House of Representatives
2 September 1975

29th Parliament · 1st Session

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

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. G. G. D. Scholes) took the chair at 2. 15 p.m., and read prayers.

page 817

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Increased Postal and Telephone Charges

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 Berinson, Mr Malcolm Fraser, Mr Snedden, Mr Calder, Mr Drury, Mr Millar, Mr Sullivan, Mr Wentworth and Mr Whan.

Petitions received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

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

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

  6. That the Insurance Industry is already coping with

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. byMrBungey.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

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 Governmetn Insurance Office will:

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament. 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, by Mr MacKellar.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. byMrMcLeay.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

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

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

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

Petition received.

Metric System

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

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

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

That the traditional weights and measures are eminently satisfactory.

Your 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 Bryant, Mr Jarman and Mr MacKellar.

Petitions received.

Fraser Island

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

That whereas the natural environment of Fraser Island is so outstanding that it should be identified as part of the World Natural Heritage, and whereas the Island should be conserved for the enjoyment of this and future generations.

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

  1. that the Australian Government uses its constitutional powers to prohibit the export of any mineral sands from Fraser Island, and
  2. that the Australian Government uses its constitutional authority to assist the Queensland Government and any other properly constituted body to develop and conserve the recreational, educational and scientific potentials of the natural environment of Fraser Island for the long term benefit of the people of Australia.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Cadman, Mr Mathews and Mr Ruddock.

Petitions received.

School Cadet Corps

To the Honourable the Speaker and the members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, do humbly petition Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia that they do take such steps as necessary to:

Continue the School Cadet Movement and to actively promote same.

Which we do humbly petition this Honourable Parliament to make sure.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. byMrBeazley.

Petition received.

Hansard Subscription Rates

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 increased price of the Hansard subscription will place it beyond the financial reach of most people;

That it is basic in a Parliamentary democracy that electors have easy access to records of the debates in their Parliament;

That making Hansard available only to an elite who can afford it is at odds with the concept of open government

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will reduce the cost of the Hansard susbscription so that it is still available at a moderate price to any interested citizen.

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

Petition received.

Solar Energy Research

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

  1. That the world’s current major sources of energy are finite and will probably be depleted during the next century.
  2. That atomic energy is currently an unacceptable alternative energy source as it presents problems including radioactive waste, military implications and thermal pollution.
  3. That solar energy is the only acceptable alternative energy source as it is inexhaustible and non-polluting.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government will immediately increase the expenditure on solar energy research to an amount comparable with the current expenditure on atomic energy research and will give assurances to maintain solar energy research expenditure at this level, at least, until the year 2000 AD and maintain CSIRO control of and responsibility for solar energy research, until an appropriate commission can be established.

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

Petition received.

Uranium

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

  1. that we, citizens of Australia, see our country as a responsible nation that does not encourage nuclear warfare.
  2. that nuclear energy presents the possibility of environmental and genetic catastrophe. Technology has not eliminated that damage.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray;

  1. that the Government will immediately suspend sales of uranium to any country engaged in violent conflict or where common sense tells us that the manufacture of nuclear weapons could be the ultimate purpose to which our uranium is put. It should be a matter of inflexible policy not to consider such sales in the future.
  2. that until technology can prove that the hazards of nuclear energy have been overcome, no Australian uranium should be mined except for medical purposes.
  3. that the Government should actively and immediately encourage the search for safer energy sources by making grants to appropriate institutes for the research and feasibility studies into solar and other alternative sources of energy.

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

Petition received.

Shire of South Gippsland

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

  1. The Rural economy of the Shire of South Gippsland is severely disadvantaged by the current prices being paid for cattle;
  2. The Council of the Shire of South Gippsland is extremely concerned with the financial crisis which is rapidly overtaking its finances;
  3. Non-replacement of outdoor staff has been introduced since early 1974 because of the effective reduction in funds for road maintenance and construction caused by inflation;
  4. Continually increasing wages and salaries as a result of indexation cannot continue to be passed on to the ratepayer.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House take steps to-

  1. grant to the Shire of South Gippsland an amount of $200,000 to enable it to provide the same standard of service it provided in 1972;
  2. increase this grant annually in line with the inflation rate.

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

Petition received.

Tertiary Education Scheme

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, as well as many Australian citizens 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:

  1. An immediate increase in the maximum away from home and independence rates from the present $32 per week to $49 per week, as indicated in the 1974 joint Department of Education and AUS survey of student cost and expenditure.
  2. Indexation of the allowance according to moves in the Consumer Price Index weighted for particular student costs;
  3. Abolition of the present complex academic requirements preventing financially needy students from obtaining benefits on grounds of their academic standings and replacing them with one year’s automatic grace for students who fail or transfer.
  4. Abolition of the pernicious regulations which prevents students who are less than 21 and living away from home from receiving the away-from-home rate (except under three limited conditions).
  5. Increase in the allowance for dependent spouse from $5 to $17 per week.
  6. Efficient administration of the scheme.

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

Petition received.

Radio 2JJ

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned students of Macquarie University, North Ryde, N.S.W. and citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That many areas of the Sydney region are inadequately serviced with access to broadcasts of ABC radio station 2JJ by virtue of the transmitting equipment used by that station being not powerful enough for good quality reception in some areas, or of any reception in others.

Your petitioners therefore humble pray that the House will take all possible action to bring this matter to the attention of the Government, that by legislation, regulation or administrative fiat the station may be provided with the necessary facilities to adequately service the whole Sydney region.

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

Petition received.

page 820

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Mr WHITLAM (Werriwa-Prime Minister -Mr Speaker, I inform the House that the AttorneyGeneral, the Honourable Kep Enderby, Q.C., left on 29 August to attend the 5th United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, which is being held in Geneva. He is expected to return on 16 September. In his absence, the Minister for Labor and Immigration, Senator James McClelland, will act as Attorney-General, and the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, the Honourable Lionel Bowen, will represent the Acting Attorney-General and Minister for Police and Customs in this chamber.

page 820

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY LEGISLATION

Notice of Motion

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-I give notice that, at the next sitting, I shall move:

That this House views with disapproval the proposal for changes in the law regarding incest, homosexual behaviour and abortion on demand, which the Attorney-General has caused to be placed before the Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory in the form of a draft ordinance.

page 820

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 820

QUESTION

ACTU-SOLO ENTERPRISES PTY LTD

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA

– I ask the Prime Minister a question. Has the Government approved the sale of Australian crude oil by Allied Petrochemicals Pty Ltd to ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd, of which the President of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Hawke, is chairman and managing director, for a secret price which is over $lm in excess of the Government’s approved price?

Mr Whitlam:

– The Minister for Minerals and Energy will answer the question.

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

-The Government did not approve of any such contract. We have been consistent in our administration of the indigenous crude oil pricing policy on the terms that were originally evolved by the honourable member’s own party when in government. I await with interest today the Royal Commission evidence that will be given by the secretary of the ACTUSolo company. May I add that in respect of that company I have made available to counsel assisting the Royal Commission into Petroleum and Petroleum Products the full file of papers and have instructed our own counsel to the Commission to ask for a special report on all circumstances associated with the preparation and execution of the second agreement.

page 820

QUESTION

TECHNICAL COLLEGE BUILDINGS: VICTORIA

Mr OLDMEADOW:
HOLT, VICTORIA

-My question is directed to the Minister for Education. I preface it by saying that a report this morning stated that the Minister had said that Victoria spent less money from its own resources on technical college buildings than either Queensland or South Australia. Is the Minister able to give the House further details on this subject?

Mr BEAZLEY:
Minister for Education · FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I have been subject to quite a number of attacks by the Victorian Minister for Education and, against my wont, I have decided to retaliate, drawing attention to the various activities of the Victorian Government in challenging grants to non-government schools. On Victoria the Australian Committee on Technical and Further Education has devoted a whole section of its report to maintenance of effort. Page 201 of the Richardson report shows that Victoria has got its capital expenditure on technical education from its own resources down to the abject level of $728,000 in a year, which is what you might expect as not a very good performance from Tasmania. It is perfectly clear from the table on page 201, which give figures over 5 years, that the more money granted by the Commonwealth to Victoria through a policy which was begun under our predecessors for technical education capital expenditure, the less Victoria has spent out of its own resources, so that it is doubtful whether there was a net advantage out of Commonwealth activity at all.

The Victorian Minister has complained about a cut of $9m from $5 8m to $49m in the capital grants for Victorian schools. He has omitted to mention an increase of $21m from $72m to $93m in recurring grants and he has omitted to mention the record level of ‘as of right’ reimbursement grants that Victoria has been given, which amount to an additional $184m. If Victoria is concerned at the loss of $8.8m in capital it can easily make it up out of its own ‘as of right’ grants. I would say this about Mr Thompson: He is totally opposed really to earmarked grants at all. He would like all of Victoria’s funds not to be specified for education or for any other purpose but to be in the form of general grants such as those mentioned on page 19 of the Payments to the States and Local Government Authorities, the publication circulated with the Budget. This paper shows a record level for Victoria’s own ‘as of right’ grants. Mr Thompson has no reason whatever to complain about a sharp increase in recurrent grants. The cut in capital expenditure is very largely due to the fact that the Government cannot accept the 4 education commissions making recommendations which compete with one another for building labour and building material. The other thing the Government finds difficulty in explaining to itself is why any independent school in Victoria can get about 50 per cent more for every $ 1 of capital expenditure than the Victorian Government can get by building through its Department of Public Works and notwithstanding its own experience when it went outside its own Department of Public Works to rebuild Princes Hill High School after it had been destroyed by a firebug. It was rebuilt in very short time.

We want to assist the Victorian Government in every way possible to make the finest capital expenditure on its schools. Because the Australian Government has faced particular problems with building material and building equipment and the competing recommendations of 4 commissions which have recommended an expenditure of $6,026 billion on education we have asked the 4 commissions to look again. We are having a holding program while they do this. It is not a sign that we want to diminish support for Victorian education. We believe that the commissions got education out of politics. As far as this chamber is concerned I think they have done so; but we have this pseudo-constitutional confrontation with the States all the time, and Mr Thompson plays it as hard as ever. If he wants to play it hard, I propose to play it hard back.

page 821

QUESTION

ACTU-SOLO ENTERPRISES PTY LTD

Mr LYNCH:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

– My question, which is supplementary to that asked a few moments ago by the Leader of the Opposition, is directed to the Minister for Minerals and Energy. If deliveries of crude oil have already taken place to ACTUSolo Enterprises Pty Ltd, what action does the Minister propose to take in relation to any premium price that ACTU-Solo has paid Allied Petrochemicals Pty Ltd?

Mr CONNOR:
ALP

-I will await the evidence that will be given today and the answers that will be given to questions that will be asked of the representative of ACTU-Solo. Of course, there will be the questions of taxation which would be due and also whether there would be any implementation of the terms of the second agreement which provided for 7!6c a gallon to be paid in respect of an imputed production of about 13’A million gallons of petroleum products. I will await the developments today.

page 821

QUESTION

POSTAL AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS CHARGES

Mrs CHILD:
HENTY, VICTORIA

– Can the Minister representing the Postmaster-General say what subsidy would have been required by the Postal Commission and the Telecommunications Commission to avoid recent increases in postal and telecommunication charges? Is he aware of any recent suggestion that such a subsidy should be made available from government revenue?

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

-The position is that the Budget already is providing in excess of $400m for the capital works program of the 2 commissions. This represents about half of their proposed capital programs and is in accordance with the Vernon Commission’s report. If, as has now been suggested, the taxpayer was expected to pick up the total of the increase now required, a further $348m would be required. It would be beyond reason to believe that both postal services and telecommunications could be totally subsidised by the taxpayer. The Postal Commission, I think, ran at a loss of $60m last year. As I say, about half the finance for its large capital works program is being appropriated from the Budget. The Telecommunications Commission proposes to meet a demand for about 335 000 new services. It has a capital expenditure in excess of $800m. It would be completely impossible to expect that all those capital works could be financed from the Budget.

page 821

ACTU-SOLO ENTERPRISES PTY LTD

Mr SINCLAIR I ask the Minister for Minerals and Energy a question that is supplementary to those asked by the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Does the Minister recall correspondence with Mr Harold Souter, who is not only as I understand it the Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions but also a director of ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd, saying that the Minister or his officers had scrutinised the agreement between Allied Petrochemicals Pty Ltd and ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd and that the agreement and the arrangement between the ACTU-Solo and Allied Petrochemicals companies was not an exceptional arrangement?

Mr CONNOR:
ALP

– Only one agreement was submitted to us. That is the only one of which we have any knowledge. It was duly processed by my Department both in Canberra and at the Hydrocarbons Division in Melbourne. There was only one agreement. I know of no second agreement. I stated in the comment in the letter returning the agreement that it was unexceptionable in the terms of the indigenous crude oil pricing policy.

page 822

QUESTION

TIMOR: ENTRY VISA

Mr COPE:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I preface my question, which is directed to the Prime Minister, by stating that a news editor on television channel 9 in Sydney last night, when reporting on events in Timor after a visit to that country on a trawler, confessed that although he has been resident in Australia for 14 years he is not a naturalised Australian citizen. I ask: Was the normal process of law followed by this person in obtaining a reentry visa or permit after visiting another country?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-As I understand it, the gentleman to whom the honourable member refers and other persons who had travelled on the trawler from Darwin to Atauro and to Dili came back to Australia on board a Royal Australian Air Force aircraft The operation of the ship and the activities of those aboard it seem to have been in breach of Australian law, Portuguese law and international law. The Portuguese have made it plain and have informed us that they have cancelled visas for persons to travel to Portuguese Timor except in the case of officials and relief workers. They are not issuing any further visas for the time being. They have made it clear that they do not wish to allow journalists to travel to Portuguese Timor at this time. I presume that this is because they cannot guarantee the safety of persons visiting Timor and cannot guarantee accommodation for them. The crew of the trawler said to the customs authorities in Darwin that the vessel would be crayfishing in foreign waters. On this basis, the ship was given a clearance from the port of Darwin. In fact, the ship did go directly to Portuguese Timor. The members of the crew were permitted to land in Timor because they displayed the red cross. They had no entitlement to do so.

Mr Cohen:

– Kerry Packer.

Mr WHITLAM:

– He also was given a lift back on the RAAF aircraft.

page 822

QUESTION

ACTU-SOLO ENTERPRISES PTY LTD

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Does the Minister for Minerals and Energy recall seeing a telex that came into his Department in Canberra on 24 June 1975 which referred to a secret deal between the ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd and the other company? Does that warning that was clearly being examined within his Department significantly before the time at which the Minister wrote to Mr Souter explain the strange terms of the Minister’s letter in which he said:

I am advised that the document which presumably has been executed by the parties covers the sale by APC of its indigenous crude allocations at the same price that APC is paying for it.

Is there not enough in that sentence to cause the Minister and his Department to institute additional inquiries? Since the Minister’s Department was warned of the real possibility of a secret deal before the Minister wrote to Mr Souter how can the Minister say that he knew of no second contract?

Mr CONNOR:
ALP

-A telex was sent from Mr Gartland, the head of the Hydrocarbons Division in Melbourne, suggesting that there was such a possibility. Long before receiving that message I had raised the matter verbally with Mr Souter, the Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– Did they mislead you, then?

Mr CONNOR:

– They assured me that no consideration was being paid, other than that contained in the agreement. I have consistently and repeatedly rejected similar proposals which have been put to me by quite a number of other organisations, in respect both of the Allied Petrochemical Pty Ltd entitlement and one of Mr Roach and Independent Oil Company Ltd. I am not a fool.

page 822

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Mr DAWKINS:
TANGNEY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister for Education seen a reported statement by the Western Australian Minister for Education which claims that education funds from the Australian Government for recurrent expenditure have been cut by half? Is this statement true?

Mr BEAZLEY:
ALP

– If the honourable gentleman were to look at page 45 of Budget Paper No. 7, Payments to or for the States and Local Government Authorities, he would see that the recurrent grants to Western Australia have been increased by 50 per cent, from $17m to $25.7m, so I am totally at a loss to understand how a State Minister can make such a statement. He must have reversed the years and thought that this year’s grants were last year’s and that last year’s grants were this year’s. In that case he would be somewhat near the amount of the cut as he calculated it. As it is, the grants have been increased by 50 per cent. The Minister has also said that the cut of capital, which is undoubted, from $15m to $1 lm for bis schools would mean a serious position for Western Australian education. Last year, that is 1974-75, the State was given a record reimbursement grant of $279m. This year the record is eclipsed, with a figure of $375m. If the Minister is worried about the loss of $4m in capital, I think $96m ought to give him a chance to replace that amount out of his own resources. But as the statement reads, when an assertion is made that a 50 per cent increase in the grants to the States for recurrent funds is a cut, I can only call it evil misrepresentation.

page 823

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

(Mr Lynch having addressed a question to the Prime Minister)

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question is out of order because it does not ask for information concerning any matter for which the Prime Minister is responsible.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

- Mr Speaker, may I speak to the point of order?

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is no point of order. The honourable member may raise one.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was concerned with the administration of the Government’s crude oil pricing policy. Surely that is an appropriate matter on which the Prime Minister can be asked a question. If the Prime Minister chooses not to answer the question and to refer it to another Minister specifically responsible, that is his prerogative. But the question certainly has to do with Government policy and therefore may be replied to by the Prime Minister.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question was not in the terms the Leader of the Opposition states. It asked the Prime Minister whether he was concerned about the attitude of the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. That is not a matter which is within the ambit of the Prime Minister’s responsibility. It may be a matter on which he could care to express an opinion, but not at question time.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

- Mr Speaker, did not the question relate to the breaching of the policy by a certain company, and therefore very much a matter having to do with the policy of the Government?

Mr SPEAKER:

-No. I have ruled the question out of order. The question was not phrased in that manner.

page 823

QUESTION

MEDIBANK

Mr YOUNG:
PORT ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Has the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to a statement appearing over the weekend that Medibank will be abolished? Can he say whether there have been subsequent efforts to offset an unfavourable public reaction by suggesting that this statement was untrue? Will he do all he can to see that Australians are made aware of the precise nature of the threat to Medibank -

Mr Chipp:

- Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have denied publicly that I made the statement attributed to me in the Press. Is the honourable member entitled under the Standing Orders to quote a statement alleged to have been made by me when there has already been a denial that I made it?

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Chair is not in a position to be aware of any statements made by honourable members. Any question which asks the Prime Minister to comment on a statement by any honourable member or any person would be out of order. I ask the honourable member for Port Adelaide to complete his question.

Mr YOUNG:

-I ask the Prime Minister finally, will he do all he can to see that Australians are made aware of the precise nature of the threat to Medibank and the effect of Medibank ‘s being dismantled?

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister cannot be responsible for the statements, whether true or alleged statements, of shadow Ministers or people on this side of the House. Therefore the question is out of order.

Government supporters- The honourable member for Hotham was not mentioned.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I think the honourable member is basing his point of order on an assumption in the question, not the actual wording of the question.

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-Apparently the shadow Minister for Social Security has to deny these things thrice. I think it will require more than the Deputy Whip of the Opposition to protect him on this occasion. There has been a long saga continuing over the whole weekend, also yesterday and now today by the spokesman on health for the Opposition to explain what he means about Medibank. I want to reassure honourable gentlemen and give the latest version. It might be his last testament on the matter. On the Australian Broadcasting Commission at mid-day today he said:

Medibank is now a fact of life. The Opposition parties accept that the Government has enacted the laws to establish it. It is now in operation. Our concern that it will provide a lesser health service at greater cost remains. In government we will preserve the beneficial qualities of the scheme and enact reforms to overcome its weaknesses.

I have quoted the latest version in full. But the honourable member had to be dragged over the whole weekend and Monday to come clean on it, to come up to date on it. I wish the Opposition would make up its own mind on this. It is true enough that earlier this year the spokesman on social security, who still apparently retains that post, was encouraged to oppose at any cost on any issue at all. Now apparently a greater degree of rationality is being imposed upon him. I wish he would be a bit more gracious and rational about facing up to these facts. Medibank is a matter which was debated at the 1969, 1972 and 1974 elections. The public supported it increasingly. I now gather that the Opposition is tormented by its folly in having rejected in the Senate the complementary Bills for financing it which had also been put at the 1969, 1972, and 1974 elections. It is good to know that at last after all these years the Opposition and even its health spokesman will face up to the fact that Australia should now have a system of financing medical and hospital expenses such as every comparable country has had for years past and as Australia itself had for 5 years after 1947 before an incoming Liberal Government abolished it on that occasion.

Medibank is practicable. We showed that in Australia earlier. Other countries caught up and we are now catching up too. If the Opposition wants to help in the method of financing the scheme I am very happy to consider any proposition it makes in that way. After all, we put the proposals to the Parliament. They were passed several times in this House. They were rejected as many times in the Senate. They were reasonable propositions. But we will not waste the time of the House until the Opposition has sorted out its attitude to this aspect of Medibank. Medibank is here to stay, thanks to the Labor Party and despite all the resistance, all the sour grapes and all the frustration that the Opposition still shows.

page 824

QUESTION

ACTU-SOLO ENTERPRISES PTY LTD

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– What is the Prime Minister or his Government going to do about the breach of the indigenous crude oil policy by ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd?

Mr Whitlam:

– I will ask the Minister for Minerals and Energy to answer the question.

Mr CONNOR:
ALP

– As I said in answer to an earlier question, I will await the evidence that is given today. I have indicated 2 forms of action that I will take. Others could follow.

page 824

QUESTION

PORTUGUESE TIMOR-OPPOSITION STATEMENTS

Mr LAMB:
LA TROBE, VICTORIA

– Is the Prime Minister aware of recent statements seeking to present the Portuguese Timor situation to the Australian public in the cold war terms of ‘communist’ and ‘anticommunist’?

Mr Sullivan:

– Hear, hear!

Mr LAMB:

– My question is to the Prime Minister, not to the pseudo-Army.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that the honourable gentleman concentrate on asking it.

Mr LAMB:

– Can the Prime Minister say whether the statements bring closer a settlement of the dispute?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– In this matter one has to be fair. The Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs made no such comparisons. He did not issue any such alarmist or inflammatory statements. It was of course another issue, I regret to say, on which an Opposition spokesman is at odds with the Leader of the Opposition. On the earlier issue upon which I was asked a question I am told, on the authority of the newspapers, that the Leader of the Opposition was on the side of the angels; he accepts Medibank. It was the spokesman on social security who was resisting and wanting to dismantle it. On this occasion the foreign affairs spokesman has not been guilty of any such inflammatory or provocative statements. The Leader of the Opposition has been, and in this case he is supported by the Leader of the National Country Party. It is they, to thenshame, who last Thursday asked questions about Timor getting a communist administration.

The honourable gentlemen should know that nothing could be better calculated to stir suspicion and to arouse preventive action by some of our neighbours. There is incomplete justification for describing any of the parties in Timor as communist; but there is a very real feeling in Indonesia, flowing from her own experience in the 1950s and 1960s, about communist activity in the archipelago of which Timor is the central point. If honourable gentlemen opposite wish to arouse fears and to stir action by Indonesia they are going the right way about it. If there is a reaction by Indonesia, then Australians can thank the Leader of the Liberal

Party and the Leader of the National Country Party for branding any incoming administration in Timor as communist. I cannot imagine anything more irresponsible, more against Australia’s interests, more against the interests of other countries in the region and more against the interests of the people of Timor themselves.

page 825

QUESTION

PORTUGUESE TIMOR

Mr PEACOCK:
KOOYONG, VICTORIA

-I address a question to the Prime Minister. I refer to his discussions yesterday with Dr Santos concerning East Timor. Can and will he advise the House what formal requests were made by Dr Santos for Australian assistance and what was the Government’s response? Secondly- again regarding the situation in East Timor- what diplomatic initiatives have been taken by Australia with other countries in the region? I ask the Prime Minister please do not draw the same long bow as he did previously.

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I think that the honourable gentleman is most ungracious after what I have just said about him. He will have to go much further, however, to reconcile himself with his Leader on this issue. I told the House last week about the consultations which Australia had had in Lisbon, Jakarta and the United Nations- not only with the Secretary-General of the United Nations but also with the working bureau of the Committee of Twenty-four- on this question of Timor. Yesterday the Minister for Defence and I and the heads of our Departments spent the better part of the day with Dr Almeida Santos, the Portuguese Ambassador, the Portuguese ConsulGeneral and some others accompanying them. At the end of the day’s proceedings we issued a statement, which honourable gentlemen may agree should be incorporated in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

page 825

PORTUGUESE TIMOR

In discussion with the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Defence, Dr Almeida Santos informed them of his conversations about Portuguese Timor at the United Nations and with the Indonesian Government.

Dr Santos will be going to Portuguese Timor on 2 September 197S in a further effort to bring the different parties in Portuguese Timor together.

The Australian Government will provide him with facilities to reach Portuguese Timor.

Dr Santos proposes to continue to Jakarta for further discussions with the Indonesian authorities.

In the course of discussions with the Acting Foreign Minister and Minister for Defence the question arose of Australian participation in a possible multinational supervisory body in Portuguese Timor. The Australian Ministers said that they were not in a position to indicate a definitive view on this question in advance of the outcome of the talks which Dr Santos will be having in Timor and the further talks between Indonesia and Portugal in Jakarta on the subject.

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-No definite propositions were put to the Minister and me by the Portuguese emissary because no agreements have been made between him and the Indonesian authorities and no discussions have yet taken place between him and any of the parties in Timor. When discussions have taken place in Timor, when arrangements have been made with Indonesia, that will be time enough for the Australian Government to consider any positive proposal. It was made clear to Dr Santos that Australia could not take on any responsibilities of a colonial character in Portuguese Timor. Australia’s role in any international or regional arrangements would need to be concentrated on essentially humanitarian areas. The Government is already extending considerable help to the International Red Cross in the relief operations it has now launched in Portuguese Timor. We have made a Royal Australian Air Force aircraft available to the Red Cross for the next month for it to use as it sees fit. We are running constant RAAF flights between Darwin and Atauro and sometimes to Dili and Bacau We have provided transport for Dr Santos today from Sydney to Darwin and thence to Atauro.

page 825

QUESTION

MEANS TEST FOR PENSIONS

Mr COHEN:

-I ask the Prime Minister: In view of the fact that the Australian Labor Government has taken the first 2 steps towards abolishing the means test and proposes a third step for people aged 69 years as from 1 July next year, is he aware of any other proposals to abolish the means test?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-No, Mr Speaker. The Treasurer in his Budget Speech a fortnight ago gave the program for this financial year for the abolition of the means test. For the first time people under 70 will receive age pensions without a means test. I am happy to see that on this as on so many features of the Budget the Opposition is supporting the Government. It was notable that on this feature, as on many other features of the Budget where the Government had hoped to spend more, the Opposition has not criticised it for not doing so. It is significant that the Opposition has accepted that this is as much as can be done this financial year to abolish the means test.

page 825

QUESTION

TOOSE REPORT

Mr BONNETT:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social

Security and Minister for Repatriation and Compensation. As the important Toose report is long overdue, can the Minister advise when the report will be completed and tabled?

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Tourism and Recreation · LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The question raised by the honourable member has been exercising the mind of this Government for the past 2 years and 8 months. It is to be recalled that it was the previous Government that appointed Mr Justice Toose to hold this inquiry. Many attempts have been made by the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation to have the report finalised. The latest information is that a lot of the papers collected by Mr Justice Toose are now ready to be filed. The report is about to be finished, but it will take some time before it is printed and published. I could say that this could be regarded as the best ‘iron lung* royal commission ever established.

page 826

QUESTION

COMMUNITY HEALTH PROGRAM

Mr KEOGH:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

– I direct my question to the Minister for Health. I ask: Do the guidelines for the community health programs recommended by the Hospitals and Health Services Commission and adopted by the Australian Government as policy, clearly envisage that local communities should be involved in the planning, initiation and management of community health centres? If so, could the Minister inform the House of the funds made available to the Queensland Government for community based health services, the extent of community involvement in Queensland community health centres and particularly whether the Queensland Government is adhering to the Australian Government policy of community involvement in community health centres?

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Minister for Health · CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– It is true that guidelines for community based health services recommended by the Hospitals and Health Services Commission were implemented under 2 programs by the Australian Government- the community health program and the community mental health, alcoholism and drug dependency program. The Australian Government meets 75 per cent of capital costs and 90 per cent of running costs of all projects under the 2 programs; the remainder is provided by either the States or community organisations. In 1973-74 over $2m was approved under the programs for Queensland and in 1974-75 the amount approved was over $4.8m. This year’s Budget has allocated $8. 9m for the 2 programs in Queensland which are now combined under the community health program. Administration of most community health centres is the responsibility of individual State governments.

In response to the latter part of the honourable member’s question: Queensland does not have a good record of community involvement in community health centres, and a large responsibility lies with the Queensland Government. I should like to quote from a letter received from a senior officer of the Queensland Department of Health. It states:

This Department’s policy does not allow for community participation in the management of its community health service centres, and it does not establish management or advisory committees at the local level for this purpose. Whilst any suggestions or advice which may be offered by interested local committees or organisations would be taken into consideration, it is not proposed that they be given direct representation on any departmental planning body.

In contrast, I quote paragraph 19 of the report of the Interim Committee of the National Hospitals and Health Services Commission. It states:

The community health services should be responsive to the needs of the people they are designed to serve. Responsiveness can best be promoted by involving the community in decision making.

Within my electorate I called a public meeting to inform people of the objectives of the community health program, but State Government employees of the Queensland Community Medicine Division of the Department of Health were forbidden to attend in an official capacity. The same practice is evident State-wide. A new centre is currently being built at Inala on the outskirts of Brisbane. Here, the Inala and District Community Health Services Committee, elected from a public meeting, is encountering what can only be called obstruction from the Queensland Department of Health. I am becoming impatient with the attitude of both the Queensland Government and the Queensland Department of Health. My attitude is that if the Queensland Government is not willing to allow community participation in management of its community health centres it is accepting money from the Australian Government under false pretences. If the Queensland Government will not honour federal guidelines for community involvement it should be prepared to initiate its own program of community health. The seeming policy of the Queensland Department of Health is antiquated, bureaucratic, centralised and shortsighted. One only has to look at the success of the Deer Park community health centre to realise the applicability and success of community involvement in community health centres. At Deer Park the local community is responsible for hiring and firing of staff and recommends to my Department new health areas the centre could broach.

page 827

QUESTION

PETROL

Mr VINER:
STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Acting Treasurer. What will be the price of petrol at the bowser as a result of the $2 a barrel levy on indigenous crude oil, and from when will that increased price operate?

Mr CREAN:
Minister for Overseas Trade · MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA · ALP

– I would say that the price at the bowser will vary from place to place. (Opposition members interjecting)-

Mr CREAN:

-Well, it does now. Maybe the honourable member will give me the price at the bowser now.

page 827

QUESTION

MINERAL SANDS

Mr BENNETT:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the attention of the Minister for Minerals and Energy been drawn to a report in the West Australian of 28 August by Mr Mensaros, the Western Australian Minister for Mines and Industrial Development, criticising the operation of export controls on mineral sands? Are these comments true?

Mr CONNOR:
ALP

-I have seen the report. It is both misleading and incorrect. As a matter of fact, in the world today there is imminent overproduction of zircon. The present world production capacity is of the order of 700 000 tonnes of which approximately 600 000 tonnes is produced in Australia. The market is of the order of 500 000 tonnes only. There are 15 producers of zircon in Australia, some in Western Australia and some on the eastern coast. Due to the differences of viewpoint and the differences of planning and production a serious situation has developed. For example, my Department formerly permitted a price differential of $4 per ton less in respect of zircon produced in Western Australia as compared with that produced in the eastern States. The matter will need very careful consideration.

There are quite a number of facts that I could give to the House that would go far beyond the bounds of a reasonable answer to a question. But this much I can say: Of the 15 producers some ten are quite prepared to arrive at a reasonable price and also are anxious to secure contracts on a 3-year basis with proper escalation clauses. Nevertheless the suggested prices which they have submitted to my Department vary from $90 to as much as $250. Not all of them are prepared to accept a quota. My Department was in conference with all the producers on 6 June. It is absolutely incorrect- worse than that, it is deliberately incorrect- to suggest that we are in any way responsible for the situation. We are again communicating with them. We are seeking to get some common denominator amongst them, some common agreement on matters of policy, so that we can restore order and sensible marketing to a currently chaotic situation.

page 827

QUESTION

COLLAPSE OF BUSINESSES

Mr CORBETT:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

-My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is he aware that some 3000 businesses have ceased operation in Australia this year? Is he further aware that the main reason for this disaster to the Australian economy is the Government’s unsympathetic and, indeed, hostile policy towards successful business operation, especially small businesses? What action does the Government intend to take to prevent the imminent collapse of many more business enterprises which will occur if industrial disputes continue at the present level and if the Government does not take more effective action to bring inflation under control?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– The Government in the Budget introduced a fortnight ago has effectively taken action which will preserve and enhance business prospects in Australia.

page 827

PRIORITIES REVIEW STAFF

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

-For the information of honourable members I present a paper dated July 1975 prepared by the Priorities Review Staff entitled Possibilities for Social Welfare in Australia.

page 827

INQUIRY INTO THE CRAFTS

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

-I present for the information of honourable members 2 volumes of the report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Crafts entitled ‘The Crafts in Australia’. Five members of the Committee were appointed on 13 March 1972 by the then Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts. An additional 4 members were appointed by me on 22 December 1972, those four having special knowledge of the crafts and their place in education, their role in leisure and their uses in industry.

page 827

NATIONAL DEBT SINKING FUND

Mr CREAN:
Minister for Overseas Trade · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– Pursuant to section 1 8 of the National Debt Sinking Fund Act 1966-1967, I present the fifty-second annual report of the National Debt Commission for the year ended 30 June 1975.

POULTRY INDUSTRY ASSISTANCE ACT Dr PATTERSON (Dawson-Minister for Northern Australia)- Pursuant to section 8 of the Poultry Industry Assistance Act 1965-66 I present the tenth annual report on the operation of the Act for the year ended 30 June 1 975.

page 828

AMALGAMATION OF UNIVERSITIES COMMISSION AND COMMISSION ON ADVANCED EDUCATION

Mr BEAZLEY:
Minister for Education · Fremantle · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present the report of the panel to advise on arrangements for amalgamating the Universities Commission and the Commission on Advanced Education dated August 1975, together with a statement on that report.

page 828

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

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

– For the information of honourable members I present a report by the Industries Assistance Commission entitled Gas Fired Instantaneous Water Heaters (By-Law) dated 2 June 1975.

page 828

LAW REFORM COMMISSION

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · KingsfordSmithMinister for Manufacturing Industry · ALP

– Pursuant to section 37 of the Law Reform Commission Act 1973 I present the report of the Law Reform Commission on complaints against police.

page 828

SOCIAL WELFARE COMMISSION

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

– Pursuant to section 16 of the Social Welfare Commission Act 1973 1 present a report by the Social Welfare Commission entitled Care of the Aged.

page 828

QUESTION

VIETNAMESE REFUGEES IN AUSTRALIA

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

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

The immorality of the Government’s decision to deny the right of free speech and expression to specific Vietnamese refugees in Australia.

I, therefore, call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. (More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places) 3

Mr MacKELLAR:
Warringah

-I raise this matter of public importance again today- it was gagged last week- because I believe that the special requirement imposed on 9 South Vietnamese refugees seeking entry into Australia carries implications for all Australian citizens and all those who may seek citizenship in the future. I would like to make one thing quite clear. I am not attempting by way of this matter of public importance to revive the Vietnam dispute. I am raising the great democratic principle of freedom of speech. I notice that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) has left the chamber. Before raising this matter I sought from the Prime Minister a copy of the requirement signed by the refugees. As yet he has not made a copy available to me. However, from Peter Samuel’s article in the Bulletin I believe that the requirement is in these words:

I solemnly declare that if admitted to Australia for permanent residence I will not engage in political activity of any kind, and I will not permit my name to be lent or associated with any such prohibited activity.

Mr Hunt:

– Shame.

Mr MacKELLAR:

– Shame, as people rightly say. If this was not the requirement, let the Prime Minister clearly state what the requirement is. There is no doubt, however, that a requirement was sought and obtained. Keeping that in mind, let me now quote in part from the immigration platform of the Australian Labour Party as defined at Terrigal in February this year. It reads:

Labour supports an immigration policy administered with sympathy, understanding and tolerance.

Senator Mulvihill, Vice Chairman of the Federal Labor Party’s Immigration Committee, said in an address entitled Refugees in the World Today delivered on Thursday of last week, that is, 28 August: … the sympathy, understanding and tolerance with which the Government’s policies are administered apply no less strongly to refugees than to migrants generally.

He again quoted from decisions of the Terrigal conference when he said that the Labor policies included:

  1. No discrimination on grounds of race, nationality, politics, creed or sex.

He went on to say:

Clause (f) of the policy which provides that there shall be no discrimination on grounds of race, nationality, politics, creed or sex lies at the heart of Australia’s immigration policy. It also means that Australia does not discriminate between refugees on grounds of race, nationality, politics - he mentioned it again- creed or sex.

Mr Kelly:

-Who said that?

Mr MacKELLAR:

-Senator Mulvihill said that last week. He went on to say:

Just as we have a global immigration policy, so too we have within its non-discriminatory provisions a global refugee policy.

What hypocrisy, Mr Speaker! How could Senator Mulvihill say what he did, knowing as he must have that it was simply untrue?

In examining the matter, let us all be clear on one very significant and very disturbing fact: The signing of this requirement did not come about because of an excess of bureaucratic zeal, as a result of precedent or as a continuation of long established practice. It came about solely because the Prime Minister himself demanded it. This offensive requirement, this denial of basic rights, this shameful example of political discrimination, is the personal responsibility of the Prime Minister, and he alone demanded it. He can shelter behind no one. He can blame no one. He can sack no one. He alone is responsible.

Mr Howard:

– He is not in the House either.

Mr MacKELLAR:

– As the honourable member for Bennelong remarks, the Prime Minister is not in the House now. The Prime Minister prides himself on his adherence to commitments to the United Nations entered into by Australia. An important document of that body is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In part, that document says:

Article 19:

  1. . Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
  2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art or through any other media of his choice.

  3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary-

    1. for respect of the rights or reputations of others;
    2. for the protection of National security or of public order, or of public health or morals.

Australia signed that Covenant on 18 December 1972. Compare the words of that declaration with the requirements sought of the refugees.

Let me state quite clearly that the Opposition firmly supports the view that any Australian government has the right to determine who shall or shall not enter the country. Of course any government has that right. But, a decision having been made to allow someone to enter the country as a migrant or a refugee, that person should have the same rights, political and social, as any other person admitted to the country as a migrant or as a refugee. If a person is considered to have some characteristics which may prove a threat to the nation, that person should not be admitted. To impose selective requirements, particularly in respect of free speech, is discriminatory, undemocratic and not to be tolerated. It is a requirement reminiscent more of Hitler’s Germany or Stalin ‘s Russia. This nation is one whose people have fought and died to protect, for themselves and their children, this right of free speech. This nation is one whose people, no matter what their origin, have been able to say proudly that no one in Australia is denied the right to speak his or her mind, or to press his or her point of view. No longer is this so. With one typically furtive, typically secretive and typically graceless act, this Prime Minister has denied this basic democratic right to nine lonely, defenceless, beaten South Vietnamese refugees.

The ramifications of this action are far reaching. Where does it leave, for instance, all those thousands of Australian residents not yet citizens and, therefore, not protected by Australian citizenship? There are more than 722 000 of these people at the moment. It leaves them in an intolerable position. To protect themselves, they may unwillingly seek to become Australian citizens. I- I am sure this applies to everybody in this chamber- have always been very proud of being an Australian citizen and I have believed that those who sought citizenship should do so because they wished to and because they regarded the granting of Australian citizenship highly. They should not be bullied or coerced into becoming Australian citizens. We all of course want non-Australian residents to become Australian citizens, but we certainly do not want them to be bullied into it by economic, social or political coercion.

I believe we should all be very concerned for the rights of people coming to Australia. It is nearly always a traumatic experience to settle permanently in a new country, but of course this is lessened if the person involved has made a free decision to come here. In the case of refugees it is different. Refugees are dispossessed people. The decision to leave their country of origin is not a voluntary one. For them there is always trauma. I believe they are entitled to think that, the decision having been made to admit them to Australia, they should have exactly the same rights and opportunities as has every other person who has come to settle in Australia.

It amazes me that one man, the Prime Minister, should believe that the whole fabric of our nation has been so weakened, become so fragile, that our future stability would be threatened if lonely, dispossessed Vietnamese refugees were to be given the right of free speech. The Prime Minister’s requirement of these 9 refugees has been quite properly attacked in the Press. I know how paranoid the Prime Minister and his few remaining supporters are about the Press these days, but I believe it is in the great traditions of the free Press throughout the world that three of the senior newspapers in Australia have each attacked the decision. The Canberra Times, a newspaper whose opinions are respected far beyond the bounds of its area of circulation, said this:

Demanding of a refugee seeking asylum in Australia because his liberty or his fife is not safe at home that he sign away his freedom of speech is a serious infringement of an inalienable human right. The action of the Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, in imposing this condition on the entry of nine refugees from South Vietnam must therefore be denounced as contrary to the heart of the Australian ethos.

The Age said:

The only thing to be said for the restriction imposed on nine South Vietnamese refugees granted asylum in Australia is that it is consistent with the Whitlam Government’s entire handling of the Vietnamese refugee problem. This has been, at best, politically biased, grudging, tardy and meanspirited.

It finished up by saying:

There is no tenable excuse for applying it at all. This oppressive and discriminatory restriction of rights conferred on every other immigrant to this country should be revoked at once- with an appropriate apology not only to the refugees concerned but to the Australian community.

The Australian said:

The Federal Government has breached a basic principle of our society by insisting that certain South Vietnamese sign an undertaking that they will not indulge in ‘political activity ‘ in this country.

We would expect that none of the Vietnamese refugees in Australia- and there are fewer than a thousand of themwould indulge in political activity, Ustasha-style. But they should be able to express whatever opinions they like.

I agree totally with those sentiments. It is significant that the Age editorial is side by side with another editorial relating to the restrictions of free speech and abuse of human rights at present being practised by India’s Prime Minister. All the editorials point to the same conclusion. They are not speaking merely for nine dispossessed South Vietnamese- the people who are regarded by the Prime Minister as so potentially divisive that the whole flimsy fabric of our society could be rent asunder if they were allowed the right of free speech; they are quite correctly pointing to the great principle at stake- the right to speak freely.

If we are to continue as a democratic nation, then there must be no discrimination, no diminution of rights between those who are accepted as settlers in Australia. All people who are accepted as migrants, as potential permanent settlers, should and must be entitled to the same rights. It does not matter whether it is 9 or 9000- the principle remains the same. Australia has had in the past a proud record in relation to its acceptance and treatment of refugees. Some of our first immigrants after the Second World War were people of Baltic background- Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians- dispossessed of their countries of origin by the Soviet military machine. No one can deny the magnificent contribution these people have made to the development of Australia. They have quite rightly been harshly critical of the Prime Minister’s callous and totally unnecessary action in affording de jure recognition to the Soviet annexation by force of the Baltic States. They have protested peacefully and extremely effectively against this decision. Is it now to be suggested that they should not have had the right to speak out, to organise petitions, to organise peaceful assemblies, to demonstrate publicly against the Prime Minister’s, faulty historical knowledge and base political pandering?

Does the Prime Minister imagine for one moment that by denying the right of free speech to a handful of Vietnamese refugees he can somehow sweep under the carpet, somehow prevent public discussion about, his own disgraceful activities in relation to the Vietnamese refugees? How can more than 722 000 Australian residents who are not Australian citizens or British subjects rest easily when they see their adopted country run by a man who has shown that he will personally curtail their civil rights if he feels that they could prove embarrassing to him politically? America, as the Prime Minister himself said, is a great democracy. Like Australia, America has welcomed over the years a great number of people of diverse background, many of whom had to leave their countries of origin because of persecution of one kind or another. Persecution because of one’s political beliefs was common and still is common in totalitarian states of both the Right and the Left. America is a great democracy because it has allowed people of diverse views to put those views freely and openly. The United Kingdom, the nation which provided the cornerstone for our democratic institutions, has survived because people were and are able to speak openly and freely, particularly on political topics.

To deny this principle is to deny our heritage; yet the Prime Minister is prepared to do just that. He is prepared to tolerate the espousal of political beliefs that are not acceptable to totalitarian regimes of the Right. However he has demonstrated that the reverse is not the case. If one should have some special knowledge of the dangers of a communist dictatorship, if one should be in a position or of a nature to speak out against such regimes, then that person, in the Prime Minister’s eyes, is suspect. Not only is he suspect; in particular cases the Prime Minister is personally prepared to deny him his right to speak freely.

If it is wrong for some Vietnamese people to be able to speak freely, why is it not wrong for Chilean refugees to speak freely, for Cypriot refugees to speak freely, for Soviet Jews to speak freely? It is ludricrous and dishonest to point to the fact that some visitors to Australia, whether they are students or composers, have in some cases had constraints applied to them. They are not being accepted as settlers. They are not seeking refuge here. They are coming as visitors.

The Prime Minister has said that the requirements placed on the South Vietnamese were quite proper. I emphatically deny that they were proper. They were not- they were grossly improper. His requirement effectively denying the right of free speech to 9 South Vietnamese refugees must not be allowed to pass. It must be challenged and overthrown. The numbers are not important, the principle is. What we must all remember- people of all political persuasions and beliefs- is that if we as individuals and as a community agree to the denial of human rights to any member of our community we thereby imperil our own. The Prime Minister must abolish the requirement and undertake quite openly never to impose it again.

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

Mr MORRISON:
Minister for Defence · St George · ALP

– The speech on immorality, the speech on humanitarianism, we have just heard was brought to us by the very people who applauded the bombing of Vietnam, the people who condoned the use of the napalm bomb.

Mr Sullivan:

– History will prove them to be right.

Mr MORRISON:

-I would like to take up that statement and make sure the observation is carried into Hansard. A member of the National Country Party of Australia said of the bombing of Vietnam and the use of napalm that history will prove them right. That is precisely the attitude and morality of members of the Opposition. Let us take the proposition with which we were confronted. The spokesman for the Opposition, the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), said every country has a right to stop people from coming in. On this occasion- we are talking about 6 Vietnamese diplomats and 3 former Vietnamese military officers- a lot of countries did exercise that right callously. They refused entry to these peoplediplomats who were stationed in a number of countries in South East Asia, who had nowhere to go because other countries were adopting exactly the policy that the Liberal Party would have adopted. They were seeking a political haven. They had nowhere to go. It was their belief that, because of their close association with the Government of President Thieu, had they gone back to Vietnam the government that had taken over would have discriminated against them. These people were senior people. We are not talking about farmers. We are talking about senior diplomats, ambassadors and people who previously were senior government officials, even a Minister for Foreign Affairs, in the government of Vietnam.

These people sought a haven and this Government did not turn its back on them. Because they were responsible people who had held high positions we sought from them an assurance. They were seeking a haven. We were not seeking for them to come to Australia. Because we realised that they could go nowhere else we said: ‘We will allow you to come in. We will provide you with the political haven you seek if you do not participate in Australian political activities’. All their lives they had been engaged in political activities. Are members of the Opposition telling me that conditions should not be attached to the admittance of 6 former diplomats and 3 former members of the South Vietnamese forces who had asked to come to Australia? They were requesting a form of political assylum. As everybody knows, such a form of political haven or of political asylum has conditions attached to it. I have stated the conditions that we attached to the entry of these senior officials.

Let us take the view point of some of the other countries that these people approached. I will read out a response of one of the governments because it is precisely the attitude that the socalled humanitarians opposite would have adopted. One government’s response was that it was anxious that all Vietnamese nationals, former diplomats or otherwise should leave ‘before their presence became embarrassing’. We do not consider that providing a livelihood for people, irrespective of their political affiliations in the past, is embarrassing. We recognised that the new government of Vietnam could well protest, but we believed, these people having sought our assistance and no other assistance having been provided by any other country in the area, that we should provide that assistance, and we did.

We were prompted by the humanitarian instincts that have motivated us all the way through the last stages of the Vietnam war. What did members who sit opposite do after the Tet offensive? There is complete silence. It is a significant silence because they did nothing in terms of humanitarian assistance. This Australian Government in the last stages of the Vietnam war provided assistance and, apart from the United States, took more refugees than any other country. It provided more than $3.5m for active assistance to the Vietnamese refugees. Now the Liberal Party, the Party that took Australia into the Vietnam war, comes and talks about immorality.

Perhaps we can look at the consistency that that Opposition Party showed when it was in Government. Let us look very close to home. Honourable members will be interested to note that in the 10 years or so since West Irian became part of Indonesia about 500 people from West Irian have been granted the right of permissive residence in Papua New Guinea. The Liberal Party, when in government, instituted a requirement that each of the West Irianese coming into Papua New Guinea, for which Australia was then totally responsible, had to sign an undertaking- I remind honourable members that that was done at the instigation of the Liberal Party when it was in power- which stated: .

That he will not in any way directly or indirectly engage in any political activity whatsoever in connection with the country he left to seek refuge in Papua New Guinea.

Mr MacKellar:

– You are dragging the bottom.

Mr MORRISON:

-We are talking about 500 people here. We have heard about numbers not being important, and the case that I put to you now and the case that we stand on concerns 6 senior representatives of a former Vietnamese government and 3 senior Army officers. Now I am talking about 500 West Irianese. The Liberal Party, when in government, demanded that the condition which I quoted be met. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a public statement made on 14 July 1972 which records the political conditions attached to permissive residence in Papua New Guinea.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

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

page 832

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Press Release 14th July, 1972

Release: B

page 832

ADMINISTRATOR SPEAKS ON PERMISSIVE RESIDENCY CONDITIONS

The Administrator, Mr L. W. Johnson said today that in noting reports in the press and radio of statements said to have been made by certain West Irianese residing in Papua New Guinea under Permissive Residency conditions, concerning recent incidents in West Irian, he has directed that the attention of all West Irianese Permissive residents be drawn to those conditions.

They are:

Mr MORRISON:
ALP

– Let us talk now about the Colombo Plan, because here also we are talking about numbers. More than 17 000 students who came to Australia under the Colombo Plan could not accept their scholarships until they had completed a form of nomination.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Why do you not table it?

Mr MORRISON:

-I will be happy to table it. I am glad the honourable gentleman is asking me to do so. I quote from Part III of the form of nomination. It reads:

If accepted for a training award, I undertake to:

refrain from engaging in political activities . . .

Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table that document.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr MORRISON:

– The Opposition started off by talking about high principles and morality. What we have done in relation to Vietnam and what we are now doing in relation to refugees from Timor is more than the Opposition did in its whole period of government in assistance to people who have been placed in unfortunate positions. This Government can talk about morality and humanitarian attitudes. The Opposition, throughout its involvement in Vietnam, started with a he and ended with lies. That is the record of the Opposition. We have sought to ensure that people do not bring to Australia a continuance of the enmity and the antagonisms with which they grew up in their own country.

I think it is a matter of great import for all Australians that during the whole period of the difficulties in Ireland, involving very emotional issues, very few of us and in particular few of those who have Irish antecedents have become in any way involved in the events in Ireland. We are seeking to ensure that the rifts and hostilities that have occurred in other countries do not occur in Australia. So we made a requirement in response to a request from 9 people who held high positions in Vietnam to come to Australia. There was nowhere else for them to go. They were seeking a political haven and in response we laid down one condition, that they, having been high ranking members of their former government, did not, while in Australia, involve themselves or allow themselves to be drawn into political activities which could exacerbate the conditions in the country from which they came.

Mr SNEDDEN:
Bruce

-The Minister for Defence (Mr Morrison) has totally failed to answer the charge. He does not understand the charge. How can we rely upon him as a member of Cabinet to defend the human liberties and rights of individuals if he does not even begin to understand what this is all about? There is no point his going on with histrionics about Vietnam and the post-Tet situation. We now have an issue of civil liberties which has been very brutally assaulted by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam). He sends his lap dog, the Minister for Defence (Mr Morrison), into the Parliament in an attempt to defend him. Now, with his tail between his legs, he leaves the House as well he ought to do. He talks of Papua New Guinea and the imposition upon refugees entering that country from West Irian of an undertaking not to engage in politics. That was because they were immediately across the border and it was feared that they may cause insurrection within West Irian and use Papua New Guinea as a base for the purpose of warfare. This is why those refugees were told not to engage in politics. That case involved the politics of a country then not determined to be part of Indonesia. The future of that country had not been decided at that stage. It bears no relationship to this issue.

Thousands of students from all over the world, principally from Asia, have come to Australia under the Colombo Plan. There have been problems in some of the home countries from which those students have come. We have said to the students: ‘You have come to Australia to be educated, to go back to your own countries and to make your contribution there. ‘While you are in this country you will not criticise the government which has sent you here. We are conducting this plan on a government to government basis’. That bears no relationship to the issue under discussion. What we are talking about is the assault on 9 people. It is true that the issue involves a mere 9 people- only a handful- but their civil liberties have been assaulted by the unilateral act of the Prime Minister of this country. It is immoral. No other word accurately describes his action because it rolls into one, an attack on civil liberties, civil rights and democracy. More particularly, it strikes at migrants, people who have come to this country because they see it as a place where they can live at peace and not be subjected to the strains and stresses of their home countries. Migrants can come to Australia, stand on any street corner and say what they wish about other countries. We are big enough as a country to say: ‘Have your civil liberty; have your human rights. Make the comment you want to make. We Australians will not be persuaded by it unless your cause is right. If your cause is right, we will take it up for you’. That is the attitude of Australia, as it should be.

I ask the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Riordan), who is sitting at the table and who is the second batter for the Government in this debate: Would you put such an imposition upon those hundreds of people on the ship Mac.dili which sailed into Darwin? There are hundreds of refugees now scattered throughout the southern cities of Australia. We do not know yet whether they will live here permanently. Would the Minister undertake to say to them that they must not talk about East Timor, that they must not have an attitude to the UDT- the Timor Democratic Union- and Fretilin or in regard to self-determination of East Timor, its incorporation into Indonesia or its remaining a colony of Portugal? Would the Minister put that upon them? If he would, he should say so. If he would not, he should equally say so and in saying so, bind his Prime Minister. Would the Minister have said to the Greeks of Australia that they should not have complained about the supersession of democracy in Greece by a military coup? Would he have silenced every Greek in Australia? Would he have silenced every Cypriot and everybody who supported the Cypriot cause at the time of the Anatolian Turkish invasion of Cyprus?

Would the Government put a muzzle on all the Italians who complained about the activities of FILEF- the Federation of Italian Labourers, Emigrants and Families. It is a communist sponsored and financially supported organisation working in Australia.

Mr MacKellar:

– It is supported by the Government.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– It is supported by the Communist Party in subverting our democracy. Will the Government silence every Italian here? Would the Government say that the people of the Baltic States ought not to have complained about the recognition by Australia of the de jure incorporation of the 3 brave democratic States of the Baltic into the Russian monolith? Would the Government muzzle the people of the Ukraine which has had for centuries its experience and history as a nation? The Minister for Defence was talking about the troubles of Ireland. He said: ‘ What a tragedy; what a shame ‘.But will he muzzle every Irishman?

Mr Kelly:

-That would be a task.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– That is what must be attempted if you are to be real about it. Certain facts stand out in the matter. Firstly, the decision was made unilaterally by the Prime Minister. Never before has this been done. The decision represents discrimination against every migrant in this country. No migrant can feel safe that he will not be subjected to deportation if he engages in politics in this country which relate to the politics of his homeland. The decision represents an intrusion on the personal liberty and the freedom of speech of every migrant in Australia. These 9 men were silenced by the threat of deportation. Of course they did not want to be deported because they knew that if they were to be deported to South Vietnam, the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese would have willingly taken them back and put them to death. So they were coerced. I ask Government supporters: Can you feel proud of that coercion of 9 men? It was a case of life or silence. I can understand how those people must feel about that coercion.

I hope that you can understand, Mr Deputy Speaker, how people who believe in civil rights and civil liberties will regard this coercion by the Government and by the action of the Prime Minister as totally reprehensible. The Prime Minister described it as quite a proper undertaking to impose. But he was the man who did it unilaterally. Now he turns judge and makes the judgment that it is quite proper. He does not know why he thinks it is quite proper. We can gather from the very few words he said on the matter under questioning in the House that the action was required because there are very many people on the other side of politics- on this side presumably- both within the Parliament and outside it who will try to exacerbate divisions within the community. Do you not exacerbate the divisions within the community by saying to 9 men: ‘Your life or your liberty’? Is that a justification for this action? Would this action lead to the screening of migrants to Australia? With the economic conditions of today not many migrants are being permitted to enter Australia, even for family reunions. But all those migrants could be screened and could be forced to sign an undertaking not to speak about politics which are not to the liking of the government of the day. That would do our reputation as a democracy no good at all.

We have passed the stage of forcing our migrants to be second class citizens. This action is a direct attack on the migrants of Australia and they ought properly to resent it. But further than that, people who believe in the liberty and the freedom of these people whom we are inviting to Australia to make their home ought to resent this action just as deeply as my colleague the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) resents it. The Government cannot deport a migrant after granting citizenship but it can deport that migrant before granting citizenship. But if the Government tries to deport a person before the granting of citizenship, that person has a right of appeal to a judge. No judge would uphold that undertaking. No judge would believe that it was a proper imposition. That is a protection to the migrants. I say: Thank God for an independent judiciary.

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

Mr RIORDAN:
Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Minister for Urban and Regional Development · Phillip · ALP

– The Opposition has tried valiantly to build up a case out of nothing. It has tried to suggest that an undertaking required of 6 former diplomats and 3 former senior officers of the South Vietnamese Army is in some way an attack on all migrants and is in some way an attack on the civil liberties of all Australians.

Mr MacKellar:

– It is discriminatory.

Mr RIORDAN:

-My friend says that it is discriminatory. Of course, he has a convenient memory. I put it no higher than that for the moment. He is prepared to apply principles one way on one day and another way when it suits his convenience. The right honourable member for Bruce (Mr Snedden)- formerly a senior Minister and formerly a Minister for Immigration, if I recall correctly, in a previous government- had no compunction at all about applying the same sorts of tests for other people. Suddenly this has become a matter of great importance. The right honourable member for Bruce brushes aside the fact that 500 people from West Irian were required by his Government to sign undertakings which in fact went much further. Certainly, those undertakings were as firm and inviolate in relation to political activity. He says that that is because those people were on the border. All Papua New Guinea is not on the border of West Irian. A person from Port Moresby is not situated on the border of West Irian. When the Government of which the right honourable member was a member made that condition it did not isolate it to apply to people living in a geographical location. It applied to anywhere in Papua New Guinea. Wherever they lived, they were still bound by the same obligation. That Government did not take the same view with the 17 000-odd Colombo Plan students. It simply imposed this provision and hoped for the best.

Let us look at a couple of other cases. What about the case of Mr Thomas Clift from Burma? The then Government required him to give an undertaking not to engage in political activity because he was suspected of having some left wing tendencies. The right honourable member for Bruce also raised the point of this Government attempting to muzzle Greek Australians from speaking out against the military coup which occurred and the military junta which ran Greece. It was not this Government but a Liberal-Country Party Government which required Mr Mikis Theodorakis. the Greek musician, to give a similar undertaking that he would not engage in political activity when the military junta was running Greece. It was a government to which honourable members opposite belonged which required that, not this Government. So the argument of the right honourable member for Bruce is completely and utterly inconsistent. The statements which have been made are designed to cause unrest, suspicion and unease among the migrant community. They do the Opposition no great service; they do not bring any credit on the Opposition. I was very surprised that the right honourable member for Bruce should allow himself to be inveigled in this way. I know what his attitude to migrants and migrant problems has been in the past. I am very disappointed to think that today he has used this occasion for cheap political purposes, to try to cause this dissension, unease and uncertainty among the migrant community.

Let the record be clear. This Government will oppose discrimination against migrants and will guarantee no discrimination against migrants in our society. I hasten to say that in years this Government has done more to guarantee an end to discrimination against migrants than our friends did in the 23 years of their Government. When did the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), who began this debate or the second speaker from the Opposition side, the right honourable member for Bruce, bring in any legislation or any administrative machinery to prevent discrimination against migrants or, for that matter, anybody else? But this Government did. When did the Government to which the right honourable member for Bruce belonged guarantee an appeal against decisions made by the bureaucracy or by the Government? This Government did. His Government did not. Is it not also true that during the reign in office of the right honourable member for Bruce, when he occupied senior ministerial positions, people were denied citizenship of this country? People who had been residents of Australia for decades were denied citizenship because of some suspicion of past political affiliation.

Mr MacKellar:

-Is that true?

Mr RIORDAN:

-Of course it is true. What appeal did such people have? The answer is none. Honourable members opposite seem to think that this is an action taken by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), and the Prime Minister alone. Other countries have applied exactly the same restrictions and have required the same sorts of undertakings. What nonsense it is to suggest that other countries have not required such an undertaking.

Mr MacKellar:

– What countries have?

Mr RIORDAN:

– For example, there has been a requirement by France which has advised refugees that they are considered to be under a moral obligation not to become involved. The Government of Thailand has done something similar. This undertaking has not been required of everybody who has come here. It was required of 6 senior diplomats and 3 senior military officers out of 600 refugees. I have been to see the Vietnamese refugees in their hostel at East Hills in Sydney. I have questioned them through an independent interpreter. I am satisfied, for my own purposes, that they are happy with the way they are being treated. They are being treated well and they are satisfied with the new life which they have commenced in Australia. If honourable members opposite want to stir up strife, to cause misunderstanding and a feeling of insecurity or to attempt to perpetuate hatreds which are inherited, let them talk to some of the refugees from Timor. Regretfully, they are pathetic, unfortunate people who are here as refugees. Let the honourable members opposite hear the stories of neighbour fighting neighbour, of former friend killing former friend and of members of families being kidnapped, with their wherabouts unknown. Let them go to the hostels and look at the children under 16 years of age. They will find two or three brothers and sisters standing hand in hand, bewildered by what has occurred. This is the sort of situation which any government has an obligation to avoid.

At all costs we must prevent internal strife in this country. We do not want this sort of fomentation in our society which will give rise to this civil war and which will inflict this suffering on people. I believe that the Opposition is acting in a most improper way by trying to stir in relation to this issue. It has been said that Senator Mulvihill is guilty of hypocrisy and that the Government’s action is reminiscent of the Hitler style of government. I reject that suggestion and throw it back in the faces of those who have made those ridiculous and improper allegations. The record of honourable members opposite will not stand up to examination. If it was improper for this requirement to be made in relation to 9 people who were heavily engaged in political activity in Vietnam, then surely it was wrong in relation to all the cases which, as I have mentioned, occurred under the previous Government.

I make it clear also that it is wrong and false to suggest that this is the forerunner of second-class citizenship. The Prime Minister has made it abundantly clear that any undertaking given by any of the 9 persons concerned will lapse upon their acquiring citizenship of this country. There is no reason to suggest that they will not seek, at the appropriate time, to acquire that citizenship. I say to the Opposition that the qualifying time for acquiring citizenship has been reduced considerably since it lost office. There has been a massive increase in the number of migrants seeking citizenship since honourable members opposite left office. I believe that this gives the lie direct. It is completely and utterly false to say that 720 000 residents who are not yet citizens are affected by this proposition. The immigration policy of the Liberal-Country Party Government was discriminatory. It was racist in origin. It discriminated against southern Europeans and persons who were non-European. It discriminated on the basis of the colour of one’s skin; it was not based on one’s ability. There are some highly embarrassing examples which one could bring out in relation to people who were of mixed race. It is false to suggest that this Government is attempting to invoke second-class citizenship. It is a misapplication of honourable members ‘ energy which could be better spent on things other than raising this sort of issue. The Government has nothing to hide. It has asked people who have been heavily engaged in political activity in Vietnam not to engage in such activity in this country.

Mr MacKellar:

– Required, not asked.

Mr RIORDAN:

-Of course it has asked, and these people have been willing to give such undertakings and we have been happy to accept them.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins)Order! The Ministers time has expired.

Mr SNEDDEN (Bruce)-Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr SNEDDEN:

-Yes, I do. It is necesary to correct this misrepresentation. If it is not corrected, it may survive. I should know that it was the present Government- that is, this Labor Government- which changed the provision which enabled an appeal against deportation. In fact that provision was changed in 1962 or thereabouts. That permitted an appeal by a person under an order of deportation to go to a judge. The judge could use his discretion in place of that of the Minister. That was changed in about 1962. That was when we got rid of all concept of a second-class citizen. The other misrepresentationit is important to put it straight- is the allegation that there was discrimination against southern Europeans. This is totally false. The whole basis of the Opposition’s immigration policy is family reunion and now it is this Government which is preventing family reunions. Government supporters will live to regret that action.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-On this matter the Government is acting in a clear but -

Motion (by Mr Daly ) agreed to:

That business of the day be called on.

page 836

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1975-76

Second Reading (Budget Debate)

Debate resumed from 28 August on motion by Mr Hayden:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Upon which Mr Fraser had moved by way of amendment-

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ‘the House condemns the Budget because it does not provide an adequate program to defeat inflation and relieve unemployment nor does it restore confidence in the private sector of the economy’.

Mr O’KEEFE:
Paterson

– I rise to support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser). As a broad comment, the Budget tends to aggravate cost inflation while giving little definite, positive stimulus to employment. When we have a look at unemployment we find that this Government has done very little to arrest it. When the Liberal-Country Party coalition was in government at the end of 1972 unemployment in Australia was running at approximately 90 000 persons. What do we find today? Under this Government we find that it is running at 300 000 persons. In December 1972 it was running at the rate of 1.77 per cent of the work force and now in June 1975 it is 5 per cent of the work force. That is a great deterioration in the employment situation in this country since the Labor Government has come onto the treasury bench here at Canberra.

This Budget will aggravate demand pressures in a few special cases. For example, the Government’s demand for middle range research, administrative and planning personnel will continue at a high and slightly increased level while there are already numerous unfilled vacancies of this nature. This tends to bid up salaries offered for people with qualifications and experience even vaguely relevant to the advertised jobs, which in turn forces private enterprise to pay more to retain people. The salary pressure may also spread through relativities to other classes and to other types of workers. This is a dangerous situation which must not be overlooked. But I am afraid, looking at the Budget, it appears that it certainly has been overlooked.

The increases in certain indirect taxes will aggravate the forces of cost inflation, which is the current problem in the Australian economy. Increases in excise taxes on beer, spirits, tobacco products and crude oil will be largely passed on by retailers in higher consumer prices after present stocks are worked off. This by itself will directly worsen inflation as measured by changes in the consumer price index. The increased postal and telephone charges will also add to the CPI in the December quarter 1975. Fancy an increase of 80 per cent in the postal rates of this country. No one ever thought that postage in Australia for an ordinary letter would reach the present figure. In the early days of postage it was called penny postage. The rate is now 18c for a letter. I just wonder how the Australian Postal Commission will handle this situation because people will not use the postal system. Unless the Postal Commission gets a huge turnover it could face serious financial problems. The increases are a great disadvantage to people living in country areas who rely on the postal and telegraph service for their very existence. In fact, this whole Budget legislates against the country people of Australia.

These increases could even have a continuing effect on the wage-price spiral if wage earners receive wage increases based on increases in the raw CPI including the effect of indirect tax increases. If this is the case the CPI increases will flow through wage indexation to wage increases. These, by adding to costs at a time when business profits are already low, will tend to be passed on in higher prices. These will lead back to higher wages through wage indexation and so the spiral could continue, only gradually petering out.

What has this Government done in the Budget to assist the smaller business people? More than 2000 small businesses have closed in Australia in the past 14 months. Small businesses employ 42 per cent of the work force in Australia. Prior to Budget day the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) said that they must help private enterprise and that the essence of the Budget would be to assist the small businessman. This Budget is a tragedy for the small businessman. By small businesses I mean undertakings with 100 employees or fewer. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer have broken the promises that they made prior to this Budget. I am very much afraid that there will be many small businesses and private enterprises throughout our nation which will go out in the months that lie ahead of us. I am very sorry indeed to have to make a statement of that nature in this wonderful country.

The Government’s view is that price increases due to indirect tax increases should be excluded from the calculation of the CPI figures for wage indexation purposes. However, this view, although sensible on economic grounds, might not be accepted by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission or major trade unions. The Budget strategy has been to avoid an increase in the share of total spending taken by the Government sector. The planned real increase in Government spending of less than 5 per cent is likely to absorb only a minor part of the resources currently not employed and the remaining unemployed resources will be left available for the private sector to pick up if it so wishes. However, since private confidence remains depressed and the Budget gave little in the way of positive financial incentives to private business the private sector will not recover sufficiently in 1975-76 to take up much of the slack. Accordingly, unemployment will remain high.

Government supporters talk about business confidence. Honourable members on the Government side who have spoken in this debate have made great play of the fact that the savings bank balances in Australia and bank balances generally are at an all-time high and that the people are not spending their money. This is true, because the people have no confidence in the present Labor Administration here at Canberrano confidence at all. That is why they have their money still in the banks. They believe that that is the best place for it. In fact the statements attached to the Budget Speech and the Treasury’s underlying assumptions agree with the idea that unemployment will scarcely be diminished by June 1976. They suggest that employment will increase by 1 per cent. However, if one assumes a natural growth in the available . labour force of 1 per cent to 2 per cent- that is with school leavers, etc.- the outlook for a decline in unemployment is dim. Registered unemployment in June 1975 represented 4.5 per cent of the work force, as I mentioned earlier in this speech.

The only extra financial incentives given in the Budget are a further cut of 2.5 per cent in company tax, given at a time when company profits are down- this 2.5 per cent cut across the board really means very little to private companies in Australia- a continuation of the double depreciation allowance and cuts in marginal rates of personal income tax. The latter cuts are less impressive after likely inflationary increases in incomes are taken into account. Increases in postal charges and other excise taxes will operate counter to cuts in personal income tax.

This Government has set out openly to socialise many industries. It believes in socialism and it is its policy to socialise industry, production, distribution and exchange. Recently in this House we have seen introduced legislation which openly envisages the socialisation of transport, minerals and energy, insurance and many other facets of business in Australia. It is interesting to consider the achievements of the socialist Government in Great Britain, a country which I recently had the pleasure of visiting. That Government has socialised industry. It nationalised the private steel making industry.

That industry is presently losing f stg5m a week. The electricity industry is losing f stg257m annually, the gas industry £stg42m annually, the Post Office £stg300m annually and British Railways £stgl50m annually. Prior to nationalisation those industries under private control were returning profits to the people who had invested in them. Today in Canberra we have a government which seeks to socialise industries. I suggest that under socialisation results similar to those in Great Britain would be achieved. God forbid that this Government’s socialisation program should go unheeded in Australia.

No attempt has been made in the Budget to arrest inflation. All we hear is that inflation is the same throughout the world, that all western democracies have inflation problems. They certainly do, but nothing like the rate of inflation that this Government has achieved in Australia. In its 2 years 9 months of government the rate of inflation has increased from 4.5 per cent in December 1972 to 17 per cent in June 1975. Australia has the third highest rate of inflation of all the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. As I said, no attempt has been made by the Government to arrest inflation and, unfortunately, we will see inflation increase further. Under this Government overdraft interest rates have increased from-7.75 per cent in December 1972 to 1 1.5 per cent in 1975. Truly Australia’s economy has been mismanaged under Labor.

What has happened in the minerals and energy field? The Budget proposes an export tax on coal- $6 a tonne on coking coal and $2 a tonne on steaming coal. In the instance of steaming coal this $2 a tonne is the margin of profit of the companies that mine and market it. Fancy crippling an industry which has been a bright light in the development of Australia, a bright light in our economy and a bright light in our export income. The Hunter Valley, in my electorate, is one of the biggest coal mining areas of New South Wales if not of Australia. It has open cut mining and underground mining. A huge export business has been built up. With the imposition of the proposed export tax this industry could be in trouble with consequent effects on employment.

The position of Treasurer has been changed three times during this Government’s 2 years 9 months in office. The change of Treasurership and change of fiscal policy certainly have not given the people of this nation the confidence they want before they start to spend their money. Such confidence is necessary before there can be the production of consumer goods that is necessary. Unless confidence is restored to the people we can expect problems, such as I have mentioned throughout this speech, to continue.

Let us consider some of the economies proposed in the Budget and evident in the Government’s defence policy. I refer to cadet units in schools, not only in the great public schools but also in high schools throughout our nation. The Government has discontinued financial assistance for the provision of cadet schooling. I venture to suggest that many honourable members in this House are receiving strong representations from school cadets, from their parents, from the Returned Services League and from Army chiefs concerning this matter. Cadet units have provided a service which has been of wonderful benefit to Australia and to the young men who have participated in the scheme. School units have provided many of our Army, Air Force and Navy personnel.

One matter which has worried me considerably is the throwing about of money in a rather reckless manner because of lack of administration. Under the Regional Employment Development scheme the Government made money available to areas for the employment of people who had been displaced because of the removal of tariffs from imported textiles and clothing. In many areas the RED scheme was wonderfully supervised, but in other instances it was not supervised and money was wasted. The National Employment and Training scheme was designed to retrain people who had been displaced from their previous employment because of the Government’s tariff policy, but in many instances it took three or four months to get any satisfaction, not from the Government but from those who were administering the NEAT scheme. I feel, along with other honourable members on this side of the House, that considerable sums were expended that would not have been spent had the administration been right up to the knocker or first class as it should have been.

The sustenance payment made to men and women who lost their jobs as a result of the Government’s tariff policy was often delayed for three or four months and this caused considerable hardship. It would have been better not to have entered into this scheme unless it were to be adminsitered properly. Of course there are other instances where administration and handling of monetary affairs have been poor. Recently not far from my electorate of Paterson the Commonwealth Department of Aboriginal Affairs office at Moree ran up a telephone bill of $ 1 8,600. We have nothing against Aborigines, who are part of our Australia, but there should be administration to ensure that money is not wasted along the lines I have mentioned. I have much pleasure indeed on behalf of my Party in supporting the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition and I commend it to the House.

Mr WHAN:
Monaro · Eden

-Some of the more fundamental issues arising from the Budget that affect the management of our society have been overlooked in Australia because the quality of political debate has been devalued by 2 traits that have become stock in trade for the Opposition and its supporters in business. The first is the use of emotive words that are so general in scope that they have no meaning. The second is the increasing tendency to be tricky at the expense of honesty. Opposition members are sycophants to words. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Paterson (Mr O’Keefe), for example, equated socialisation with nationalisation. There is a difference between the words. To say that Whitlam is a socialist is to confirm in the Opposition mind that he should not govern. To honourable members opposite the word ‘socialist’ removes the need for a sensible consideration of the basic proposition. To set up the credible proposition that Jesus was a socialist provokes mindless fury among Opposition members because a consideration of the issue brings them face to face with the contradiction between their professed morality and their everyday actions.

This formula of using mindless words has been applied by Opposition supporters in business. A few months after the 1 974 election Mr Valder, the Chairman of the Sydney Stock Exchange, threw away any claim he may have had for responsible business leadership with a speech on the threat of socialism. This political propaganda tract had the single objective of creating hostility towards and fear of the Government. I asked Mr Valder how he defined socialism. He wrote to me as follows:

Dear Mr Whan,

Thank you for taking the trouble of sending me a telegram concerning that provocative speech of mine on socialism.

I would be most interested to receive a definition from yourself or any of your colleagues on this question. I make this suggestion very seriously, as I believe some discussion of this subject might help to allay the fears of myself and others.

He answered the question with a question. He has no definition of the subject of his speech. The man did not know what he was talking about. I doubt that he cared. No wonder Australian business leadership was depreciated in a review of

Australia published by the London Sunday Telegraph on 19 January of this year and supported in a subsequent letter to the same newspaper.

For my own part, the word ‘socialism’ means ‘social conscience’. I am at a loss to understand why members of the Opposition should be so quick and so proud to reveal their complete insensitivity to human need. No pensioner, no sick person, no parent concerned for the education of his children obtained any comfort from the silence of the Opposition on these matters. It is clear from the reply of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to the Budget that the Opposition’s concern does not lie in these areas. Let us consider the position of education under the Liberal-Country Party Government. In 1970 Australia spent 4.3 per cent of gross domestic product on education. Only seven of the 25 member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development spent less on education than Australia.

We currently hear that public sector revenue in Australia is too high to encourage private enterprise. The fact is that in 1973 Australia took 28.2 per cent of gross domestic product into public revenue while sixteen other OECD countries took a larger proportion. The United States of America was one of them. The real problem lies in the fact that the Opposition is dependent for its support on a narrow, powerful and vocal base of vested interests whose horizon does not reach beyond their immediate needs. Economic development is the lifeblood for these vested interests and it must have precedence. They can satisfy their needs only by a callous disregard for the weaker sections of our community. In their minds there will never be a time for welfare.

The consequences of the Opposition position go much deeper. In an essay in 1930 Lord Keynes identified the problem confronting the supporters of economic development for its own sake. He said:

For at least another 100 years we must pretend to ourselves and to everyone that fair is foul and foul is fair; for foul is useful and fair is not. Avarice and usury must be our gods for a little longer still.

I have quoted the text of the Opposition. Keynes was defining the economic objectives now being advocated by the Opposition, obtainable only by employing selfishness and greed, which religion and traditional wisdom universally call upon us to resist. The modern economy is self-destructive because it is propelled by a frenzy of greed and an orgy of envy. Where these vices are deliberately cultivated the inevitable result is a collapse of intelligence.

This basic erosion of intelligent debate is being reinforced by a second characteristic of the Opposition approach. This is to fabricate a story and accuse the Government of the action as though the fabrication were fact. The Leader of the Opposition is a past master of this tactic. The most recent example was his comment on the cost of Medibank in relation to the Budget deficit. Again, the events associated with the replacement of Mr Cope as Speaker revolved around the proposition that the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) had been offered information by an officer on the staff of the Minister for Labor and Immigration. To this day the denial of the honourable member for Warringah involves a principle of honesty which has never been resolved. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) was one of the few people to place that principle of honesty above the more dramatic events that diverted attention from the basic question of establishing the truth on that occasion.

Recently the Prime Minister drew attention to 3 newspaper stories that were complete fabrication. Another example occurred recently on page 10 o( Newsweek of 14July 1975 which said: . . . Whitlam summoned Cairns to his office. In a 50- minute confrontation punctuated by shouting that could be heard clearly in the marble corridors outside the PM ‘s office, Cairns denied any misconduct -

I would like to place on record that the question of misconduct by Dr Cairns was never raised by the Prime Minister or anyone else on that occasion. I have walked around this place in varying states of euphoria but I have never been able to reach that nirvana which produces marble corridors from the dull wooden passages of Parliament House. I am sure that this condition is completely absent amongst members on the Government side. It is probably spasmodic for members of the Opposition, but it is clearly a common experience for Newsweek journalists.

A disregard for honest communication and the basic motivation of greed and envy required to propel the economic philosophy widely supported in Australia today has devalued political debate and economic analysis. Many people are starting to realise that there is a limit to the material possessions required by society. In Australia we have one telephone for every 3.5 people, one television set for every 4 people and one passenger car for every 3 people. How long can industry continue to push commodities into the community? Most of the pressures on government today have their origin in the desire of people to maintain their standard of living, but on close analysis this turns out to be based on ever rising expectations of basic needs rather then any real threat of a reduction in possessions. Problems confronted by fishermen and potato growers in Australia today are not due to a lack of efficiency on their part but rather to a preference by consumers for expensive processed food. It is hard to accept the proposition that money is short when consumers pay up to five times more for the convenience of the processed product over the cheaper fresh product. The honourable member for Ballaarat (Mr Erwin) would know the truth of that statement.

An increasing number of people are realising that communities cannot go on cramming material goods into homes or cars on to roads. They are waking up to the waste and futility of planned obsolescence simply to keep industry expanding. Many people are questioning a system whereby they spend half their lives trying to find something to do with the time that they rush through life trying to save. I am convinced that the Government is more sensitive to these basic trends in our society than is the Opposition. The Budget brought down by the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) is clearly the product of a Minister in tune with his department and the needs of Australia. It is a masterpiece of technical skill resulting in a balance between the conflicting objectives needed to guide a sensitive economy responsive to the human as well as the economic needs of the community. This Budget meets the need to stimulate the private sector and at the same time to consolidate the real progress made in meeting the long term ideals of our society.

In condemning the Budget the Leader of the Opposition quoted selectively from the OECD survey and the economic review in Budget Statement No. 2. Both reviews identify a world wide recession as the basic cause of the economic problems in Australia. Both go on to say that internal wage and price pressures have subsequently played the dominant role. This analysis has been accepted by the Treasurer, contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition said. I draw the attention of the House to another section of the OECD report. It states:

As the powers of the Australian Government to control wages and prices are strictly limited constitutionally the reduction of inflation depends largely on public acceptance of the need for price and wage restraint. At the present time however it is uncertain that a national consensus will be forthcoming.

The Opposition in this place will have to share a major portion of the blame if such a consensus cannot be obtained. Honourable members opposite opposed the transfer of the appropriate powers to the national Government. They encourage their State colleagues to obstruct every effort the Government has made to reach a consensus with the States on these matters.

The Treasurer, during his speech, called for restraint throughout the entire community to beat inflation. The Opposition, led by the Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Anthony) responded with derisive catcalls. Members of the Opposition have a vested interest in a divided community. Bankrupt of policies, they have to resort to petty disruption to gain support. The National Country Party has become a major liability for the rural sector of Australia. It plucks at old policies to foment opposition to the Government. Many of these policies have no relevance to the problems of today. What possible use is a superphosphate subsidy to a farmer who cannot afford to buy superphosphate? Surely it is more important to ensure that fluctuations in farm incomes are smoothed out, that a basic income is established to ensure stability of farm planning, and that credit facilities are established to meet the unique requirements of agriculture. This Government has accepted what the Opposition in government rejected- a floor price for wool to provide a basic income for wool growers. This Government is now looking closely at the whole problem of fluctuating incomes for other sectors.

In considering the factors relevant in solving the fundamental problems in the rural sector the Government has sought the advice of the Industries Assistance Commission. We have received 3 excellent reports. They cover the eradication of brucellosis and tuberculosis, fluctuations in rural incomes and new land farms. This last report gave strong support to the Government’s present policy in regard to farm reconstruction and farm finance. The fourth report, on superphosphate, is worth a brief comment. The Government looks to the LAC for objective, professional appraisals of the problems referred to the Commission. In my view the majority recommendations in the superphosphate report are a disgrace to the profession of agricultural economics. Can any sensible person accept the main reason provided as grounds for restoring the bounty? I quote the reason given:

The Commission proposes restoration in the belief that, on balance it would be reasonable to give using industries the benefit of the doubt pending completion of its inquiry and government consideration of its full report. It does this notwithstanding its view that, at this stage of the inquiry, the weight of argument suggests that the various proposed objectives of such assistance could be achieved at lower cost through more direct measures.

I emphasise that I have quoted from the report itself. The report gives the benefit of the doubt to the industry although it believes that the bounty is not the way in which the best assistance can be given to industry. Can this be taken as a serious attempt to provide government with impartial, professional advice? This report is also in direct conflict with the new land farm report from the IAC which placed such emphasis on the need for specialised credit and farm reconstruction programs- fundamental issues for the whole agricultural sector. I was disappointed that the report dismissed without any real analysis the proposition that a bounty be paid on a limited tonnage per farm and that it ignored the crisis now existing for aerial agriculture. The current approach of the IAC appears to be based on the single Will Rogers’ proposition that the tariff is a weapon invented for the benefit of those who make as against those who buy.

I accept that the IAC, in its report of 1973-74 spelt out the need for suitable relocation and retraining programs if major restructuring of industry is to take place. The fact is that these programs do not exist. The provision of these programs requires an extensive study of resource reallocation and a sensitive approach to the relocation of labour- issues which I feel should be the central concern of government today. Until we have these programs the Government must be very careful in the commitment it makes to the IAC recommendations, which are fundamentally economic and not social in approach. Nobody needs to apologise for this situation, because it is simply an acceptance of the limitations inherent in the present system. Most of the vocal opposition to the IAC is, in my view, misdirected because it is based on the indefensible premise that industry should stay as it is- the status quo frozen, with subsidies and tariffs. This is the reason why we have the absurd contradiction of an Opposition and business lobby calling itself free enterprise, condemning this Government because it has removed some of the props that insulate the economy from competition. The unpalatable fact for the doyens of free enterprise in Australia is that the Labor Party in government has turned out to be committed to a competitive market place. Industry is now screaming to come in out of the cold; it wants the warmth of government protection. The old economic debate has returned, but now the protectionists sit in the Liberal Party. The narrow, short-sighted, selfish approach of the Opposition in its effort to maintain the status quo for its business partners has diverted attention from the inevitability of the changes taking place. These changes have been completely established in the IAC report of 1973-74.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the fact that there are 17 Opposition members and only 3 Labor members in the House, and that number does not constitute a quorum.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

- (Mr Keith Johnson)- I do not know whether the honourable member can count or not. I shall ask the Clerk to count the number of honourable members in the House.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Well, I was only helping. (The House having been counted).

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Ring the bells. (Quorum formed)

Mr WHAN:

– Instead of protecting the status quo, we should be asking what adjustments will be required to obtain the wealth from the efficient economy implicit in the IAC recommendations. How can we ensure that the people of this country can live complete and worthwhile lives rather than produce a wealth generating machine employing fewer and fewer people while aggregating wealth in fewer and fewer hands? It is certainly not by selling off, as the Opposition in power did, the very assets that will produce our future wealth. It is clear that the Opposition’s position has not changed from those 2 years- 1971 and 1972 -when it sold off $4 billion worth of assets and in my view laid the foundation for inflation today. Where will the people of Australia be working in an Australian economy which maximises its comparative advantage? Surely the answer to this question will have a strong influence on the allocation of funds between the public and private sectors. A wealthy capital intensive economy should be able to meet more fully its moral obligations to the aged, the young, the infirm and the handicapped by employing more workers and resources for these people.

It is possible that the efforts of the Opposition to preserve the status quo will simply propel industry further away from the realities of economic life and that industries will confront a series of crises such as that produced by the rise in oil prices or, closer to home, the rise in phosphate rock prices. As change overwhelms the status quo a wave of social disasters could occur in which the ultimate victims are the people of Australia. Surely it is time to drop the emotive words, to generate a broader interest than that inherent in protecting the vested interests of today and develop a proper respect for honest communication. I am convinced that the Australian Labor Party, in or out of office, has established a pattern of social and economic reform that points the direction Australia must take if it is to maximise its wealth and meet the basic civilised obligations to the people of the country. I only wish that the current political climate allowed a greater concentration of resources and debate on the social and economic problems associated with restructuring industry.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

- (Mr Keith Johnson)- Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. Before I call the honourable member for Bass I remind the House that it is his maiden speech and I expect all honourable members to extend the usual courtesies. I call the honourable member for Bass.

Mr NEWMAN:
Bass

– It is with some consciousness that I rise for the first time in this chamber for I am very aware of the responsibilities that I now have in representing the people of Bass. I think I had better say that I am very conscious too that I owe a debt of gratitude to the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) for giving me a captive audience, at least on the other side of the House. Before I go further I would like to mention Lance Barnard, the man I follow here. Lance Barnard over many years gained an excellent reputation for the way in which he helped people in the electorate of Bass. His is an admirable record and one that I would wish to follow. Perhaps I would like to better it.

The electorate of Bass lies in the north-east of Tasmania. It has manufacturing industries based on Launceston and George Town. Beyond those cities there is very rich and very fertile agricultural land which supports dairy farming, vegetable farming, hop farming, fat lamb and beef production and wood chip and saw milling activities. It also has a very active fishing industry on the coast.

Launceston is a commercial centre and relies almost completely on private enterprise for its viability. It does not have much in the way of Federal or State government departmental activity. George Town supports heavy industry and, of course, it has the very important port of Bell Bay.

The area in the corner of Tasmania that I have described is very well endowed. It has the potential for tremendous productive wealth. But I am bound to say that this region now faces some considerable difficulties. Primary industry and manufacturing industry in this region are suffering great strains. I would like to describe them to honourable members. I know that propriety forbids me from engaging in any controversial debate during my maiden speech, but let me ask the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Whan) to listen very carefully to what I have to say because the region and the problems that I am about to describe do not quite measure up to the rosy picture that he has just drawn.

First of all, I mention manufacturing industry. The principal manufacturing industry in my electorate is, or was, textiles. This industry has been sorely hit by the across the board tariff cuts that we saw last year. Production has gone down 33 per cent. Unemployment in this industry is critical. It now suffers a 28 per cent unemployment figure.

The wood chip industry, which was a very important industry to the region, has been hit very badly by the downturn in Japanese markets. The people who have been associated with it, particularly the log hauliers, in turn have been sorely hit and many of them now face bankruptcy. A very important industry in Launceston is one that deals with automotive bearings. This industry also has been affected by the 25 per cent cut in tariffs. Unemployment in this industry has now reached 40 per cent- something like 300 people out of 800 people who were employed in the industry.

I have taken just 3 examples; but I assure honourable members that the examples apply no less to other minor industries in the cities in my electorate. It is now characteristic of firms- I can think of only one exception as I speak- that all plans for expansion throughout the area have been shelved, and shelved indefinitely. It is universal amongst those firms that they complain about the high costs that they have to bear and the low profits. Because of this ratio firms do not have the resources of capital to expand. They are burdened by taxes- corporate tax and payroll tax- and, not the least, the payments that they have to make in regard to workers compensation. These 3 factors are seriously affecting the viability of industry. It is sad to say, but it is the truth, that all of these firms are gloomy as to the future and almost completely lack confidence in what is to happen to them.

Unemployment now in Launceston and George Town has reached almost 1500 people. In a work force of 28 000 in my electorate, this represents well over 5 per cent unemployed. This is well over the national average. If I add into that figure those people employed under the Regional Employment Development schemecurrently there are other schemes as well- who number, I think 334, the unemployment rate is considerably higher and probably running at about 7 per cent or 8 per cent. Such a situation is not good. If this level of unemployment continues the region will be in serious trouble, because it depends on confidence and growth in manufacturing industry to survive. I do not exaggerate. At the present moment the industries in my electorate are marking time and in many cases are declining. It is crucial that the Government changes its policy and helps the area and these industries; otherwise, eventually my electorate will begin to decline and perhaps to die.

I turn to primary industry. I ask the honourable member for Eden-Monaro please to take note of what I have to say because I do not believe that what he said is right. I believe that what I am about to describe is characteristic of the problem throughout Australia. This is the situation: If manufacturing industry has lost confidence and is declining, the same can be said about the attitude of farmers in my area. I do not have to register here the problems that beef farmers are now experiencing. The problems are universal and I know that they are well known. The problems particularly affect the farmers on Flinders Island. I would tell the member for Eden-Monaro that they cannot afford superphosphate because they do not have the money to buy it. It is true that dairy farmers are making an income, that they are making some money; but when we look at the high capital investments that they have made and the tremendous labour that they put into their farms their level of profit is disgraceful.

The rich hop growing area around Scottsdale has sold only 55 per cent of its crop from last year. So, one can imagine the gloomy prospects that this industry has for the next season.

I turn to the vegetable growing industry in my electorate. Again I draw the attention of the House to what was said by the honourable member for Eden-Monaro, particularly in regard to the potato industry. Scottsdale, which is the centre of a very important vegetable growing area, has a processing factory. This year the processing factory has let contracts only for peas and I believe that those contracts are down 20 per cent or 40 per cent. There are no onion contracts at all. Programs for potatoes, beans and carrots have not even been let yet. The farmers do not even know what the programs are. It is not that people do not want processed food and are not content to buy it, as is claimed on the other side of the House. The problem is that we have a flood of vegetable imports into this country. Here are some facts that I have been able to ascertain: The import or onions up to May this year- that is for a period of 1 1 months- has more than doubled, from 270 000 kilograms to 556 000 kilograms. The import of frozen potatoes and potato flour has increased significantly. For example, last year 577 900 kilograms of potato flour meal was imported, compared to 1 200 000 kilograms this year. Imports of frozen potatoes have increased from 15 million kilograms last year to 23 million kilograms this year. That is not the whole story, because the figures cut out in May and the imports have continued since then. That is the reason why potatoes from the electorate of EdenMonaro are not being sold. All in all, the situation in primary industry is not good. In fact, it is extremely bad. Again I ask for something to be done to correct it.

I make another observation about primary industry. It is often claimed here that it is the vested landowners who are making the money in primary industry and that they are the ones who are being hit. However, in the north-east of Tasmania farming, except perhaps for two or three enterprises, is carried on by family units. I do not exaggerate when I say that unless things change these family units in the north-east of Tasmania, perhaps in Tasmania, are in serious jeopardy.

When I speak to managers and farmers and look at the Budget Papers myself I am afraid that I must disagree with what is being said by honourable members on the other side of the House. I for one can discern nothing in the Budget that will correct the situation I have just described.

I would like to move on to deal with the transportation and communication problems that Tasmania faces. There has been a lot of talk, and debate in this House, about the problems that have been caused by the increase in telecommunication and postal charges and the 65 per cent increase in freight rates of the Australian National Line. I will deal first of all with postal and telephone charges. Most of the products of Bass are sold on the mainland, whether we are talking about manufacturing or primary industry. To be able to sell them effectively the producers and the manufacturers have to keep in constant contact with their agents and with what is happening to the market place. Increases in telephone charges particularly and in postal charges will add considerably to the costs of production in all fields in Bass. There is no doubt that they will. Worse still, not only will they reduce profits but they also will blunt the competitive standing of Tasmanian goods against those produced on the mainland and this, of course, is a terrible disadvantage for Tasmania.

The question of the ANL freight rate rise was debated here last week but I believe there were serious gaps in the debate. It is true that northbound products, except for bulk products and paper, is subsidised, and I say to the Government on behalf of Tasmanians: ‘Thanks very much for doing that. ‘ However, it must be appreciated that southbound freight is just as important. Southbound freight is not subsidised. The first point I want to make here is that manufacturers in Launceston and Georgetown depend almost entirely on raw materials from the mainland to make the goods they are making. They depend on spare parts from the mainland as well. Obviously if these things are not subsidised the 65 per cent increase in freight rates must be added to their cost of production. Secondly, farmers import from the mainland all their tractors, major implements and spare parts. This impost must increase the cost of their production and, Lord knows, it is high enough already. Thirdly, and this point was denied by the Government with whom I must take issue because it was wrong, the increased freight rates on goods coming from the mainland that are not subsidised will cause an increase in the cost of living in Tasmania because it is not a fact that the costs of all the household items that come from the mainland are equalised. They are not. Examples of goods that are not equalised are perishable goods such as some meat products, furniture, electrical goods, building materials and even some small grocery items. So the cost of living will go up. It is not I who has made that estimation, it was the State Labor Government which in a paper given to the Government estimated that 3 per cent would be added to the cost of goods on the supermarket shelves. So there it is. We do need something to be done about southbound freight rates. It is not good enough to worry just about northbound freight.

I would like also to mention Mr Justice Sweeney’s interim report on alleged payments to trade unions because this also is important to Tasmania. In his conclusions in the interim report he said first of all that it was certain that union officers had made unilateral and uninformed decisions about interfering with shipping out of Tasmania and into mainland ports. Secondly, he said that these union officers had made these decisions completely without regard to their effect on the community These matters are important enough but his third observation was that he was certain that ‘in part’ the decisions were designed to stop the issue of single vessel permits continuing. In times of peak shipping and when petrol runs short in Tasmania, which seems to happen fairly frequently these days, single voyage permits are essential to efficient Tasman shipping. I am afraid I have to deplore the fact that trade unions seem to be coming into these areas, especially when this is considered with the statement of the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) that the reason for the increase in ANL freight rates was industrial disputes by maritime unions.

The final point I would like to make is about housing. The allocation in the Budget for housing in Tasmania has been reduced from $26m to $22.2m. Private enterprise in Launceston concerned with the building of houses and the development of land has declined almost to nothing, and I do not exaggerate, which means that we have become dependent on Government housing. This reduction in money, especially when one takes into account the inflation rate, will have serious consequences. There are now 600 or 700 people on the waiting list for housing in Launceston and I am told reliably that in this financial year it will rise to 1000 people. Only 140 houses are planned to be built with the allocation in the Budget and this will mean that people will be waiting five or six years for a house. In this day and age that is terrible. I emphasise the problem in Launceston by telling the House that welfare agencies report that on average a family comes to them looking for emergency housing once a day. It is to be regretted that the Budget has cut the allocation and has done nothing to encourage private enterprise to take up the slack that now exists in housing.

I know that I have drawn a very gloomy and depressing picture but, as I have said several times during my speech, I have not exaggerated. I do not want to trespass on the tradition that I should not be provocative when making my maiden speech but it has to be said that the situation which now exists must be brought home to the Government in respect of its attitudes to manufacturing industry and primary industry in Tasmania. It just has to be. Perhaps the measure of dissatisfaction of the people in Bass, not the vested interests we have heard of here, was the 17.5 per cent swing against the Government in the Bass by-election. That is the second biggest swing in the last 25 years against any government and the biggest swing to displace a member of the Government party. Perhaps the words of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) provide a good note on which to finish. His concluding remarks when he made his maiden speech on 19 March 1953 were:

The decline in popularity of the Government is not due merely to the evaporation of their financial reserves, to the defection of the mercenaries who helped them on the last occasion … It is due to the disillusion and frustration of thousands of Australians, particularly young ones who want to raise families under decent Australian and British conditions. It is clear that the people of Australia want a better deal. It is no less clear that they deserve a better deal.

The wheel has gone the full turn. The people of Bass were asked to judge the Government, to judge its efficiency and to judge its effectiveness. The issues were put to them fairly and squarely. They did make a judgment and in then- thousands they rejected the Government.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

-I offer my congratulations to the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman) on his maiden contribution in this chamber. No doubt we will be hearing from him again in the future. At a time of economic difficulty being experienced not only by the Australian Government but by all of our partners around the world, this year’s Budget is framed on a basis of responsibility and of consolidation of earlier social advances. There is no magic prescription to solve the economic ills of the industrialised nations. There is no simple fiscal act that this Government or any government could take that will put an end to inflation and to the problems which go with it.

To attempt to lead people to believe that there is an easy, painless, quick decision or set of directives that could be made that would abolish inflation is dangerous and politically dishonest. Unfortunately, our opponents opposite would like Australians to think that there is an easy way out of our difficulties, but they well know that there is not. At the same time, Opposition prophets of doom, in collaboration with thenfriends in the media, deliberately continue to sabotage confidence in the private sector of the Australian economy. General problems of inflation and unemployment are universal in all industrialised nations. There is no single solution, no painless remedy. Unfortunately the policy of the Opposition has been to create uncertainty, fear and division in the community. The Opposition has vigorously pursued that course since December 1972. I can describe it only as a fifth column within our Australian community.

The present Opposition is the most dangerous and divisive in the history of Australia. In fact, I would say that it is the most treacherous in Australia’s history. Its attitude has been one of continuing irresponsibility without regard for the damage that it causes in the commercial and community fabric of this nation. The Opposition has constantly exaggerated claims of collapse. Its strategy is the strategy of the Nazi system which is based on fear, hatred and divisiveness. National interest is of no account to the Opposition. When we consider the grip that the Australian League of Rights has on the Australian National Country Party, what I have said is understandable. On the other side of the House, we have a gaggle of modern-day Goebbels, producing lies, hes and bigger lies. Facts do not count; the purpose is just to create fear, hatred and divisiveness.

Australia when compared with its trading partners is a lucky country. But if the coercion and intimidation of people by the establishment such as is occurring in the insurance industry today, is to continue Australia will cease to be a lucky country. If migrant groups are to be whipped up into a frenzy on the basis of pre- World War II beliefs . on the other side of the world, if intolerance, greed and disregard for the less endowed and the less fortunate are to be encouraged as they are being encouraged by the Opposition, there can be only one result, and that is violence which is something by which this Government, by which all Labor people and by which all Australians are revulsed This is something to which the Opposition does not seem to be paying any regard at all.

The social disturbance which comes with inflation calls for greater tolerance and greater responsibility on the part of all people, especially those in Opposition. Contrast the performance and attitudes of the Opposition in this place with the Opposition in the United Kingdom. The Opposition and Government parties in the United Kingdom have their philosophical differences. But there the Opposition team together with the Government of the United Kingdom has accepted the need for a greater effort on the part of the Opposition and of the Government and of the people in attacking the problem of inflation. That problem is being attacked on a united basis. They have their differences in politics. But both the Government and the Opposition realise that the difficulties and problems of inflation must be faced and those difficulties and problems are being faced by a united effort.

The world is in difficult times. Australia is in difficult times. But those difficulties will be overcome only by a greater effort on the part of labour and capital and on the part of the community in facing the tasks which confront them. Those difficulties will not be overcome by Oppositions and vested interests trying to obtain short term petty party political advantage by creating confusion, fear and uncertainty.

There is an old saying that nothing is new. That applies particularly to the Opposition’s beliefs and policies. These include the perpetuation of privilege and class division. The Opposition demonstrates examples of that daily. The Opposition says: “The more you have, the more we will help you, at the expense of the poorer taxpayers. Second-rate health services are good enough for the poorer taxpayers. The poorer should pay for the richer’. We have seen the example of this in the confusion that exists in the Opposition ranks over Medibank. We are told that Medibank is in. Then we are told that Medibank is out. We are told that the Opposition supports Medibank and then the Opposition spokesman on health, the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp), says that the Opposition would change Medibank. It would seem to me that it is more likely that if the Opposition by some mischance ever came to government, Medibank would get the’ Chipp’.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has said that the Public Service will have zero growth, which in fact is negative growth. One of his predecessors had something to say on this subject back in 1949. Let me quote a small section of what that person had to say in that speech in a paper in 1 949.

Mr Sullivan:

– Who said this?

Mr MORRIS:

-Just be patient and I will read it to the honourable member. I will read it slowly so that he can understand it

Mr Nicholls:

– Read it very slowly so that they can all understand it.

Mr MORRIS:

-I will go very slowly. This person said:

COMMONWEALTH PUBLIC SERVICE

We believe that the rapid growth of socialist ideas and practices in Australia is transferring far too many people from productive to administrative activities, and that this represents a grave danger to our future.

At that time, there were 141 716 Commonwealth public servants. When the Liberal-Country Party coalition Government went from office in 1972, the Commonwealth Public Service had grown to 246 876, an increase of 105 160 or 74.2 per cent. All I can say in respect of the remarks by that spokesman in 1949 is that we must have had many strong advocates of socialism sitting on the Government benches in those succeeding years. So much for zero growth as put forward by the Opposition in this Budget debate.

The same Opposition leader said in 1949 that he would abolish the means test on pensions. Yet, 23 years later, nothing had been done about that abolition. Instead, the present Leader of the

Opposition has clearly indicated that the Opposition’s intention if it ever came to government would be to restrict and to reduce welfare payments. In the view of the Opposition, it is a sin to consider the unfortunate, the injured, the aged and the under-privileged. The Opposition would create a society devoid of compassion and concern for those less fortunate than its members and those they represent. That is really the message that the Leader of the Opposition is trying to put across to the Australian people. That is the message of the privileged people whom he represents. It is the message that they are preaching around the countryside. It is a policy of ‘grab what you can while you can and to hell with the less fortunate. All praise to profit. Profit is a virtue. ‘

Everyone is entitled to a reasonable return on his or her labour or a reasonable return on his or her invested capital. But the Leader of the Opposition is concerned not about people but about profits. Profits before people is his cry, and the less privileged, those struggling to improve their station in life, will heed it at their peril. Work, wages and struggle are things that are foreign to the Leader of the Opposition.

The continuing campaign by the Opposition to destroy public confidence and to undermine our social structure makes it a unique Opposition among Oppositions in the industrialised nations of the world. As I said earlier, its tactics are the classic ones of Nazism. Those tactics are to create uncertainty, destroy confidence and to create fear among the community, and then to bring out the whip of oppression and to trample the underprivileged and the less endowed. On the one hand, the Opposition denigrates unemployment. On the other hand it denigrates the same unemployed who receive financial assistance from the public purse. The Opposition cannot have it both ways.

Mr Sullivan:

– Only those who will not work.

Mr MORRIS:

– That would include most members of the Opposition. The present Opposition, led by that man of inherited wealth, the honourable member for Wannon, is the most conservative and reactionary since pre-Menzies days. The present Opposition wants a reversion to economic slavery in which those on lesser incomes should support those on higher incomes. It is appropriate at this stage to refer to the editorial which appeared in the Melbourne Age on 5 August 1975. In part, that editorial said:

Mr Fraser pledges the Liberals to reject ‘enforced equality in the work place, in the economy, in education’. What equality? Migrant workers, battling the boredom of the assembly line, may wonder how many others in the work place have been forced down to their level. Women who have just discovered that equal pay does not yet mean equal opportunity, or even equal rights to employment when employers are forced to retrench, may question the value of equalities which are not enforced. Families still struggling to reach even the poverty line, pensioners who depend entirely on the benevolence of the Treasurer to keep pace with rising costs, and working mothers, farming out their children to friends while they wait for professionally staffed child care centres, will wonder what Mr Fraser’s equality holds out for them. And quotes about equality in education, spontaneous or enforced, will make quaint texts for lessons in social studies in the crowded classrooms of inner suburban schools, where harassed teachers struggle to communicate to migrant children who have not yet mastered the language, much less bridged the cultural gap.

I refer again to the Sydney Morning Herald and what was said a few months back by a previous Prime Minister, the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton), in expressing his attitude towards assistance to the underprivileged. He said:

It is of the utmost importance that in social services, in education, in health, in the submerged lands and sea areaand in many, but not all others- there should be an expanding, not a contracting, role for the Commonwealth.

Mr Cohen:

-What did they do to him?

Mr MORRIS:

– We know what they did to him. It just points up the reversion of the Liberal and National Country Party Opposition to reaction and to privilege. Earlier today we heard the honourable member for Paterson (Mr O’Keefe) the sole member of the Opposition who put the view in the last session that the proposals of the Australian Government Insurance Corporation in respect of natural disasters ought to be implemented as soon as possible. Today he referred to oil prices and the effect of a $2 a barrel levy on crude oil and petrol prices. He ought to know, because he is in the business of buying and selling petrol and oils. However he made no mention of the proposal put by his own leader at the last election that wellhead crude oil prices should be increased by 40 per cent to increase the profits of overseas corporations. It would have meant an increase of in excess of 20c a gallon in the price of petrol to provide super profits for overseas oil corporations.

It is no good denying it. It is no good honourable members opposite denying that they support a $2 a barrel levy on crude oil. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has said that. He has also indicated his support for the coal levy. He has also indicated his support for the increased postal and telephone charges. I say to the National Country Party: If you have a different view, please put it. We want to hear your view. We do not want the Leader of the Opposition to speak for you if you have different views. The National Country Party ought to be putting its views. What did the right honourable member for Higgins have to say about oil prices? In an article he wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald on 8 April 1975, referring to the Liberal and Country parties and their unity, he said:

There are many other things which divide the parties. Oil prices which ought not to be raised except to allow for inflation, but which Mr Anthony wishes to raise-to the detriment of all petrol users and without the benefit going, as in Arab countries, to the Government.

The right honourable member for Higgins believes that the Leader of the National Country Party suggested an increase in oil prices. I do not know why the National Country Party does not accept it. I turn to the Regional Employment Development scheme and the comment made about it by the honourable member for Paterson. He mentioned that money had not been wisely used under the RED scheme. He, as does each of us in this chamber, knows that an application for RED grants comes within the purview of the federal member concerned. If a federal member thought that a project was not a worthwhile one and was not in the community interest, he should have expressed opposition. If he had expressed opposition to it the matter would have been brought to the notice of the committee concerned and the Minister responsible and could have been dealt with. But in the electorate of Paterson and the electorate of Cowper we have had the spectacle of registered and licensed clubs getting hundreds of thousands of dollars for golf clubs and bowling clubs.

Then we hear a comment from the Opposition that the money is not being wisely used. Again members of the Opposition cannot have it both ways. If they thought a project was not worthwhile, why did they not express their view at the relevant time? They could have expressed a view then. All I can go on are the regular Press reports from the honourable member for Paterson in the Newcastle Morning Herald announcing the awarding of $99,500 for a golf club and $38,500 for another golf club. Earlier we heard members of the National Country Party saying: ‘We want telephones. We want lower postal charges’. Why did the Country Party not speak out at the relevant time? As I say, it can have it only one way, not both ways. Members of the Country Party should accept their responsibility as Federal members. If they do not think the expenditure of public money is wise they should object at the relevant time, not cry about it later and try to blame somebody else.

I move to the attitude of the Government towards small business. We have heard much about the interest in the private sector. The Opposition is not concerned about small business. It never has been concerned about small business. When in government it commissioned an inquiry headed by Mr Wiltshire in 1968. The report of the Committee on Small Businesses was completed in June 1971. What happened to it? It lay in a pigeonhole until the present Government came into office. Eighteen months after the report was completed it was tabled in this House on 12 April 1973. That reflects the attitude of the Opposition towards small business. It is just not interested. It is only trying to get a little bit of political capital by referring to small business at the moment. During the period of 23 years of office of the previous Government 81 500 small retail food businesses went out of business. Fifty-nine per cent of small food retailers went to the wall. We did not hear about any government help for them. We did not hear about any subsidy or compensation being offered in those days.

The previous Government would not even table the report that was presented to it on the matter. It would not even make some move towards recognising the difficulties of small business or towards limiting the growth of chain stores. Look at the figures. In the 1950s the unaffiliated retailer had 40 per cent of the business. By 1973 he had 4 per cent of the business. Where was the Opposition’s concern? What is it talking about now? It is not interested in the small retailer. When this Government has moved to try to help the small retailer the Opposition has tried to block it. The piece of legislation that has helped the small businessman more than anything else- and history will show this- is the Trade Practices Act. What did the Opposition do with the Trade Practices Act? It delayed it for 18 months. For 18 months it stonewalled and stalled in another place to prevent that Bill from going through. It is the small trader, the individual businessman, who benefits most from the Trade Practices Act, and he is benefiting today.

Another proposal of the Opposition is to abolish the Australian Legal Aid Office. The Australian Legal Aid Office, in the time it has been in operation, has provided assistance to 130 000 Australian citizens. They are 130 000 Australian citizens who would not have got legal advice or assistance otherwise. The Opposition wants to deprive these 130 000 people and many hundreds of thousands more to come of any kind of legal assistance simply because they cannot afford to pay for the services of the people it wants to protect or represent.

The Opposition’s main interest is with profit. Higher profits entail higher prices. Higher prices must means higher inflation. I do not know how lower inflation can be achieved with higher prices. If higher profits result in higher prices, so much for the Opposition’s policies and attitudes on inflation. It does not have a coherent policy on inflation. Every move that has been made by this Government since it came to office in 1972 to control prices or to limit the cost of living the Opposition has opposed. It opposed the Prices Justification Tribunal. It opposed currency revaluation. It opposed a prices and incomes referendum. It opposed the Trade Practices Act. It was dragged screaming to the altar on each one of these issues not because it supported them but because philosophically it opposed them. It did not want these things to come into operation. If anyone thinks for one moment that the present Opposition, if ever it were in government, would be looking towards limiting prices, he should think again. I do not think anybody would challenge the proposition that if the McMahon Government had remained in office in 1972 until the present day price levels and inflation levels would be considerably higher than they now are.

I leave those thoughts with the Australian people and remind them of the record and attitude of the Opposition and its leaders prior to 1972. They are not concerned for the small man. They are not concerned for people. They are concerned for profit and they are concerned for the vested interests that pay for their electoral campaigns. I commend the Budget to the House.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– We have been listening to the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) for about 20 minutes, speaking with a head in the sand attitude. He apparently cannot recognise the problems that are facing the Australian economy or the mess that we are in. When I hear his comments about business- I mention only one of them because the others were too extraordinary to repeat- particularly his comment that the best thing that the Government has done for small business is the Trade Practices Act, I give up any hope at all for the present administration.

We are dealing with the third Labor Budget. It has been regarded in some circles as responsible. That is a pretty kind word. At least this Budget, compared with the previous 2 Budgets which were irresponsible, represents an attempt to be responsible. It is destined, regrettably, for failure. One cannot look at the 1975 Budget in isolation. It has to be seen in the context of Labor’s administration since 1972. People have short memories. Certainly, members of the Government Party have short memories. The Budgets of 1973 and 1974 are very relevant to this debate. This year’s Budget provides for a deficit of $2,800m. We cannot yet ascertain how that deficit is to be funded. The Budget documents themselves imply that we will have an inflation rate of about 16 per cent and accept that we will have a substantial degree of unemployment.

Why is it that 2 years and 8 months after Labor came into office in 1972 we have this dismal outlook throughout Australia? Let me remind Australians that at the end of 1972 the economy was sound and buoyant, the inflation rate was below 5 per cent and employment opportunities were opening up for many Australians. Within days of Mr Whitlam becoming Prime Minister we had the beginning of the great socialist experiments. Honourable members will recall those heady days of late December 1972 and early January 1973 when the Government was setting up all the committees and commissions and when staff increases in the Public Service became paramount. Will Australians forget the across the board tariff cuts which were so damaging to the economy? The honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman) mentioned those tariff cuts in relation to his electorate today.

It did not take long, with Labor in office, for the stresses to start. The 1973 Budget called for restraint. It was obvious that there were stresses in the economy and restraint was needed. But no, with the first attempt by Mr Crean up went expenditure by $2,000m, up went taxation and the business bashing- let me tell the honourable member for Shortland that business bashing is job bashing- started and has continued ever since. Inflation was off, wage demands became rampant, and some militant trade unions were using their union muscle to force over-award payments in some cases aided and abetted by Ministers and other members of the Government Party. Is it any surprise that within 12 months of Labor coming into office the economy was starting to slide? By early 1974 inflation was running at 14 per cent, unemployment numbers were increasing, there was a credit squeeze and interest rates were the highest they had been for many years. The tremendous disadvantageous effect interest rates have had upon home ownership is to the eternal discredit of this Government.

The Opposition warned the Government that disaster was ahead. We had a May election and the issue of that election was the management of the Australian economy. The Government scraped home with a lesser majority; it was rebuked by the electorate and told to learn the lesson and to learn the error of its ways. The incredible thing was that the lesson was not learned. The electorate was ignored. Four months later, after the Government had just scraped home in May 1974, a Budget was introduced and expenditure went up again- this time by $4,000m. How was this funded? It was funded, in part, out of inflation. The increase in personal tax that year was $ 1,800m higher than the year before. The marginal tax rate on Australian weekly earnings grew gradually until it reached almost 50 per cent on average weekly earnings. The planned deficit of $500m, in round figures, by the end of the financial year became $2,000m. I think Australians should be very careful when assessing this Budget. With the Government managing to increase the deficit last year from a planned $500m to $2,000m, I wonder what sort of a record the Government will set this year with a planned deficit of $2,800m.

Let me give credit to some members of the Labor Caucus. They became pretty mutinous about that time, particularly with regard to the surcharge on so-called unearned income and with regard to the capital gains tax. Caucus, to its credit, had some impact upon the Cabinet. But the recklessness went on. Again we warned the Government that expenditure was too high, that the nation could not afford it and that the tax rates were becoming so high that there was a real disincentive in the minds of the community. We said again and again that the nation should have some wage restraint, the Government should give the leadership and the Government should encourage the private sector, which really produces and develops the nation’s wealth. When all these warnings and all this good advice was ignored, dismay and indeed despair descended upon the electorate. So, the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) thought that he had better find a victima scapegoat. Mr Crean was summarily dismissed as Treasurer. Dr Cairns was appointed. Honourable members will recall that he did not last long.

By early 1975 the enormous damage that had occurred between 1973 and 1974 was obvious to all Australians but not to this Government. I will admit that it was obvious to some Labor members, but it was not obvious to the Labor Cabinet. Tensions and divisions that had been in existence from the beginning of this Administration accelerated and we had a devisive and a divisive government. We then had the extraordinary loans issue, which the electorate is not likely to forget when it goes to the polls on the next occasion. It has always been an untidy story. Nobody has ever quite found out how the $4,000m was to be used. Under the Constitution it should have been for temporary purposes. For what socalled temporary purposes was it to be used? Was it in fact to be used to fund the deficit? Was it in fact to be used to hide the tremendous increase in Government expenditure? Enormous tensions developed within the Government. So the Prime Minister- to give him his due, he is consistent in wielding his axe upon his colleagues- moved again. This time Dr Cairns was out and Mr Hayden was in.

We moved towards this Budget day. Suddenly, the Government was prepared to admit that the economy was in a bit of a mess and that profits were down. I remind the honourable member for Shortland that the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) and the Prime Minister have admitted that profits are important. If businesses do not make profits they cannot reinvest and they will not, of course, create productivity and the jobs that flow from it. The Government admitted that businesses- large and small- had real problems. The larger ones have a capacity to survive, whereas some of the smaller ones have not; so we have seen many thousands of small businesses, through no fault of their own, going to the wall. The liquidity squeeze in Australia was of such proportions that it was a matter of survival as far as most companies were concerned. Again this was adding enormously to the disincentive in the minds of the communitydisincentive at a personal level and disincentive at a corporate level.

After the Government admitted that things were not too good a few months ago we saw a great pubic relations exercise. Orchestrated leaks were coming out of the Cabinet. The Prime Minister said that the Government would cut expenditure. He said that expenditure had to be pruned a little. Mr Hayden agreed. One Minister after another argued against reductions in his department. The whole public relations exercise was designed to let Australians know that we were to have a very tough Budget and that they should prepare themselves for a very difficult period. The exercise was designed, of course, so that when the Budget was produced it was not as bad as it had appeared it would. Of course, before the Budget was introduced we had the delightful exercise of introducing postal and telecommunications increases quite separately. Traditionally such increases were contained in the Budget. With 2 commissions to run those enterprises it was a rather handy exercise to put up indirect taxes, which affect every Australian, before the Budget in the hope that they would be lost sight of in the budgetary context.

Two weeks ago in this House Mr Hayden introduced the Budget of 1975. Government expenditure was up again. Admittedly, it is not as much as the Government would have wished it to be. We will have a deficit of $2,800m. Accelerated investment allowances are to be continued. But they had not been acted on in the year before and are unlikely to be acted on under this Government. This is because companies will not use accelerated investment allowances, which are not large enough anyhow, unless there is confidence in the business community. We have this supposedly great tax restructuring. On superficial appearance, there was some merit in it. But when it is subjected to the closest scrutiny, it becomes quite a hoax. Of course, the restructuring will not take place until 1 January next year. The Budget Papers indicate that the Government still expects to increase its collection by way of personal taxation this year by $2,600m. That represents some tax deductions for Australians!

I turn to company tax. In order to demonstrate that the Government accepts in a mixed economy that the private sector has to do well, company tax was reduced by 2lA per cent. What a massive contribution to the liquidity problems of Australian companies that will make. Would not that reduction of the company rate of tax by 2 Vi per cent have given any Australian company a great incentive? At the same time, it has increased indirect taxes bringing hundreds of millions of dollars into the Consolidated Revenue. Increased indirect taxes will be imposed on the sale of petrol- and that will affect every taxpayer and every industry in Australiaon cigarettes and on beer. Again, we have an acceptance of inflation at the rate of 16 per cent, an acceptance of unemployment not diminishing and an acceptance of little productivity. I say to Government supporters that they will have to live with the response that is now coming from this Budget. The taxpayers are not fooled and the trade union movement is not fooled. Government supporters will find that out to their cost in the next few weeks and months from statements and the industrial unrest that is already starting in the trade union movement. Certainly, the private sector is not fooled.

What has been the Opposition’s response to the Budget? Whilst there is an acceptance of the damage that has been done, the members of the Government still find it impossible to realise the extent of the damage that has been done. Government expenditure is still too high. The

Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has indicated that when in government the Opposition would reduce the Budget expenditure by $ 1,000m or by 5 per cent. Let us get these figures quite clear so that everybody understands. We will save 5 per cent of the $20,000m- I am speaking in round figuresexpended in this Budget. We have indicated quite honestly where we would save that $ 1,000m which we will give back in the form of tax cuts. We will save that amount of money by stopping the growth in the Public Service. We will save it by discontinuing socialist enterprises like the National Pipelines Authority. We will save it by abolishing the Department of the Media. That Department is misnamed the Department of the Media. It has been turned into a department of propaganda and it has been abused by this Government. We will abolish the Prices Justification Tribunal and the Australian Government Legal Aid Office. Legal aid will be handled more effectively through the States where the legal aid offices are set up and where we can give the people in need the legal aid they require.

Would anybody doubt that a return of a Liberal-National Country Party government would not improve substantially the efficiency of administration and would not reduce substantially the wastage that has gone on under this Government? The $ 1,000m we will save will go back to the Australian nation by way of tax reductions. We will reduce personal income tax by $500m to give incentive to people to seek and earn rewards. We are proud to encourage people to seek and earn rewards. We will reduce corporate taxation by $500m. We will implement the recommendations of the Mathews Committee which are concerned with inflation accounting. The extraordinary thing about the Labor Government is that it set up a high powered Committee called the Mathews Committee to report to it on the question of taxation. It then largely ignored the report and implemented in its Budget only 10 per cent of the recommendations of that Committee which it set up. Tax indexation and inflation accounting which many members of the Liberal and National Country Parties, particularly the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) and the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth), have fought for over a lengthy period are vital if we are to get growth and development moving again. We have also indicated that in order to get productivity moving we will give substantial investment allowances so that we can encourage re-investment in factories. We will open up job opportunities for many more Australians.

The extraordinary thing was the reaction of the Prime Minister to these proposals. He entered the Parliament with a prepared statement. Presumably, it was prepared by Mr Hayden’s office as Mr Hayden rushed overseas. It was quite clear that the Prime Minister had no idea or understanding of what the Leader of the Opposition was talking about. It must be to the despair of members of the Labor Government that they are headed by a man who refuses to address himself or who cannot address himself to the economic problems of the nation. It was left to Mr Crean, the Deputy Prime Minister, the former Treasurer who Mr Whitlam had sacked to come into the Parliament and defend the Prime Minister. He defended the Prime Minister by saying that he really did not understand -

Mr Bourchier:

– He asked to be excused.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– He ought to have asked to be excused. I hope that he understands our policy now because we spelt it out so clearly that I would have thought any person with any real degree of understanding of arithmetic would understand it. I want to say this: What the Labor Government hopes, of course, is that it will get consumer spending up sufficiently to have a superficial appearance of improvement in the economy. It might obtain this superficial improvement, but unless there is a substantial improvement in investment in the private sector, it will not obtain real growth. Real growth can be obtained only if the Government gets industry moving again. I use that word ‘industry’ in the broadest sense to include primary industry, manufacturing industry, tertiary industry and the service industries. I warrant that the Labor Government will react again, or I should say that some of the Labor Party members will react again. This is because, as they move around their electorates in the next parliamentary recessthey will have 2 weeks in which to do this- it will become quite clear to them just how unacceptable are the policies of the Government. I would expect that we would have another mutinous Labor Party Caucus on our hands before too many weeks pass by.

I recommend to Labor Party members for their personal reading the July report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. This is an economic survey of decisions taken by the Australian Government between January 1974 and April 1975. It does not make for very good reading. One would have thought that the Government members had learned their lessons in economy from playing snakes and ladders in their adolescent years so quick is the change in direction and so often are the different decisions made. The report does not give a happy picture for Australia. If we are to win our way back in the world economy, if we are to be able to compete with our great trading partners like the United States of America, the European countries and Japan that have already turned the corner on the problems of inflation and unemployment, we will need much more decisive action by this Government. The Government has understood in degree what the problems are. What it will not grasp is the extent of them. What it will not grasp is the need to take firm action. I support the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition which states: the House condemns the Budget because it does not provide an adequate program to defeat inflation and relieve unemployment nor does it restore confidence in private sector of the economy.

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

-After listening to the honourable member for McPherson (Mr Eric Robinson) and the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman), who preceded him, I find myself wondering whether we are living on the same planet. Has there been any admission on the part of any of the spokesmen of the Liberal Party of Australia, either inside the House or outside it, that there is something else going on throughout the world and that there are problems outside of Australia? I am not one of those people who believe that the Government can use this as an excuse. But the previous speaker, the honourable member for McPherson, quoted from a report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. He quoted from the report that concerned specifically Australia. But I will quote from an OECD report entitled Economic Outlook published in July 1975. 1 will quote a few random comments about what is happening in the other 23 OECD countries besides Australia. The report states:

The last six to nine months have seen a marked easing of inflation but also the sharpest decline in output and the highest unemployment since World War II.

The report goes on to state:

By the first quarter of this year, industrial production had fallen from its last peak by some 20 per cent in Japan, 10-15 per cent in the United States, Germany, France and Italy, and 5 percent in the United Kingdom.

The cost of the recession in terms of forgone output is illustrated by the estimate that, in the 1 8 months from the second half of 1 973, GNP probably fell by about 714 per cent in the United States and virtually stagnated in the rest of the area taken together, compared with typical past rates of increase over an 18-month period of around 6 per cent and 9Vi per cent respectively.

It stated further.

Total recorded unemployment in the area is now about I S million, double the level at the last business cycle peak and equivalent to over 5 ft per cent of the civilian labour force.

A little later on it stated:

The present recession in OECD countries is the most serious since the war. It is remarkable not only for its length and depth- a third consecutive half-year of negative growth has now been recorded for the area as a whole. . . .

I do not mind being attacked as a member of the Government. That is the problem of being in Government. But I would like to hear just one member of the Liberal Party somewhere say that we have a world-wide problem and not point over here and say that it is all the Government’s fault. Let us get some intellectual honesty into this debate. We heard the previous speaker, the honourable member for McPherson, talk about America and Japan and how they had inflation under control. By the way, there is some doubt about that in relation to America at the moment. But America and Japan have done this at the expense of 9 per cent unemployed. Would honourable members opposite like us to take those sorts of measures here? Some of the things we might have done could have reduced inflation but we could have double and triple the unemployment which we have now.

Mr Bourchier:

– We are on the way to it.

Mr COHEN:

– The honourable member for Bendigo says that he wants 9 per cent unemployed. We have 4.8 unemployed which is half the proportion Japan and America have. For God’s sake, let us have a little bit of intellectual honesty in this debate by admitting that there is a problem. By all means, honourable members opposite may criticise what the Government does, but they would be in exactly the same position and a lot more people would be suffering if the Opposition had had to go through this recession as the Government. The fascinating part about the debate is that we hear people like the honourable member for McPherson talk about cutting this and cutting that, but we do not hear the same story when we listen to Liberal Party State Ministers. They are screaming for more money. They received a 35 per cent increase this year and that is not enough. Every single Minister from the tip of Australia in the north to the bottom of Australia in the south says that the money is not enough.

If honourable members think those complaints are serious they should listen to some of the Liberal Party candidates out in the field. They would have a deficit of about $8,000 billion. These candidates are saying that what we are doing is only a quarter of what we should be doing. Honourable members should hear the fellow in my electorate. He is advocating spending money as if it were going out of print. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to his credit brought much of this talk in relation to this Budget to a halt. He is not saying these sorts of things. I hope this will stop the State Ministers and some of the local candidates from making their more expensive promises. The fact of the matter is that State governments and local councils have never had so much money available for the things which we regard as important.

In all the fields of endeavour in which we want to improve the quality of life an enormous amount of money has been expended over the past couple of years. I shall mention the funds which have come into my area by way of improvements. In hospital and health care in the central coast electorate of Robertson over $6m has been spent in education it has been $3m; in welfare $1,650,000; in seen and telecommunications work almost $3m; in sport and recreation facilities $2.3m; in tourism $3.3m, with the acquisition of shares in the Old Sydney Town project; in major drainage works $1.5m; curbing, guttering and footpath paving- a lot of these projects carried out through the Regional Employment Development scheme- in excess of $lm; in water reticulation, $1,124,000; and in recreation, council parks and gardens, nearly $700,000. Under the Grants Commission the 2 councils have received over $lm to do with as they wish. These amounts total an extra $27m in the short space of 2Vi years. This money has come into the central coast electorate of Robertson to improve the quality of life of the people.

I was an Opposition member for 3 years. I can recall what a Federal member was able to get for his electorate. If he was going well he could get ‘ the occasional letter box, a telephone booth, and maybe once every 5 years or maybe 10 years he could get a new post office. I can count the number of things my predecessor got. The avenues simply were not available to get them. If one came in here and talked about these things the Government would look at one as if one were stark raving mad and say: ‘That has nothing to do with us ‘. The fact of the matter is that the Australian people now know that an Australian Government can provide these basic amenities and that we are doing it

Mr Sullivan:

– Ha, ha!

Mr COHEN:

-I think the honourable member for Riverina is suffering from shell shock. Every now and then he breaks out into a cackle which shows that he has been too close to the guns for too long. As I said before, under the previous administration one could get an occasional post box, letterbox, Citizen Military Force depot and aged persons home but virtually nothing else. I exclude from all those amenities which I read out before, funds which are coming in through increased pensions, repatriation benefits and per capita grants to schools. I simply mentioned new capital grants, new building programs and innovations which previously had not existed, such as funds for sewerage and funds received from the Grants Commission and so on.

One of the most disgraceful episodes in politics in our area has been caused mainly because of misrepresentation by Federal, State and local government Liberal Party members. It has occurred over the growth centre proposals for the . Gosford-Wyong area. The history of this matter is quite interesting and a little bit complicated for many people who have not followed it as closely as I have. In 1968 the Sydney region outline plan was released by the State Government. Recently we had a more detailed urban structure plan. In the interim between the 2 plans quite a number of other reports by various government departments, but primarily the State Planning Authority, were released. In the 1968 Sydney region outline plan and in subsequent plans it was predicted that the population would rise to 500 000. This figure has now been dropped down to somewhere between 380 000 and for 420 000. The result of these various announcements by the State Government was wild speculation. Prices went through the roof. Blocks of land rose in price from $2,500 in 1969 to about $12,500 in 1973. Developers, speculators and builders crowded into the area. We had a boom. There was no plan of implementation. No funds were available under the previous Federal administration because it was not interested in urban development. Nor were funds available from the State colleagues who made some beautiful plans but did nothing to implement them.

The State Planning Authority was aware that this growth centre could not be developed unless some basic problems were first overcome. These problems related to deficiencies in water, sewerage, transport, roads, employment and a whole range of other areas. The basic concept- I believe it to be correct- was to fill in the existing areas, to top them up and to build a new city in the north. When the Australian Labor Government came to office it agreed with these principles espoused by the planners. In the 1973 Budget it offered a total of $3m for land acquisition and planning. Unfortunately it has been unable to get any agreement with the State Liberal members over how the land should be developed. The other day I called on the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) and asked for a detailed account of the negotiations which had gone on between the State Government and the Australian Government since December 1972. It is a remarkable record of procrastination and disinterest on the part of the State Liberals. They want the Australian Government to invest $100m in the new city and the central coast area. In fact in the early stages the State Government commissioned us to do 5 studies which we funded. These have been very informative. They have been on various subjects which I mentioned before such as sewerage, water, transport, job opportunities and so on, and on the Gosford Town Centre. The State Government wants- and it is getting encouragement from some of the local councils- the Australian Government to put in the money to build the infrastructure for the district; that is, to provide a transport system, roads, sewerage, water, parks, schools, hospitals and all the things that make a community. They want these things provided not only in the new city but in the other existing parts of the central coast where population now is. But primarily they want us to put in a large amount of taxpayer’s money so that a handful of developers can rip off enormous profits.

The Australian Government says that it has been prepared to negotiate with the State Government to provide those sorts of funds but on the condition that the area is planned, that the land that is sold for residential purposes is sold at cost to the purchaser and that commercial and industrial land is available on leasehold. This of course has not been acceptable to the Liberal State Government, nor unfortunately to some of our local councillors who dominate that area. The 1974 election in my area was fought on just these issues. It was perfectly obvious to us- we had quite a bit of information- that many thousands of dollars were poured into the local campaign by people who had a vested interest in land in the area. The whole campaign was fought on land acquisition, on leasehold, on the rights of people to make fortunes out of the taxpayers’ investment. The history details the fact that the New South Wales Government has been the party that has broken off negotiations between it and the Australian Government. The latest letter from Sir John Fuller states that the New South Wales Government intends to pursue development by a private development corporation through the two local councils.

There has been an amusing part to the last few days’ events when the Leader of the Opposition has made his recent pronouncement outlining his shadow Budget. The local candidate against me in the area initially wanted a great deal of Australian Government involvement. Then he disagreed with the State Liberals about their projected growth figures. He said that he did not think we ought to have a growth centre, that we ought to spend the money on existing centres. I think what I have said in the last few moments when I detailed the funds provided shows that that is exactly what we are doing. As I said, Sir John Fuller questioned the need for a growth centre. Now he wants a growth centre with a private development corporation but unfortunately the Leader of the Opposition has just pulled the rug out from under him. He said in the shadow Budget which he outlined that there should be no growth centres and no area improvement programs. One of the problems that we face in the area is that because of the boom many thousands of people came to live in the area and many thousands of building workers came to the area. We are suffering at the moment from the recession. There is a very serious unemployment problem in the Gosford area. Some 3177 people were registered as unemployed at the end of July. Admittedly this has always been a high unemployment area, even going back to the period of the boom when we had unemployment figures of about 1000 to 1200.

What I should like to know is what the Liberal State Government proposes to do. We have been told that this is all our responsibility. As I pointed out, through the Australian Government I was able to get some $27m of extra funds poured into the area in the last 2Vi years. I got $8m worth of Regional Employment Development scheme funds. As I said, we have had $6m for hospital works. I could go on and detail the amounts again. But during this whole period all we ever heard from the local Liberals was: ‘What is the Australian Government going to do?’ Most of these areas I am talking about are normal State government and local government responsibilities. I absolve the local councils of being able to do any more. They simply do not have the funds. We have been asked by the local workers, the local chambers of commerce and so on to direct funds into the central coast area. We have been doing that. I propose to investigate all the areas where funds are available and are in the pipeline. I have already had discussions with various Ministers asking them to bring forward projects in the central coast area so that we bump them up at the beginning of the financial year.

We are following up every possible avenue such as in the fields of postal services and telecommunications, education, sewerage and social welfare. We are following through all legislation in relation to which applications are in and trying to get them approved quickly. But what is the New South Wales Government going to do to help to alleviate unemployment and subsequent poverty in the area? It is not simply a matter of pointing to the Australian Government and saying: ‘It is all your baby. We have no responsibility’. If we can provide extra funds and bring forward these projects while the Budget strategy is moving through the economy and starting to work, surely there is a responsibility on the New South Wales Government to do exactly the same thing.

One of the things that I find frightening in this present debate that exists not only in the Federal Parliament but also in the local community is the lengths to which the local Liberals will go to gain a political advantage. Not only do they site incorrect figures- that is bad enough; by now I am used to it- but they will also issue a Press release almost daily, either through the local radio station or the local newspaper, saying not only that unemployment is worse than it actually is but also predicting that in this month, next month or the month after it will rise, it will double or treble. They are constant purveyors of gloom, doom and despondency. I think anyone who has been in business- there are many in this House, and I have been in business- knows how important is the psychology of business. It is important not just to talk about business confidence; it is important for business to feel confident. Liberals in our area who are prepared to gain political advantage by claiming that unemployment, which is now 10 per cent is actually 16 per cent and that next year it will be 25 per cent and the whole place will fall down around our ears, are providing just the sort of climate which will create that sort of unemployment.

I believe that they are a disgrace to the community. I believe that what they are doing is undermining the business confidence in the area even further. It is in a depression. Surely to God they have a responsibility both to get their State colleagues to do something and to shut up. I am not trying to ask them to lay off me. They can belt me all over the place. The facts are that the unemployment figures are there. They are announced in the newspapers. These people can follow them. By making such statements they can create unemployment. They may get some political mileage out of it, but the business people in the central coast region will suffer and so will the many people who live in that area.

Mr BOURCHIER:
Bendigo

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

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Innes:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr BOURCHIER:

-I do. The honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen), in making his speech on the Budget, referred to the unemployment levels overseas. I interjected, suggesting that the way this Government was heading Australia’s unemployment would get to the figures he was quoting. The honourable member for Robertson said that I was asking for a level of unemployment of 9 per cent. I was doing no such thing. I was merely commenting on the manner in which his Government was heading that way.

Sitting suspended from 5.56 to 8 p.m.

Mr HUNT:
Gwydir

-Before the suspension of the sitting the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen), in defence of the Government’s Budget, talked about what he regarded as the intellectual dishonesty of speakers on this side of the House in addressing themselves in a critical sense to the economic policies which the Government has followed since it assumed office in 1972. He said that Aus.talia’s problem is part of a world-wide problem. Admittedly there is inflation in a great number of countries but most of those countries have suffered a dimension to their inflationary costs that Australia has not suffered, and that has been the high cost of crude oil that they have had to import from the Middle East countries and elsewhere. Due to the foresight of the former Liberal-Country Party Government, crude oil was discovered in Bass Strait, and that field has been supplying Australia with about 70 per cent of its basic oil and petroleum fuel requirements. So it is not fair and it is not being honest to himself or to the Government to try to run away from the fact that the Government itself has largely been responsible for the inflationary problem that we are suffering in Australia today.

The Whitlam Government sowed the seeds of its own destruction in the Budget of 1973. The economic policies that it has pursued since thenparticularly during 1974- and in this year’s Budget will ensure that these seeds will not only germinate but also flourish. Critical as this might be for the Australian Labor Party supporters, it is not as serious as the seeds of destruction it has sown for the thousands of small businessmen, farmers and others involved in smaller industries throughout Australia. The fiscal measures in this Budget will not succeed in restoring confidence and encouraging investment in the private sector. Although an effort has been made to reduce government expenditure, reducing the percentage increase from the record 46 per cent level during 1974-75 to an estimated 23 per cent in this financial year, one can be forgiven for doubting the capacity of the Government to discipline itself to maintain the projected 23 per cent increase in Government expenditure. Last year’s Budget provided for a 32 per cent increase, but in fact the end result was an expenditure increase of 46 per cent. What a spending spree!

The Government is clearly unreliable. It says one thing but it does another. How can one have faith in a government that introduces the equivalent of 3 Budgets in a year and changes Treasurers 3 times in a year? Never before has the country seen such a change in direction and so many Treasurers in a year. The Government certainly has created a record, of which it is not proud. The Government has endeavoured to exhibit restraint in the Budget as part of its call to the unions to act with restraint. The whole fragile concept of wage indexation and the frail foundations upon which the Budget strategy rests are shattered by the failure of the Government to act with restraint. How restrained is a Budget that provides for pay-as-you-earn tax to increase by 43 per cent while wages are expected to rise by 22 per cent? No wonder the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the trade unions and the employees of this country are concerned. They rightly believe that they have been led up the garden path.

How can a government claim restraint when private income tax amounted to $7,7 14m last year but is expected to amount to $ 10,340m this year, an increase of $2,626m? Company tax is expected to fall by about $200m, but the total tax collection is expected to be $2,426m more than last year. Customs, excise and sales tax will cost an extra $ 1,000m. Increases in postal and telephone charges will amount to $350m. In the next week or so we will begin to feel the pains of this pressure. Clearly, this Budget will increase the Government’s share of national resources if it does not achieve the growth rate that it hopefully projects. The changes in tax rates will result in a bigger money grab than if no alteration had been made at all. How can one trust a government that projected a $500m deficit in last year’s Budget but ended up with a deficit of $2,500m or more?

It is little wonder that the Government has rejected income tax indexation, indexed to the cost of living, when it has relied on inflation to force people’s incomes into higher income tax rates in order to finance its half-baked socialist objectives. As one who has supported income tax indexation for some considerable time, I warmly support the Opposition’s policy of implementing income tax indexation over a 3-year period, as recommended in the Mathews Committee report. The Liberal and National Country Parties are serious in their objective to bring about sound economic management and to remove the burden of inflation and unemployment from the shoulders of the people. The Whitlam Government knows that income tax indexation will impose a heavy discipline upon government- a discipline that it is not prepared to accept. In its crazy pursuit of some Utopian egalitarian collectivist society, the Government has eroded the initiative of the individual, the self-employed, the small businessman, the larger businessman and the industrial producers.

People in the farming community have almost been crushed financially. They are disillusioned, despondent and dismayed. One of the worst features of the Government’s approach to economic management is displayed in its implementation of the income tax rebate concept, which will only encourage most people to rely on the state for their livelihood. It is true that this is in keeping with the general philosophy of a socialist government. It will work until it kills the goose that lays the golden egg. There are those blind moderates in the Australian Labor Party who somehow believe that Australia’s economic mess is the result of some accidental misfortune. Some like to believe that the problem was inherited. The honourable member for Robertson chooses that excuse. Others claim that inflation and unemployment have been imported. But the more astute left wing socialists know differently. They quietly acknowledge that the problem has been induced. They have no time for the free enterprise system- the so-called capitalist system. They support the Marxist system or a variation of it.

The truth about our sorry state of affairs after fewer than 3 years of Labor Government is that the economic disease was neither inherited nor imported; it was induced. In the crazy attempt to implement the pledge of the Labor Party- the socialisation of industry, means of distribution and exchange- the Government has sought to re-allocate resources, redistribute incomes and restructure society so that today we ask: Where is the reward for excellence, where is incentive, where is the reward for work, where is the incentive to produce and where is the incentive to keep oneself? Sir Winston Churchill- I suppose one could say, that great conservative- summed up socialist governments very succinctly when he once said:

The great paradox of socialist governments is that, from the time they assume power, they undermine the foundations of the private enterprise sector and deprive themselves of their capacity to implement their expensive social welfare policies.

How true that is of this Government today.

Let us analyse Labor’s record after its first 3 Budgets. Expenditure has increased by 115 per cent; revenue by 101.6 percent.

Mr Bryant:

– Not bad going, eh?

Mr HUNT:

-Income tax by 141 per cent. That is not bad? That is not the sort of thing that the Australian people love, my dear sir. Company tax has increased by 39 per cent; excise duty by 90 per cent; sales tax by 86 per cent. What country can stand up to this stress? What country can stand up to this sort of bleeding? The honourable member for Robertson boasts about all the things that the Government has done in his electorate, of all the money that it has spent. But clearly, unless you can generate wealth, unless you can give the 13 million people of Australia the incentive to produce the wealth, clearly the time will come when you will not have anything to spend. It all seems incredible when one recalls the speeches of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam)- the now Prime Minister- in those heady days prior to 1972. It was the present Prime Minister who said then:

Are you prepared to maintain at the head of your affairs a coalition which has lurched into crisis after crisis, embarrassment piled on embarrassment week after week? Will you accept another 3 years of waiting for next week’s crisis, next week’s blunder? Will you again entrust the nation’s economy to the men who deliberately but needlessly created Australia’s worst unemployment for 10 years -

This was in 1972- or to the same men who have presided over the worst inflation for 20 years?

What a laugh! Again in May 1974 the Prime Minister said:

The Liberal-Country Parties wanted to drag Australia back to stagnation and complacency which Labor had brought to an end after 23 years of conservative rule.

Honourable members opposite can put their own complexion upon that. But let the Australian people be the judge of that sort of comment; let events prove whether the Prime Minister’s assessment of the situation was sound or not. Since those days inflation has soared from 4.5 per cent to 17 per cent, unemployment from 1.77 per cent to 5 per cent and overdraft interest rates from 7.75 per cent to 1 1.5 per cent. With capital expenditure falling almost to negative percentage rates and the growth rate reaching minus levels in real terms the Prime Minister must surely stand condemned.

While the Government has dealt a shattering blow to the rural, industrial, mining and commercial sectors of the economy there is no sector more seriously hurt than the small business sector. These fully -

Mr O’Keefe:

– They want to put them out of business.

Mr HUNT:

-I would think that is what the objective is. These fully owned Australian businesses each employing fewer than 100 employees are facing their worst crisis in Australian history. These are the little people, the little people whom the ALP once cared about- I remember a time when it did- the people they are now destroying.

There are over 250 000 small businesses in Australia. They employ 42 per cent of the Australian workforce. They are the foundation upon which the private enterprise system rests. They are of vital importance to the big publicly owned manufacturing companies in Australia. The shattering results of a survey conducted by the Associated Chambers of Manufactures of Australia, in association with the University of New England, indicate that two-thirds of these enterprises are in danger of collapse or bankruptcy in the next 12 months. If this projection is correct, then somewhere between 20 per cent and 30 per cent of the Australian work force faces unemployment. If the projection is only half right, and ignores the resilience and determination of the small businessman to remain in business, then even a 10 per cent to 15 per cent unemployment level represents a shocking and horrible indictment of the Labor Party’s crazy pursuit of its doctrinaire socialist philosophy.

I know that supporters of the Government do not like what I am saying, but they are going to have to lump it. Since Labor came to power over 3000 of these small businesses have already gone broke.

Mr Lloyd:

– How many?

Mr HUNT:

-Three thousand. Thousands of others are hanging by their finger nails from the cliff’s edge, hoping for a change of government, hoping that something will turn up. They hoped that something would turn up in this Budget. They waited in vain hoping that this year’s Budget would restore some economic sanity so that the private sector could begin to plan with a new spirit and a new confidence. These hard-working Australians have every reason to be disillusioned.

The Opposition’s concern for the small businesses was highlighted in the speech by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) when he offered alternative budgetary proposals. Let me enumerate some of them: The implementation of the recommendations of the Mathews Committee on company tax over a 3-year period; the implementation of stock valuation adjustment proposals from the Mathews recommendations for company tax payable in 1975-76 at 50 per cent of the recommended rate for stock valuation; the introduction of a 40 per cent investment allowance to supersede the accelerated depreciation allowance for plant and equipment installed before June 1977. This would be continued at the rate of 20 per cent for a further 5-year period; the suspension of the quarterly company taxation payments; the introduction of the right of companies to retain a percentage of their earnings untaxed for capital investment- and that is of tremendous importance too.

Mr Armitage:

– It is 4.4 per cent.

Mr HUNT:

-Oh, they are keeping only about 28 per cent after tax on what they earn. If the honourable member’s advice is so sound I ask him please to give it to his colleagues because clearly they do not understand. But more needs to be done. There is an urgent need for governments, both State and Federal, to develop a national policy approach to ensure the viability of our small businesses. They are the backbone of our private enterprise system. In times of economic stress it is they who are the first to go to the wall. Far too often, decisions are taken by governments without ascertaining the effects of these decisions on small business. Legislation is often introduced without due concern for the effect that it may have on small business. Legislation, such as the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, clearly was drafted without due consideration for small business.

Australia must follow the examples being set in the United States of America, Canada, France, Japan and in fact throughout most countries in the western world, which have taken seriously the need to sustain the small business sector. I support the view of Professor Meredith, the head of the Department of Accounting and Financial Management at the University of New England, who has called upon all State governments and the Commonwealth Government to establish special departments responsible for small business. It would not be difficult for governments to establish a departmental section within an appropriate department to deal with the problems of small business. Its role would not be one of interference with private enterprise, but to provide advice assistance and, I would hope, guaranteed loans as they do in the United States. Such a department would be responsible for placing before governments a view about the effects of any proposed legislation on this important sector. It is not good enough to establish a national small business bureau staffed with only 20 employees with 3 offices in 3 capital cities and none in the others. It is not surprising that a Labor Government, firmly pursuing a policy of socialisation of industry, distribution and exchange should retreat from the establishment of a small business department. However, there is no excuse for governments that support the other philosophy.

There has been complacency and I believe that the reasons are fourfold. Firstly, governments have taken small business for granted; secondly, the community has taken them for granted; thirdly, the chambers of commerce have not looked after the interests of small business; and small businesses themselves have taken their future for granted and this is not good enough in today’s competitive world. Those of us who are interested in private enterprise, those of us who are interested in the system that has given us the highest standard of living in the world should ensure that the foundations upon which that system exists -

Mr Bryant:

– And we improved it.

Mr HUNT:

– I would like to know where. For these reasons I support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. This Budget is not good enough. In the country areas 90 per cent of employment comes from the small business sector and unless something is done quickly we will see unemployment in the rural areas of Australia on a level unsurpassed since the dreadful 1930s.

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

– I rise to support the Budget which I believe to be a reasonable and rational response to the difficult economic circumstances which currently beset us. Not for 40 years has an Australian Government faced a more arduous task in determining the correct approach to the economic problems of the day. The unprecedented coincidence of substantial inflation and unemployment which now plagues this country, along with every other country in the western capitalist world, has created great dissension among economists, a profession whose members, one might say, have never been noted for unanimity of thought. The task facing each government in these countries is to decide which of the various conflicting solutions offered by economists will best suit the interests of the economy it administers. The approach adopted by the Australian Government in this Budget is, as the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) stated in his Budget Speech, to take the middle path, that is, one that neither drastically reduces the rate of growth in the money supply by slashing the Budget deficit nor one which proceeds through unrestrained expansion of government spending to dramatically increase the deficit and with it the money supply. In all the uncertainty and confusion which exists in economic circles, this overall strategy must surely be regarded as the prudent approach.

It is important to realise that this differing approach of the Opposition to our budgetary requirements is not simply a matter of it opting for an alternative set of economic solutions but stems substantially from its revised political philosophy, for the fact is that the Opposition has shifted considerably further to the right of the political spectrum since it acquired its latesteader That such a shift has occurred there can be no doubt. In a series of statements made over the past few months, mostly outside this House, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has committed his followers to a philosophy which is markedly more conservative than that to which they professed hitherto. Its fundamental tenet supposedly is the freedom of the individual, but it is highly noticeable that in its application it would not only preserve but also would greatly extend the welfare and influence of the most privileged sections of our society. Let us examine some of the publicly stated comments of the Leader of the Opposition. Probably the principal theme of his philosophy is what he chose to describe as the freedom to spend one’s own income. He said at the National Press Club in Canberra on 3 1 July:

A fundamental freedom which must be expanded is control by individuals of the income they earn. Freedom to spend one’s own income is just as important as freedom of speech, of religion, and of association.

He also said in the same address:

The next Liberal government will strongly reassert the right of families and of individuals to retain their own earnings so that they can meet their needs as they see lit.

These are remarkable statements from a person who poses as an alternative Prime Minister. Taken to their logical conclusions they seem to be a prescription for the complete abolition of income tax since this would clearly maximise the so-called freedom to spend one’s own income. Is that the ultimate objective of the Leader of the Opposition? Whether it is or not one can say only that previous Liberal-Country Party governments seemed singularly unconcerned to implement it. In the 23 years that they governed from 1949 till 1972 this supposed freedom was steadily eroded by continual increases in the tax burden. For example, personal income tax receipts as a percentage of gross domestic product in 1949-50 was 3.7 per cent while in 1972-73 it was 9.8 per cent. That was a very substantial increase in the tax burden. Another way of looking at it is to take the percentage of income paid in tax by a worker on average weekly earnings with a wife and 2 dependant children. In 1949-50 the proportion of his income paid in tax was 2.9 per cent while in 1972-73 it was 14V4 per cent. Again there was a very substantial increase in the tax burden. There can be no doubt that the freedom to spend one ‘s income was considerably reduced by successive Liberal-County Party governments, presumably because they considered there were community needs that should be fulfilled and would be best fulfilled by government.

Now all this is to be reversed. Instead we are to have a society, if the Leader of the Opposition has his way, in which the emphasis will be on a smaller and smaller role for government, on survival of the fittest, on selfish acquisitive values, which the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Sullivan), who is trying to interject, I am sure would applaud, and an end to any semblance of an egalitarian society. It surely follows that if there is to be a reversion to a low tax society then governments will have far less capacity than they have now to transfer income and resources from the wealthy to the needy. Highly paid persons who pay a larger proportion of their income in income tax than low paid persons accordingly have their freedom to spend their incomes restricted much more than low income earners and so will have more to gain from the application of a philosophy that seeks to redress that supposed inhibition on freedom. Clearly the result of applying this warped philosophy must be a society in which we would have far greater extremes of wealth and poverty than currently exist, and they are far too extreme now for my liking or, indeed, for Professor Henderson’s liking.

To be fair to the Leader of the Opposition, he has not tried to hide the fact that he has no time for egalitarian values. In his National Press Club address a few weeks ago, he said:

Liberals reject enforced equality, in the work place, in the economy and in education.

By ‘enforced equality’ he presumably meant equality brought about by the actions of government since there is little chance of it occurring otherwise. Just to ensure that his point was made he also said that the first priority of government would be:

To restore the rewards and remove the penalties on excellence, achievement and enterprise.

In other words, what he was saying was that those individuals who obtain high incomes, those who are in a position to amass substantial personal wealth, should be taxed less and subsidised more. The corollary of that presumably is that those individuals who do not achieve, those who fall by the wayside, will be assisted less. I particularly emphasise ‘individuals’ here because the Leader of the Opposition has made it plain that assistance to businesses that fall on relatively hard times is very much a role for governments. In an interview published in the Financial Review of 14 February this year- before he knifed the right honourable member for Bruce (Mr Snedden)- the present Leader of the Opposition was asked:

Who do you see as the group most in need of government help in Australia today?

Most people would have answered this question by naming a clearly underprivileged group such as handicapped persons, people living in poverty, Aborigines or elderly persons, but not the Leader of the Opposition. His answer was: ‘Private enterprise’. There can be no denying that the Fraser philosophy is more concerned with corporate welfare than with social welfare, more concerned with preserving the economic system than with preserving the people it victimises, more concerned with the promotion of selfish acquisitive values than with the humanitarian values such as concern for one’s fellow-man. I ask the House: Is this really the kind of society we want Australia to become? Certainly it is a very different society from that which is evolving in most of the other countries in the developed capitalist world. In most of them the freedom to spend one’s own income is rather more curtailed than it is in this country.

Figures published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development earlier this year show that payments by employees in the form of income tax and social security contributions as a percentage of gross national product was lower in Australia than in all but seven of the 22 OECD countries. The proportion of gross national product derived from employee social security contributions and income tax was 10 per cent in Australia in 1972. In countries like Denmark and Sweden it was 23 per cent and 2 1 per cent respectively. Most of the European countries were well above 10 per cent. There were only 7 countries below us. Among those countries below us were Italy, Greece, Portugal and Spain- the real economic giants of the western world. The relatively low incidence of direct taxation in Australia was reflected in government expenditure on such items as education and welfare, or was until this Government came to office. Recently published OECD figures showed that the percentage of GNP expended by Government on education was quite low in Australia compared with other countries. These figures are again for the 1970-71 period. In Canada the proportion was 8.4 per cent. In Sweden it was 7.1 per cent. It was 6 per cent in the United States of America and 5.9 per cent in the United Kingdom. The proportion was 4.6 per cent in Germany. In Australia the figure was a dismal 4.3 per cent.

The same picture emerges in relation to welfare. In a scathing attack on Australia ‘s appalling disregard for social welfare, the London Financial Times of 10 March 1971 showed that the proportion of Australia’s gross domestic product expended on welfare was appallingly low in comparison with other developed countries. That expenditure in the European Economic Community was 15.2 per cent. In Scandinavia it was 10.9 per cent. The figure in Canada was 9.9 per cent. It was 8.6 per cent in the United Kingdom, 6.6 per cent in New Zealand and 5.9 per cent in the United States of America. In Australia it was a miserable 5.5 per cent. The Labor Government has been trying to correct this situation. Clearly, if we are now to embark on a policy, as the Opposition would have us do, of maximising the freedom of individuals to spend their own income, we would be wildly out of step with the rest of the developed world.

Mr Speaker, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, the Opposition’s Budget strategy follows logically from its fervent adoption of ultra conservative values. Thus, in conformity with his previously espoused beliefs, the Leader of the Opposition last Tuesday called for greatly increased assistance to private enterprise and lower taxes on personal incomes. He also vehemently attacked the Government’s radically redistributive income tax proposals as ‘another hidden attack on people who wish to remain independent’. Thus, a reform which relieves the income tax burden on taxpayers with dependants is dismissed by the Leader of the Opposition. He does this because some less needy taxpayers without dependants will have to pay more. Presumably he regards this as enforced equality and an interference with the freedom of single taxpayers to spend their own income.

However, having attacked the Government’s Budget from this ideological standpoint, the Leader of the Opposition failed dismally to supply a viable alternative Budget strategy. Indeed, when it came to the point of explaining how he would make large revenue concessions whilst not increasing the deficit the. Leader of the Opposition completely lacked the courage of his convictions. Having asserted that the Budget should have contained an array of additional tax concessions and subsidies amounting to at least $1 billion, he was then able to dig up offsetting reductions in expenditure that amounted to only half of that sum on his own calculations, but substantially less than that in fact. Certainly he pointed to other areas where savings could be achieved, but he made no attempt to cost them. If he had costed them he would still have been a long way short of the $1 billion, with the result that the deficit which would flow from his Budget strategy would be considerably in excess of that involved in the Budget brought down by the Government.

Now, Sir, I emphasise that that picture emerges if one accepts the costing provided by the Leader of the Opposition. In fact, however, his costing of expenditure saving is substantially overstated. For instance, his supposed saving of $75m on Budget outlays -by reducing the Advance to the Treasurer is no saving at all since that advance does not form part of Budget outlays. Furthermore, the saving of $150m which the Leader of the Opposition says he would make through zero Public Service growth and abolition of the Department of the Media, the Prices Justification Tribunal, the Legal Aid Office and the Australia Police is, on the Treasury’s estimates, about double the saving that would in fact result Another major expenditure saving in the Opposition’s plan would be to cease work on the Moomba-Sydney natural gas pipeline and to sell the pipeline to private enterprise. The Opposition estimates that the sale of the pipeline would bring in $130m. But that estimate assumes that the Government would be paid in full this year. For that to be the case it is quite likely that money would have to be borrowed overseas, in which case this would add to the money supply in exactly the same way as an increase in the deficit. Thus it would be a completely pseudo saving, reducing the deficit, but doing it in a way which has the same economic effect as increasing the deficit by a like amount. It also raises a question about the ethics of financing tax concessions by selling off capital assets. What would it be next year? Would we be selling off Qantas Airways Ltd or TransAustralia Airlines?

In the area of other expenditure economies for which the Leader of the Opposition gave no costing, the Treasury estimated the items pointed to by the Leader of the Opposition- that is, the cessation of uranium exploration, suspending growth centre expenditure and making special economies in the urban rehabilitation and area improvement programs- would save only $1 15m, and that assumes the complete cessation of expenditure on those programs. Yet the Leader of the Opposition says that he could save about $500m by such economies. Quite clearly, the Opposition has a very substantial credibility gap in this matter of costing.

Ignoring the dubious validity of the saving from selling the pipeline, the announced Oppo.sition program would still increase the Budget deficit by about $500m. But this credibility gap becomes a yawning chasm when one realises that in costing its alternative program the Opposition has made no allowance whatever for abandoning the projected increases in indirect taxes on beer, cigarettes and spirits, the crude oil levy or the coal export levy, all of which have been trenchantly criticised by the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues. The same is true of the . increased postal and telephone charges which, if not implemented, would add a further $350m to Budget outlays. The total revenue raised by all of these measures is in excess of $ 1 billion.

Opposition speaker after Opposition speaker in this debate has criticised these taxes and charges. If that means that they are opposed to them, which one presumes it does, that amount cannot be included as revenue in the alternative Budget proposals put forward by the Opposition. But when the Opposition does its costing, no allowance is made for the abolition of these revenue measures. The fact is that the Opposition is trying to have $ 1,000m each way, which is nothing short of an attempted gigantic confidence trick on the people of Australia.

In summary, therefore, the Opposition’s alternative Budget strategy would result in a Budget deficit on the basis of the revenue and expenditure variations that the Opposition has specifically proposed of at least $500m. If one adds on the revenue lost by not proceeding with the increased indirect taxes and charges, the deficit is $ 1,500m more than the Government has proposed. So much for the claim by the Opposition to fiscal responsibility.

Of course, it could be that what the Leader of the Opposition would really intend to do would be to limit the deficit by further drastic cuts in government expenditure. It could be that whilst he was ingratiating himself with everybody by promises of tax cuts and concessions last Tuesday night, he was reluctant to spoil things a little by spelling out where he would make his major expenditure cuts. One thing is certain. He has used up whatever soft options he had for expenditure cuts. The chop back of a further $ 1,500m or even $500m in government expenditure could be done only by severely restricting if not emasculating the Government’s program of social reform. Of course, that would not provide the Leader of the Opposition with any ideological problems. But it is important that the people of Australia understand the implications of Fraserism.

His program, in order to have any semblance of economic responsibility, would have to tear the heart out of the Government’s education, welfare, health and urban development and recreation programs that are designed to provide equality of opportunity, income security, good health and a more pleasant environment for all. The Australian people should understand also that the Frazer philosophy is that these things can best be provided by each individual for himself or herself rather than by relying on the Government to provide them. This philosophy is an elitist concept. It is utterly fallacious for the vast majority of wage and salary earners and their dependants in this country.

Certainly wealthy people such as the Leader of the Opposition have no need of Government expenditure in these areas. They can afford to pay for the best schools, the best health care and the best urban environment and have no need of income security programs. But for many people these services are either provided by the government or not all all. It is in their interests that they are provided at the highest standard possible. The destruction of programs which have this aim would substantially impair the living standards of the overwhelming majority of wage earners, welfare recipients and their families in Australia. It would have no effect on the wealthiest people in our society.

Mr Speaker, there can be no doubt that the program of the Opposition is the complete antithesis of that which would best serve the interests of the ordinary men and women in Australia . The fact that the Opposition bases its elitist program on the supposed extention of the freedom of the individual illustrates dramatically what a jaundiced concept it has of human rights. I strongly commend the Budget to the House.

Mr McMAHON:
Lowe

-Last Thursday, in the debate on a motion moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lynch), we debated the Liberal and National Country Parties alternative Budget for 1975-76. I said then that Labor’s criticism of those proposals contained large and avoidable errors of both fact and estimating and showed little or no knowledge of how a Budget is drawn up or how it should be administered. Obviously the mistakes made by whoever wrote the document from which the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) read his criticism could not have been made by anyone listening to or reading the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser), anyone with a knowledge of public accountancy and anxious to tell the truth; or, anyone with a capacity to understand elementary arithmetic.

Let me give just one example: Mr Fraser estimated additional expenditure at $984m. Mr Whitlam estimated additional expenditure at $2,3 50m. Unfortunately for the poor guy and for his credibility, Mr Whitlam made 3 palpable blunders in estimating the Opposition’s costings and additional financial commitments. We did not mention abolishing the recent indirect tax increases and coal exports levy. So, there is a saving of $720m; that is $720m too much in Mr Whitlam ‘s estimating. A public accounting blunder obviously was made with reference to the investment allowance, which would not be payable for at least 16 months after the date of introduction of the necessary Bill and certainly not under this Budget. That is another saving of $300m. A mistake as to the nature of the Mathews’ stock valuation and the reduction in company tax of 2Vi per cent results in another saving of $400m. That is a saving, all told, of $ 1,420m.

Mr Hewson:

– That is incredible.

Mr McMAHON:

– It is incredible. The honourable gentleman is right. But I wonder whether anyone other than Mr Whitlam and now Mr Hayden could have made such ghastly errors without first of all trying to find out the facts. It again illustrates what Dr Cairns and others of his Party have said about the Prime Minister. They have said that he is as barren of economic and financial knowledge as a frog is of feathers. That is not my remark, but theirs. I sat near one of them in an aircraft going from Canberra to Sydney, and that is what he said of the Prime Minister. I thought he was being particularly generous.

Mr Innes:

– You hung on to the Treasurership.

Mr McMAHON:

-I was there for a long time. If you stick in Parliament as long as I have, my son, you will stay a very capable and able man and ambitious man. But you will never make the Ministry, believe you me.

As to savings and reduced commitments, obviously whoever wrote the Prime Minister’s speech did not know what Mr Fraser said on so miscalculated by $440m. Poor brute! But he should have learnt by now, after 2Vt years, to check all statements submitted to him. At least he ought to have consulted his own Department before getting up, being ultra-slick, and reading out thoughtlessly what had just been given to him by the Treasurer, Mr Hayden.

Let me come back to the national issues. We are now debating the Budget and its accompanying statements. I want to state my case and my opinions in an objective and impersonal way and, I hope, in a more sober manner than was displayed in the debate that occurred on Thursday. I want to put beyond doubt my belief as to whether the Budget, in its essential decisions relating to economic growth, inflation, employment and unemployment, and business and social confidence, in fact achieves the objectives which the Budget itself has set and with which we agree. We both agree- Government and Opposition- that the essential conditions of success are: The reduction of the rate of increase of Government expenditure in order to ensure that the private sector has room to expand its operations and to permit economic growth in the private sector, the sector which is principally responsible for increasing effective marketable production; a more effective and economically beneficial relationship between rewards to labour and capital, closer to the long term norm of 61 per cent labour and 16 per cent business investment- I might mention that the ratio today is about 69 per cent labour and about 9 per cent business and capital.

And as the Budget explicitly says, a substantial . increase in economic growth overall, control of inflation and substantial increases in the operations of the private sector of the economy and its work force; a reduction in inflationary pressures; and growth of confidence.

Before going any further, let me say clearly and categorically that the Government inherited a healthy, growing economy in 1 972. Unemployment was down in November 1972 to 88 000, not the 3 10 000 it is today under this guy. For 5 successive months to April 1973 there were reductions in unemployment. This was unusual both seasonally and in crude terms. Growth in real terms was 7 1/2 per cent. The underlying inflation was down to 2.2 per cent, not the 17 per cent it is today. Confidence was high, with increasing growth in overseas reserves and a sound and respected Australian dollar. More than any other country, we were able to insulate ourselves from the impact of world recession and the impact of increases in the oil prices charged by the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries. We did neither under Labor.

By contrast, the features of our present predicament are: Small, even non-existent, growth of 0.4 per cent last year; inflation between 1 6 and 17 per cent and likely to grow in a year rather than to fall as it is doing in the United States of America, West Germany, Japan and Canada, our main trading partners- even now there are some prospects, with trade union co-operation, in the United Kingdom of inflation coming down below 25 per cent; unemployment of an unacceptable kind; and growth in seasonal terms of 0.4 per cent. Besides that, in respect of one objection the Government claims it wants to achieve, we have not the building up but the destruction of morale and confidence in the business community and in society as a whole.

Mr Duthie:

– You have done that, not us.

Mr McMAHON:

– We have been gone for 3 years. You have been sitting on your b-t-m for 3 years and have done absolutely nothing other than cause harm. All this has occurred because of extravagant budget and fiscal policies whose origins can be traced back to December 1972 and January 1973. Read Treasury Information Bulletin No. 69, page 3, which draws attention to the fact that Government expenditure has increased from $630m to $960m-not a $4,000m increase as with this Budget- and that the country would have to pay for this extravagant increase in expenditure. I spoke on this point in the House on 27 March 1973, and the forecasts I then made for those small increases have turned out to be unbelievably true. Read page 13 of statement No. 3 of the 1975-76 Budget, which implicitly accepts this analysis of recklessness and mismanagement.

Now let us look at the Budget in order to see the extent to which policies have been translated into effective action. First as to government expenditure, Mr Crean, the then Treasurer, said in 2 consecutive budgets that it was not his intention to rein in government expenditure, so up went expenditure in 1972-73 by $ 10,000m, in the next year by $2,000m, in 1974-75 by $4,000m, and now on the estimates for this year to $22,000m. But what we have to ask ourselves is: How much can we rely upon the estimates of the Australian Labor Party and the Labor Government? Last year they thought or they estimated that the increase would be 23 per cent. It turned out to be 46 per cent. I am sure as I live that rather than a 23 per cent increase this year 1975-76 it will be substantially in excess but not as high as in 1974-75.

Here we find an increase in government expenditure beyond productive capacity which inevitably must lead to inflation and which, as the Government admits, inevitably must lead to unemployment of an unacceptable character as well. That is what has happened in a country that is as rich in resources as we are. Unfortunately we are compelled, while Labor remains in power, to live with consequences of this kind.

What will happen as a result of Labor’s policies? I do not believe that the deficit can be held within the estimate of $2,800m. Large deficits must, first of all, lead to excessive demand in the public sector not the private sector, then to a careless approach to spending and administrative management, and industrial unrest, followed by increased wage demands. Thus inflation, with its unfortunate effect of maldistribution and uneconomic allocation of resources and greater inefficiency in production, must take place. It probably will be well in excess of $3,000m. We will be swimming in dollar bills- an environment in which inflation and wage demands will inevitably take off again.

What then of the future? What of the year’s deficit in real terms at the end of the financial year? There is an estimated deficit of $2,800m. We have shown in Mr Malcolm Fraser ‘s statement that we could have reduced expenditure by $ 1,000m without increased unemployment but with increased demand in the private sector and a reduction in unemployment providing only the reduction in the public sector was phased in with the increase in demand in the private sector.

What of the growth in the money supply as set out in table 2 of Budget Statement No. 2? I am not committed to the monetarist’s theory of economics and Professor Friedman, but I have to admit that that philosophy and attitude to the money supply has a substantial influence on inflation. In fact, there is concrete evidence to support the view that a rise or fall in inflation is paralleled by a rise or fall in the money supply- M3- with a delay of about 18 months before the inflationary forces fully realise their potential.

The Treasury estimates that the main contributor to the internal money supply will be the

Budget deficit. Our balance of payments on current account is estimated to be minimal. It is said that banking, one of the main props of the private sector of the economy, will be under a degree of restraint in the growth of the money supply and will not be sufficient to accommodate inflation at present rates. Mr Hayden suggests that present policy envisages an increase of 20 per cent. This year the Budget in my opinion will expand the money base considerably by at least $3,000m- another record. This means that the Government will have to raise at least $2,000m in revenue if Mr Hayden ‘s goal is to be achieved. But on the basis of what I have already said this leaves very little for the private sector, and if Labor has its way must be squeezed out of the market through open market operations of the Reserve Bank and increased call-ups from the trading banks to statutory reserve deposits with consequent increases in interest rates or greater contributions to Commonwealth loans.

Already pressure is being exerted on the banks to reduce new and increased lending commitments which have been reduced by $132m a month in March to less than $100m a month in July. The recent loan raising of about $680m was largely in short term 18 months securities and 5-year bonds. The long term securities of 20 years drew only $34m. This clearly indicates the loss of confidence in the long term and, so far as the 5-year securities are concerned, a desire by the banks to avoid a call to statutory reserve deposits.

I do not believe that this is the setting in which it can be said that the confidence of the private sector is being restored. I am sure it is exactly the opposite.

What then of the incentives to restore business confidence and the balance between the rewards of labour and capital and to restore the conventional relationship of 61 to 16 per cent of gross national production between the two? The Budget says that it wants to give a stimulus to the private sector. In words, yes; but in performance it is business bashing with a vengeance. Corporation taxation is reduced by 2lA per cent or by $ 120m. Depreciation allowances will be doubled and will, in the period of 2 years, add $7 5 m, but all this is more than swallowed by the increases in postal and telephone charges and the increase in petrol prices of between 6c and 8c a gallon at the bowser. The source of funds for the private sector through savings with the life offices and superannuation funds- one of the main sources that trading banks have for investment- will be heavily reduced, more’ or less permanently if Labor policy remains.

Investment in plant and equipment is expected to fall in the March- June quarter by 9.4 per cent. A fall of 32 per cent is expected in 1975-76, according to reviews that have been recently carried out. This indicates a radical difference in policy between Liberal and Labor.

There is no other way to promote or make practicable investment except through savings. Every free and democratic country that wants investment to grow realises the complementary nature between investment and savings. The alternative- and a temporary one- is through inflation. West Germany and the United States are classical illustrations of the effectiveness of the Liberal policy of incentives and those countries, with Japan, lead the free world. We must provide incentives to save and invest and we would have introduced an investment allowance in this Budget. Labor is doing the opposite. At a time when it should be inspiring business it is squeezing it out of essential elements of finance for development. Those 300 000 people who save through the life offices and superannuation funds will suffer through a reduction in bonuses and through inflation.

Labor says that taxation concessions and taxation deductions have been made, but in 1975-76 revenue foregone will total $550m but taxation will increase by $722m. In 1976-77 revenue foregone will total $420m and taxation will increase by $758m. Here we see impediments to getting on with the job of incentives for greater business activity and with that a fall in unemployment. I hope that with the other measures we proposed there would be a drop in inflation as well.

What has been done to corporation profits? This is the only other aspect I will touch. Honourable members will see, as I said in the House last Thursday, that the net income of corporations was $4,755m. Company tax was over $2,000m. Stock value adjustments were $ 1,820m. This leaves a net of $935m out of a total income of $4,755m. This is not much. It is not good enough to inspire confidence.

Another matter I would like to speak about is the assistance that must be given to small business particularly private corporations. We must give this assistance because as the Finance Director of the Australian Mutual Provident Society has said, the real difficulty facing small business and private corporations is that their capital has been so eroded and the cost of stocks so increased their borrowings already are up to the limit of their credit and assets. Now, with inflation, they will not be able to carry on unless remarkable changes take place. That is why such a very large number of corporations- over 3000 of them- went out of production or operation last financial year.

Let me now turn to Budget Statement No. 2 which is supposed to contain the philosophy and the attitudes of the Labor Party. It is an extraordinary document forecasting as it does growth increase in non-farm production of 5 per cent, a one per cent increase in employment and a 4 per cent increase in productivity.

As Professor Hogan, who lives in the market, has said, it would be a modern miracle if it proved correct. He went on to say that the Budget was predicated on 3 increases- the ones I have mentioned- and added that he did not think Labor’s forecast was real sense. He said that the 23 per cent climb in consumer spending as projected by the Treasury would require a complete reversal of the present savings pattern. He said that overall the Budget is predicated on an inflation rate of 16 per cent and if average weekly earnings do not rise by 22 per cent as projected the Budget deficit will be much larger than expected. I agree with Professor Hogan.

I also wish to touch briefly on unemployment. I believe that if Labor wants to achieve its objectives with a one per cent unemployment rate it must find jobs for 400 000 people before 30 June.

I do not think the Budget is designed in detail to fit in with the objectives. It is full of petty deceits, miserable tricks and statements that could not have been made by anyone experienced in preparing Budgets. I conclude by referring to a statement from the London Financial Times. Yesterday it said: . Whitlam is done for.

I agree with the Financial Times too, as I do with Professor Hogan. The Financial Times stated that Labor and Whitlam were done for. In my view they should now strike tents and get out. I think they should do so before their credibility disappears completely, and should do so, if they are men and men of conscience, not only for thenown sake but for the good of this country as well.

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

– I rise to support the Budget strategy outlined by the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) in his Budget Speech. I must first pay tribute to the Treasurer. He has managed, in the most difficult economic circumstances, to produce a Budget that is both financially responsible and in line with the overall Labor philosophy of social reform. In sharp contrast we have seen the Opposition frantically searching for a line of attack and rushing about looking for something to criticise. What did the Opposition come up with? Absolutely nothing. It did not come forward with one single solitary issue on which to mount an attack. Throughout the community the Budget has been received with approval. The Australian people realise that we are going through a testing time. They ap_plaud the calm and reasonable, way the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) has met the challenge.

A few weeks ago the media were chock-full of stories predicting diabolical cutbacks in expenditure and scare stories of a horror Budget, the kind of alarmist cries that make the job of economic recovery most difficult It is this kind of irresponsible scare-mongering that has put paid, and thoroughly paid, to any claim the Opposition might have had to responsibility in the face of the twin threats of inflation and unemployment. These economic problems are by no means confined to Australia. We have heard all about that from previous speakers on the Government side of the House. Many distinguished economists have stressed that one of the major problems in confronting the present and unprecedented economic situation is the atmosphere of fear and confusion. But the very fear of an economic crisis makes this crisis more likely to occur. It is the Opposition that has set out deliberately to create an atmosphere of fear and confusion in its desperate attempt to find an issue- any issue- on which to attack the Government.

The Opposition has shown itself to be totally unscrupulous and totally irresponsible. It has done all within its power to sabotage the economic recovery that this Budget will usher in. But the people of Australia have seen through their game. They have rejected the lies and the rumours. They have accepted the Budget for what it is, a masterly combination of economic reform and social justice. Suddenly, all the threats of the Opposition rejecting the Budget have disappeared. They have faded like its promises of bold new initiatives and its promises of decisive new leadership. How long will it be before’ farmer Fraser starts his long march over the hot coals to join Captain Bill, and old Bill, God bless him, in the outfield, and before a dazzling new star is manufactured to lead the rabble out of the wilderness? We have seen a deplorable display of self-interest by $50,000 Malcolm. How bent was he to destroy facilities set up by our Government for the protection and services of the community in general and the underprivileged in particular while taking the necessary steps to reinstate himself and his fellow landed gentry as recipients of the superphosphate bounty to the detriment of the taxpayers in this country? Since the introduction of the superphosphate bounty in 1963, it is fair to assume that Malcolm Fraser has received payments from the taxpayers -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins)Order! The honourable member for Melbourne should realise that he must refer to members of this House by their full title.

Mr INNES:

-The Leader of the Opposition is more descriptive, I suppose. He has received bounties totalling as much as $50,000 to spread superphosphate over his $2m property.

Mr O’Keefe:

-What rubbish!

Mr INNES:

– The honourable member for Paterson does not like it. But he is going to hear some more. In the short time at my disposal I would like to tell the people of Australia just what is going to be removed from the services and the facilities on offer. I will refer to one of the facilities due for the axe under a Liberal National Country Party Government I refer to the -

Mr Sullivan:

– You.

Mr INNES:

– I will be here a long time after you have gone, Colonel Bogey. I refer to the Australian Legal Aid Office. In doing so, I believe that I am speaking in the interests of the vast majority of Australians. It has been said that history repeats itself, first as a tragedy and secondly as a farce. In his attack on the Australian Legal Aid Office we have seen the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser)- not for the first time and certainly not for the last time- attempting to reverse the trend of history. Some months ago we saw the fledgling Leader of the Opposition attempting to assert his authority over the less spineless of his colleagues. One of the more farcical edicts of the new head prefect would have deprived the people of Australia- so we are led to believe- of the invaluable and I assume free legal service and the advice of the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen), advice that the honourable member was apparently wont to dispense over a few quiet ales in the various watering holes frequented by the honourable gentleman. Like so many of the bold initiatives of the new Leader of the Opposition, this attempt to deprive the country of the legal wisdom of one of his colleagues proved a farce. In searching desperately around for something or anything to cut from the Budget to finance his or, would you believe, Mr Baume’s harebrained taxation schemes- I suspect very strongly that he wrote the speech delivered by the honourable member for Lowe (Mr McMahon) tonight- the Leader of the Opposition has come up with a new proposal to deprive the people of Australia of a far more comprehensive avenue of legal advice. This time he proposes a move that, were it to succeed, would be not only a farce but also a tragedy for the thousands of people who have already benefited and the many thousands more who will benefit from the assistance provided by the Australian Legal Aid Offices.

It is some measure of the complete lack of contact between the Leader of the Opposition and the people of Australia that he should be so willing to scrap a scheme that has proved to be so important to so many people in the short time that it has been in existence. It is another example of the kind of patrician disdain that enables the wife of the Leader of the Opposition to refer to the vast majority of Australians as ‘them’doubtless reserving the more exclusive ‘we’ for those who have gone to the very best of private schools, who are members of the most select clubs and who preferably lead the comfortable existence of the landed gentry- the Lord and Lady of Wannon, and all of those individuals who sit in the corner reserved for the members of the National Country Party. Just have a look at them.

I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition finds it impossible even to imagine what it is like to be confronted with the vast intricacy of the law and the bewildering maze of the bureaucracy without the backup system of the old boy network and without the financial luxury of an expensive firm of solicitors. It is one of the tragedies of our society that the people who need a comprehensive knowledge of their rights, who need a thorough understanding of the process of the law, are the very people who are denied this knowledge, that those people who are most likely to have their rights usurped and trampled upon are the very people who, because of their background, their education and their environment, are the most helpless when it comes to asserting those rights. These people- and they make up the vast majority of ordinary Australiansare the first targets of the con merchants. They are the guileless victims of the unscrupulous and the pawns of indifferent and uncaring bureaucrats. It is these people who need an acquaintance with the law and who are, in the main, ignorant of their rights under the law. The tiny coteries of the rich for whom the Leader of the Opposition acts as spokesmanhowever indifferently- would never need the services of the Australian legal aid scheme. They form the articulate minority and the privileged few. They are the ones who are quite capable of exploiting the present legal machinery to protect and improve their privileged position. Look what happened in regard to the superphosphate bounty. They are the ones who hire fast talking lawyers. They are the directors who never lose a penny when the companies crash and the small investors lose their lifes’ savings. They are the ones who know the ropes when the young Hamish or young Fiona commits some youthful indiscretion. They are the ones whose private affairs are securely guarded from the scrutiny of the Press by writ- wielding libel lawyers. They are the ones whose shady business deals and dodgy taxation devices are buttressed by a spiders web of legal jargon. The very few people that the Leader of the Opposition represents have no need of the services of the Australian legal aid offices. They are doing very well, thank you. Repeated studies of criminologists and legal researchers have established time and time again that the higher the income of the defendant, the lower the penalty, even when the offences are exactly the same. It is those who have the least who pay the most. Those who most need to know, know the least. It is this kind of injustice which the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues seeks to perpetuate. The vast majority of Australians are unaware of their rights and privileges under the law. The situation is that all are equal before the law but it is a funny thing that some are more equal than others. It is the aim of the Australian legal aid program to make people aware of their rights and to place them on an equal footing with the more affluent members of the community.

Before going any further I would like to clear up some of the public misconceptions about the Australian legal aid program. This service has been one of the most eagerly received of the programs instituted by our Government. It is a new service. Because of this newness some people do not understand the scope and the function of the Australian Legal Aid Office. They still believe that the ALAO has a limited charter, that it dispenses only certain types of legal advice and that that advice is available only to certain disadvantaged groups in the community. This is simply not true. The Australian Legal Aid Office is available to any person who seeks legal advice on any topic. This advice is free and it is available to anyone who needs it. It is only when the function of the Legal Aid Office extends beyond advice and into the sphere of legal action that some form of restriction applies. Only then is a category of need introduced. The category of need embraces a very wide and comprehensive segment of our community. The service is designed to assist all for whom the Commonwealth has a special responsibility and all who are involved with federal law. The following groups of people in our community are eligible for legal assistance, as distinct from legal advice: All exservicemen and women; Aboriginals; students; all who are receiving benefits which include old age pensioners, widows, supporting mothers, people on sickness benefits and the unemployed.

Legal assistance is also available to newcomers to our country; that is, people who have lived here for less than 3 years. In other words, millions of Australians are eligible to receive assistance. These millions the Opposition- that is all honourable members on the other side of the chamber- would condemn to legal neglect. In the month of July the Australian Legal Aid Office conducted 14 457 personal interviews. That figure is for one month alone. By the end of 1 976 another 29 regional offices will be open. On the July figure that will mean that once the 57 offices are in operation they will see at least 414 866 people during the year. The number of people making use of the Australian Legal Aid Office is increasing every day as more and more people become aware of the service it offers. This service is to be cut off at the socks by any future LiberalCountry Party Government. Nonetheless at a conservative estimate the Australian Legal Aid Office will be conducting at least half a million interviews by the end of the financial year. This is the magnitude of the service which the Leader of the Opposition is prepared to scrap so willingly. This action indicates the disregard and the contempt in which he holds the underprivileged of this country.

I have pointed out how many people benefit from the legal aid program and how many more may expect to benefit from it in the future. There is a very important area on which I have not touched. This is the area of environmental and consumer protection. No other legal aid service is available for groups seeking to protect our environment. Without the Australian Legal Aid Office they would be at the mercy of the huge and often multinational companies which so frequently threaten our natural environment. These companies have enormous financial and legal resources. For the small and dedicated band of activists involved in the fight to protect our heritage the Australian Legal Aid Office provides vital aid. The Fraser Island Defence Organisation, the Queensland Conservation Council, the Cape York Conservation Council in the north, the Williamstown Conservation Planning Society, the Port Phillip Conservation Council and the Westernport Peninsula Protection Council are just a few of the bodies which have turned to the Australian Legal Aid Office for assistance.

This service extends to private individuals. Only recently legal aid was granted to Miss Stoltz in her fight against quarrying in beautiful Ferntree Gully in the area of the Dandenongs in Victoria. If the Leader of the Opposition had his way not only would we sell the farm to the highest bidder but also we would deny legal aid to the people who tried to stop others pulling down the trees. Another important area covered by the Australian legal aid program is consumer protection. Some two-thirds of consumer protection complaints involve legal action. To close the ALAO, as the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting, would deny to the people of Australia and in particular to those involved in the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations -an organisation representing some 3.5 million people- the legal redress which the service currently offers.

There is another misconception about the Australian Legal Aid Office which I would like to clear up. It is the belief still held by a few that those officers who dispense legal advice at the legal aid offices are not fully qualified lawyers, that some of the personnel in the offices are training to be lawyers or student lawyers. That is simply not true. The legal staff manning these offices is made up of fully qualified lawyers. In no way is the quality of the advice inferior to that given by some of the legal eagles who sit on the other side of the House. They take advantage of their situation as do some other characters. The officers of the Legal Aid Office are encouraged to involve themselves in the fabric of the local community. I have mentioned several times that the legal aid scheme is new. It has already proved its worth to thousands of Australians. Doubtless the scheme is far from perfect. By its very nature it will continue to evolve, to change and reform as new areas of need emerge and as old ones diminish. I am encouraged that our Government has already received suggestions for the possible reform of the service. Many of these suggestions have come from lawyers working in the field of legal aid. I am sure that the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) will give these suggestions every consideration since they are offered in the spirit of constructive reform. These are not like the Leader of the Opposition’s Neanderthal attempts to turn the clock back to the mythical good old days which exist only in the hallowed sanctums of the geriatric private clubs which are the refuge of the senile and privileged dreaming the dreams of vintage port. The need for a scheme like the Australian legal aid service is always there. The response of the Australian people to the offices already in existence proves that they welcome the scheme. (Quorum formed) I am appreciative of the fact that my talents are recognised. The overwhelming majority of Australians welcome the service provided by the Australian Legal Aid Office. I commend the Budget to the House and oppose the phoney amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition.

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

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Following the previous speaker, the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes), is not a difficult task. If ever any person has stood in this chamber and echoed prejudices and diatribes which were indicative of ancient thinking that is unsuitable for the mid-1970s, it is the honourable member. If ever there was an explanation of why Australia is in the trouble it is in, it is personified by the honourable member for Melbourne with his prejudices, hate, distrust and dislike which regrettably blur his vision and prevent him from seeing the real facts. One of the regrettable features of his speech was that he saw fit to avoid completely any mention of the unemployed, the suffering that the Australian people have encountered as a result of the inflation rate which has wracked Australia in the last 3 years, and a number of other factors with which we are all familiar.*He dwelt on the question of legal aid and regrettably presented the Opposition as being parties which do not recognise the need of the less privileged in our society. The truth is that the Opposition believes that legal aid should be directed back to the States, where it was previously; that it is the responsibility of the States; and that with a little more assistance the system that existed earlier could be improved.

I will concede, because I do not have the hangups of the previous speaker, that the Labor Government has made some improvements in some areas. But it has been hell bent on centralism and duplicating almost every social welfare program which exists in this nation. If there was one in the States, the Government refused to increase its allocation of finance to allow the States to improve their own services; it simply set up its own system. With inflation, in which the Government has had a vested interest and which has given it more cash, it has been able to overshadow the systems which were existing previously. But we as a nation have paid a heavy penalty for some of the so-called improvements that the Government has made. We Liberals and our National Country Party colleagues are not against help for the needy, but we believe that the troubles of recent years have arisen as a result of the centralist policies of the present Federal Government.

The last Budget introduced by the Liberals, in 1972, provided for an expenditure of $9 billion. If anyone can produce better examples of the manner in which the Government has gone helter- skelter in spending than I am about to produce, then I should like to see them. The Budget for the year after Labor came to power increased expenditure from $9 billion to $12 billion. In 1974, last year, the projected Budget expenditure rose from $12 billion to $16 billion. This year the Budget expenditure increases to $100m short of $22 billion. We took 71 years to place ourselves in a position in which we had a national Budget of $9 billion. In 3 short years- 1000 days last week- the present Labor Government has managed to increase that figure 2V4 times. Yet members of the Government Party have the audacity to stand in this chamber claiming to be the champions of all people.

Tonight, from the honourable member for Melbourne, we saw the nervousness which is sweeping over members of the Government Party and their attitude to separating so-called classes. The honourable member attacked the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) because he has a farm. Give me any day the man who has proven his ability to run a farm rather than a Prime Minister who has spent all his years here in Canberra, the centre of the public servants, with his head in the clouds, unrealistic, indulging in a parliamentary career, and without any appreciation of the problems which confront the ordinary people of Australia. The Leader of the Opposition has been successful outside and I am certain that he will do a much better job than has been done in this Parliament in the last 1000 days. ‘ When we look at the rest of the world we see a downturn of inflation in Japan, the United States of America, Canada, France and Italy. There are only 2 countries in the world in which inflation is still holding, namely, the United Kingdom and Australia. We have more than a language in common. We have socialist governments- the British Labour Party Government and the Australian Labor Party Government. If ever there was an indication that socialism is not a goer it is the manner in which this country has been administered in the last 2 years and particularly in the last few months. It is difficult to recall who the Treasurers have been since Labor came to office. I believe that one of the reasons why the Government has changed them frequently is so that when the projected Budget of the particular year goes wrong we cannot blame a personality; we can only talk about ‘them’ because we never get the opportunity to look at the same Treasurer twice.

If the Australian people are prepared to sit down and to study fully the ramifications of the recent Budget they will recognise that the benefits which are claimed by the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) to be existent and underlined by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) are really nonexistent. It is all very well for people to look at the Budget and to be like one of the former Treasurers of recent years, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Crean), and say: ‘I do not drive a motor car; I do not smoke; I do not drink; and I do not eat coal’. If one does not do those things one can say: ‘I am all right, Jack’. But one of the problems is that the effects of the increases in those areas are inflationary and indirectly every citizen of Australia will pay the price of this recent Budget.

The Government was careful to release earlier the statement that there was to be a huge hike in postal charges. These increases in themselves are inflationary. The Government claims that it is giving money back to the Australian taxpayer. But, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out the other evening and as many Australians have recognised already, on present figures this Government will give back the sum of $205m in income tax and yet will collect, on present day figures, an extra $ 1,300m in other areas. Therefore the Government is not giving with one hand and taking with the other; it is giving a little with one finger of one hand and it is really taking with every finger of the other hand. The Government is ripping out of the pocket of the Australian taxpayer five or six times as much as it is giving back. Yet members of the Government Party laud themselves in this place, on television and in the electorate as being benevolent. They are trying to increase -

Mr Cohen:

– Put your hands on the table.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-The honourable member should take his hand out of his mouth. The Government is trying to increase its actual income from the Australian people. The speech made by the honourable member for Melbourne, in my view, underlined one of the great tragedies of the Australian Labor Party in government. I recognise that in 1972, at the end of 23 years, many people felt that the Liberals had had their run and that it was time for a change. Indeed, that change came about. I have welcomed a number of things that the Government has done.

Mr Cohen:

– You have not mentioned them here.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I can tell you one of the things the Government did that I did not like and that was to select you as a candidate for this Parliament.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins)Order! I invite the honourable member for Griffith to address the Chair.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-The honourable member was being personal, Mr Deputy Speaker. The point that the Government fails to appreciate in its rush for socialism is that Australia, with a population of 13 million and a land mass of 3 million square miles, is a developing country where people to prosper and build need an incentive. The Government has completely turned off the private sector which, with justification, no longer has confidence in the Government. The public sector has grown to such an extent that the Leader of the Opposition has been forced to promise that if we are returned to office we will introduce a zero growth rate in the Public Service.

The only way the Government has financed its programs in recent times has been through its vested interest in inflation and the manner in which it has taken from the pockets of almost every Australian worker. Since it came to office pay-as-you-earn taxation has increased from slightly over $3 billion to almost $9 billion in this Budget year. The Australian taxpayer- and here I regard the taxpayer as being the Australian worker- is paying 3 times as much tax today as he did in 1972-73. Notwithstanding this extra tax collection we have seen the creation of a large unemployment pool. Some 250 000 Australians are out of work. Between another 50 000 and 60 000 Australians are dependent on either National Employment and Training schemes or Regional Employment Development schemes to keep working, but the Government has announced that RED is to be cut out in a few months time. We will then see an increase in the number of unemployed in Australia.

The President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and President of the Australian Labor Party organisation- the same man, Mr Hawke- does not enjoy being at variance with the Australian Labor Party when it is in power, but he sees the weaknesses and the unrealities which exist in the implementation of policies of the present Government. This afternoon we heard the maiden speech of the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman). He referred to the swing of 17.5 per cent in that electorate which brought him to this place.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– He will be the new Deputy Whip.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-You do not seem to have had a famous career. It seems to be on the downturn as is the case with so many of the others in your Party.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I have already on one occasion asked the honourable member to address his remarks to the Chair.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Mr Deputy Speaker, one of the things I admired about you was when the Prime Minister stabbed the previous Speaker in the House you refrained from voting, so as to express your disapproval. That is addressing it to you if ever I heard it. The Liberal-Country Party Opposition, as a result of 3 years in Opposition, has learned some of the lessons that the Australian people were hoping it would learn in 1972 when they tipped us out of power. Many did not believe we deserved to win in that year but I say without any qualification that the people of Australia did not deserve what has happened to them since then. The present Government has been a disastrous flirtation. Let us hope that when it goes out of power it will recognise that one of the reasons for it going out of power is that most of the Australian population- it does not matter whether I refer to working men or farmers- reject socialism. The Australian people simply want sane government. They want things done to improve the lot of the average Australian without completely sinking the ship. I make no secret of the fact that I would not have minded an election yesterday. As far as I am concerned this nation has to be put on the rails.

I conclude by referring to the promise of the Leader of the Opposition to introduce a zero growth rate in the Australian Public Service. We all recognise that a great number of Australians in the Public Service are dedicated, hard working people. But I believe that the Labor Government has completely prostituted our concept of a Public Service. Prior to its coming to power we had a Public Service which comprised people who had the capacity to serve any government loyally. There was an expectation that regardless of the political colour of the government of the day effort, loyalty and efficiency would be rewarded with promotion but in recent times we have seen introduced a system under which friends of the Labor Party are installed in high positions.

I ask: Is it fair that after the next election we as the incoming government should have to stand by the principles of yesteryear under which the Public Service remained intact notwithstanding a change of government? Mr Deputy Speaker, your Government has flouted the system so much and so implanted in the Public Service stooges of its persuasion that the incoming government will have to do something which normally would not be contemplated in Australia, and that is to suspend the Public Service Act for a week and to weed them all out- to get rid of them, the Grassbys and the Speigelmans. Why should Australia, when this horrible chapter of the ALP Government comes to a close, be forced to keep those people in high positions and pay their salaries until they reach 65 years of age or get out on their own decision? Most of them are the type of people nobody outside would employ. The sooner they are dismissed from the Public Service the better. The system was fair in the past but the manner by which the present Government has manipulated and forced appointments creates, in my view, a situation whereby we must get rid of them.

Mr REYNOLDS:
Barton

-One of these nights I will again bring along an extract from Hansard of a year or two ago containing an answer to a question I asked of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) regarding the number, nature and term of political appointments made by our opponents when they were in government for 23 years. I will leave it at that.

Naturally, this Budget has several specific objectives. Broadly, through the Budget and other measures, the aim is to establish economic, social and cultural satisfaction for all citizens. It is not a case of restoring prosperity and opportunities for all, because sizeable areas of chronic poverty and deprivation have always been with us. Much of it has been hidden from view and deliberately ignored. There is ample testimony of that in the poverty survey, copies of which were placed in honourable members’ rooms today. It shows that 1,250,000 people are living on the brink of dire poverty in an affluent country such as this. Even in this last quarter of the 20th century there are political leaders- themselves born into affluence- who preach the old doctrine of self-reliance and individuality to the millions who, through accident of birth, are deprived of the full opportunity of helping themselves.

Statement No. 2 attached to the Budget Speech indicates that the most immediate and challenging economic task before us is to set out to lower inflationary expectations. People are counting on prices going up. They adjust their salary and wage claims accordingly. Businessmen set their prices in expectation of inflated prices. So, as I say, one of the most important tasks confronting us is to lower this expectation of inflationary increases. This is a necessary prelude to an actual decline in inflationary trends. Allied to this is the necessity to develop consumer and business confidence. As the Government recognises, therein lies the key to growth through increased investment. One of the major objectives of this Budget is to promote private investment. The Government hopes that such growth will be characterised by full employment, reasonable business profitability and a satisfactory provision and distribution of community facilities and resources.

Let us look at the steps this Government has taken in the Budget and in allied measures to combat inflation. One may say that there is a high rate of inflation, but I ask: Could that level of inflation have been much higher had it not been for the measures that have been taken? More immediately, the rate of increase in expenditure in the Budget this financial year will be slashed in half. The rate of increase will be halved, from 46 per cent in the 1974-75 Budget down to 23 per cent. In real terms, in purchasing power, it implies only a modest increase in spending this year. The new personal income tax system, besides being much simpler and much more equitable, is also an incentive for people to work harder and longer. Because of the reduction in the number of taxation brackets from 14 to 7, income earners will have much less reason to believe that the benefits of extra effort and extra earnings, and extra jobs, will be lost as a result of being pushed up into a higher taxation bracket. It is simply a matter of the brackets being much wider. As a result of the taxation measures incorporated in the Budget a person can achieve a considerable increase in his income without being escalated into a higher taxation bracket. There should be fewer demands for substantial increases in wage and salary awards to offset the previously penalising effects of taxation.

Another measure which has been taken, both in this Budget and in previous Budgets, is the introduction of training and re-training schemes. These have been brought in to support apprenticeship and trade training and are meant to protect our productive future. There are now 608 000 people undertaking technical training compared with 400 000 people undertaking such training when the Labor Government came to office less than 3 years ago. When Liberal governments were in power apprenticeshipwithout government support, or with very little of it- fell away markedly during the regular cycles of recession periods which the Australian economy suffered. To listen to Opposition speakers one would think that this was the first recession in our economic history. Under the Liberal-Country Party governments we had a recession at least every 5 years-in 1951, 1956, 1961, 1966 and 1971. The McMahon Government did not go out of office because we were overloaded with affluence. Of course, when the boom period ultimately came after these recession periods under these Liberal-Country Party governments there was a great shortage of skilled tradesmen in all facets of industry and commerce. Naturally, the price for such labour, when obtainable, escalated and was reflected in the price of goods.

A fourth means of combating inflation is through the trade practices legislation. It took a Labor Government to put real teeth into the law governing restrictive trade practices. I have been in this Parliament for a reasonable length of time- I think this is my fourteenth year- and I remember the promises made by Sir Garfield Barwick when he was Attorney-General to introduce strong restrictive trade practices legislation. The only thing wrong with Sir Garfield Barwick as far as the Liberal Party was concerned was that he was fair dinkum and so they had to get him out of this place. As a result, we went on with a very watered down form of restrictive trade practices legislation. Without such legislation competition was much less likely. If the legislation brought in by this Government had not existed, inflation could have been much worse. We could have had inflation at the rate of 25 per cent or 30 per cent as in the case of many other countries.

In the current law there is for the first time in this country provision for consumer protection and measures to deal with mergers, price discrimination and exclusive dealings. Some very interesting cases are being dealt with under our restrictive trade practices legislation at present. For example, in the matter of exclusive dealing a case involving Total Australia Ltd is before the Australian Industrial Court at the moment. PubUc hearings are being held into the agreement between the Shell Co. of Australia Ltd and service station operators. There are also hearings into the ‘tied house’ arrangements of Tooth and Tooheys, brewers. All these things are price setters. People deny the Australian Government the right to set prices but there are plenty of other private price setters in the community which aid the inflationary trends.

I refer again to consumer protection. It is an important part of the fight against inflation that consumers obtain a fair deal in the quality and quantity of the goods and services they buy. This Government already has a legal basis for protecting consumers. Further legislation to be introduced shortly by the Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs (Mr Clyde Cameron), who I am glad to note is at the table at the moment, will give very strong protection to see that consumers are not cheated by unscrupulous firms. There have been plenty of examples of that. My colleague the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes) referred a little while ago to the Australian legal aid service. It has a lot to do in the policing of these cheating and defrauding people who operate in the community. In recent times the Sharp Corporation of Australia was fined $100,000 for falsely claiming that microwave ovens were of a particular standard. Hammersmith Storage Module Co. was ordered to pay $2,238.20 to 65 persons misled by the company’s advertisement. Many other examples could be cited. For all the years the Liberal and Country parties were in government they only pretended an interest in these matters. As a result, Australia fell years behind in protecting the public- whether it was in the marketplace or on the stock exchanges. I think that we all know enough about that subject without any recital from me tonight. Have we any reason to believe that our conservative opponents have really changed their attitude in these vitally important matters which affect the mass of the public?

Another tool with which to fight inflation, and which was introduced by this Government, is the Prices Justification Tribunal. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser), has pledged to abolish it. In 1973-74 and 1974-75 the Tribunal processed over 1 1 300 proposed price increases. Many were approved unaltered without public inquiry. In most cases companies, after discussion with the Tribunal, accepted smaller price rises than were originally proposed. We have to recognise that it is the duty of all to pull our weight in this fight against inflation. It is not just a matter of the Government tackling this problem. The community, the Parliament and the whole of society are involved. No doubt it will call for sacrifices. This Budget provides for some. No doubt the Budget disappointed the hopes of some groups of citizens. But if the outcome is a return to general broadly based prosperity the sacrifices will have been a very good investment.

There are some hints of improvement already showing up to which I would like to allude. Firstly I refer to the recent Government loan record. Alan Wood, the Economics Editor of the Sydney Morning Herald on 27 August wrote, in part:

The Australian Government has attracted a strong cash subscription to the August loan- a record $68 1 .7m.

A significant proportion of the funds reportedly flowed into the loan post-Budget

The Treasurer (Mr Hayden), reasonably in my view, interpreted this happy loan result as a return of investor confidence and respect for the Budget strategy. Secondly, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, known as the OECD, comprised of 24 advanced western countries including Australia, recently carried out a survey of the Australian economy. It expressed the view that the downturn in our economy may have bottomed out and that the economy may be recovering, even if somewhat slowly. It added that the measure of that recovery would depend on our willingness- the willingness of all of us- to combat inflation. Also the June quarter national income figures just released point to some hopeful glimmers of an improved economic climate. I ask the community to give this Government a fair trial over the next twelve or eighteen months and then make its judgment. We will then be ready to accept that judgment. I invite that judgment with much confidence.

I refer now to the many voices of the Liberal and National Country Parties. The Leader of the Opposition has called for heavy cuts in public expenditure to give more scope for private enterprise. I think there is something to be said for that, although I think too much is made altogether of an alleged distinction between public enterprise and private enterprise. I think for instance, of the great Snowy Mountains project most of the work on which was carried out by private contract. Much of the work on housing commission homes in the various States, on schools and on many of the great public works on our roads and public transport, is carried out by private enterprise- by private people and private firms. So there is this intimate interdependence between public and private expenditure and endeavour.

The Leader of the Opposition has been reasonably specific in some instances about what public works he would cut out. His proposals include a zero growth rate for the Public Service. I remember that a few years ago the right honourable Sir Robert Menzies, who was then Prime Minister, made a similar promise that he would cut down the size of the Public Service. He ended up the year with 10 000 more public servants than he started the year with. I am a member of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Public Accounts that looks into public expenditure. I can assure honourable members that many of the complaints that come before us regarding ill prepared accounts arise from shortage of staff. This problem still exists. While we have an expansionary Government that wants to do something about providing more schools, more public transport, more help for industry and so on we shall need public services. I think that anybody who makes rash statements about containing the growth of the Public Service wants to have another think.

As I said, the Leader of the Opposition promised to abolish the Prices Justification Tribunal. I have commented on that, and the honourable members opposite can make their own judgment on it. The honourable member for Melbourne, who was the previous speaker on the Government side, referred to the Australian Legal Aid Office, and what a wonderful job it is doing. I have much testimony of the work it is doing. The Leader of the Opposition intends to abolish it as part of his economy measures, to give more money to other people. There is to be a winding back- a beautiful euphemistic term- of government capital works. The Leader of the Opposition said: ‘We would have sold the pharmaceutical corporation’. It just so happens that we have not actually bought it yet so that is how irresponsible the speech of the Leader of the Opposition was.

Mr Lloyd:

-What is the $8.4m in the Budget for then?

Mr REYNOLDS:

– That is a proposal. As I say, we have not bought it yet. Selling off the natural gas pipeline is another one of the economy measures of the Leader of the Oppositon He also proposes disposing of the Department of the Media. Oh yes, that is a great hobbyhorse; that is something we can all knock- this bloated thing called the Media Department. However, we forget that the Department contains many officers, journalists and other people who, if they were not gathered together in that Department as a separate entity would be dispersed throughout many other departments of government in this country. So it is just irresponsible to say that the Opposition would wipe out the Department of the Media. If the Department were to be wiped out many of its employees would be relocated less efficiently in other departments.

The leader of the Opposition said that he could save at least one billion dollars if he really put his hand to it. Much of what he- had to say is very vague, but millions of people who have been aided by Labor’s welfare and education programs would, in my view, have a lot to worry about. While the Leader of the Opposition is busily chopping into public expenditure in this

Parliament, in every Liberal-Country Party governed State, Premiers and Ministers in turn are grizzling about how the wretched Labor Government in Canberra is forcing them to cut back on their public works programs. How irresponsible can you get? Where does this all add up? We have the contradiction of the Federal Opposition wanting to cut back and on the other hand its counterparts in the States screaming for more money for more public works. The States complain about schools and hospitals that will not be built, transport that will be starved and public servants who will have to be laid off. Just where does this motley crowd of spokesmen for the Liberal-Country Party stand?

What are the fact’s? In this year’s Budget there is provision for only a 23 per cent increase in expenditure on ‘the part of the Australian Government. Much of that, of course, is accounted for by inflation in part but also population increase and development of services that are already in being are factors. This Government has halved the rate of increase provided in last year’s Budget. But this Government has provided for an increase of not~23 per cent, as it did for itself, but of 34.2 per cent in funds for the public expenditure of the States. This is half as much again as the rate of increase that this Government gives itself. I might add that this does not tell the whole story of the uparalleled generosity of this Government to the States and to local government, which languished for so long under the Liberals. Many specific purpose grants could be added to the list.

I want to say more about the great improvements that Labor has made in various fields that are at risk should the Opposition come to government. Education is one of them. An amount of $ 1,908m is being provided for education in this Budget despite the restraint that we exercise. There has been a great increase in the field of public health. There have also been great increases in the field of social welfare to meet the ravages of poverty that exist in our community and that are inflicted chronically- not just for a time- on one and a quarter million people if we are to believe the survey on poverty which the Opposition, when in government, reluctantly set up at our behest.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

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

Mr LLOYD:
Murray

-I want to restrict my comments tonight to health matters in the Budget. The major impression one gets from the Budget is that health care is not cheap and that there is no such thing as a free health scheme. Health costs inevitably increase at a faster rate than costs generally, so while inflation continues unchecked by this Government and unless new priorities in health care are established, the annual cost escalation in health care will be frightening. If government policy continues as it is the cost of health care will be such that we will reach the same position that Great Britain reached some years ago and that Canada has reached now, where health services are arbitrarily restricted by government ceilings on expenditure.

I refer to the Budget speech of the honourable J. Turner, Minister for Finance in Canada, delivered to the Canadian Parliament on 23 June this year. The Canadian health scheme has 2 aspects. It is a cost sharing scheme, a 50/50 scheme, with a hospital section and a medical section. The cost of the hospital section has increased at such a rate- by 19.8 per cent last year- that the Canadian Government has given notice to the provinces 5 years ahead, as it has to, that it will renegotiate the cost sharing agreement with the provinces at that time because it cannot afford the continued expense. Mr Turner in speaking about the medical section said:

A second measure aimed at more effective cost control involves the establishment of a ceiling on the yearly rise in the contributions the federal government makes to the provinces under the Medical Care Act. Since provincial administrations will need some time to adjust their planning, this ceiling will be made effective for 1976 and subsequent years. More specifically a ceiling will be placed on the per capita rate of growth of federal contributions to provinces. This ceiling will be 13 per cent in 1976-77, 10!4 per cent in 1977-78 and 8ft in 1978-79 and subsequent years.

So Canada, once the great area for the present Government to look to in respect of health care, has its health scheme ending the same way as Britain’s with arbitrarily imposed ceilings on health care costs. This means that there is an urgent need to move health expenditure away from the most expensive end of the health care spectrum- that is, the acute shortage of hospital beds- to domiciliary arrangements, day care arrangements, community arrangements, prevention, early intervention and rehabilitation rather than maintenance. I know that this concept is not new; it is not revolutionary. It commenced with the previous Liberal-Country Party Government and has continued under this Government, although I would disagree sometimes with this Government’s method of implementation and the cost of the existing scheme. Nevertheless, I commend the innovative skill of the Hospitals and Health Services Commission and its chairman, Dr Sax. I am disappointed that in the Budget there was no updating of the domiciliary nursing care benefit to keep it in line with inflation so that the elderly frail will be encouraged to be kept at home by their relatives and out of the more expensive nursing homes and hospital beds. I believe it would save money and would be more socially desirable to end the age barrier 65 years and over- for this scheme and to introduce purely medical criteria.

The greatest area of increase in health expenditure is Medibank. The Government estimates that it will cost $ 1 ,445m this year which, incidentally, is about the original estimate of the private actuaries who were so criticised by this Government when it was claiming that it would cost about $ 1,000m. However, I believe that this is still a considerable under-estimate, particularly on a full year basis because the major state in Australia. New South Wales, is still not in the hospital side. Allowing for increased usage of services and inflation, I believe that the figure will be closer to $2,000m in this financial year than to the figure given by the Government. I will not make any other comment on that aspect because that is in the area of the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp).

One point that does emerge from the Budget is that there are considerable cuts in health because, as in education where there are also considerable cuts, the Government’s program cannot be sustained. It is bankrupting the country and there has to be a reduction in expenditure. However, one of the ironies is that the cruellest cut need not have occurred because it involves only a small amount and affects a very critical area- medical research. The Budget halves the money provided for medical research from $8m last year to $4m this year, and, of course, this does not allow even for inflation. This is a tragedy for medical research in Australia and for the future health of the Australian people because that $8m provided last year was already a reduced level of research expenditure. We have the lowest level of medical research expenditure of any advanced Western nation. Since the Budget announcement, due to pressure from medical research people aU over Australia, and I congratulate them on their constructive activity in this regard, and to pressure from the Opposition, the Minister for Health (Dr Everingham) was forced to agree last Friday that there had been a blunder. A report in last Saturday’s Age said:

The Minister for Health (Dr Everingham) yesterday predicted there was a ‘better than 50/50 chance’ of the Government boosting its $4m Budget allocation for medical research this financial year.

Dr Everingham blamed a ‘break down in communications ‘ for the small allocation for medical research. ‘The people in the Health Department whom Treasury relied on for its estimates were not the ones they should have looked to for knowledge of research manpower needs,’ he said.

Another part of the article said:

He urged medical research administrators to put off for the moment any decisions which could jeopardise their projects.

However a final decision on the funds seems certain to have to wait until the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) returns from overseas in a fortnight.

There are certain significant aspects of that. First of all, as of Friday last and as quoted in last Saturday’s newspapers, the Minister showed no sense of urgency over the need to make an announcement about reinstating these funds so that the research people would be kept in Australia. Secondly, he passed the buck to unnamed officials in his Department and in Treasury who could not reply. In other words I believe we have here a failure by the Minister to accept responsibility for the blunders that have been made. The next episode is in today’s Age which said under the heading ‘Government rush to up grants for research’:

The Federal Government hopes to have a plan to boost medical research grants finalised in time for an expected Opposition move in Parliament this afternoon.

The Opposition is considering moves to embarrass the Government and its Health Minister (Dr Everingham) over grants in the Federal Budget for medical research this year being cut to $4 million.

Dr Everingham has had talks with the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and the acting Treasurer (Mr Crean) about more funds this financial year.

He wants an extra $850,000 this year, plus a rearrangement of funding for the next three years, to make more money available in the first half of next year.

At least pressure from the Opposition and the threat of a debate on a matter of public importance in Parliament this afternoon produced some results because tonight we have had released another Press statement in which one is told of the flap in Treasury and in the Department of Health yesterday to get a hurried decision in time for the debate on the matter of public importance that may have been held in Parliament this afternoon. So I think the Opposition can take full credit for a decision having been made now rather than for it waiting a couple of weeks for the Treasurer to come back and get around to looking at the problem. The Press statement made by the Minister for Health a little while ago tonight indicates that the crisis in medical research will continue in this country. It said:

The Australian Minister for Health, Dr Doug Everingham, announced today that the National Health and Medical Research Council had been assured of an allocation of $4m for its research programs in the second half of the 1 976 calendar year.

This means that $6.3m will be available for the Council in the 1976 calendar year comprising $2.3m from the 1975-76 Budget and $4m from the 1976-77 Budget.

The $6.3m in 1976 compares with estimated expenditure of $7.77m in 1975

There are certain points which are quite apparent. One is that there is a substantial reduction, from close to $8m to a little more than $6m. That is the first point. The second point is more significant. It is that the Minister has failed to obtain any extra money whatsoever for medical research this financial year. The extra money that is provided is only a reallocation of the $24m for research purposes in the next triennium which commences after the 1976-77 Budget. This means that, for the first half of the next calendar year, the money available for research will be $2.3m as opposed to $4m for the first half of last year. The additional money will come after the next Budget in this reallocation. The programs, projects and arrangements for medical research become due at the end of this triennium at the end of this calendar year, that is, this December. The money is needed urgently for the first half of the next calendar year- that is, for the second half of this financial year- otherwise there will be virtually no new projects available; some existing projects will not be able to be continued; and the level of medical research in this country will be dealt a bitter blow.

The critical point is that the money is needed for the first half of the next financial year so that these research projects and programs which fall due at the end of this calendar year can be financed from the beginning of the next financial year. That money is not there. Already we have examples of medical research workers in this country checking, because of the uncertainty of their future employment, with those responsible for northern hemisphere research programs- the academic year in the northern hemisphere commences in October- and accepting jobs in those countries. Many people will be leaving Australia in the next few months if they can obtain work in those northern hemisphere countries, because the money is not available here for research work. This money is needed at the start of the next calendar year. The Minister for Health has failed to obtain any additional money this financial year for medical research.

Let us look at the figure for the next triennium. This sum of $24m is hailed by the Government as a 39 per cent increase in the allocation for medical research. But inflation has increased in the last 3 years at a rate greater than 39 per cent. So, the allocation for medical research actually will be cut in the next triennium. The National Health and Medical Research Council asked for $47m for the coming triennium. That sum, if provided, would have allowed a modest increase. What the Minister for Health has done is to fail on both counts. He has not solved the medical crisis now and, by moving the allocation of some of the $1.7m extra forward from the end of the next triennium to the beginning of that triennium, he will only accentuate another medical research crisis in 1978, the last year of the 1976-78 triennium, without solving the medical crisis at the moment.

Let us look at how Australia spends money on medical research. In 1973, Australia spent $4.8m, which really is more than it will be spending this financial year after allowance is made for the effects of inflation. In that same year, Canada spent $46m. Even little New Zealand- which has less than a quarter of our population- spent $2m on medical research. So much for the concern of this Government for medical research, the medical research workers of the country and the future health of Australians; and so much for this evenings Press statement from the Minister for health in which he claims that funds are assured for medical research. The Minister has not provided one extra dollar for this purpose.

I wish to refer now to some quarantine matters. In September 1973 the Parliamentary Standing Commiittee on Public Works reported to the Parliament in favour of the construction of a maximum security animal quarantine station on the Cocos Islands. Two years later, absolutely nothing has happened. Already Australia is the last country in the Western world not to have such a facility. As we are one of the greatest livestock countries, this station is required here more than it is in some other countries. Parliament has not been allowed to debate, to accept or to reject, the recommendation of the Public Works Committee. If there is no early move by this Government to allow the acceptance or rejection of that proposal, I believe that alternatives such as Christmas Island must be considered so that we can get on with the job.

In quarantine, there is also the problem of divided authority. One of the key prevention facilities in quarantine is incinerators at public airports. Let me quote certain points from a reply to a question on notice that I asked. The answer was given by the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones). I asked:

Is his Department the constructing authority for incinerators at airports and seaports?

The Minister replied:

The Australian Government construction authority for quarantine incinerators is the Department of Mousing and Construction. The Department of Transport has the financial responsibility. Previous to early 1972 the Department of Civil Aviation did provide funds for the construction of incinerators at airports. However, it is now considered that the responsibility for the disposal of such wastes rests with the Department of Health and the generators of the wastes.

Here we find 3 departments involved in what should be the simple process of constructing and controlling incinerators for waste collected from overseas aircraft entering Australia. This is a most important matter. In a later part of his answer, the Minister for Transport said:

It seems that it would be more satisfactory for the Department of Health to have the responsibility for the provision and maintenance of quarantine incinerators . . .

I certainly agree with him. There are also moves within the Department of Health, at the behest of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), to end the co-operative Federal-State arrangements on animal and plant quarantine functions which have existed since Federation and to transfer the functions to completely Federal control. I believe that this would be a backward move. It would end a successful co-operative arrangement which has helped both the Federal Government and the States. I hope that it is not persisted with.

I turn to tuberculosis and brucellosis. The Industries Assistance Commission has recommended a government supported eradication and compensation scheme in which 75 per cent of the compensation in respect of brucellosis would be provided by the Federal Government and 25 per cent by the State government concerned. But the Federal Government, by requiring that the farmers involved pay a levy, would be substantially reimbursed. This matter is still being considered by the Government. I make a plea to the Government to accept the recommendations of the IAC so that a start can be made on 1 January 1976 on this most important scheme. It will cost very little in this financial year- probably only $ 1 m or $2m- because it will take time to gear up for this scheme. This scheme is tremendously important to the people of Australia if we are to meet the 1983 provisionally free status required by the United States in respect of the import of meat.

However, this is not just an agricultural and export matter. It is also a public health matter of some importance. Brucellosis is a disease that is transmissible to humans. Recently in Victoria 2 large regional cities, Wangaratta and Warrnambool, were shown to be receiving milk which was not pasteurised and which was brucellosis contaminated. Recently it became known in the dairying area of my electorate that for some time the Department of Agriculture in Victoria had been secretly or quietly doing milk ring tests on farmers’ milk to ascertain the level of brucellosis in that milk. The farmers were not told at all what the level was. To their astonishment, when they inquired, they found out that the majority of dairy farmers, not only in northern Victoria but everywhere in Australia, I believe, are drinking brucellosis contaminated milk. In addition, many people in small towns throughout Australia, plus these 2 regional towns and probably other regional ones that I might mention, are receiving brucellosis contaminated milk. I believe that it is most important for the Government to accept these recommendations and to get on with the job that is required from the point of view of public health and agricultural exports. I repeat that this scheme would cost very little this financial year but would allow a movement towards the 1983 provisionally free status.

Mr DAWKINS:
Tangney

-This Budget debate has been remarkable not for its contribution to the solution to the problems facing the economy but rather for the way in which it has thrown into sharp relief the alternative approaches to the problems facing a modern, affluent, industrial society such as Australia. Neither the Budget nor the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser), which is laughingly referred to as the alternative Budget, hold the solution to Australia’s economic malaise. Indeed the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) did not paint his Budget as being a cure-all. What he said was that the solutions lie in the hands of those who run private industry. All the Government can do is try to create a situation which will allow private industry to expand and to invest if it has the will to do so. If that will does not exist, then all the incentives and all the subsidies in the world will not make that happen.

The Treasurer recognised this and very sensibly tried to create a balance such that the demand on resources and interest rates would be such that a willing investor would not be thwarted, and at the same time he avoided the temptation to go too far so as to reduce further total demand which would inevitably lead to further employment. The Treasurer believes that there are sufficient indications of at least an end to the recession if not the beginnings of an upswing to validate this approach. In these circumstances it would have been easy to over-react, because the key to the problem does not lie in the hands of the Government. The incentive that the Government has provided by way of a reduction in company tax should provide a significant and immediate boost to private investment. The Treasurer is a realist. He knows he cannot work miracles and indeed realises that a too rapid recovery would cause more problems than it would solve.

The Leader of the Opposition for his part believes he has all the answers. In his speech he outlined some extra measures designed to stimulate the private sector. However the greatest weaknesses of his suggestions were that they were not sufficiently quick-acting and when taken together with his other proposals would have coincided with further inflationary pressures, with the consequence that interest rates would probably have risen, and this would have negated any possible incentive that might have been created for investment. The Treasurer and the Leader of the Opposition are on common ground in agreeing that the key to the solution of the problem lies in the performance of the private sector. The Treasurer however understands the limitations of Government action in this area; the Leader of the Opposition does not.

However I do not want to indulge in hairsplitting and prophecy in relation to the likely implications for economic activity of the alternative prescriptions. I draw attention to the gaping chasm which is developing between the Australian Labor Party on the one hand and the Liberal and National Country Party on the other hand in relation to the approach to the social problems of this country. My colleague, the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis), drew attention in an earlier speech tonight to some of these questions, and in my view his observations and forebodings focused directly on the crucial choices which face the Australian electorate.

The Leader of the Opposition has an obsession for promoting the output and production of goods and services, and seems to care little about the great problems of distribution. All over the world it is the problems of distribution which are most exercising the minds of governments in economies similar to ours. He believes that if governments provide the right climate for business to thrive then the rest of the problems will take care of themselves. Further he believes that the right climate is created when governments interfere as little as possible in the operation of the free market place, except of course when it moves in to benefit the owners and users of capital.

He in some ways subscribes to the views of Milton Friedman, the noted or notorious American economist, but he is not courageous enough to go the whole way. For instance, Friedman is so committed to the magic of the market place that he does not support subsidies in the main, but on the other hand he does support the vigorous outlawing of restrictive trade practices, to name just 2 questions on which the Opposition demonstrates a quaint ambivalence. It does support a wide array of subsidies and incentives which directly interfere with the market place in terms of affecting the allocation of resources which would occur if those incentives and subsidies did not exist. On the other hand, in its attempts to introduce restrictive trade practices legislation it always buckled at the knees when it came to making the hard decisions about making the market place work, about outlawing monopoly practice. Of course, trade practices legislation is designed to create a free market place situation where the consumer does have some rights, where the consumer is presented with some choice, where competition does work or at least is encouraged to work so as to provide some of the beneficial aspects of a competitive system.

In the sterile abstraction of an economics text book some of the elements of this approach have some attraction, but in the real world they have very little. Where, for instance, is the market place which requires the private sector to value and care for the environment? Where is the market place which requires concern for people in need? Of course no such market place exists. Only in this place can those sorts of decisions be made. In this Parliament and in the practice of politics is where we all have to stand up and demonstrate our support and concern for people in need and a concern for the environment. But the Leader of the Opposition believes that for governments to take any of this action is not only against the interests of the country as a whole but against the interests of the people whom that government action is supposed to support.

It is those people who are least able to cope with the competitiveness and the aggressiveness of our kind of system which a government has an obligation and a duty to support. Not everybody can cope with the sorts of economic and social pressures which are the hallmark of a mixed economy. In those circumstances it is the duty of a government to move in and support those people. The fact is that today there are very few people who can be entirely self supporting and entirely self sufficient, and for a large section of the community that sort of idea is simply not an option and not likely to be one in the foreseeable future. Most people rely on governments to provide an increasing range of services and to support income for those people at the lowest level. What we should be discussing at this time is not whether governments should be providing services such as education, public transport and so on and still be providing income security but rather the nature of that commitment.

The recent report of the Henderson inquiry points to 3 important principles which should guide the Australian approach to welfare. The first principle is to provide security and wellbeing for all citizens and to acknowledge the importance of the independence and dignity of those people. The second principle is to encourage personal development and individual participation in the community. The third principle is to acknowledge that the principle of need ought to be paramount in any of these decisions. The first two of these principles assume that the Government should not simply provide support at a minimal level and in a grudging way but rather it should provide an adequate support as of right, and the level should be such that the recipients do not merely live from hand to mouth but rather are able to live with some dignity and are able to participate normally in the community. The third principle indicates that when resources are limited, and they always will be in the foreseeable future, then priority should be given to those in greatest need.

The greatest need at the moment as revealed by the Henderson inquiry is the 20 per cent of the population who live on incomes below a very austere poverty line. The solution to that problem requires a substantial program which will extend over at least the next 10 years. The program over the next 10 years is going to require a fairly substantial redistribution of income from those who are better off to those who live below the poverty line. That requires that some people will have to make sacrifices. It is important that people should recognise that those sacrifices are necessary if we are going to cope with the great problems of poverty. We cannot simply say, as the Leader of the Opposition says, that the most important thing should be for people to be able to spend their own income. That would mean we support an increasing reduction in taxation. We are saying that there has to be an increasing commitment to the problems of these people who live below the poverty line. That commitment will require greater taxation and will require greater sacrifice from those who can afford to make it.

Debate interrupted.

page 881

ADJOURNMENT

Superphosphate Bounty -Concorde Noise Level: Perth Airport- National Employment and Training Scheme- Defence Forces: Officer Resignations

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! It being 10.30 p.m. in accordance with the sessional order of the House of 1 1 July 1974, 1 propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr MILLAR:
Wide Bay

-For longer than I care to remember spokesmen for the Opposition have been attempting to prevail on the Government to reintroduce the superphosphate bounty. Tonight however I wish to speak specifically of a sorry episode in the history of events. The House is aware that to this time the Industries Assistance Commission has delivered 2 reports to the Federal Governmentone endorsed by one Commissioner and recommending that the bounty be not reinstated and the other endorsed by 2 Comissioners and recommending that the bounty be reinstated. The Cabinet, in general, is opposed to following the majority decision of the Industries Assistance Commission and has postponed making a decision for one month. One of the major objections to reinstating the bounty, apart from the increased demands on the Treasury, is that the biggest users of fertiliser and thus those who stand to gain most are the Victorian Forests Commission, the Edgells company and other large organisations.

When the first outcry arose from farmers concerning the abolition of the bounty, the Minister for Agriculture, Senator Wriedt, invited farmers to submit their arguments for the reestablishment of the bounty to him on the understanding that those cases regarded as deserving by Senator Wriedt and the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) would then be forwarded to the Industries Assistance Commission for closer scrutiny. Senator Wriedt issued official directives to all people interested in submitting a case. Those directives stated that cases should be presented only by small, well-defined groups of seriously disadvantaged farmers. It is, of course, difficult for such a group to marshal the reserves, both technical and financial, to present and argue such a case. However, it must be conceded in fairness to Senator Wriedt that the services of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics were available. It was relayed through primary industry leaders that the Federal Government flatly refused to listen to arguments across the board from an industry and that the only chance of being heard was to present a case representing a small group.

Arising from this criteria a group, spearheaded by the Maryborough Branch of the United Graziers ‘ Association of Queensland, was organised to represent the 8 coastal shires from Bundaberg to Caboolture. This clearly represented a small, well-defined area full of severely disadvantaged farmers. After a lot of effort $5,000 was raised and a written case was prepared for the Industries Assistance Commission. Evidence was verbally presented to the Industries Assistance Commission in Canberra on behalf of the group by Mr Paul McGowan, an agricultural consultant of Albury. By the time the Commission was ready to consider the subject of the superphosphate bounty it was obvious that a change in the approach to the question had occurred and that the case prepared specifically for the area was to be absorbed into a general case for the whole of Australia. This action staggered the group which had followed Senator Wriedt’s instructions to the letter and was completely confident that the case successfully argued that the reinstatement of the superphosphate bounty was not only an economic necessity for the area but also represented a good investment for the nation. To put it mildly, the group found it disconcerting that such a change in approach should quietly occur. The manner in which it received the first indication of the change was unusual and should be recorded. The group received a letter from Senator Wriedt stating that he had received its case and had passed it on to the Commission.

Two days later a telephone call was received from an Industries Assistance Commission official asking whether they were going to present a case. When the official was finally convinced that he had already received it he stated that the case was prepared for Senator Wriedt and that one must now be prepared for the Industries Assistance Commission. The Industries Assistance Commission official thereupon was further convinced that the case sent to Senator Wriedt was in fact directed towards the Industries Assistance Commission.

It was pointed out that a small, well-defined group of severely disadvantaged farmers had experienced a great deal of difficulty in preparing and financing one case, let alone another one specifically for the industries Assistance Commission. The official of the Commission agreed finally that a further 9 copies of the existing submission would suffice. However, he did remark that there was no need to restrict the case to a small, well-defined area and to argue in the particular. He said that the group should not have taken any notice of Senator Wriedt’s directives as they had caused an awful lot of trouble and were not being followed by the Industries Assistance Commission. This was small reward for a group of farmers that had worked hard to argue their case along the lines laid down by the Minister for Agriculture.

Now they are being led to believe that the bounty might not be restored, partly because several large organisations benefited most. Where has the Government’s thoughts for the survival of individual farmers gone? Where are the thoughts of preserving the large investment made in pasture development and production in coastal Queensland gone? Where are the thoughts on future productivity of Australia? Where is the respect of the opinion of the Industries Assistance Commission, a body set up by the Government to advise the Government? Where is the great Australian concept of a fair go? Where in the name of goodness can producers look for relief when the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), who fathered the Industries Assistance Commission, defames two of the Industries Assistance Commissioners by stating in the House that their reports and recommendations were pathetic? The fact that those reports favoured the reinstatement of the bounty would indicate clearly that the Prime Minister’s assessment of the worth of the Industries Assistance Commission is based on whether or not it brings in recommendations to his liking. If this be the case, all primary producers might tremble at the prospect of being dealt with in a manner which characterises this Government’s attitude to Australia ‘s greatest industries: That is, the primary industries.

Mr BENNETT:
Swan

-Firstly, I should like to commend the State committee that was appointed by the previous State Labor administration in Western Australia- the Tonkin Government- to investigate in association with Australian Government departments possible sites for a new Perth airport. However, I have been alarmed by statements made by the existing Premier of Western Australia and spokesmen associated with that Government to the effect that they would like to see the Concorde go to Western Australia and use the Perth Airport. As this Airport falls within my electorate and as I have been protesting for several years about the noise factor associated with the airport, I am alarmed to think that while an investigation is taking place the State Government would impose upon the people resident within the flight paths a further aircraft which they have not had the opportunity to assess. I am seeking some assurance that before anything of that nature takes place a referendum of at least the people within the area will take place as to whether this aircraft should be allowed to utilise Perth Airport while Perth Airport still exists.

I shan never cease in my insistence that Perth Airport should be relocated, particularly because of the effect of night flights. In fact, I think it is about time that the State Government clearly said that a curfew should be applied to the Perth Airport. The situation is such now that the heavy utilisation of the airport from midnight to 6 a.m. by aircraft from the eastern States and from overseas is becoming quite a worry to the people living near the airport. But what really alarmed me today was a statement that I saw in the Press to the effect that the new Concorde aircraft is noisier than the prototype that visited Australia. This statement was issued by a spokesman of the Australian Conservation Foundation. He was speaking about the aircraft which the Premier of Western Australia has said he wants to see come to Western Australia. There are a number of points that alarm me. The newspaper article states:

The senior projects officer of the ACF (Mr Doug Hill) said yesterday Concorde’s noise was 128 EPNdB (effective perceived noise decibels) three nautical miles from brake release on 4 August.

The Anglo-French jet recorded 125 EPNdB in a similar test on 5 August, Mr Hill said.

The threshold of pain varied from about 126 to 130 EPNdB depending on the type of noise being made and a person’s tolerance to it, he said.

Concorde recorded 1 2 1 EPNdB on both 4 August -

Mr Bourchier:

– What does that stand for?

Mr BENNETT:

– I want the honourable member to understand the seriousness of the situation. That is a measurement of the effective perceived noise decibels. This is something that the honourable member should remember should such an aircraft ever fly over his electorate, if he is concerned for the people in his electorate. The newspaper article continues:

Concorde recorded 121 EPNdB on both 4 August and 5 at the standard measuring point of 3.5 miles along the take-off path, Mr Hill said.

This compared with prototype Concorde readings of 1 18 EPNdB.

So it can be seen that there is evidence that the noise factor has increased. The newspaper article continues:

Mr Hill said Concorde was about three times noisier at the standard measuring point after take-off than the Boeing 747-200B- one of the commonest passenger aircraft.

My concern is that this noise will be imposed on the populous areas without’ any consultation with the people living there. I would hope that before anything takes place or before any further moves are made even to invite the aircraft to Western Australia the opinion of the members of the public who are concerned is first obtained. Perth airport is a little different from Tullamarine airport in that there are homes right up to its boundary fences. Thus people are affected more by noise. Of course, some people suggested that the airport should be shifted to the area of Nedlands which is the electorate of the Premier of Western Australia. I do not wish that on the people of Nedlands. However, a very strong supporter of Sir Charles who lives in Melville suggested that the flight path should be shifted from over that area of Melville during the night time to over the area of Nedlands. However, that is not the solution. The real solution to all our problems is to re-allocate Perth airport in due course after proper studies have taken place and to provide a curfew in the meantime to make people want to shift the airport. While the airport is being used 24 hours a day it is an attractive economic proposition for the airlines, the Australian Government and the State Government departments to have it open all the time.

I would like to refer to what has happened in Japan. A very interesting situation has evolved in that country. A new type of airport is being developed. It is no good saying to anyone who lives on a coastal plain that there is nowhere in which to site an airport without causing noise pollution. The Japanese have proved that this can be done. I refer to the world ‘s first airport on the sea which provides an answer to noise pollution. The article to which I refer reads as follows:

A new airport surrounded by the sea was recently opened in Omura Bay near Nagasaki City, Kyushu. The airport has been built on a small island (O.S kilometer east to west and 2.5 kilometers north to south) located 1 .7 kilometers offshore from Omura City. A mountain on the islet has been leveled and land reclaimed from the surrounding waters to make the whole of the island into an airport. It is attracting attention as a new type of airport on the sea without parallel in the world.

The airport, linked with the mainland by a long 970-meter bridge, has a 2 500-meter runway with a width of 60 meters on a 1 340 000-square-meter site. At present, Boeing 727 jets are using the airport for regular domestic flights. In the future, the runway will be lengthened to 3 000 meters to accommodate Boeing 747 jumbo jets. The airport also has aprons capable of parking three Boeing 727s and two Boeing 747s at the same time and taxiways with a length of 2 950 meters.

So it can be seen that it is possible to find alternative sites, even near built up areas. In Japan it is extremely difficult to find proper airport sites in inland areas because of the limited availability of vast flat land and vehement complaints about aircraft noise from people who live near airports. It would appear that public participation is the way to bring about change. Perhaps we are failing in Perth because of the fact that although people do complain, they complain quietly. Several thousand people have signed petitions over the years, but perhaps not enough people who have been woken up during the night by aircraft noise have rung anyone except their Federal member. Perhaps they should have been making telephone complaints to the Department of Civil Aviation, or perhaps to the State Ministers who refuse to impose curfews. I am not wishing this inconvenience on anybody, but I do feel that the people who are affected should be making some form of protest. I sympathise with them because although I five some miles from the airport I, too, suffer the indignity of being woken up in the middle of the night by aircraft noise. So I understand the problems of people who live close to airports.

I think the State Government needs to take a close look at suggestions that further troubles be added by expanding the airport. It is a matter which should be referred back to the people before any action is taken. There is already a committee looking into the question of the possible relocation of the international sector of the airport. I think it is premature at this point of time even to suggest that this expansion should take place. If the State Government is not willing to go to the people and seek their opinion I think it should at least explain why it is not willing to bow to public opinion.

Mr BOURCHIER:
Bendigo

-In this adjournment debate there are one or two areas that I want to cover. The first concerns comments on the National Employment and Training scheme by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Riordan) in his capacity as the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Senator James McClelland) in this House. Recently from this side of the House the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland) commented on the lack of replies from Ministers in respect of various matters. In response the Minister for Housing and Construction took it upon himself to say something because apparently he interpreted it as a criticism of the NEAT scheme. I have a little criticism of the NEAT scheme that I would like to draw to his attention. I can assure him that it is not criticism of the scheme itself because I think the scheme has lots of possibilities and certainly could do a lot of extremely good work in the field of unemployment and in placing people in new positions.

The scheme has had a lot of teething troubles. I am sure that the Minister will agree with me on that One of the problems that is facing the people who are trying to organise those who are learning something under the NEAT scheme is that after they have gone to all the trouble of paying an enormous amount of money to have somebody trained they find that in many cases the trade union movement will not accept these people on the job. I refer specifically to those people who are classed as adult apprentices. I understand that quite a number of trade union sections- not all of them- will not accept, or have refused to accept, these people as apprentices under the terms of the legislation and will not allow them to start their job. To me there seems to be a cross-fire between the Government and its ally the trade union movement. After all, the Government has set up this scheme and I would have thought that one of the areas from which it would get co-operation would be the trade union movement.

Mr Riordan:

– What specific unions?

Mr BOURCHIER:

– The Minister mentions something about ‘specific’. There are quite a few problems in being specific on this but I will talk to him later about the matter. There is no doubt that quite a few people have been refused work by sections of the trade union movement. I think the electrical trades industry was one, the bricklaying industry was another and the plumbing trade was another. Perhaps the Minister can check that out. I want to bring home to him the fact that there is a shortage of tradesmen. One of the purposes of the scheme was not only to create employment for those who otherwise were not qualified tradesmen- to give them the opportunity to learn a trade and to fit into industrybut also to offset the shortage of tradesmen. I felt that this was a very worthwhile section of the NEAT scheme. I am delighted that the Minister for Housing and Construction took the trouble to come into the House after I advised him that I would mention this matter. It is not a great issue. I feel that there is a stumbling block which the Government, with co-operation from the trade union movement could overcome. I am not raising a great issue. I think this is something which the Minister should know about. Perhaps he is not already aware of it. I am sure that he can do something about it because this is an area in which the staff of the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Senator James McClelland) have been doing their utmost to create positions. They find out that they are being stymied. This is a fact.

The next matter on to which I move is the statement made by the former Minister for Housing and Construction, Mr Les Johnson, concerning the Returned Services League of Australia and the board of the Australian Housing Corporation. I refer to page 997 of Hansard of 4 March. The Minister stated:

It might be appropriate for me to tell the Committee, as a consolidation of that enthusiastic attitude that I have indicated, that it is my intention to provide on the board of the Corporation a representative of the Returned Services League so that the interests of ex-servicemen can be effectively safeguarded.

I always understood that when a Minister of the Crown made a promise that promise was really given on behalf of his Government and that the Government would support him. We find that later there was a change of ministerial positions. Also, I understand that the Australian Housing Corporation has come under the control of the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren). I mentioned to him that I would be speaking on this matter tonight. Unfortunately, it seems to me that the reputation which this Government has earned of saying anything at any time which suits its purpose and then going back on its word is quite justified. Apparently this is another promise which was given and which was easily broken. Not only was it broken; it was denied, because the Minister for Urban and Regional Development stated:

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.

Somebody was telling a falsity. It is probably a little difficult to realise which Minister was; perhaps we should give the benefit of the doubt to both of them. It is a shame that this Government can so easily just by transferring an area of responsibility from one Minister to another or by changing a Minister from one position to another, get out of the commitment which a Minister makes. In this situation, either the former Minister for Housing and Construction or the Minister for Urban and Regional Development has no recollection or has not bothered to do his homework because the first Minister did not take the matter up with the Cabinet and the second Minister did not read up on what the first one said.

In the few minutes I have left I shall turn to the statement made by the Minister for Defence (Mr Morrison) the other day. He mentioned that the defence program was being designed to spend a lot of money on equipment. He also suggested that the personnel level was very high and that morale in the Army was very good. Let us look at the situation. I refer to the part about personnel. I am led to believe on very good information that in the defence forces the number of officer resignations in the month of July was thirty-one. That is slightly more than the number of resignations in the months of June and May combined. In June 16 officers resigned and in May 14 officers resigned. That is one of the tendencies that has been evident for some time. I had occasion to draw this to the attention of the previous Minister for Defence, but of course it washed off his back at that time. In 1975 some 30 lieutenantcolonels and above resigned whereas in 1974 there were 13 resignations. Surely this proves that there is an acceleration in resignations of top class members of the defence forces. That is a tragedy in itself because those people cannot be replaced. They are not all resigning because of age. Many of them are resigning because they are sick of the lack of incentive coming from this Government, the lack of initiative and the lack of a decent attitude towards defence. They want to get out because they are just not happy with the whole situation.

I turn now to the question of Public Service interference in promotions. Since we have had this division in the Services where there is a parallel control of the defence Services by the Public Service as well as by the Army, the situation has arisen where a number of the defence forces cannot be posted to Defence Central unless the appointment is approved by the Public Service. The Public Service has to approve all promotions over the rank of lieutenant-colonel. What is happening is that the Public Service is building up a nice little lot of yes men in the high echelons who will do all the things that the Public Service calls upon them to do. That will be the reason behind approving promotion. The dedicated Army men are sick of it and they are resigning. Unfortunately, what is going to happen is that the standard of training and the standard of leadership in the Army and in the other armed forces will drop.

The other reason for the resignation problem relates to the defence forces retirement benefits plan. A lot of unfortunate stories have been going around the various Army camps. I have been told in my electorate that the men are being told that the total commutation of defence forces retirement benefits is going to be refused. I have asked the Minister to give me a statement on that but he has not done so. I wrote to him in May and I still have not received a reply. I refer briefly to General Slim’s book Defeat into Victory. Talking about the Singapore battle, he said that the defeat was caused simply because he had to refer to Whitehall in London to get the OK to use men to go out and dig trenches while the Japanese coming down from Singapore were 20 miles away. That is the sort of problem we are going to have if we have a Public Service hierarchy dictating what the Army is to do. It is not good enough. I think it is time there was a reshuffle and a reconsideration, and the system put back where it was before, when at least it was effective.

Mr RIORDAN:
Minister for Housing and Construction · Phillip · ALP

– I am sure the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Bourchier) does not really hold this Government responsible for the shortcomings of Whitehall during the battle for Singapore. I know that the Government has been accused of almost everything else, but this Government did not have much to do with whether somebody should dig a trench in Singapore during the early 1940s. When the honourable member refers to the problems of the Department of Defence and officer resignations, I think he would present a more balanced and fairer argument if he were to indicate at the same time that the re-signing of other ranks is running at a very high level indeed. So it is not all dissatisfaction in the defence forces. I thank the honourable gentleman for his comments about the National Employment and Training scheme, but I remind him that it is not only a question of training people who are unemployed, although certainly that is the position at the moment. Unemployed breadwinners are receiving priority, and the idea behind that is to ensure that they receive first preference so that they can get back to earning a living. But the NEAT scheme goes much further. Indeed one could argue with some force, I believe, that there is a greater need for a NEAT type of scheme when there is not unemployment because what occurs when there is full employment that there is an imbalance between the skilled and unskilled trades. That is something from which we have suffered for a generation or longer, and the NEAT scheme has remarkable possibilities in that regard.

The honourable member’s criticism about some union resistance is well made. There is some resistance in some craft unions to the retraining of adults. I concede that. However, I do not think his examples are appropriate. For instance, I know that it is quite inappropriate in respect of bricklayers. The Building Workers Industrial Union has been most co-operative in relation to retraining schemes operating in various parts of the Commonwealth, particularly in respect to bricklayers. There have been a number of very useful schemes which were of great benefit during the time of the acute shortage of building tradesmen. I should not like it to be thought that in giving the example off the cuff, as the honourable member did, that some criticism was being made of that organisation when no criticism is justified. Progress is being made.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 887

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

International Treaties (Question No. 2745)

Mr Peacock:

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

  1. What international agreements, conventions, treaties, or other arrangements have been entered into by the Government since 2 December 1972 and have been registered with the United Nations as required by article 102 of the United Nations Charter?
  2. Will the Minister list those which have not been so registered.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) From 2 December 1972 to 5 June 1975, ninety-three treaties or international agreements entered into force for Australia. These treaties are ail required to be registered with the Secretariat of the United Nations under Article 102 of the United Nations Chaner.

Of the ninety-three treaties, forty-six are multilateral agreements which it is the responsibility of the depositary authority to register with the United Nations. The relevant United Nations publications are not at present up-to-date, but we assume that most have in fact been so registered.

The remaining forty-seven treaties are bilateral and the usual procedure is for informal consultations to be held between the two Governments concerned to decide which one should register the treaty with the United Nations. All of these bilateral treaties have been registered with the United Nations.

The following list sets out the treaties which have entered into force for Australia between 2 December 1972 and 5 June 1975, and the dates upon which they entered into force for Australia. The list also indicates which of these treaties are multilateral and which are bilateral; in the latter case, the state which has registered the treaty is also listed.

Department of Environment: Grants (Question No. 2785)

Mr Ruddock:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Environment, upon notice:

  1. With reference to question No. 2700 of the Member for La Trobe, what has been the cost to the Government of the programs detailed in part ( 1 ) of the question during each of the years 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74, and during 1974-75 to date.
  2. What organisations have received such grants during the years mentioned.
Mr Berinson:
Minister for Environment · PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. (a) Administrative support: 1971-72: $50,000;

1972- 73: $170,000; 1973-74: $318,000; 1974-75: $353,000.

  1. Technical assistance: (commenced 1973-74)

1973- 74: $84,400; 1974-75: $88,750.

  1. (a) Administrative support:

(2)(b) Technical assistance:

Sewerage Services (Question No. 2362)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice:

Will he provide statistical information to indicate the degree to which the sewerage backlog has decreased or increased since 2 December 1 972 in each State.

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

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

Sewerage authorities operate on and calculate their statistics on a financial year basis. The National Sewerage Program was introduced on 1 July 1973 and the statistical information is provided from that date in respect of urban centres included in that Program.

Sewerage Services (Question No. 1778)

Dr Klugman:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many unsewered homes were there in the principal urban areas of Australia at the latest date for which figures are available.
  2. How many people were living in these unsewered homes.

(3)

(4)

Sewerage Services (Question No. 1736)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice:

With reference to the interim answer to question No. 392 concerning the number of partially sewered municipalities in Australia, will he provide whatever information is available to the Department even though it may not be in the form originally requested.

How many homes were connected to sewerage in each of these principal urban areas during each of the last 5 financial years.

What is the estimated number of connections during 1974/75.

Mr Uren:
ALP

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

The information provided has been extracted from the annual reports of the sewerage authorities, because these are the only source of information available for the period involved:

Mr Uren:
ALP

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

  1. . How many municipalities in metropolitan cities are partially sewered; which municipalities are they; to what extent are (a) they partially sewered and (b) what is the estimated cost of completing sewerage in each of them.

    1. Sydney- Metropolitan Water Sewerage & Drainage Board (27)-

Glebe Lands: Rates (Question No. 643)

Mr McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– asked the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice:

What arrangements have been made with Leichhardt Municipal Council in respect of the future payment of council rates on the Glebe Lands.

Mr Uren:
ALP

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

I refer the honourable member to the answer I gave in reply to his similar question No. 1415 which appeared at page 699 of the Hansard of 25 February 1975.

Data Banks (Question No. 1702)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. Can he say how many (a) private and (b) public data banks there are in Australia.
  2. If so, what are they, where are they, what legislation do they work under, and what is their purpose.
  3. How many names are held in each data bank and for what reason.
Mr Enderby:
Attorney-General · ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 ), (2) and (3), This information is not available. There is no legislation of the Australian Parliament or of any State that requires the registration of all collections of information that might be subsumed under the term ‘data bank’.

Department of Foreign Affairs (Question No. 2008)

Mr Snedden:

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

When will the Minister answer my question No. 1549 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 13 November 1974.

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

– The answer to the Right Honourable Member’s question No. 1549 appeared in the Weekly Hansard No. 11, 1975 for 2, 3, 4 and 5 June on page 3513.

Save the Regent Theatre Committee (Question No. 2060)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice:

When will he answer my question No. 896 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 2 August 1974.

Mr Uren:
ALP

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

I refer the right honourable member to my answer to question No. 896 which I gave on 3 June 1975 (Hansard, page 3276).

Urban and Regional Development (Question No. 2067)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice:

When will he answer my question No. 1731 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 1 3 November 1 974.

Mr Uren:
ALP

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

I refer the right honourable member to the answer which I gave to question No. 1731 on 3 June 1975 (Hansard, page 3279).

Street Lighting (Question No. 2069)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice:

When will he answer my question No. 1733 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 1 3 November 1 974.

Mr Uren:
ALP

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

I refer the right honourable member to the answer which I gave to question No. 1733 on 3 June 1975 (Hansard, page 3279).

Answer to Question (Question No. 2102)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

When will he answer my question No. 1 134 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 26 September 1 974.

Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

See answer to House of Representatives Question No. 1134.

Essendon Airport (Question No. 2358)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Further to Question No 384 regarding the future use of Essendon Airport, what progress has been made by the working party established to investigate this matter.
  2. On what dates has the working party met, and which departments have attended each meeting.
  3. When is it expected that the Government will reach a decision on this matter.
Mr Uren:
ALP

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

  1. Work, leading to a report on the future of Essendon Airport, is being carried out by the Department of Transport in consultation with the Department of Urban and Regional Development and the Treasury. A draft report is currently being studied by my Department and will shortly be considered by officers of my Department and Treasury officials.
  2. Because of the way the work is being carried out communication has been between officers of the Department of Transport in Melbourne and individual officers of the two other Departments in Canberra. Informal contact by phone between officers of my Department and of Transport has been regular, but face-to-face less frequent. The last such meeting took place on 14 November 1974. I understand communication with officers of Treasury has been of the same nature.
  3. This depends on when the Department of Transport completes the draft report, and our joint consideration of the conclusions, but a Government decision on this matter is anticipated within the next few months.

European Carp (Question No. 2478)

Mr King:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) In what areas of Australia are European carp known to exist.
  2. Are there any areas in Victoria in which they are known not to exist.
  3. Are they on the increase in any particular area; if so, where.
  4. What effect do they have on the production of other types offish.
  5. Does the presence of European carp affect adversely the condition of water in our various water storages.
  6. Has New South Wales, Victoria or South Australia placed any submission before the Australian Government with a view to eradicating them.
  7. Has the CSIRO or any Department carried out any form of control research; if so, with what results.
  8. Are there any known measures to eradicate them in Australia
  9. Has any contact been made overseas with a view to seeking information as to the dangers of European carp to Australia; if so, with what results.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

I am advised that:

1 ) European carp are known to exist in South Australia New South Wales and Victoria. Sightings have also been reported from Tasmania. Because of the carp’s migratory habits and rate of proliferation and from the experience in the United States, there is reason be believe this species may eventually reach the other Australian States.

In Victoria, European carp are known to be present in the River Murray System, the Yallourn Storage, Morwell River, Tyers River, La Trobe River, Thomson River, MacAllister River, Avon River, Perry River, Gippsland Lakes, Nicholson River, Tambo River, Stony and Boggy Creeks, Snowy River, Yarra River, Maribyrnong River, Goulburn River, Sewens Creek, Broken River, Broken Creek, Campaspe River, Laanecoorie Reservoir, Avoca River, Kerang Lakes, Lake Hawthorn and Yarrawonga Weir.

In Victoria, the spread described has occurred since 1963. South Australian authorities reported recently that ‘since 1962, there has been a population explosion of the European carp in some southern Australian freshwater rivers, first in the Gippsland area of Victoria and later in the Murray-Darling River System*. Once carp have entered a system through which they can migrate, apparently their spread is reasonably rapid.

The main cause for concern is the damage to native aquatic flora and fauna. The turbidity of waters containing carp results from muddying of the water during feeding and spawning. The carp compete for food and space in the ecosystem. Turbidity interferes visually with feeding by other species of fish, is physically unacceptable to certain fish, affects the breeding sites and impedes development of eggs of other fish, and decreases light penetration, causing a reduction in primary productivity and aquatic plant growth.

Certain water systems have been seriously affected by the presence of carp. Water that is muddied by the fish requires additional filtration and treatment. The greater quantity of chemicals required for the treatment increases the cost of the water and decreases its palatability.

South Australia has applied to the Australian Water Resources Council Research Fund for funds to study populations of carp but was referred to the Australian Fisheries Council. Standing Committee on Fisheries, on the initiative of the States concerned, has also referred the matter to the Australian Fisheries Council.

CSIRO has undertaken no research on carp. New South Wales and South Australia have biologists undertaking research on this species.

Noxious fish legislation was passed in Victoria and South Australia to prohibit transfer within the State. Once established, especially in a large river system, effective eradication is extremely difficult. No poisons specific for carp are known. The use of fences and dykes, electric barriers and water level controls are potential control measures but would be difficult to implement, expensive, and not specific to carp. Increased market demand might increase commercial fishing effort.

9) CSIRO has made no direct contact overseas.

Chilean Refugees (Question No. 2502)

Mr Cadman:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

What are the names of Chilean refugees who entered Australia during the last 12 months.

Mr Riordan:
ALP

-The Minister for Labor and Immigration has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

In the migrants’ own interest I do not believe that a list of names as requested should be made public. I understand that, as a long standing practice, this has been the policy of successive Governments.

Sydney Nolan Art Collection (Question No. 2511)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

  1. For what period does the Government intend to exhibit the Sydney Nolan art collection at ‘Lanyon’ in the A.C.T.
  2. Does the Government intend to transfer the collection to the National Gallery on its completion; if not, why not.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) Mr Nolan’s gift to the Australian people was on the understanding that the collection should be housed in the ‘Lanyon’ homestead and the exhibition be exclusively of his works.

Vietnamese: Admission to Australia (Question No. 2514)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Have Vietnamese students been told that if they want to bring their relatives to Australia they must guarantee free accommodation for each person for 12 months.
  2. Have they also been told that they must also guarantee their fares, at the rate of $400 for each adult and $200 for each child.
Mr Riordan:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The normal nomination procedure for persons nominated by relatives in Australia was followed and accommodation declarations would have been obtained. The accommodation undertaking is for a period of 1 2 months.
  2. Practically all of the Vietnamese refugees accepted by the Australian Government came to Australia without cost to themselves for transport. Some Vietnamese students, particularly during the first days of the Vietnam refugee situation and before the decision to pay fares of accepted refugees was taken, may have been informed in Australia that the fare to Australia was likely to be about $400 per adult.

Company Takeovers (Question No. 2529)

Mr Connolly:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon notice:

  1. Did he state on 23 October 1974 that some 40 small companies were vulnerable to takeover by overseas companies.
  2. If so, can he name these small companies.
  3. Which of these companies have received assistance, and under what conditions was such assistance given.
Mr Connor:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) In my comments on 23 October 1974 I was alluding to cases which were at that time before the Committee on Foreign Takeovers. I do not see that there is anything to be gained in naming the companies involved so long after the event.

Environment and Conservation Conventions (Question No. 2573)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for Environment, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What are the international and multi-national conventions and agreements concerning the environment and conservation under the auspices of the United Nations to which Australia is a signatory.
  2. How many of these have been ratified by Australia.
  3. Are there any to which Australia is not a signatory; if so, what are they.
Mr Berinson:
ALP

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

  1. Australia is a signatory to the following conventions and agreements:

Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and National Heritage.

Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat.

International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.

International Plant Protection, Rome, 1951.

Plant Protection Agreement for the South East Asia and Pacific Region, 1955.

Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas, 1 958.

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1 954. Amended in 1 962, 1 969.

Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals.

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna.

International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in the Cases of Oil Pollution Casulaties ( Brussels 1969).

International Convention on Civil Damage Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 1 969.

Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter.

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973.

  1. The first seven conventions and agreements listed in the answer to ( 1 ) have been ratified by Australia.
  2. The following conventions and agreements have not been signed by Australia:

Convention for Protection of Birds, Paris, 1 950.

Amendments to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1971.

International Conference on the Establishment of an International Compensation Fund for Oil Pollution Damage, 1971.

Protocol relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Marine Pollution by Substances other than Oil, 1973.

Proposals for Regional Associations (Question No. 2715)

Mr Peacock:

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

  1. What action has been taken since 1 January 197S to pursue the Prime Minister’s proposal for an Asian Pacific Forum.
  2. With whom, and when, has it been discussed, and what has been the reaction.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

The proposal for a wider regional association continues to be discussed in the course of normal diplomatic contacts. The Government recognises that the formation of such an association is essentially a long-term objective. The association will have to evolve from within the region and to reflect relationships amongst countries of the region. It cannot be imposed on the countries of the region. The Government contemplates no pre-determined mould to which the association should conform. It hopes that informal, consultative arrangements between the countries of the region might develop along the lines of those which exist among Commonwealth countries.

One major obstacle to the development of broad and constructive regional co-operation has been the war in Indochina. That now lies behind us. Moreover, the fact that, of Australia’s near neighbours, Malaysia and, more recently the Philippines and Thailand have decided to enter into diplomatic relations with China is an encouraging sign also. The general trend in regional politics is thus a promising one as the region settles down in the aftermath of a period of extreme tension. Recent developments bode well for wider regional harmony. The Government does not believe that agreements to reflect the newly developing mood of the region will be easily or quickly arrived at, but it does see point in encouraging discussions on what might be possible to achieve.

Within the region, there continues to be widespread interest in greater regional co-operation and harmony. For example, in their meeting in Kuala Lumpur in May 1 975, the ASEAN Foreign Ministers pledged themselves to continuing efforts to promote greater regional co-operation in SouthEast Asia with specific reference to their readiness to enter into friendly and harmonious relations with the new governments in Indo-China. The Australian Government welcomed the ASEAN declaration. It also welcomes statements such as those by the Prime Minister of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, Mr Pham Van Dong, at the opening of the Fifth National Assembly in Hanoi in June 1975, that North Vietnam too seeks friendship and co-operation with other countries in South-East Asia.

NEAT Scheme (Question No. 2647)

Mr Bourchier:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many applications have been received for assistance under the NEAT System since its inception.
  2. How many of the applications (a) have been approved, (b) have been refused and (c) are awaiting determination.
Mr Riordan:
ALP

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

  1. 32,676 applications have been received for assistance under the NEAT System for the 8 months period October 1974 to end May 1975.
  2. Of the applications, (a) 16,371 have been approved, (b) 9,840 have been refused and (c) 4,848 were in the process of being determined. In addition, 1,617 applicants withdrew their applications before approval.

Bankruptcy (Question No. 2741)

Mr Staley:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. 1) Is it a fact that the review of the Bankruptcy Act was commenced as long ago as 1968.
  2. Is it also a fact that there have been no substantive amendments to the Bankruptcy Act since it was enacted in 1966.
  3. Are the deficiencies in the Act the cause of much concern and distress to the Official Receiver and Trustees in Bankruptcy.
  4. Can he give a definite date by which the review will be completed.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) to (4) From the time when the Bankruptcy Act came into operation in 1968 specific proposals for its amendment were raised and considered. Late m 1973 it was decided to undertake the comprehensive review referred to in my answer to question number 2237 (vide Hansard 27 May 1975, page 2892). As indicated in my previous answer the purpose of the review has been to identify the deficiencies in the Act and the amendments necessary to remedy them. In the course of the review my Department has consulted with Registrars and Official Receivers and sought their views as to any difficulties which they were experiencing in the administration of the Act. Proposals to overcome deficiencies in the Act have been formulated and are being further considered. I am hopeful that the review, will be completed soon and that it will then be possible to introduce an amending Bill. The honourable member may rest assured that this matter will be proceeded with as expeditiously as possible.

Mr R. Dempsey: Overseas Visit (Question No. 2929)

Mr Garland:
CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice:

  1. Did one of his personal advisers, Mr R. Dempsey make an overseas visit in June 1975.
  2. If so, what was the purpose of the visit.
  3. Who approved the visit.
  4. What was the itinerary of the visit.
  5. 5 ) What was the cost of Mr Dempsey ‘s visit.
  6. Did Mr Dempsey prepare a report as a result of his visit.
  7. If so, what was the date of it, and to whom was it made.
  8. Is it a fan that Mr Dempsey held discussions with officials from OECD aimed at obtaining employment with that organisation.
  9. Is it a fact that Mr Dempsey was successful in obtaining employment with the OECD for a period of several months and is now in Paris prior to taking up full time employment with the office of the South Australian Premier, Mr Dunstan.
  10. What date did Mr Dempsey return to Australia from his visit, and what date did he resign from his job as personal adviser to Mr Uren.
  11. Will any attempt be made to recover any portion of the cost from Mr Dempsey of his visit to France.
Mr Uren:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The purpose of Mr Dempsey ‘s visit was related to one of the main provisions of the recently passed Heritage Commission legislation. As you are aware, one of the main provisions of that legislation concerns the compilation of a National Register of National Estate items. For such a register to be of benefit a series of major surveys will be required for each of the many components of the National Estate. It is important that we should not embark on the compilation of such a Register, spending very large sums of money, without a careful assessment of the experiences of others in this area.

Mr Dempsey, as a member of the Interim Committee on the National Estate and a person with an appropriate academic background was sent to Paris to conduct these surveys. Paris was selected as several agencies that lead the world in the development of techniques for survey, identification and classification work are situated there.

  1. The Prime Minister.
  2. 30 May 1975 Ex Sydney for London; 31 May 1975 Arrived London; 3 June 1975 Ex London for Paris; 3 June 1975 Arrived Paris; 14 June 1975 Ex Paris for London; 14 June 1975 Ex London for Sydney; 15 June 1975 Arrived Sydney.
  3. $2,828.05.
  4. Yes, but as yet it is not formally presented.
  5. See above. The final report will be presented to me within the next few weeks.
  6. I do not know.
  7. I understand that that is the situation.
  8. Mr Dempsey returned to Australia on 15 June 1975 and resigned on 27 June 1975.
  9. No, the prime objectives of Mr Dempsey ‘s trip have been or are in the process of being fully satisfied.

Government Grants (Question No. 2825)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many persons outside the Australian Public Service have been given wage grants or funds, in one way or another, to enable them to undertake investigation, research or some other type of activity for the Government during the last 12 months.
  2. What sum is being paid annually to enable individuals outside the Australian Public Service to undertake work on behalf of the Goverment
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) The information sought by the right honourable member in this question is not centrally recorded and I am not prepared to authorise the time and expenditure that would be incurred in compiling it. I point out to the right honourable member that a great deal of detailed information relevant to his present question has been provided already in answer to previous questions by him- the answers given by my colleagues and me to his questions 69-96 which are to be found as follows in Hansard are examples:

Question No. 69-2 August 1974, pages 1099- 1 103

Question No. 70-23 August 1974, pages 1226-1227

Question No. 71-23 August 1974, page 1229

Question No. 72-23 August 1974, pages 1 17 1-1 174

Question No. 73-30 October 1 974, pages 3 1 50-3 1 5 1

Question No.74-24 September 1974, page 1741

Question No. 75-30 October 1974, pages 3108-3119

Question No. 76-24 September 1974, page 1772

Question No. 77-31 October 1974, page 3265

Question No. 78-24 September 1974, pages 1772-1773

Question No.79-26 September 1974, page 1947

Question No. 80-3 October 1974, page 2280

Question No. 81-18 September 1974, page 1513

Question No. 82-26 September 1974, page 1 939

Question No. 83-30 October 1974, pages 31 19-313 1

Question No. 84-24 September 1 974, page 1 74 1

Question No. 85-17 October 1974, page 2589

Question No. 86-10 April 1975, pages 1559-1560

Question No. 87-12 November 1974, page 3386

Question No. 88-5 December 1974, page 4839

Question No. 89-3 June 1975, page 3274

Question No. 90-5 December 1974, pages 4840-4841

Question No. 91-22 October 1974,page2709

Question No. 92-17 July 1974, page 345

Question No. 93-23 August 1974, pages 1218-1221

Question No. 94-9 April 1975, pages 1453-1456

Question No. 95-5 December 1974, pages 4857-4862

Question No. 96-13 November 1974, pages 35 14-3515

Further, the honourable members for La Trobe and Parramatta have asked related questions of all Ministers (Nos 2675-2702 and 2760-2787) and the answers to those questions will supplement the information which has been made available.

Overseas Loan Raisings (Question No. 2936)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Was the Executive Council Minute authorising the Minister for Minerals and Energy to undertake overseas borrowings up to $US4,000m prepared by officers of the Treasury and the Attorney-General’s Department at a meeting on 13 December 1974.
  2. If so, was this the only document prepared at the meeting; if not, will he list the other documents prepared.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1)I indicated in my reply to Question No. 18 asked by the Leader of the Opposition on 9 July that the Executive Council Minute was drafted in accordance with the instructions of Ministers (Senate Hansard, 26 August 1975, page 2 1 2). I am advised that officers of several Departments were present during the drafting of the minute.

  1. I am advised that other documents drafted on 13 December 1974 were an explanatory memorandum to the Executive Council Minute, a revised draft acceptance and a revised draft promissory note.

Overseas Loan Raisings (Question No. 2937)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Have investigations been carried out, into the security of information about overseas borrowings held by the Treasury, during 1975.
  2. If so, who was responsible for the conduct of the investigations.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) I am advised that no special investigation has been carried out. The Treasury pays continuous regard to the security of material in its control.

Overseas Loan Raisings (Question No. 2938)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

What is the basis of advice by the Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade that promissory notes amounting to $2,486m signed by the Minister for Minerals and Energy had been lodged with the German bank, Wurttembergische IN Ulme

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

I am advised that the Minister has signed no such promissory notes nor does he know the Wurttembergische Bank.

Overseas Loan Raisings (Question No. 2939)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did the Minister for Minerals and Energy hold discussions with Mr Tirath Khemlani in Sydney on 22 March 1975.
  2. Did the Minister indicate to Mr Khemlani that the Government would be prepared to accept a loan of $US4 billion.
  3. Did the Minister also indicate the Government’s preparedness to accept a further $US4 billion loan subsequently and amounting to a total borrowing of $US8 billion.

Mr WHITLAM-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) See the letter of 22 March 1975 from the Minister for Minerals and Energy to Mr Khemlani (Hansard, 9 July 1975, page 3622).

Overseas Loan Raisings (Question No. 2940)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Prior to undertaking substantive negotiations with and providing a draft agreement to Mr Khemlani, did the Government (a) identify the principal(s) concerned, (b) receive proof as to the availability of funds, (c) ensure that the costs of the borrowings in question were competitive and (d) establish that the documentation was satisfactory to the Treasury and the Attorney-General’s Department; if not, why not.

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. and (b) See the letter of 12 November 1974 from Sir Lenox Hewitt to Mr Khemlani (Hansard, 9 July, 1975 page 3613) and the Minister ‘s account of the ensuing events in his speech of 9 July 1 975 (Hansard, pages 3613-25).
  2. See Hansard, 9 July 1 975, pages 36 1 4- 1 5 and 36 1 6- 1 7.
  3. See Hansard, 9 July 1975, page 3616.

Overseas Loan Raisings (Question No. 2941)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Why was the letter of credential dated 6 December 1974 given by him to Mr George Harris marked ‘ secret ‘.

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

The letter of credential was not classified. I am advised that a copy of the letter of credential together with a number of other documents was received by the Australian Embassy in Washington and that the documents were stamped ‘Secret’ in the Embassy prior to dispatch to Canberra. The copies of these documents tabled on 9 July were appropriately de-classified but ‘Secret’ was inadvertently left on this particular letter (Hansard, 9 July 1975, pages 3590-2).

Overseas Loan Raisings (Question No. 2942)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Has the former Treasurer, Dr Cairns, been requested to return any documents in respect of overseas borrowings; if so, which documents.

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

The former Treasurer, Dr Cairns, has been requested to return all documents relevant to overseas loan raising activities.

Overseas Loan Raisings (Question No. 2943)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. When did the Government become aware that Mr Tirath Khemlani was making arrangements for the disbursement of a $US180m commission in respect of the $US4,00Om loan sought by the Minister for Minerals and Energy.
  2. Has his attention been drawn to a letter dated 27 December 1974 signed by Mr Khemlani describing these arrangements.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. The Government was not aware of any such arrangements.
  2. A copy of a document, purporting to be a letter dated 27 December 1974 signed by Mr Khemlani with the name of the addressee obliterated, was one of a series of documents forwarded on 7 July 1 975 to me and the Leader of the Opposition by the Editor of ‘The Age ‘ newspaper. The first indication that the Government had had of the possible existence of such a document was when it was published by ‘The Age’ on4 July 1975.

Overseas Loan Raisings (Question No. 2944)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. What is the meaning of the reference DIKS. /MAC/AUS/C20/CAS5 recorded on the telexes sent to the Moscow Narodny Bank in London on 27 and 28 February by the Minister for Minerals and Energy.
  2. ) What was the involvement of Dolmac Consultants and Mr MacDonald in the arrangements for a $US4,000m loan to the Australian Government.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. It was the Bank’s reference. See its telex of 27 February 1975 to which the Minister was replying (Hansard 9July 1975, pages 3621-2).
  2. See answer to Senate Question No. 644 (Hansard 26 August 1975, page 264).

Overseas Loan Raisings (Question No. 2945)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. When did negotiations with Mr Tirath Khemlani in respect of overseas borrowings commence.
  2. When were they terminated.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Mr Khemlani was introduced to the Minister for Minerals and Energy on 11 November 1974 (Hansard 9 July 1975 page 3612).
  2. I am advised that there were no further negotiations with Mr Khemlani after 20 May 1975 when the Executive Council authority was revoked.

Overseas Loan Raisings (Question No. 2946)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Have investigations been carried out to determine the role played by Mr Soindgvan Wanson in respect of the loan funds sought by the Minister for Minerals and Energy; if not, why not; if so, what are the results of the investigations.

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

No. I am advised that Mr Wanson is unknown to the Minister for Minerals and Energy. He had no authority from the Australian Government in relation to any loan matter.

Overseas Loan Raisings (Question No. 2947)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. What level of loan funds have been offered to the Government by the Saudi Arabian Monetary Authority.
  2. In what currencies have funds been offered.
  3. What action has been taken to accept or reject the initial instalment of $250m referred to in the Parliament by the former Treasurer, Dr Cairns.
  4. For which specific purposes have the funds been sought.
  5. Which Ministers other than the former Treasurer, Dr Cairns, have been involved in negotiations with the Authority.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) As indicated by Dr Cairns on 2 and 3 June 1975 (Hansard pages 3097, 3208), preliminary discussions were held with Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency (SAMA) concerning a proposal for a loan of the equivalent of $US250m.
  2. The matters covered in those preliminary discussions in confidence with SAMA included the possible currencies in which the loan might be denominated.
  3. On 28 July 1975, the Treasurer, Mr Hayden, wrote to the Governor of SAMA advising that it was not proposed to proceed with loan negotiations at this time.
  4. The purposes which were in mind at the time Dr Cairns had preliminary discussions with SAMA broadly covered the same purposes for which the loans in Germany in April and in the USA in June were raised, i.e. for advances for the States for Housing and for on-lending to AIDC and the Australian Shipping Commission.
  5. None.

Overseas Loan Raisings (Question No. 2948)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Did the Government receive departmental advice about the economic implication of overseas borrowings up to a level of $US4,000m; if so, what was the advice.

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

See my answer to the questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition on 9 July 1975, particularly to Questions 21-22, and to the request for tabling of documents (Senate Hansard 26 August, pages 212-214).

Overseas Loan Raisings (Question No. 2949)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. What investigations were carried out by the Government and departmental officials into Mr Tirath Khemlani.
  2. Which departments and Ministers (a) were involved in the investigations and (b) received advice as to the results of the investigations.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) See my answer to Question 41 asked by the Leader of the Opposition on 9 July (Senate Hansard, 26 August, page 2 13).

Overseas Loan Raisings (Question No. 2950)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. When did he request the Acting Treasurer to provide him with all relevant files in respect of the Government’s overseas loan raising from (a) the Treasury and (b) the Treasurer’s office.
  2. When did he receive the files.
  3. Did Ministers have access to the files.
  4. If so, which Ministers had access.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. ) On 29 May 1 975 I asked the Acting Treasurer for copies of all relevant documentation.
  2. Copies of the files were received on 3 1 May 1975.
  3. and (4) I am advised that, apart from the copies received by me, copies were given to the then Acting Treasurer and, on his return from overseas, the then Treasurer.

Overseas Loan Raisings (Question No. 2951)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Did the Government receive any advice not to deal with Mr Tirath Khemlani in respect of overseas borrowing.
  2. If so, from where was the advice received.
  3. What advice was received from the Treasury about dealing with Mr Khemlani.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. 1) to (3) In my answer to the requests on 9 July 1975 by the Leader of the Opposition for the tabling of documents, I indicated that such advice is traditionally regarded as confidential (Senate Hansard, 26 August, page 2 14).

Overseas Loan Raisings (Question No. 2952)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did the Government receive any advice expressing the view that Mr Tirath Khemlani did not have access to the level of loan funds sought by the Minister for Minerals and Energy pursuant to the Executive Council authority issued on 13 December 1974.
  2. If so, from where was this advice received.
  3. What advice was received from the Treasury in respect of Mr Khemlani ‘s capacity to secure funds.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. to (3) See answer to Question on Notice No. 2951 (supra).

Overseas Loan Raisings (Question No. 2953)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. On which dates were discussions held between Mr Tirath Khemlani and (a) the Minister for Minerals and Energy and (b) the former Secretary of the Department of Minerals and Energy, and where were the discussions held in each case.
  2. What are the names of other Ministers or departmental officers who have had discussions with Mr Khemlani.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. 1) I am advised that the Minister for Minerals and Energy had discussions with Mr Khemlani as follows: 11 November 1974- Canberra. 12 November 1974- Canberra. 8 December 1974-Sydney. 9 December 1974-Sydney.

During 12-16 December 1974-Canberra.

During 29-31 January 1975-Canberra.

During25-28 February 1975-Canberra. 4 March 1975-Canberra. 22 March 1975-Sydney; and that the former Secretary to the Department of Minerals and Energy was present at most of the discussions.

  1. The Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs indicated in his speech of 9 July 1975 that he had met Mr Khemlani (Hansard, page 3656). I do not know of any discussions between other Ministers and Mr Khemlani. Officers of the Department of the Prime Minsiter and Cabinet, the Department of Minerals and Energy, the AttorneyGeneral’s Department and the Treasury attended meetings with Mr Khemlani. I do not believe that it is necessary or desirable to name the individual officers concerned.

Overseas Loan Raisings (Question No. 2954)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Did he say on 10 June 1975 that he had been informed by the Minister for Minerals and Energy that (a) no letter had been given to any intermediary and (b) that only a cable or cables had been sent to Mr Khemlani.
  2. If so, was this statement correct.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) I did indicate at my Press Conference on 10 June 1975 that there had been no letters but only cables between Mr Khemlani and Mr Connor. That was my understanding at the time.

Overseas Loan Raisings (Question No. 2955)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did the Government undertake an agency arrangement in respect of overseas borrowings with a company which had a director with a criminal record in New South Wales.
  2. Did the director in question make representations on behalf of the Australian Government to international financial institutions.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. No.
  2. See answer to (1).

Overseas Loan Raisings (Question No. 2956)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. When was the borrowing authorisation given to the Minister for Minerals and Energy on 13 December 1974 revoked.
  2. Why was it revoked.
  3. Why was the authority given to the Minister on 28 January 1975.
  4. Why was the authority given on 28 January 1975 for $US2,000 million and not for $US4,000 million.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. 1) and (2) See my speech of 9 July (Hansard page 3595) and also my answer to Questions No. 34 and 35 asked by the Leader of the Opposition on 9 July (Senate Hansard 26 August 1975, page 2 13). (3). and (4) The Minister understood from Mr Khemlani that $US2,000 million was then immediately available.

Overseas Loan Raisings (Question No. 2957)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. What transactions has the Government had with the Seattle First National Bank (Switzerland).
  2. Who is the President of the Bank and who are its directors.
  3. 3 ) What is the Bank ‘s authorised capital.
Mr Crean:
ALP

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

  1. The Australian Government has not had any loan transactions with, or through, this bank. On 9 July 1975 the Minister for Minerals and Energy tabled copies of certain communications with the bank.
  2. Published information shows Mr J. H. Farnum as the Manager. Mr C. M. Berry is listed as President of the Seattle First National Bank, Seattle, Washington as at 3 1 December 1974.
  3. Published information shows that the authorised capital of the Seattle First National Bank, Seattle, Washington on 3 1 December 1974 was $US60m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 2 September 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1975/19750902_reps_29_hor96/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant