ‘(4) A person is not entitled to appeal under section 97 of the National Health Act 1953-1975 against a decision in respect of which an application may be made to the Tribunal by virtue of sub-clause (3).
PART XIV-PATENTS ACT
‘14. (1) Applications may be made to the Tribunal for review of a refusal by the Commissioner of Patents to register a person as a patent attorney und*r section 133 of the Patents Act 1957-1973. ‘(2) Applications may be made to the Tribunal for review of an order by the Commissioner of Patents under regulation 27 of the Patent Attorneys Regulations directing that the name of a patent attorney be removed from the Register of Patent Attorneys. ‘(3) A person is not entitled to appeal under regulation 29 of the Patent Attorneys Regulations against an order in respect of which an application may be made to the Tribunal by virtue of sub-clause (2). ‘(4) For the purpose of reviewing an order referred to in sub-clause (2), the Tribunal shall be constituted by a presidential member alone.
PART XV-SPIRITS ACT
‘15. An application may be made to the Tribunal for a review of a decision of a Collector of Customs under section 20 of the Spirits Act 1906-1973.’.
-Is it the wish of the Committee to adopt the procedure suggested by the Attorney-General? There being no objection I will allow that course to be followed.
– I move:
As the Committee will recall, these amendments deal with a number of matters. In some cases the amendments deal with substantive matters and in other cases the amendments are consequential upon amendments dealing with substantive matters. A substantial number of these amendments are consequential upon amendment No. 32. That amendment added a schedule to the Bill setting out those matters in which the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is to have jurisdiction immediately. The Senate amendments consequential upon Senate amendment No. 32 are Senate amendment Nos 1 and 7 to 1 3. 1 point out that some of these amendments were moved by the Government in the Senate. Senate amendment No. 2 provides for the terms and conditions of service of members of the Tribunal to be prescribed by regulation instead of being determined by the Governor-General. Senate amendment No. 3 is consequential upon this amendment.
Senate amendments Nos 4, 6 and 29 are consequential upon Senate amendments Nos 20 to 28, omitting references to the Superior Court of Australia and substituting references to State and Territory Supreme Courts. Senate amendment No. 5 deleted a provision empowering the Minister administering the Act to permit a full-time member of the Tribunal to engage in outside paid employment. Senate amendments Nos 14 and 16 restrict to the Attorney-General the power to give a certificate entitling information or documents to be withheld from parties to proceedings before the Tribunal. Those amendments were moved by the Opposition.
Senate amendments Nos 15, 17 and 18 clarify the grounds on which such a certificate may be given, and make consequential changes. Senate amendment No. 19 provides that a witness before the Tribunal may have legal representation. Senate amendment No. 30 inserts provisions in the Bill establishing an Administrative Review Council. The Government accepts and supports that provision completely. Senate amendment No. 3 1 amends the provisions in the Bill relating to the granting of legal aid to parties before the Tribunal. The substantial change is the omission of any specific reference to the Australian Legal Aid Office. On this point I take the opportunity to say that of course the Legal Aid Bill is coming along. It will be considered by this House in the not too distant future. The Government stands firmly committed to the proposition of there being an Australian Legal Aid Office although the Government recognises that at this stage the Office has no legislative context or background, save for, I think, reference in some Acts, particularly the Family Law Act. That is a matter at which the Government can look at another time in the future when, I hope, the Legal Aid Bill becomes law.
-The Administrative Appeals Tribunal Bill has already been the subject of a very lengthy debate in the House and also in the Senate. The Opposition is pleased to say that it will support the amendments now moved by the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby). Most of them, as the AttorneyGeneral has pointed out, are consequential upon amendments inserted during the Senate debate. The Attorney-General acknowledged that, in substance, a number of the amendments which he has just moved arose from amendments inserted by the Opposition. I am very happy to say that this Bill will, because of this debate, pass into law very soon and will bring to a legislative conclusion a process which has been going on for a long time in Australia to provide a framework for appeals against the exercise of administrative discretion.
While, during the course of the debate, there were some substantial disagreements between the Government and the Opposition regarding the original form of the Government’s Bill, I think that all honourable members will acknowledge that there has been a degree of unanimity on both sides of the House regarding the desirability of establishing an effective tribunal to review administrative decisions. In this regard the Opposition is pleased to support the amendments which have been moved by the AttorneyGeneral. We believe that they will improve the Bill. We believe in particular that it is desirable that the principal law officer of the Crown, the Attorney-General, have the responsibility of deciding whether there should issue a certificate, which in effect excludes from the operation of the Tribunal certain acts of departments or Ministers. We believe that discretion should be with the Attorney-General and not with the individual Minister concerned. That point is, of course, the substance of amendments 1, 2 and 3.
The other amendments deal with the question of jurisdiction. The House will recall that, at the time the Bill was debated during the second reading and Committee stages, the Opposition was critical of the fact that no jurisdiction had been conferred upon the Tribunal, that having come so far the Government did not go the step further and confer upon the Tribunal some effective jurisdiction, that we were given a framework without any substance or a skeleton without any flesh, as I think the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Ellicott) described it. Whilst the amendments now proposed by the AttorneyGeneral perhaps fall short of those originally devised by the Opposition, we are nonetheless pleased to accept them so that the Tribunal once established by this Bill when it becomes an Act will not only have an excellent framework but it will also have some substantial jurisdiction. The Opposition is pleased to support the amendments moved by the Attorney-General.
Amendments agreed to.
– Consequential upon the acceptance by the House of amendments Nos 14 and 16 of the Senate, I move:
I need not go over these amendments again. The matter has been the subject of debate on many occasions and indeed was touched on in my opening remarks and also by the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard). We accept the proposition and we think that the amendments improve the Bill.
-Might I have the leave of the Committee to mention one matter which perhaps ought to have been more appropriately mentioned during debate on the earlier clauses and that is the question of the Australian Industrial Court. The Committee will recall that -
The CHAIRMAN (Dr Jenkins) The honourable member is seeking leave to deal with this point. Is leave granted?
– Yes, it is.
– Leave is granted.
-I thank the Committee. Honourable members will recall that at the time of the earlier debate and also during the Senate debate the Opposition criticised the Bill for having conferred jurisdiction on the proposed Superior Court of Australia to hear appeals on matters of law from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Honourable members will be aware that the Opposition is opposed to the establishment of the Superior Court of Australia. During the Senate debate the Opposition secured the insertion in the Bill of amendments to confer that jurisdiction on the Supreme Courts of each of the States. Whilst the Opposition still holds to the view that it would be more desirable that the jurisdiction be vested in the Supreme Courts of the various States, in the interests of the legislation coming into force at an early date and having regard to the spirit of some compromise which has been adopted by the Government in respect of other Opposition amendments, the Opposition will not oppose the proposal of the Government that the jurisdiction be given to the Australian Industrial Court, although the attitude of the Opposition in that respect should not be interpreted as any alteration of our attitude regarding the establishment of an Australian Superior Court, nor indeed our general attitude regarding the types of jurisdiction that ought to be exercised by the Supreme Courts of the various States.
-Mr Chairman -
The CHAIRMAN Before you proceed, Mr Minister, I noticed that the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) spoke by leave. I wonder whether he was a little ahead of himself in speaking to the amendments that you are going to deal with. Perhaps if you intended to answer his remarks in that area you could answer them when you move the motion.
-Yes, Mr Chairman, I take your point.
– I apologise, Mr Chairman.
– That is all right. The honourable member had leave and I let the matter flow. The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
Amendments agreed to.
– I move:
That Senate amendments Nos. 20, 21, 22, 23, 23, 26, 27 and 28 be amended by omitting the words ‘insert “Supreme Court of a State or Territory” ‘ and substituting the words ‘insert “Australian Industrial Court’ ‘ ‘.
Perhaps this is now the appropriate time for me to say a few words in reply to what the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) said with leave a moment or two ago. The Government of course takes a different point of view on the notion of a Superior Court from that taken by the Opposition. The history of the Superior Court of Australia Bill is well known. The Bill has been through this chamber twice. It has been through the Senate twice and rejected twice in the Senate. There are certain other aspects that are probably not so well known, and they are these: The federal courts of Australia are in great need of reform. The Industrial Court itself is in great need of reform. The Territory Supreme Courts are in great need of reform and in particular of having an appellate court to which they can readily resort.
I say, just for the assistance of honourable members and particularly the honourable member for Bennelong, that it is my intention soon to introduce legislation that will not seek to create a Superior Court of Australia but which will seek to rationalise the existing federal courts in a much more modest way than was contemplated by the Superior Court proposal. The legislation will seek to establish an Australian federal court. Above that there will be, we hope, an Australian court of appeal which will take some of the original jurisdiction away from the High Court where it has often been said it should not be and also will serve as a court of appeal from the federal court and the Territory Supreme Courts. I just mention that to the honourable gentleman because I know he has a great interest in the subject. Indeed, so do other honourable members. It has been the subject of discussions with some of the High Court judges and some of the Territory judges. When I put the legislation forward to this House I hope it will find general support.
Amendments agreed to.
– I move:
‘PART IA- AGRICULTURAL TRACTORS BOUNTY ACT
’ 1a. Applications may be made to the Tribunal for review of-
Amend Part II of the proposed Schedule-
After Part V of the proposed Schedule, insert the following Parts: - ‘PART Va-BOOK BOUNTY ACT ‘5a. Applications may be made to the Tribunal for review of-
a determination of the Minister under sub-section 4
decisions of the Minister made under sub-sections 10
Amend Part VI of the proposed Schedule by inserting after paragraph (e) of sub-clause (2) of clause 6 the following paragraphs:- ‘(ea) a direction Of the Minister under paragraph 151 (8)
Customs Act; ‘(ec) a specification of the Minister under sub-section 157 (4) of the Customs Act; ‘.
After Pan VI of the proposed Schedule, insert the following Part:- ‘ PART Via- CUSTOMS REGULATIONS ‘6a. Applications may be made to the Tribunal for review of-
After Pan VII of the proposed Schedule, insert the following Part:- ‘ PART VIIa-DEFENCE FORCE RETIREMENT AND DEATH BENEFITS ACT ‘7a. (1) Applications may be made to the Tribunal for review of a decision of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority established under section 8 of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973-1974 in a case where, but for this Part, a request in relation to the decision could be made to that Authority under section 1 0 1 of that Act. ‘(2) A person is not entitled to make a request to the Authority referred to in sub-clause ( 1) of this clause under section 101 of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973-1974 in relation to a decision in respect of which an application may be made to the Tribunal by virtue of that sub-clause. ‘.
After Part IX of the proposed Schedule, insert the following Part:-
‘PARTIXA-EXCISE REGULATIONS
‘9a. Applications may be made to the Tribunal for review of-
After Part XI of the proposed Schedule, insert the following Part:-
‘PART XIA-METAL WORKING MACHINE TOOLS BOUNTY ACT
‘11a. Applications may be made to the Tribunal for a review of-
At the end of the proposed Schedule, add the following Part:-
‘PART XIV- TRADE MARKS ACT
‘14. (1) Applications may be made to the Tribunal for review of decisions of the Comptroller-General of Customs made under sub-section 103 (2) of the Trade Marks Act 1955-1973 other than a decision in respect of which an appeal has been made to the Minister for Police and Customs under that sub-section.
These amendments relate to Senate amer ‘r -it No. 32 which sought to include a schedule giving instant jurisdiction to the Tribunal. I suggest that the Committee may consider these amendments together. They are numbered 5 to 13 on the list of amendments circulated by the Government. Honourable members will see from a perusal of them that they reflect the work that has been put into the subject during the parliamentary recess. The amendments now take the stage that we had reached when we last sat before the recess much further. As a result of negotiations with various government departments a whole sheaf of jurisdiction is now to be taken and given to the Tribunal.
-Is it the wish of the Committee to adopt the procedure suggested by the Attorney-General? There being no objection, we will follow that procedure.
Amendments agreed to.
Senate amendment No. 32, as amended, agreed to.
Resolutions reported; report adopted.
page 49
Debate resumed from 27 May 1975 on motion by Mr Whitlam
That the Bill be now read a second time.
-The Privy Council Appeals Abolition Bill 1975 (No. 2), as we are reminded in the second reading speech of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), comes to the Parliament for the third time. I think it is necessary to put it in perspective. The perspective is this: If this Bill were passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate, a request then would be made to the House of Commons and the House of Lords to pass legislation in the form contained in the Schedule to the Act.
If the House of Commons and the House of Lords did so pass that requested legislation, it is very likely that it would have the effect of ending all appeals, in totality, from Australian judicial tribunals to the Privy Council. I say that in all likelihood it would have that effect because nobody can be certain that in law it would have that effect It would be subject to challenge and would need to be considered by the High Court itself. It would be considered not by the Privy Council but by the High Court. So, in any event, the matter could be determined by law. The position at present is that there can be no appeals to the Privy Council on matters that relate to the limits of power as between the Commonwealth and the States. That is provided in the Constitution. In order to appeal to the Privy Council there must be leave of the High Court; a certificate must be granted by the High Court. No such certificate has been given since 1912. Indeed, if my recollection is correct, only one certificate has been given under that provision of the Constitution. Therefore, one can reasonably assume that such a certificate would not be issued.
The next step in the process was, in 1968, to limit appeals to the Privy Council which related to Federal jurisdiction. So, there has been a limitation of the right of appeal to the Privy Council further than the practical effect of no certificate since 1912. As a companion to the present Bill, legislation was brought into the House- it was passed by the House and by the Senate- which would have meant that there could be no appeals from the High Court to the Privy Council. The net result of that would be that if litigants opted to go to the High Court they could not then go on to the Privy Council. If they wished to go to the Privy Council and it was an appellable cause, they would have to go direct from the State Supreme Courts to the Privy Council.
The legislation that was passed has not yet been proclaimed and has not come into effect. Presumably it will not be proclaimed until the result of the third consideration of the current Bill is determined by this chamber and by the Senate. There are 2 methods by which there can be an end to appeals from the State Supreme Courts to the Privy Council. One method is the course adopted in this legislation- that of requesting the British Houses of Parliament to pass an Act preventing appeals from any State court to the Privy Council. The other method is to have a constitutional referendum. There are good arguments for having a constitutional referendum. Let me deal first with the method which is adopted in this Bill. Honourable members will find that clause 7 of the Bill states:
The Parliament - that is the House of Representatives and the Senate- requests and consents to the enactment by the Parliament of the United Kingdom of an Act in, or substantially in, the terms set out in the Schedule.
The Schedule sets out the terms of the Imperial Act. As I construe that Schedule, it would mean that all appeals, on whatever justiciable issue before any judicial tribunal in Australia, would end.
Let us consider the way in which it is done- by request to the House of Commons and the House of Lords. If we are to emphasise the independence, which many people in Australia would emphasise, is this a reasonable way in which we should do it? The very argument that we should end all appeals is put on the basis that we are an independent country and we should end all appeals with our own judiciary and a final line of law should remain in Australia. I would support that. I think there is nobody in this chamber who would not support that. The High Court is the final court of appeal establishing the law. It is a single authority which all other judicial bodies should follow. We would all accept that I am sure. The Opposition accepts it. I most certainly do. Therefore, the argument is as to the method of doing it. If it is argued that we should have the High Court as the final court of appeal to establish law because of our independent status, is there anybody in this House who would support the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) and the Government by saying that the way in which to do it is to establish our lack of independence; to establish clearly by an act of this House and the Senate that we do not have the full constitutional independence? We are asking the British Houses of Parliament to do the job for us. We are requesting the House of Commons and the House of Lords to pass this legislation.
I find it an offensive manner in which to go about it. Of course, the States find it an offensive manner in which to go about it. It pretends that it is fully in accordance with the Statute of Westminster, which is now more than 40 years old. The constitutional change in this 4 decades has been immense. Even at that time, it was undertaken by everybody who was concerned with the Statute of Westminister and the construction of it that there would be no interference in the States and that the House of Commons and the House of Lords would not be asked to do something which would alter the constitutional position of the States. If this legislation were passed and if we suppose that the British Parliament passed the legislation as requested, it would interfere with the Constitution of the States. Therefore, it is not only a wrong process in terms of the way we see the development of our Constitution but also a direct contradiction of what was undertaken clearly and without qualification at the time of the Statute of Westminster.
We know that the States still hold that view very strongly, because in 1973 I think four- certainly three- of the Premiers went to the United Kingdom to petition the Queen, the Prime Minister and other Ministers in the United Kingdom not to pass any legislation of this request nature. I ask honourable members to imagine the situation: If we establish the precedent of passing this legislation- request and consent legislationthere is no area into which the British House of Commons and House of Lords could not go to pass legislation which affected the States of the Commonwealth of Australia- the 6 constituent States. It ought not to be done in that way. I am not certain whether the States would maintain a view that there should be appeals direct from the State Supreme Courts to the Privy Council. I make it clear that I think that all appeals ought to go exclusively to the High Court and not to the Privy Council. But I am not prepared to participate in any way in a method which emphasises the dependence of Australia instead of its independence and creates a precedent for further request and consent legislation which can seriously imperil the constitutional status of the 6 constituent members of our federation.
Therefore, I will call in aid for the argument which I put the words of the Leader of the Government, the very man who introduced this legislation. I quote the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) speaking in 1968 as Leader of the Opposition in respect of the limitation of appeals legislation of that year introduced by my former colleague, Mr Nigel Bowen as he then was, who in now Chief Judge in Equity of the Supreme Court of New South Wales As recorded in Hansard, volume 58 page 853 in that year, the then Leader of the Opposition had this to say:
It is impossible for this Parliament or for the State Parliaments, by legislation, to abolish appeals from the State Supreme Courts to the Privy Council. This is because the Australian States opted out of the Statute of Westminster. The Australian States are still British Colonies. If they wanted to abolish appeals from their Supreme Courts to the Privy Council they would have to ask the British Parliament to repeal the Judicial Committee Appeals Acts of 1833 and 1844. This would emphasise Australia’s dependence on Britain. An alternative course- and I do not suggest that this is free of legal doubt- would be for this Parliament to pass a Bill for a referendum and for the Government to put that referendum to the people to abolish these appeals. This would emphasise our independence.
What was said in 1968 by the present Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, is as true today as it was then. There is not a single word offered in any second reading speech as to why this course of action should be taken; that is, to establish our dependence and to ask the House of Commons and the House of Lords to pass this legislation.
Let us suppose- and I certainly hope that it will not come to pass- that this legislation did pass. There is then one necessary question to ask: Would the British Parliament- the House of
Commons and the House of Lords- accede to the request and pass the legislation? My own view is that the House of Commons would steadfastly refuse to do so. Why should the House of Commons in 1975 interfere in the internal constitutional arrangements of Australia? I believe that the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party would have no pan of it. Whether the Labour Party in Great Britain would respond to a request from the Labor Party in Australia to do so I am unable to say, but I feel most confident that the Labour Party in government in Britain would refuse to have any part of it. So we are probably setting about an empty exercise anyway. The emptiness of that exercise is manifested by the unwillingness on the part of Great Britain to interfere in our constitutional affairs.
The way in which what is proposed should be done is to consult the people who determine the Constitution, and that is all the Australian people, voting as they can, at a referendum. They could be asked whether they are in favour of the ending of appeals to the Privy Council or, to put it in more positive language, whether they are in favour of the final court of appeal in all matters legal being the High Court of” Australia. I favour it. If there was a referendum I would support it and I am quite sure that it would be supported by the people. That would have the effect of ensuring that the constituent States need not fear in a similar sort of manner anybody interfering further with the powers which were given them by the Constitution or in some way imperilling their position as constituent States of the Commonwealth.
For these reasons this Bill should be rejected by this chamber. I would regard it as offensive if it were passed. I would regard it as embarrassing if a request was actually made by the Government of my country to the government of another country to pass legislation in its Parliament to affect us. It is embarrassing and belittling to us. Can we not solve the issue ourselves? We have had plenty of opportunities in the life of this Government to consider referendum proposals. That is the way in which it should be done instead of going on with this nonsense. No doubt what the Government wants to do is to have the legislation rejected by the Senate. Then it will claim that it has been frustrated. Such action is not frustration. It is preventing the Government from establishing a precedent of dependence of the national Parliament of Australia on the national Parliament of Britain. I will have no part of it. The Bill ought to be rejected.
I recapitulate: If the Government wishes to have a referendum and to test the matter by constitutional amendment, I will support it because I very strongly believe that the final court of appeal should be the High Court of Australia. I conclude by emphasising the point that to end all appeals with the High Court would not in any way submit us to any risk of a deterioration of our legal standards in Australia, for I say without any disrespect intended whatever to the learned judges who form the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council none of them can claim greater wisdom in the law, either collectively or individually, than we can claim for our own High Court. We are not going to have any diminution in standards by the High Court’s becoming the final court of appeal. What we will have if we achieve this by referendum is a determination according to the Constitution and not by reverting to some anachronistic procedure which is fraught with peril and which stands as a direct threat to the independence of the constituent States which make up the Commonwealth of Australia.
Debate (on motion by Mr Enderby) adjourned.
Sitting suspended from 5.53 to 8 p.m.
page 52
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for proposed expenditure announced.
Bill presented by Mr Hayden, and read a first time.
– I move:
In doing so, I present the Budget for 1 975-76.
This Budget is presented at a time of high inflation and, by Australian standards, high unemployment.
Other countries have been confronted with much the same economic problems as currently bedevil Australia. Some have responded to these problems with drastic measures which, although partly successful in curbing inflation, imposed the severe social and economic costs of higher levels of unemployment and lost production to a greater degree than in any period since the Great Depression.
For example, the United States of America suffered unemployment rates peaking at 9.2 per cent, and still at 8.4 per cent; and peak to trough falls of 14 per cent in industrial production and 8 per cent in real Gross National Product. In the process inflation in terms of seasonally adjusted annual rates has fallen from around 14 per cent at the peak to around 7 per cent in the most recent quarter.
The costs, however, have been great.
By contrast, unemployment in Australia has remained below 5 per cent and the peak to trough decline in real Gross Domestic Product was 5 percent.
There are now some early signs of a recovery in the private sector. Retail sales are improving. Business inventories are falling. The home building industry is strengthening.
On balance unemployment in recent monthsand notwithstanding the rise in July- has been fairly steady. The situation will be carefully watched.
Meanwhile, unless appropriate economic measures are adopted now, the hopeful signs in the economy could prove illusory, and inflation could take off again from its already high level, to a thoroughly destructive effect. The private sector would find it increasingly difficult to function, with increasing business failures, and unemployment could rise to dramatically higher levels.
That situation can be avoided and it was with this objective in mind that this Budget was designed. Some sacrifice and patient restraint is called for from all of us in our demands for more resources, whether it is additional public services that are wanted or higher personal incomes.
We expect that as the expansion of public sector activity is restrained, the opportunities for private sector expansion will improve, though full responses to greater room for growth may take time to develop.
The public sector has played an important part so far in stimulating the movement towards recovery from the recession. Furthermore, the big increases in spending on our programs in the past two years were needed to overcome decades of neglect.
This Government began great programs of change in our society. The achievements are readily measurable. Incomes have risen, not only in terms of real personal disposable incomes but in terms of facilities provided to the whole community in health, in education, in social welfare. The Australian Government’s record in these areas is widely acknowledged.
Our reforms are enduring; they will not be reversed. Now we propose to pause to take stock of the achievements.
Because of the structure of our mixed economy, where three out of four jobs are in the private sector, there are firm limits on how far the public sector should be stimulated in this recovery phase. In framing the Budget, therefore, we have exercised the utmost restraint on government spending.
For these reasons, the key-note of this Budget is consolidation and restraint rather than further expansion of the public sector.
On the economic front, inflation is this nation ‘s most menacing enemy. We aim to curb it. Unless this aim is achieved, the nation’s productive capacity will run down and job opportunities will diminish.
Our present level of unemployment is too high. If we fail to control inflation unemployment will get worse.
page 53
The economic situation is reviewed in Statement No. 2 attached to the Budget Speech. Here I concentrate on the policy problems inherent in the situation. Recent developments offer some hope that 1975-76 will be a better year than its predecessor. For that, steady and responsible economic policies are needed.
The objectives we seek- continued economic growth and the control of inflation- are almost universally applauded. Achieving them is another matter. In that regard, this Budget is crucial.
But it is only one of several tools of economic management. Also of major importance are wages and salaries, monetary and external policies. There are important linkages between these arms of policy.
In coming to our budgetary judgments, we have had those linkages well in mind.
This year’s budgetary considerations began, as usual, with an examination of the prospective Budget aggregates. Expenditures were projected to grow much more rapidly than revenues and the prospective deficit was nearly double that of 1974-75. Clearly, such a deficit could not be countenanced under the circumstances.
In the context of an economy beginning to pick up, a deficit of the order initially projected would have been a prescription for accelerating inflation. Its acceptance would have been tantamount to abandoning concern with inflation, discarding our wages policies, condemning the corporate sector to an attack upon its profitability and threatening the future jobs of thousands of Australiansall at a time when the first signs of improvement in most of those respects are beginning to appear.
We are no longer operating in that simple Keynesian world in which some reduction in unemployment could, apparently, always be purchased at the cost of some more inflation. Today, it is inflation itself which is the central policy problem. More inflation simply leads to more unemployment.
Some might argue that a large deficit could be offset by a tough monetary policy- but this would mean greatly increased interest rates, disruption in financial markets, further depression of business confidence and serious company failures. That is an unacceptable option.
We therefore rejected a deficit or the order implied by all the expenditure proposals before us.
An alternative approach, in its own way equally extreme, would have been to seek to pull down outlays sufficiently to bring the deficit well below that of 1974-75. That would have caused severe disruption to the economy. Economic recovery would almost certainly have halted.
True, such an approach would certainly have dealt a solid blow to inflationary expectations. But at what a cost!
The prescription which this course would have entailed is just as unacceptable as the other prescription of letting inflation rip. This Government rejects a policy of deliberately creating massive unemployment and widespread business failures in order to stop inflation abruptly.
We have therefore tried to find a middle way- a line along which we can achieve sound and sustainable growth while at the same time bringing inflation down gradually over perhaps two or three years.
In the outcome, this Budget holds the share of Australian Government outlays in the total economy steady. Even to restrain that share from rising further has involved us in many painful decisions.
We have sought to frame a firm Budget in which the rate of growth in outlays has been halved as compared with last year.
It is a Budget neither too lax, thereby inviting a renewed acceleration of inflation; nor too harsh, causing unconscionable loss of production and the human and social costs of massive unemployment.
page 54
The Budget is one major instrument of economic policy. Another major policy area concerns the growth in wages and salaries.
If wages and salaries continue to outstrip productivity increases, the productive capacity of the economy will decline and we shall all eventually be worse off.
It is too early yet to determine whether wage indexation will succeed in dampening the recent wage-price spiral. The signs are mixed. The Government intends to do what it can to make indexation work.
Meanwhile, however, it is clear that some wage and salary pressures are unrealistic and, when successful, harmful. It does employees generally no good to get higher and higher money incomes if the results are just higher prices, a severe squeeze on profits, a slump in new investment and a contraction of job opportunities.
Wage and salary earners’ purchasing power is already being maintained through wage indexation and the indexation guidelines provide for increases to be sought on other specified grounds, including increases in productivity. To call as well for tax indexation, and at the same time expect the Government to provide better education, free medical services and so onwhich it can only do by increasing its claims upon our national resources- is to ask for the impossible.
Let me develop that thought a little. The average employee’s real after-tax earnings in 1974-75 rose by 7 per cent. When the increase in publicly provided benefits in education, health, social security and so on is added in, his total real income rose by 9.5 per cent.
Now this really is a very high rate of increase. It cannot be sustained.
It is not possible to provide more and more government services or transfer payments from the Budget without ultimately having to pay for them through cutting back after-tax earnings via increased taxes. It is not possible to get quarts out of pint pots.
In this Budget, we have exercised restraint. That restraint needs to be shared throughout the whole community. There must be a community will to combat inflation. There must be action to back up that will.
page 54
Last financial year, outlays increased very sharply- by 46 per cent.
Whereas total Australian Government Budget outlays maintained a remarkably stable proportion of around 25 per cent of Gross Domestic Product in the decade to 1973-74, in 1974-75 that proportion increased to 30.5 per cent. There was a number of special factors present in that outcome, including the need for some fiscal stimulus during the year.
There is noting sacrosanct about the particular public and private sector shares of GDP. But sharp movements in these shares can be disruptive.
If Budget outlays this year were again to grow faster than total spending, a further decline in the private sector share of GDP would ensue. That would mean an accelerated deline in investment and productivity as well as a further contraction in job opportunities.
This Government is committed to the present ‘mixed economy’ framework. We want to strengthen that framework. To reduce unemployment lastingly, revovery in the private sector is essential.
Expenditure restraint in this Budget will lay the foundations for a desirable balance between the public and private sectors.
Total outlays are now estimated to increase by 23 per cent in 1975-76, half the rate of increase of last year. Little change is expected in the proportion of Budget outlays to GDP. This offers a challenge to the private sector to respond with robust attitudes towards expansion which should serve well those who adopt them.
Cutting back the increase in Budget outlays is not easy. Everyone favours expenditure restraint in the abstract; few favour it when it affects them personally.
Many articulate groups in the community champion their favourite causes and I know that we will soon be hearing from them. I hope that, when we do hear, they will help the Government and me by indicating what alternative expenditure cuts might have been made or what tax increases they would be willing to bear.
Meanwhile, in approaching the task, we have distinguished between programs of utmost priority; programs where very rapid increases in recent years now permit some consolidation; and programs which might be deferred for a time.
In all this we have protected the less well-off members of the community. Inevitably in the process, many desirable expenditures have been scaled down or postponed. We know this will concern and disappoint many. That is unfortunate, but in present circumstances it is also unavoidable.
The process of consolidation upon which we embark in this Budget will need to be continued through a planned approach to expenditures into the years ahead. Indeed it will not be until the next Budget that we shall be able to begin to reap the fruits of consolidation in terms of the increased budgetary flexibility which we need. I am therefore considering the institution of improved procedures to ensure that the future growth of government spending is consistent with both broad economic management requirements and with the Government ‘s highest priority social objectives.
page 55
Outlays in 1975-76 are estimated to total $21,91 5m, an increase of 23 per cent over actual outlays last year.
Let there be no misunderstanding. Certainly we have cut back the growth of public expenditure. But the outlays we are undertaking provide continuing support for programs of scope and imagination never envisaged, much less undertaken, by our opponents.
The cuts in proposed expenditure have been painful. But unfulfilled hopes should not obscure the realities of the range of reforms which already have touched- and will touch- every area of our society.
I propose here only to mention briefly the major expenditure proposals. Statement No. 3 attached to the Budget Speech sets out the expenditure programs in great detail. The facts given in that Statement will show, function by function, the detailed working out of the process of consolidation I have referred to.
Additional information will be announced by the responsible Ministers.
page 55
Defence expenditure in 1975-76 is estimated at $ 1,800.1m.
Last year we approved the acquisition of a number of major items for the Services, including long-range maritime patrol aircraft, tanks and patrol frigates. Significantly greater expenditure will be incurred this year on capital equipment, improvements to defence installations and on housing for servicemen.
The Minister for Defence will make a detailed statement on Defence matters at a later time.
page 55
One of the most important areas in the Budget is education.
In 1975-76, total outlays on education are estimated at $ 1,908m, an increase of $237m over last year.
In the first full year of office of this Government, Australian Government expenditure on education almost doubled. Last year, it almost doubled again.
We have therefore almost quadrupled expenditure on education in these two years, and we are maintaining in 1975-76 the high level of expenditure now reached. This advance since 1972-73 reflects our determination to make good the relative neglect of earlier years.
Our initiatives include pronounced increases in expenditure on schools and teachers colleges; expansion of technical and further education; acceptance of full financial responsibility for tertiary education throughout Australia; abolition of fees for tertiary and technical education and the introduction of new student assistance measures; and increased academic salaries adopted on the recommendation of the Academic Salaries Tribunal, with effect from October 1974.
This year, recurrent expenditure will be maintained at no less than the present real levels, but capital expenditure will be limited to essential projects.
Ordinarily, the 1976 calendar year would have seen the start of a new triennium for the financing of universities, colleges of advanced education and schools; and the technical and further education area would have been phased into triennial financing in July 1976. However, we have decided to treat the calendar year 1976 as a year outside the triennial progression.
During the period to December 1976 we will continue the programs of the education commissions and present practices on escalating appropriations for cost increases will be continued.
In the meantime, the education commissions will be asked to review their recent triennial reports and to bring in revised recommendations by March next for new triennial programs to commence in January 1977. The Minister for Education will provide more details later.
The remarkable quadrupling of the total education expenditure figures in just over two years has been only part of the record. Benefits in relation to the quality of education will continue to flow on a long term basis from the machinery we have established and the programs we have fostered. Budget Paper No. 8, on education, outlines our record of achievements in this area.
The Government is providing $74m in financial assistance to community organisations and to the States towards the care and education of young children.
page 56
Medibank was launched on 1 July last. $ 1, 445m is included in the Budget for this program.
This financial year, medical and optometrical benefits are estimated to cost $6 15m while the hospital side of Medibank is estimated to cost $822m.
A sum of $65m is appropriated for services provided under the Community Health Program.
A further $ 108m will be made available to the States in 1975-76 by way of capital assistance for the development of public hospitals and related health care facilities.
The Australian Government will maintain its contribution at least at this level during each of the remaining 3 years of the program.
It is proposed to increase the additional nursing home benefit in three States- New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia. These increases represent the first step towards a common nursing home benefit rate for all States.
The effect of the increases will be that ordinary care patients in those States will receive a uniform total benefit of $66.15 a week. Rates of benefit for ordinary care patients in other States, which are already higher, will be maintained at current levels. The supplementary intensive care benefit will be increased from $21 a week to $30.80 a week in all States. This benefit has remained unchanged since January 1969.
The increases in both the additional and intensive care benefits will not apply to patients in Government nursing homes.
These increases, estimated to cost $10m in 1975-76, take effect from the first pension pay day in November.
The Government will increase by 39 per cent, to $24m, its support in the 1976-78 triennium for medical reseach under the auspices of the National Health and Medical Research Council. Expenditure in 1975-76 is estimated at $4.0m.
Additional payments totalling $lm will be made to the Florey and Walter and Eliza Hall research institutes.
page 56
Since this Government came to office a great stride forward in the field of social security and welfare has been taken. Now we must take stock of our programs and consolidate our gains.
To that end the Prime Minister has announced that the Government is to institute a review of Australia’s income security system.
The standard rate of social service pensions and benefits will be increased in the Spring of 1975 by the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index between the December quarter 1974 and the June quarter 1975; and again in the Autumn of 1976 by the increase in the Consumer Price Index between the June and December quarters of 1975.
This will mean a first increase in the standard rate of $2.75 a week. The combined married rate will be increased by $4.50 a week so as to maintain the standard rate at 60 per cent of the combined married rate. These increases will become effective from the first pension pay day in November.
The basic pension has increased by 80 per cent since the December quarter of 1972, well ahead of the rate of increase in average weekly earnings 56 per cent- and consumer prices- 41 per cent. The relative improvement compared to the average wage earner is even more pronounced in after-tax terms. Since the December quarter of 1972, the increase in take-home pay of the typical family man on average weekly earnings has been 50 per cent.
The increases proposed will maintain the real purchasing power of those greatly increased pensions and are estimated to cost $233m in 1975-76.
There will be no change in the rate of unemployment and sickness benefit payable to persons under 18 years of age.
The rates of additional pension and benefit payable for dependent children, including student children, are to be increased by 50c to $7.50 a week.
Abolition of the Means Test
For budgetary reasons the Government will not be able to complete the final stage of the abolition of the means test- for those aged 65 to 69 years- as quickly as it had hoped. Nonetheless we intend to make as much further progress as economic circumstances allow.
We have decided to abolish the means test for residentially qualified persons aged 69 years from 1 July 1976. The necessary legislation will be introduced in the Autumn sittings.
Since coming to office the Government has improved repatriation benefits substantially. Legislation providing further improvements will be introduced in the current sittings and in Autumn 1976.
Further information will be announced by the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation. Details are set out in Statement No. 3.
The record level of expenditure on Aboriginal advancement achieved in 1974-75 will be exceeded in 1975-76; direct expenditure in 1975-76 is estimated at $193m, compared with $ 158m in 1974-75 and $98m in 1973-74.
page 57
In the light of the recovery in private housing now in train, advances totalling $364.6m will be provided to the States for welfare housing purposes in 1975-76. Bearing in mind the $ 10.4m advanced in June on the basis that it would be taken into account in this year’s allocation we are thus maintaining advances in 1975-76 at the greatly increased 1974-75 level and well above the $2 1 8.6m allocated in 1 973-74.
Responsibility for the Defence Service Homes scheme has been transferred to the newly proclaimed Australian Housing Corporation. An amount of $ 122.5m will be available for Defence Service Homes advances in 1975-76.
A further $20m has been provided for the Corporation in 1975-76. Together with the $25m remaining unspent from 1974-75, this will enable the Corporation to meet its administrative expenses and to undertake new programs in the housing field.
Details will be announced later by the Minister for Urban and Regional Development.
page 57
This year we plan to spend $442m on urban and regional development programs.
A comprehensive statement by the Minister for Urban and Regional Development is being tabled with the Budget papers.
Expenditure on development for residential, commercial and community uses in Canberra this year is estimated at $43. lm.
Growth Centres $38.6m is being provided in 1975-76 for further works and planning by the AlburyWodonga Development Corporation.
Agreement has been reached with New South Wales for financial assistance for two further growth centres at Bathurst-Orange and the South-West sector of Sydney and $28.5m has been allocated for these centres.
This program will help stabilise land prices. Expenditure this year is estimated at $53.6m.
This year a further $115m will be provided towards eliminating the backlog of sewerage services.
Woolloomooloo Redevelopment $ 14.67m is being provided to New South Wales to assist with land acquisition and site development in the Woolloomooloo Basin in Sydney. The Australian Government has also agreed to transfer, at no cost, land it owns in the area valued in excess of $ 1 1 m.
page 57
$132m is being provided to the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Provisions are also being made for support for the Arts through the Australia Council and for the Australian Film Commission, International Women’s Year, the National Estate and Nature Conservation programs.
Figures are given in Statement No. 3.
page 58
Postal and Telecommunications Services Since 1 July 1975, the former functions of the Post Office have been undertaken by the Australian Postal Commission and the Australian Telecommunications Commission.
Increased postal and telecommunication charges to operate from 1 September 1975 have already been announced. The increased charges are necessary to cover significant increases in the cost of providing services and to enable each Commission to comply with the requirement, under its constituting legislation, to cover its costs and finance at least 50 per cent of its capital expenditure from internal sources.
The amount to be provided from the Budget to help finance the capital programs of the two Commissions comprises $14m for the Postal Commission and $403m for the Telecommunications Commission.
If the increased charges were not applied, then the costs they were to cover would have to be covered in some other way. That is, the Government would either have to increase direct or indirect taxes, or add to the deficit by printing money.
Alternatively, the Goverment could cut-back further on existing programs but it is clear that additional cut-backs would be extremely difficult to make.
It was announced in the 1973-74 Budget Speech that the Government proposed to increase the rate of recovery of the costs of providing and operating airport and airway facilities to 80 per cent within 5 years. It was then estimated that a recovery rate of 70 per cent should be reached in 1975-76.
Despite increases in air navigation charges, very little progress has been made towards this objective. Currently about 55 per cent of costs are being recovered.
The Government does not believe that the general taxpayer should continue to subsidise air services and proposes to achieve its objective of 80 per cent recovery by 1977-78. Action will be taken to increase the recovery rate to 70 per cent this year.
This will require increases in air navigation charges substantially greater than the maximum 15 per cent annual increase referred to in the 1973 Airlines Agreement. The airlines have undertaken in the Agreement to negotiate such changes as are necessary to achieve the objective of 80 percent recovery by 1978.
An amount of $5 1.9m is being provided to finance the new Australian National Railways Commission’s 1975-76 capital works program, compared with expenditure of $ 14.6m by the former Commonwealth Railways in 1974-75. This includes work on the railway between Tarcoola and Alice Springs, and on the Adelaide to Crystal Brook standard gauge line. It also includes funds for the Tasmanian railways and for the South Australian railways.
A further $40m is being provided to the Commission as a subsidy to cover its estimated losses in 1975-76; the Tasmanian and nonmetropolitan South Australian railways are expected to account for about 80 per cent of this loss.
Urban Public Transport the Australian Government has so far agreed to provide $138m under the terms of the Urban Public Transport Assistance Agreement to assist the States to upgrade their urban public transport systems.
We expect to provide some $43m this year towards the cost of presently approved projects.
An amount of $56.9m is being provided from the Budget to help finance the Australian National Line ‘s capital program.
Provision is also made for subsidy payments of $lm for the operations of the Empress of Australia between the mainland and Tasmania and $3.9m in respect of northbound general cargo services between Tasmania and the mainland.
Freight rates on this latter service are being maintained at present levels pending receipt of the Report by the Nimmo Commission of inquiry.
A total of up to $445m will be made available for roads in the States in 1975-76. This provision should ensure that the real level of our outlays for this purpose is maintained this year.
An amount of $67m has been provided for advances to the Pipeline Authority for expenditure on the Moomba-Sydney natural gas pipeline and associated works. The pipeline is expected to be completed early in 1 976.
As already announced, the Government has authorised the Australian Wool Corporation to continue to operate a minimum reserve price equivalent to 250c per kilo clean for 2 1 micron wool during the 1975-76 season. An amount of $80m is included in the Budget for advances to the Corporation; the Government will also guarantee further borrowings of $70m from private sources.
While we judge that this $ 150m should be adequate, we shall of course keep the position under close review.
In addition to existing measures, we will provide $ 19.6m for the joint Australian Government/State Government scheme of carry-on finance at concessional rates of interest.
An extra $8m will be provided to the Commonwealth Development Bank to supplement the $20m provided to the Bank last year to lend to seriously affected beef producers.
As already announced, the question of further short-term assistance for beef producers has been referred to the Industries Assistance Commission.
The Government is providing $50m in 1975-76 to facilitate the adjustment of certain rural industries to changing market conditions through the Rural and Fruitgrowing Reconstruction Schemes and the Dairy Adjustment Program. These schemes expire on 30 June 1 976.
The question of possible future arrangements is under examination by the Industries Assistance Commission.
Pending the passage by the Parliament of a new Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill, $ 10.4m has been provided in the appropriation of the Department of Minerals and Energy to meet commitments entered into by the former Petroleum and Minerals Authority.
The appropriation for the Australian Atomic Energy Commission in 1975-76 includes approximately $4.7m for uranium exploration in the Northern Territory.
The capital stock of the Australian Industry Development Corporation is to be increased by a further $25m to $75m.
Provision is made also for $50m to be on-lent to the Corporation from the proceeds of official overseas loans.
In present circumstances, no new projects are being approved. There remains, however, a large volume of commitments, in respect of which an amount of $ 135m is included in the Budget. This will provide continuing employment on previously approved REDS projects for some time.
The Government is allocating $88m this financial year to its various manpower training programs, including NEATS and support for apprenticeship training.
We have decided to double the migrant contribution towards assisted passage costs, to an amount of $ 1 50 per family or single person.
page 59
To extend the availability of legal aid we are proposing to establish a further 28 regional offices during 1975-76.
Total expenditure on legal aid in 1975-76 is estimated at $ 16.7m; this includes $3m on legal aid for Aboriginals.
Outlays from the Budget on foreign aid, excluding defence co-operation, are estimated to increase from $334m in 1974-75 to $385m in 1975-76.
Papua New Guinea will continue to be the major recipient, receiving an estimated $2 10m in 1975-76.
Further details are included in Statement No. 3 and in the separate document being tabled with the Budget papers.
Ceiling on Staff Growth
Our measures to restrain the growth in spending apply particularly to staff growth. As already announced, the growth in full-time staff employed under the Public Service Act in 1975-76 is to be limited to a ceiling increase of 2.8 per cent.
After allowance for the expected increase in staff on leave, the ceiling increase in operative staff is effectively 1.5 per cent. This compares with increases in operative staff of over 4 per cent in 1972-73 and 1973-74, and over 5 per cent in 1974-75. Government authorities financed from the Budget have been requested to operate within an overall ceiling increase of 2.2 per cent.
We are also imposing stringent restraint on administrative expenditures. Overall, the provisions for administrative expenses for Departments and statutory authorities (other than business undertakings) financed from the Budget have been reduced by about 10 per cent.
Particular examples of restraint include economy class domestic air travel for Members of Parliament and Government employees -
– I knew I would touch a tender spot. Particular examples of restraint include economy class domestic air travel for Members of Parliament and Government employees, restrictions on the use of Government cars, reductions in overseas travel, non-replacement of existing office furniture and fittings and restrictions on overtime working and engagement of consultants.
It is estimated that these measures will produce savings totalling about $35m in 1975-76. They will not only make a significant contribution towards reducing the deficit, but will also induce greater efforts by Departments and authorities to improve efficiency and avoid waste.
page 60
General Purpose Funds for the States
At the Premiers’ Conference on 19 June 1975 the Australian Government undertook to improve the financial assistance grants arrangements with the States.
These improvements took the form of an addition of $220m to the grants otherwise payable in 1975-76, with this amount to be subject to escalation under the formula in subsequent years, and of an increase, in 1 976-77, in the socalled ‘betterment factor’ from 1 .8 per cent to 3.0 per cent. It is estimated that the financial assistance grants payable to the States in 1975-76 under these new arrangements will total about $3,185m, an increase of $81 lm or 34.2 per cent over the grants paid in 1 974-75.
In addition, the Government has accepted recommendations by the Grants Commission that special grants totalling $38.8m be paid to Queensland and South Australia in 1975-76.
The Government also agreed in June to support a 1975-76 Loan Council program for State Governments of $l,291m which, after adjustments are made for special factors, represents an increase of 20 per cent over the program for
1974- 75.
The Government has already announced its acceptance of the recommendations contained in the Grants Commission’s second report on unconditional financial assistance for local government totalling $79.9m, or 42 per cent more than last year.
It is presently estimated that expenditures by the Government on natural disaster relief in 1975- 76 will total $57.6m, of which $48. lm will be for relief measures arising out of the devastation of Darwin by Cyclone Tracy.
Included in this latter amount are $33m for continuation of compensation payments to Darwin residents and $12m for the maintenance of various relief measures, including emergency accommodation and loans to small businesses.
We have also established the Darwin Reconstruction Commission, and provided $99.7m for the Commission’s construction program in 1975-76.
page 60
In deciding on our revenue measures we took it as essential that there be some reduction in both personal and company income tax. At the same time we judged it necessary to reduce the potential deficit somewhat.
Consequently, we have determined on a mix of tax measures, some of them increasing the revenue and some reducing it. Their net effect is to increase total tax revenue in 1975-76 by an estimated $207m. Details are given in Statement No. 4.
I turn now to the individual tax measures.
It is proposed to increase the duty on beer immediately by the equivalent of 4c a 10 ounce glass. The estimated revenue yield in 1975-76 is $234m.
Potable spirits
Duties on potable spirits have been increased considerably over recent years and the present scope for further increase is not great. It is proposed to increase the duty on potable spirits immediately by the equivalent of lc a nip. It is also proposed to complete the third and last step in the phasing out of the differential between the rates of duty on brandy and other potable spirits. The estimated revenue yield of these measures in 1975-76 is $ 12m.
The duty on tobacco and cigarettes will be increased immediately by the equivalent of 6c an average packet of 20 cigarettes, with equivalent increases on other tobacco products. The estimated revenue yield in 1 975-76 is $75m.
The present price of domestically produced crude oil is about one-quarter of the landed price of imported crude. The low domestic price is not conducive to rational resource usage. Yet is does not necessarily follow that increases in the domestic price should be reflected fully in corresponding increases in prices to Australian producers: the rise in world oil prices has occurred largely because governments in OPEC and other producing countries have greatly increased their taxes on production.
The indigenous crude oil absorption policy, which runs for a period of 10 years from 17 September 1970, provides for a review of price after 5 years. The Government is considering and will be announcing shortly the price arrangements which will apply from 17 September next.
Meanwhile, the Government has decided to impose a levy of $2 per barrel on production of crude oil, condensate and naturally occurring liquified petroleum gas, with immediate effect. The levy will not fall on natural gas or refinery products although, of course, its price effects can be expected to spread through into the latter.
The estimated revenue yield in 1975-76 is $280m.
Export Duty on Coal
Following the sharp rise in oil prices, coal prices have risen dramatically in the past two years, in many cases trebling. In consequence, very large windfall profits are currently being earned by the export sector of the coal industry. The Government considers it reasonable that part of these increased profits should be channelled to the community by means of an export duty.
Price movements for various classes of coal have not been uniform but higher quality coking coals have experienced much greater price increases than other coals. It is therefore proposed to levy export duty of $6 per tonne on these high quality coking coals and $2 per tonne on other coals, with immediate effect. To protect buyers in respect of prices recently renegotiated, approval to export will be in terms of those prices and no consideration will be given to adjustment of prices to take account of the duty.
The revenue yield from this duty in 1975-76 is estimated to be $ 1 20m.
Details of this and the other levies I have announced will be given later tonight by the Minister representing the Minister for Police and Customs.
The Government has had before it the recommendations on business taxation contained in the Mathews Report on ‘Inflation and Taxation’. These are important recommendations with complex ramifications and there is a need for further study of them before final decisions are made. Meanwhile, we are acting to alleviate business taxation and we have been aided in coming to our decisions by the Mathews Report.
The first of the Mathews recommendations related to the valuation of most trading stocks for taxation purposes. Its primary purpose was to ease pressures on business liquidity in inflationary periods.
After careful consideration we have decided that it is not at this time possible to act on this recommendation, partly because of its enormous revenue cost but also because of the complexity and difficulty involved in giving effect to the Committee’s proposal to defer tax for individual firms on the basis of each individual firms ‘s changing stock values. Very serious practical problems would also be created for both industry and the Taxation Office in implementing the Committee’s suggestion that deferred tax be collected when stock values fall or when businesses change hands. It has not been possible to this time to resolve these difficulties.
We shall, of course, keep the question of business profitability and liquidity under careful notice but, in all the circumstances, we have turned to the other alternative in this area which was mentioned by the Mathews Committeenamely, a reduction in company tax.
The Government has decided to adopt this alternative and proposes to reduce the general rate of company tax by 2.5 per cent to 42.5 per cent. The new rate will apply to 1974-75 income and will cost an estimated $ 120m in 1975-76.
We have also decided to continue the system of doubled rates of depreciation beyond 30 June 1975 and extend it to all sectors of commerce and industry. We have here taken note of the Mathews Committee’s advice that: ‘Accelerated depreciation and investment allowances are appropriate policy options for a government which wishes to influence the level or the pattern of private investment . . .
The doubled rates of depreciation will be made applicable to all new plant other than motor cars and utility trucks, including plant used in industry such as transportation and construction that were excluded from the 1974-75 double depreciation provisions and from the investment allowances granted from time to time by the previous Government. The first cost to revenue of this proposal will fall in 1976-77 and will approximate $7 5m.
Our decision to opt for double depreciation rather than the indexation of depreciation allowances as recommended in the Mathews Report reflected our view that it was desirable to introduce immediately a clearly understood aid to business investment. The indexation recommendation would introduce some complex new elements into the depreciation provisions and there is a need for further study as to how a practicable and equitable scheme might be worked out.
Meanwhile, the double depreciation provisions will without delay greatly help the business sector in the planning of its investment and cash flows.
At this point I say simply that we have decided to introduce a radical new personal income tax system. We have undertaken fundamental reform of the tax system with one overwhelmingly important objective- the achievement of a more equitable distribution of the tax burden.
Before explaining the features of the new scheme, I want to explain the rationale behind what is perhaps the most revolutionary change since the inception of our personal income tax system. Yet one fact will highlight the direction we are taking more than anything else I might say. Under the new system nearly half a million existing taxpayers will be freed from tax entirely. Those earning least in the community will be exempted from personal tax.
A very large number of taxpayers will benefit by the changes we are making. But what is of greatest satisfaction to the Government is the fact that those in most need will benefit substantially.
In the best of economic times inequalities could not be removed in one sweep. We make no pretence of doing so now. We do say that the new system represents a very considerable advance.
The existing personal income tax system has persisted almost unchanged for over two decades and has about reached the end of its tether.
Criticism of the present arrangements has rightly focused upon the excessive marginal rates which are imposed upon taxpayers on average incomes. For example, a taxpayer on average weekly earnings with a dependent wife and two dependent children and average other deductions would lose 44 cents of each dollar of his pay in higher taxation if the present rates were maintained. If he had smaller deductions his marginal rate could be as high as 48 cents in the dollar.
In deciding what to do about this state of affairs we had several choices. The Mathews Report recommended that this year we introduce tax indexation or, alternatively, introduce a new tax schedule with a commitment to index it in future. The Asprey Report recommended that a quite different type of rate scale be introduced, with an initial marginal rate much higher than at present and with much lower marginal rates at intermediate ranges of income.
So far as the rate scale is concerned, what we are proposing is based on the Asprey concept. But before going on, I should explain the Government’s attitude to tax indexation.
It would not be possible to introduce tax indexation this year because of the very great revenue cost. In any case, the present rate scale is wholly unsatisfactory as a basis for indexation. Consequently we are taking up the Mathews suggestion of introducing a new tax scale to apply this year.
As for next year, no Government can commit itself to a precise measure a year hence when the revenue implications are so large but the circumstances of that future time are not foreseeable. However, in framing the 1976-77 Budget the Government will take full advantage of the greater flexibility- including greater flexibility in adjusting for price increases- which this year’s reform of the tax system will offer. Indexing of the new scale will thus be available as an option next year.
Meanwhile, so far as this year is concerned, I mention that the new scale will actually reduce marginal tax rates of taxpayers on average weekly earnings by more than would be the case if the present scale were indexed. That is, what we propose will produce a better result than tax indexation so far as the marginal ‘tax bite’ is concerned.
I turn now to the proposed new system. The Asprey Report drew attention to the low marginal rates of tax on low incomes and suggested that they be increased. It added: ‘The most important advantage of an initial step of some magnitude is not that it raises much tax from the taxpayers whose total income is confined within this step; it is rather that a sizeable minimum average rate is thereby struck for all higher incomes. Without a significant rate on the lower steps, much higher marginal rates than otherwise must be imposed further up the income scale . . .’
This approach, of course, involves raising more tax from so-called low income earners. Many such people depend solely on their own incomes and could hardly be expected to pay more tax. Certainly this Government does not expect them to do so.
But many others in this income group are members of multi-income households who might be supposed, on general social grounds, to be capable of contributing further.
We have therefore devised a system designed to retain the desirable features of the Asprey suggestion but to exclude the undesirable income distribution features. Material is available describing the new system in detail. Here I outline its main features.
First, there will be a new and much simplified rate scale, with only seven steps instead of the present fourteen. The marginal rates will begin at 20c in the dollar on taxable incomes up to $2,000 rising to 27c in the dollar on incomes from $2,000 to $5,000 and 35c in the dolar on incomes from $5,000 to $10,000. The marginal rates rise in four further steps to reach a maximum of 65c in the dollar at a taxable income of $25,000.
On incomes from $6,000 to $25,000 marginal rates generally will fall, the greatest fall being in the $8,000-$ 10,000 income range, where the drop is from 48c to 35c in the dollar.
Secondly, every individual taxpayer, whether or not he or she has dependants or spends on items which attract deductions, will receive a minimum concessional rebate of $540. This will protect low income earners from the impact of the higher marginal rates at low income levels.
The minimum concessional rebate does this by, in effect, increasing the minimum taxable income from its present $1,041 to $2,520 per annum. The introduction of this rebate will make possible the elimination of the present age rebate and the new scheme provides for that.
Thirdly, the present concessional allowances for dependants will be replaced by much more generous dependants’ rebates. For a spouse the rebate will be $400; for children it will be $200 for the first child under 16 and student children redefined to include all children under 25 receiving full-time education, and $150 in respect of other children.
There will be a separate rebate of $200, known as the Sole Parent Rebate, for parents without partners, such as widows or widowers or unmarried persons, who have the sole responsibility for maintenance of dependent children.
Fourthly, with some exceptions 1 shall mention, the existing concessional deductions for private expenditures will be converted to rebates calculated at 40c in the dollar of the amounts allowable under the present law. However, the minumum concessional rebate will be regarded as covering the first $540 of rebate claimable, other than for dependants. The effect of this will be that taxpayers whose rebatable expenditures are less than $ 1 ,350 will not need to itemise them as they will be covered by the minimum concessional rebate.
There will be certain exceptions to these rebate arrangements, as follows.
The existing housing loan interest deduction scheme will remain in its present form; that is, allowable deductions as presently prescribed will reduce taxable income.
The existing provisions for gifts to charities and school building funds will also remain unaltered.
There will be separate Zone Allowance Rebates over the above the $540 minimum concessional rebate for taxpayers in the prescribed zones.
Finally, the allowable deduction for education expenses, now one of the concessional deductions to be converted to the rebate basis, will be increased from $ 1 50 to $250 per student child.
It is not possible to outline all the benefits of the new tax system in this Speech. The main attractions, however, are as follows: nearly 500 000 taxpayers will be freed from tax entirely; there will be a very big increase in minimum taxable incomes- for example, to $5,372 in the case of a taxpayer with a dependent wife and two dependent student children; there will be a very big drop in marginal rates of tax on incomes in the range into which most full-time employees fall; taxpayers with dependants are heavily favoured as compared with the present system, particularly in the lower income ranges. For example, in his statement announcing tax cuts last November, the Prime Minister gave as an illustration the taxpayer with a dependent wife and two dependent children earning $100 a week. If his other deductions were 10 per cent of his income his tax payable would have declined from $568 in 1973-74 to $264 in 1974-75. Under the new arrangements such a taxpayer is freed from tax entirely.
We believe that the new system is both more equitable and more adaptable for revenue raising and economic management purposes.
Because of the extensive changes it entails, it will not be possible to have the proposed system in operation for PAYE purposes until 1 January 1976.
The cost to revenue of the new system I have outlined cannot be as simply summarised as is usually the case. On a true ‘full year’ basis, the cost to revenue will be $205m.
However, an additional advantage of the new system to taxpayers is that it will permit a large reduction in the present degree of overdeduction of PAYE tax instalments- and a consequential reduction in refunds which, this year, are estimated at $ 1,025m. That will assist the monetary authorities by reducing seasonal swings in revenue flows; it will also reduce the need for taxpayers to make, as it were, involuntary loans to the Government.
The combined effect of the taxation measures I have outlined and of the more accurate PAYE deductions which they make possible will be a substantial reduction in PAYE tax instalments for most taxpayers from the beginning of 1976. The precise instalments to be applied will be determined in due course, but I mention, for purposes of illustration, that the rise in the takehome pay of a wage-earner with a dependent wife and two children, and earning between $ 100 and $ 1 50 per week, will be well over $5 per week. There will be small rises- generally of less than $1 per week- in the PAYE instalment deductions of some taxpayers without dependants.
The total estimated cost to revenue of the scheme in 1975-76 if $395m but, of this $365m is attributable to the more accurate PAYE deductions which the new arrangements will permit.
It is proposed to abolish the property income surcharge with effect from this income year. There will be no cost to revenue in 1975-76; the cost in a full year will be $25m.
page 64
In aggregate, Budget outlays are estimated to increase in 1975-76 by $4,084m or 22.9 per cent to$21,915m.
Receipts are estimated to increase by $3, 852m or 25 .2 per cent to $ 1 9, 1 1 7m.
The estimated deficit is thus $2,798m and the domestic deficit $2,068m.
page 64
Given the budgetary decisions we have made, what is the economic outlook for the period ahead?
Some indications are provided in Statement No. 2 attached; here I pick up the key points.
Reflecting our policy decisions, government spending at all levels will show only modest real growth.
With the exception of business investment expenditure, which remains the weakest area of prospective demand, other components of domestic spending should show a strengthening trend and prospects for exports are also reasonably good. Imports have been quite subdued but will probably pick up during the year.
In recent months, consistent with the need to avoid sudden and disruptive changes in the monetary aggregates, the Reserve Bank has acted to gradually restrain the growth in bank lending and liquidity. Nonetheless the liquidity of the banking system should be sufficient to meet the basic immediate needs of the economy for finance without being fully accommodating to inflation.
In this Budget fiscal policy has been brought into better balance with monetary policy; both have now appropriately shifted from earlier strong stimulus to postures of moderation.
Against this background, real Gross Domestic Product is forecast to increase by about 5 per cent in 1975-76, after falling by 2 per cent in 1974-75. Prospects for employment should improve, but the improvement is likely to be gradual.
The course charted has its risks and the possibility of temporary reverses cannot be ruled out. Our commitment to what I earlier called a middle way between the two extremes makes that inevitable. What I do say is that, if there is an equal commitment in the community to play its part in steering the economy back to a firmer footing, we shall be able to overcome any such temporary problems.
On the matter of prices, the increased duties on beer, tobacco and potable spirits will increase prices as stocks are worked off. There will also be price increases, which cannot be calculated with precision, resulting from the passing on of the crude petroleum levy into the prices of motor spirit and other products. The increased postal and telephone charges to come into operation from 1 September next will also add a little to the CPI in the December quarter.
The Government is fully aware that, in itself, the effect on prices is unwelcome. What were the alternatives?
One alternative would have been to let the deficit rise even further. That would have been more inflationary and would have thrown an undue burden onto monetary policy.
Another alternative would have been to refrain both from raising these indirect taxes and from reducing company and personal income taxes.
We considered that course equally untenable.
In theory, another alternative would have been to cut our expenditures by a further $500m or $600m. We examined that possibility but concluded that it was impracticable.
I can only say that I hope that those who suggest the contrary will bring forward specific suggestions as to where we could have reined in expenditures even more stringently than we have.
In drawing attention to these price effects, I add that it is the Government’s firm view that, for the purposes of wage indexation, increases in prices resulting from tax measures of the sort that I have announced should be discounted. It would be self-defeating if the system of wage indexation were to attempt to insulate the community from tax measures designed to redistribute resources for the benefit of the community in the form of improved public facilities in fields such as education, health, welfare, personal benefits, urban improvement and so on. These improvements must be seen as a real improvement in people’s living standards and are a non-money form of addition to their incomes.
In its submissions in the recent wage indexation hearings before the Arbitration Commission the Government foreshadowed the likelihood that it would make submissions on this matter in future quarterly hearings.
Notwithstanding these direct price effects of the indirect tax measures, we look for a continuing downward shift in the underlying rate of inflation during 1975-76. It can hardly be more than a slow winding down within that timeframe; but our time-frame must extend beyond the immediate confines of this financial year. 1975-76 is therefore seen as a year of consolidation. Economic growth will only be restored by way of gradual policies firmly grounded upon an effective anti-inflationary foundation.
page 65
In this Budget the Government has endeavoured to give a lead to the community.
If inflation is to be curbed there are no soft options- only a choice between more or less difficult ones.
For our part, our hope is that with a community appreciation of the need for restraint, we can make a real start on getting inflation under control and further raising living standards for everybody.
I commend the Budget to Honourable Members.
Debate (on motion by Mr Malcolm Fraser) adjourned.