House of Representatives
6 April 1976

30th Parliament · 1st Session



Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon. B. M. Snedden, Q.C) took the chair at 2.15 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1333

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Overseas Development Assistance

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 many Australians are concerned at the announced decision by the Australian Government to reduce the 1 975-76 Overseas Development Assistance vote by $2 lm, and by the abolition of the Australian Development Assistance Agency.

We your petitioners do therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government:

  1. as a matter of urgency, reverse the decision to cut the 1975-76 Overseas Development Assistance vote, so as to ensure that the full amount appropriated by Parliament for Overseas Development Assistance is spent this financial year to meet the pressing needs of those in the developing countries:
  2. reaffirm Australia’s commitment of Overseas Development Assistance being a minimum of 0.7 per cent of GNP,and
  3. establish a fully independent statutory authority to administer Australia’s official Overseas Development Assistance.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Malcolm Fraser, Mr Connolly, Mr Dobie, Mr Giles and Mr Wallis.

Petitions received.

Cadet Corps

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 three service cadet forces have great value in the development of the youth of Australia.

That the disbanding of the cadet forces will disperse accumulated expertise and interest of those involved, and in some cases negate the efforts of many people over many years.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will reconsider its decision and that the Government will reinstate the cadet forces.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite and Mr Hodges.

Petitions received.

East Timor: Radio Equipment

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 they believe that the siezure by the Australian Government of the radio used to maintain links between the Democratic Republic of East Timor and the rest of the world was an action which helped the invading forces from Indonesia to prevent the UN special envoy from meeting with the Government of the Democratic Republic of East Timor, and further was an action which lowered Australia’s standing at the United Nations as a supponer of the rights of small nations to their own self-determination.

And your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government will return the seized radio immediately.

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

Petition received.

Classification of Films

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

That we publicly oppose the public screening of obscene or depraved films, such as ‘The Story of O’, which portray either excessive violence, moral perversion, drug use or sadomasochism as normal or desirable behaviour.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take immediate measures to ensure such films are not classified for screening anywhere in Australia.

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

Petition received.

National Employment and Training Scheme

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 whereas from 1 October 1974, the National Employment and Training System came into operation; and that at the time the then Government agreed that widow pensioners and recipients of Supporting Mothers Benefit will be in no way disadvantaged . . . ‘under the National Employment and Training System; and that ‘for all trainees over 21 years and Junior trainees with dependants a full-time training allowance equivalent to the average adult male award wage, which will be adjusted quarterly- at the present time approximately $90 per week’, is to be provided; and that there is strong objection to the reduction in training allowance to trainees under the National Employment and Training System, to be effective from 1 April 1976, as this places these trainees at considerable financial disadvantage.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Members in the House assembled will take the most urgent steps to readjust the payments under the National Employment and Training System so that they are equivalent to the average adult male award wage.

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

Petition received.

Income Tax: Land and Water 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 undersigned persons believe that the $300 limit on income tax deductibility in respect of personal residential land and water rates is unrealistic and is a discriminatory income tax penalty.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take steps to see that the aforesaid limitation is removed entirely or substantially increased.

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

Petition received.

Australian Heritage Commission

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned members of The Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales Executive respectfully showeth that:

There is a growing interest and concern in all sections of Australian society for the conservation of the environment, natural and man-made.

That there are also rapidly growing pressures by powerful forces tending towards the destruction of the Australian heritage.

That it is therefore urgent to appoint the Australian Heritage Commission, which was approved by both sides of this Parliament and to give the Commission sufficient independent staff, resources and funds.

That Technical Assistance Grants and Administrative Support Grants to community organizations are needed to partially redress the gross imbalance in technical expertise and resources suffered by the community groups in pressing the community’s case against the exploiter.

That a proper balance between the Government’s programme of public austerity and the need for action in conservation would be a modest increase in the budget allocations in these areas over that of 1 975-76.

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

Petition received.

A similar petition from certain members of the Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland (Cairns Branch) has been lodged by Mr Thomson.

Petition received.

page 1334

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1334

QUESTION

LEASE OF MAJOR TRANSPORT CAPITAL EQUIPMENT

Mr UREN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct a question to the Treasurer. What effect would wide use of the technique employed by the New South Wales Government to obtain major transport capital equipment on lease have on the Federal financial structure and the ability of the Commonwealth Government to control the nation’s economy?

Mr LYNCH:
Treasurer · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

– That question is a matter for response to the Premiers at the Australian Loan Council meeting which will be held during the / course of the next six to eight weeks. The matter which the honourable member raises has been on my mind. I have sought comments from the Federal Treasury in relation to its application to the Government’s monetary policies and those other policies that involve the States.

The precise question of leasing is very much a matter of the technique which is utilised by the States concerned. Some aspects of a leasing arrangement are those which would automatically come before the Loan Council but some other arrangements in relation to leasing by, for example, the New South Wales Government, would not automatically come before the Loan Council. It is a matter for study at the present time.

page 1334

QUESTION

NON-ENGLISH SPEAKING MIGRANT CHILDREN

Mr FALCONER:
CASEY, VICTORIA

-The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs would be aware that recently a group of more than 200 refugees from Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam arrived at Eastbridge Hostel in Nunawading. Is the Minister aware that staff members of the nearby Mitcham High School have expressed concern about likely problems with the influx of nonEnglish speaking migrant children into the High School? Can he say how many children are involved? Also, can he say what steps are being taken to ensure that such children have a smooth transition into local schools?

Mr MacKELLAR:
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs · WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I am aware of a newspaper report of the nature mentioned by the honourable member. There are approximately eighty to one hundred children of school age at the hostel. Prior to the refugees being accommodated at the hostel the Regional Director of Migration in Victoria made arrangements with the Victorian Department of Education in relation to the school-age children. I believe that special provision has been made by the Victorian Department by providing 2 additional teachers to counsel parents and children before they go to school. I am informed that the children have not yet gone to the Mitcham High School. I believe that counselling will be taking place this week and that the Department has made available some portable classrooms to accommodate the extra children at the school. It is not known how long all these children will be in the area; it is likely that families will be moving away from the hostel to other parts of Australia. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that arrangements were made prior to the refugees arriving at the hostel, and the information I have is that the situation is under control.

page 1335

QUESTION

LEASE OF MAJOR TRANSPORT CAPITAL EQUIPMENT

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I ask the Treasurer a question supplementary to that asked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition concerning the leasing of buses for public transport in Sydney. I do not ask him about the aspects of the transaction which would not ordinarily be discussed under the Financial Agreement but about those aspects which would ordinarily be discussed under the Agreement. I ask him whether those aspects which would ordinarily be discussed under the Agreement were in fact discussed at any meeting of the Loan Council or whether the other members of the Loan Council were asked their opinions about it by telegram.

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– Because it is usually public knowledge when the Loan Council is meeting, the honourable gentleman should be aware that there has not been a meeting of the Loan Council convened by me since the new Government took office. As I mentioned to the honourable gentleman’s deputy, the next meeting will be in the course of the next six to eight weeks, although I would not like to be held to a precise date. I add to what I said to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that of course the attention of the Government, and of myself in particular, has been drawn to a number of Press reports relating to the question of leasing.

I reaffirm what I said to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Leasing arrangements as such are not subject to approval by the Loan Council. However, I am informed that an arrangement by the Government of New South Wales to purchase the buses in conjunction with the leasing proposal would require consultation with the Loan Council before any commitment was entered into. As I mentioned before, the Government will be keeping this question under close examination and I have no doubt that the matter will be raised during the course of the meeting.

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Have there been telegraphic consultations?

Mr LYNCH:

– There has been no direct consultation with me of the type to which the honourable gentleman has referred.

Mr Uren:

– Will the Treasurer table the document from which he was reading?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Was the honourable gentleman reading from the document?

Mr LYNCH:

– No, Mr Speaker, I was not, but I can tell the honourable gentleman that it is a confidential paper anyhow.

page 1335

QUESTION

GIFT TO LAOS

Mr MARTYR:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Has the Minister for Foreign Affairs seen a report in last Thursday’s Sydney Morning Herald entitled ‘Gift to the Communists’, which told of $700,000 earmarked for Laos? Is this report true? If so, will the Minister have another look at this matter and perhaps report to the Parliament before the gift is finalised?

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

-Firstly, I saw the report. Secondly, it is reasonably accurate. Thirdly, I am not prepared to recommend a re-examination. The Australian Government decided that it would make an additional contribution of $696,000 to the second Nam Ngum development fund administered by the Asian Development Bank. I think it is wise to put this in context and not simply to talk about the communist world and ourselves. The fund was set up to finance reservoir storage and electricity generating capacity in Laos and it has been supported by all Australian governments since its inception in 1966. So, to headline it in the manner in which the newspaper did was slightly misleading, to put it mildly.

The project is a positive and practical manifestation of co-operation between Laos and Thailand and ought to be supported on that ground alone. Not only will it provide water storage and electricity benefits for Laos and help increase its limited foreign exchange but also it will enable electricity to be provided to northeast Thailand. Other donors to the project include Canada, France, the Netherlands, Switzerland, West Germany, Japan and India. This project is covered by ESCAP, the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific- a United Nations body which we strongly support and which we have consistently supported. It is administered by the Asian Development Bank, another institution which we strongly support. I see no need for its re-examination.

page 1335

QUESTION

BOXING

Mr STEWART:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

-As no Minister in the present Government has been clearly identified as the Minister responsible for sport, I ask the Minister for Health: Has his attention been drawn to the serious injury suffered by a professional boxer from the United States of America while participating in a professional contest last week at the Blacktown Returned Services League Club in

New South Wales? If so, has he given any consideration to the banning of professional boxing on health grounds?

Mr HUNT:
Minister for Health · GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

– I have seen Press reports of the contest to which the honourable member for Lang referred, and I well recall his concern about injuries that result from boxing. It is a matter that has concerned him for some time. But, of course, there are 2 sides to this case. There are former boxers sitting around this chamber. Whilst it might be said that some of them could have been affected by their boxing, I would not be unkind enough to say that they have been affected by it. In fact, I was engaged in amateur boxing for a period. Sometimes I wonder whether it did not have some effect on me.

I believe that there is a great need to ensure that boxing is undertaken under very strict guidelines and controls. I understand that there is great difficulty in establishing such guidelines and ensuring that they are complied with. I am aware also of the case against controls or the banning of boxing in Australia. People will say that horse riding, motor car racing, rugby league football, Australian rules football and cricket all have some degree of danger. There have been deaths as a consequence of participation in most sports. The difficulty with boxing is that it is a spectacle involving 2 people fighting in a ring each with the objective of knocking the other out of the ring. When one boxer is knocked out of the ring and ultimately knocked out of his senses and ends up in the condition of this American boxer, everbody is deeply concerned about the consequences.

To ban boxing would go far beyond the powers of the Commonwealth Government. It would involve participation by State governments. I will be interested to receive a submission from the Australian Medical Association, which has called for the banning of boxing. I will study submissions that may be directed to me and will discuss the matter with officers of my Department. If I think there is a case, I could well raise it at the Health Ministers conference later this year and I will do so.

page 1336

QUESTION

FRENCH NUCLEAR TESTS IN THE PACIFIC

Mr RUDDOCK:
DUNDAS, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I draw the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs to certain comments in the Sydney Press concerning the recent underground nuclear explosion on an atoll in the Pacific. He may have observed certain reports that the Government’s line against testing in the Pacific had softened since the change of government. I ask him: Is this true?

Mr PEACOCK:
LP

-The short answer to the honourable member is no, the Government’s attitude has not softened. We are aware that the defence ministry in Paris has announced that an underground nuclear test was held at the Mururoa test site in French Polynesia, I think on 2 April of this year. This was the third test in the current series of underground tests, the first having taken place in June of last year and the next in November of last year. The Australian Government’s long-standing policy has been to support international efforts to achieve comprehensive nuclear test bans prohibiting all nuclear weapons testing in all environments. The present Government remains firmly committed to that goal, as a result of which we are concerned that all forms of nuclear weapons testing be stopped. At the same time the Australian Government has noted that the French Government is refraining from conducting nuclear weapons tests in the atmosphere in the Pacific region. Therefore the Australian Government hopes that the French Government will continue to refrain from further atmospheric nuclear tests which, in past years, have given rise . to considerable concern in Australia and other countries.

Let me refer back to the words quoted by the honourable member about a softening of attitude. At the outset of my answer I said that there is no softening of attitude. There is a proper and realistic approach and a proper re-affirmation of our firm stand against nuclear testing. It ought to be remembered that we in government protested both through the South Pacific Forum and the United Nations. It was only when we were dismissed from Government for a short period that the Opposition from the then Government became somewhat more frenetic and, frankly, less effective. Honourable members will recall the way in which certain elements in the trade union movement were allowed make the running on the matter for a time. Then we had the extraordinary spectacle of the then Attorney-General at the International Court of Justice, not to mention the way in which the decision was leaked by the then Prime Minister prior to the Court handing down its decision. This Government will not conduct its international relations on that basis. This Government re-affirms its strong opposition to nuclear weapons testing, and does so through proper channels.

page 1336

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS

Mr NICHOLLS:
BONYTHON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-My question, which is directed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, refers to his recent statement that people who become voluntarily unemployed will not be eligible for unemployment benefit until a period of 6 weeks has elapsed. Will the period of 6 weeks date from the time the person becomes voluntarily unemployed or from the time he registers for employment? If the former is the case, does this represent a liberalisation of the present rules? If the latter is the case, will this cause considerable hardship to the unemployed person who has attempted to seek employment without the aid of the Commonwealth Employment Service?

Mr STREET:
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters · CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA · LP

-As the honourable member is probably aware, the actual payment of unemployment benefits is under the control of my colleague, the Minister for Social Security. The administration of the work test is under the control of my Department. As I understand the positionthis is subject to checking with my colleague- the Social Service Act already provides for deferment of the payment of unemployment benefit in certain cases. We have now specified the maximum period of such deferment. In relation to the detailed questions as to the timing of the commencement of this 6-week period, I will make inquiries of my colleague and give the honourable member an answer.

page 1337

QUESTION

STRIKE BY WOOL HANDLERS

Mr LUSHER:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct a question to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations concerning the S weeks old strike by storemen and packers over the size and weight of wool bales. Can the Minister inform the House of the latest position on the strike and whether the Government is in a position to intervene or to take any action to resolve the dispute in the national interest?

Mr STREET:
LP

-The present dispute had its origins in, as the honourable member said, the maximum weight of wool bales. Many years ago- I think it was in 1964- an agreement was entered into by the parties concerned that the maximum weight should be 204 kilograms. That agreement was signed by the Australian Council of Trade Unions and other parties to it. This dispute had its origin when, quite unilaterally, the Federated Storemen and Packers Union of Australia repudiated that agreement and said that it would not handle any bales over the weight of 180 kilograms. The ACTU advised the Union to keep to its agreement and lift the bans on the handling of wool; but apparently the ACTU is quite incapable of ensuring that the storemen and packers keep to their agreement.

The dispute has now widened in accordance with the declared objective of the Storemen and Packers Union to smash the national wage case guidelines. Allied to their ban on the handling of wool bales in relation to the maximum weight dispute, the storemen and packers have now put in claims for a 35-hour week and substantial wage rises. I was staggered to find that a Minister in the South Australian Government was quoted yesterday as saying that if wool growers wanted to be paid for their wool they should lend their support strongly to the Storemen and Packers Union to see that the Union’s claims were met by the wool selling agents. I find that a most extraordinary -

Mr Young:

– Tell us which Minister.

Mr STREET:

-The Minister for Agriculture. I find it extraordinary that a Minister should advocate the breaking of an agreement- in fact, advocate the smashing of the national wage case guidelines. As a result of this dispute farmers’ incomes have been frozen. They are now paying about $2.4m a week in interest and they are awaiting payment for approximately $70m worth of wool which has been sold already but which is still in store and cannot be moved. The dispute now threatens about $200m worth of wool which is due to be sold between now and the end of the wool selling season. This dispute has now resulted in a complete disruption of the world trade in wool and wool users are now threatening to turn their production over to synthetic fibres because they cannot get access to wool. This is nothing short of a tragedy for many growers. It is rapidly assuming the proportions of a national tragedy for Australia’s greatest industry. When this matter was referred to the Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission a week or so ago the Government gave notice of its intention to intervene in the national interest. As the honourable member probably is aware, this case is now part of the review of the wage fixing guidelines which has been set down for hearing next week.

page 1337

QUESTION

PERMANENT BUILDING SOCIETIES

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The Treasurer will remember my asking him 3 weeks ago about proclaiming the relevant parts of the Financial Corporations Act 1974 so that he could make regulations specifying the asset ratios, lending policies and interest rates of permanent building societies and he will remember answering that he was to meet in Melbourne and Sydney on the last 2 Fridays with the consultative committees established under the Act. I now ask him: When can we now expect these nation-wide regulations to regulate permanent building societies and to reassure investors in the societies?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– As the honourable gentleman is aware, because he referred to it in his question, I met with the advisory committees both in Melbourne and in Sydney during the course of the past fortnight. I can assure the honourable gentleman that those committees were in fact enthused because of the Government’s attitude to the new legislation. I made it perfectly clear that the Government did not intend to use that legislation in any ‘big stick’ sense, as might have been in the mind of the former Administration. I also refresh the honourable gentleman’s recollection of the precise statement which I made to him when he queried this matter some weeks ago, and that is that the legislation was not intended to be utilised, according to the manner in which it was introduced by his Administration, for purposes of the financial stability of particular financial institutions. I made that perfectly clear.

I am unaware why the honourable gentleman is pressing this matter, but he can be assured that the processes of the Act are now working. The committee structure has been established. I also remind the honourable gentleman that he was very much at fault, as was his Government, in allowing that legislation to he for so long a period without taking the effective action which this Government is now taking.

page 1338

QUESTION

DEFENCE FORCE RETIREMENT BENEFITS

Mr BONNETT:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

-Can the Minister for Defence inform the House of the present position regarding the updating of the defence force retirement benefits pensions?

Mr KILLEN:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I am glad to be able to inform the honourable gentleman that the Government has authorised me to prepare legislation to update pensions paid out of the Defence Force Retirement Benefits Fund and Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Fund. May I apologise to the recipients under those 2 funds for the delay which has been involved? I personally do not seek to be excused; but, in search of some measure of understanding, possibly of some exculpation, I point out that this matter has been under our control for but a few months, whereas our predecessors had it under their control for several years. Having said that, I would add that there are honourable gentlemen on both sides of the House who fight both inside and outside this chamber for various causes, often against indifference, frequently against blunt antagonism. The honourable member for Herbert has been a persistent supporter of beneficiaries under the 2 funds to which I have referred. I would presume to thank him on behalf of those who are beneficiaries under those funds, and I trust on behalf of all honourable members in this House, for the sustained interest that he has shown for a very long time.

page 1338

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr WILLIS:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

– My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, concerns the first ever meeting of Ministers for Labour in the various Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development countries which was held in Paris on 4 and 5 March to discuss the serious unemployment situation in member countries. I ask the Minister. Although he did not attend the meeting, has he seen the communique issued by the Ministers after their discussions in which they called for a strengthening of income maintenance schemes to assist the unemployed and declared that a substantial recovery of employment levels will depend not only on a recovery in demand but also on selective employment policies such as job creation programs, community employment projects, increased expenditure on public works and strengthening of manpower training schemes? Will the Minister inform the House why the Australian Government is taking a directly contrary line to that recommended by the Ministers for Labour in comparable countries through its actions in making it more difficult for the unemployed to obtain unemployment benefits, its refusal to countenance job creation programs -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman has asked his question.

Mr STREET:
LP

-Yes, I am aware of the ministerial conference to which the honourable member for Gellibrand referred. We are greatly indebted to the Australian Ambassador to the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development, Mr Cameron, for his contribution to that conference. I have had my attention drawn to the communique which was issued at the end of the conference and to which the honourable gentleman referred. The communique is under study by my Department, and the various issues which it raises are ones of policy which will be considered by the Government in due course. I make one reference to what was a fairly long statement: The new work test guidelines which we have introduced for the payment of the unemployment benefit in no way jeopardise the position of the genuine job seekers.

page 1338

QUESTION

HOUSING FINANCE

Mr SHIPTON:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA

-Is the Treasurer aware of recent Press reports that the State Savings Bank of

Victoria recently made it more difficult to obtain a housing loan by changing the conditions of eligibility? Have some building societies recently increased interest rates on housing loans? Can the honourable gentleman inform the House whether he believes, in view of the issue of the Australian Savings Bonds at an interest rate 9.2 per cent per annum, that housing interest rates may soon fall and that housing loans may become easier to obtain?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– I am aware that one bank in Victoria, the State Savings Bank, has made what I regard as a minor change to its eligibility standards for housing loans. To sustain that I should say by way of explanation that to obtain a housing loan of $20,000 from that bank the applicant now is required to have had an average balance with the bank over the preceding year of $4,444, rather than $4,000 which was the case prior to the change. I also am aware from recent Press reports that the Hotham-La Trobe building society group has increased its lending rates by from one-half per cent to three-quarters per cent. The increased lending rates are related to an increase of one-half per cent in the society’s deposit rate which was announced on 9 February. I am informed that there will be no increase in monthly loan repayments but that the terms of the loans will be extended. So far as the general issue of Australian Savings Bonds is concernedthat has been a matter not without some controversy here and there- I point out that the Victorian Building Societies Association said publicly on 27 March that the issue of Australian Savings Bonds had made no difference to societies’ lending. In response to the last part of the honourable gentleman’s question -

Mr Uren:

– You had better read the latest Reserve Bank report.

Mr LYNCH:

– I did not quite catch what the honourable gentleman said, but the situation with the Reserve Bank is being monitored by me on a daily basis. I met with the Reserve Bank last Friday. As I mentioned, I am in contact with it every 24 hours. I can assure the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that the overall monetary situation is being watched very closely indeed. If he was suggesting alarmist discussions or making charges of a credit squeeze, I deny them absolutely. In response to the last part of the question asked by the honourable member for Higgins, let me say that the issue of Series 2 bonds has in fact concluded and the coupon rate for Series 3 bonds has been shaded to 9.2 per cent. I repeat what I have said on other occasions: There will be across the board no decline in interest rates in

Australia until such time as inflation is effectively brought under control.

page 1339

QUESTION

DAIRY INDUSTRY

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

-In this House the Prime Minister and I- and, I think, a number of other Ministers- have expressed our concern at the very serious position faced by dairy farmers. We were anxious to try to develop a scheme which within Commonwealth responsibility would provide financial assistance and with State cooperation would ensure that the position would be overcome. It was with that in mind that I, on the Commonwealth’s behalf, submitted to the meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council last Thursday a comprehensive package which was designed to alleviate the immediate difficulties and then to provide some hope for a long term examination of the position after 1 July. At that meeting a number of State Ministers expressed their concern, but having expressed their concern they also advocated a significant extension of the type of financial assistance to be provided. However, none suggested that they would be prepared to finance their proposals.

Mr Keating:

– Neither were you.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– Even the honourable member, who was for a time the shadow Minister for Primary Industry, would realise that the Commonwealth’s powers in agriculture are strictly limited and that in order to ensure some general effectiveness of the aid proposed it is quite critical that State governments co-operate with the Federal Government towards the implementation of this scheme of assistance. I am in touch with the State Ministers for Agriculture and hope, as a result of telephone discussions with them, that before the Premiers’ meeting it will be possible to have some reconciliation of views between the Commonwealth and the respective States.

page 1340

QUESTION

TAXATION: WOOL GROWERS’ INCOMES

Mr SHORT:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

– My question, which is directed to the Treasurer, is supplementary to the question asked of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations by the honourable member for Hume. Is the Treasurer aware of the financial havoc being created for wool growers and for this nation as a result of the industrial blackmail being perpetrated by the strike by the Storemen and Packers Union? Is the Treasurer further aware that the strike has resulted in many wool growers being unable to meet taxation payments now falling due? Is it a fact that after a delay of 14 days in tax payment, interest is payable by the taxpayer to the Commissioner of Taxation at the rate of 10 per cent per annum unless such payment is waived by the Commissioner under his discretionary powers? In view of the fact that many wool growers are now unable to meet thentax commitments because of the actions of the Storemen and Packers Union will the Treasurer request the Commissioner to exercise his discretionary powers as sympathetically as possible while the present situation persists?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– I thank the honourable member for Ballaarat very much for a question which, consistent with what my colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has said, reflects upon a situation of very grave concern to this country at the present time. I think the honourable member for Ballaarat used the term ‘industrial blackmail’. In fact, this strike is nothing short of that. It is having a devastating effect upon the fortunes of wool growers who have not seen good days in recent years. As I understand it, prices received by wool growers fell by 29 per cent during 1974-75. Yet it is this group that the union concerned is in fact putting up for blackmail at the present time.

In response to the particular questions raised by the honourable gentleman, I state that interest is payable by the taxpayer at a rate of 10 per cent from the date when payment of the assessment is due- not after a 14 day delayunless waived by the Commissioner according to his discretionary authority. The Commissioner has been in contact with me about this matter because he shows a very real concern for the interests of taxpayers in these circumstances. I am informed that the established guidelines for dealing with taxpayers in financial difficulties will be readily applied to wool growers who are able to demonstrate that because of special circumstances they cannot meet their taxation obligations in the normal way. Individual cases will, of course, be examined on their merits. I thank the honourable gentleman for drawing this matter to the attention of the House and, through the House, no doubt to the attention of wool growers concerned. Naturally, as a consequence of his reminder to me that the matter does deserve further consideration, I shall be in contact with the Commissioner of Taxation this afternoon.

page 1340

QUESTION

ELECTORAL ACT: COURT PROCEEDINGS

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

-My question, which is addressed to the Attorney-General, is supplementary to that asked by the honourable member for Phillip relating to a prosecution in the Australian Capital Territory recently, involving the sum of $500. The Attorney will recall that he decided not to file an ex officio indictment because, as he said, there was not sufficient evidence to warrant a prosecution, despite the fact that a prima facie case had been established. In view of the fact that the Attorney-General has had exhaustive discussions with the SolicitorGeneral, the Secretary of his Department, the Crown Solicitor and counsel, will he inform us now as to the very simple and essential fact: Who owns the $500 and from what sources did it come?

Mr ELLICOTT:
Attorney-General · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The question asked , is a question of law. I have not investigated the circumstances for the purpose of saying who owns the money. Therefore I am unable to answer the question.

page 1340

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY: BUSES

Mr HASLEM:

– Is the Minister for the Capital Territory aware that there has been an industrial dispute concerning the running of buses in the Australian Capital Territory? Is he aware that over the last 2 weekends since the dispute has been settled there have been no buses on Saturday afternoons and Sundays? When will normal bus services be restored?

Mr STALEY:
Minister for the Capital Territory · CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

– Discussions are being held at the moment, indeed today, with a view to getting the new timetables introduced for bus services in the Australian Capital Territory as soon as possible. In view of the importance and delicacy of those discussions I would not want to say more at this stage.

page 1340

QUESTION

SYDNEY METROPOLITAN RAILWAYS

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I ask the Minister for Transport a question about the Sydney metropolitan railways on which my Government and, I presume, the present Government have been negotiating with the New South Wales Government. I ask: What progress has been made with the construction of the railway between East Hills and Glenfield, the quadruplication of the railway line between Granville and Penrith and the proposal for a new railway system radiating from Parramatta?

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · LP

– The matters raised by the Leader of the Opposition have been under review. I am unable to make any further comment at this time.

Mr Armitage:

– He does not know.

Mr NIXON:

page 1341

QUESTION

UNITED NATIONS

Mr LUCOCK:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

-My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I preface my question by saying that I accept the value of the agencies within the United Nations, but in my opinion the latest action of the United Nations Security Council in its condemnation of aggression on behalf of South Africa and the request that compensation be paid proves that this organisation is a complete farce. In my opinion it is no longer of any value -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honourable gentleman is not entitled to state his opinion when asking a question.

Mr LUCOCK:

-As the Australian Government is taking measures to save finance would not one way of saving finance be to withdraw from the United Nations?

Mr PEACOCK:
LP

-I think I would need about 6 hours to answer this question. I appreciate the feelings that the honourable member has in regard to the United Nations. We all on occasions, in respect of many resolutions which are put forward, feel the kind of frustration which he feels about this matter. Nobody was put on this earth to be able to live an easy life and no one was sent to a parliament to be able to sweep aside the world’s problems. I would have thought that notwithstanding any disillusionment regarding particular resolutions one must cling to the hope that the United Nations remains. It is the only established international forum in which, it may be hoped, international disputes can be solved. We have constantly reasserted our support for the United Nations and its agencies. We will from time to time oppose or abstain on resolutions which do not meet with our approval, which do not in our opinion seek to solve the international problems before the world today. I cannot accept in the short term, on the basis of the frustration of any particular honourable member, that we ought seriously to consider resigning from the United Nations either on the question of what the honourable member puts forward in respect of the resolution he referred to or as a fund raising effort. There are many things I would like to add in regard to the United Nations itself. Calling forth aspirations of countries around the world is probably the easiest thing for a Foreign Minister, and you have to put your money where your mouth is. We will be seeking to play an active role in the United Nations in the hope that we can turn members’ frustrations into the sort of aspirations and ideals that we may realistically achieve.

page 1341

QUESTION

COCKBURN SOUND

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister for Defence a question. I ask the honourable, learned and gallant Minister- is there anything else we can say about him that can be put on the record?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will ask his question or resume his seat.

Mr HAYDEN:

-The Minister will recall that in this House last Wednesday he pointed out that 105 of the United States’ submarines were nuclear powered and that anyone who suggested that they could not use bases in Australia because they were nuclear powered would be ‘craven, cowardly and contemptible’? Is he aware that in 1971, 102 American submarines were nuclear powered- 95 per cent of the figure he cited- at a time when the then Prime Minister of a coalition government made a decision which excluded nuclear powered submarines from Australian ports?

Mr William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Not so. That is untrue.

Mr HAYDEN:

– Does he believe that that action was craven, cowardly and contemptible? If so, will he turn around and tell the right honourable gentleman who sits behind him who was then the Prime Minister?

Mr KILLEN:
Minister for Defence · MORETON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I am indebted to the interjection of the right honourable member for Lowe, pointing out a blemish in the substantial argument put by the honourable member for Oxley. He said, in a felicity of language to which we are all accustomed: ‘That is untrue’. I am prepared to accept the argument put by the right honourable member for Lowe but I say this to the honourable member for Oxley: I did not say that the person who held that attitude was craven, cowardly and contemptible; indeed, on the contrary, I said that the attitude itself was craven, cowardly and contemptible. I would like to know -

Mr Hayden:
Mr KILLEN:

– The honourable member is a budding lawyer. He must learn to distinguish fine points. I assure the honourable gentleman that in my tender care and under my tuition he will succeed.

page 1342

QUESTION

DAIRY INDUSTRY

Mr SIMON:
MCMILLAN, VICTORIA

– My question, addressed to the Minister for Primary Industry, is supplementary to a question asked earlier by the honourable member for Darling. I preface it by briefly referring to 4 significant facts relating to the dairy industry: firstly, that dairy farmers in Australia, and those dependent on them, face a bleak future; secondly, that the State Government representatives at the Australian Agricultural Council meeting in Canberra last Thursday refused to join with the Commonwealth Government in a scheme to assist the dairy industry in the short term; thirdly, that the price of Australian skim milk powder on the export market was cut back at the end of last week by approximately one-third; and fourthly, that it was reported in the Melbourne Herald last Saturday that a Koo Wee Rup farmer had shot 14 cows because he could no longer afford to keep them. Does the Minister agree that these facts underscore the urgency of the need for the respective governments of the Commonwealth and the States to reconsider and increase the assistance offered to the industry? Does he agree with the necessity to come to an early decision on these matters?

Mr SINCLAIR:
NCP/NP

-As I explained to the House previously, I was aware of the grievous plight of the dairy industry referred to in the first part of the honourable member’s question. I was not aware of the episode referred to in the final part of the question. I can well understand that any dairy farmer in a position where the expense of maintaining his cows is greater than the return he can expect from milking them twice a day, 7 days a week, might well be led to such an extreme conclusion. However, I think it is necessary to say several things to dairy farmers throughout Australia. The first is that governments are aware of and sympathetic in relation to their problems. I would hope that with the co-operation of the States some immediate resolution of the problems might be devised. Secondly, I believe it is necessary that there be an acceptance by the dairy industry of the fact that it cannot continue to produce manufactured milk products if the only result is to create a surplus which is not saleable on world markets. It is in that context, of course, that the States have a responsibility to join with the Commonwealth to ensure that the social consequences of the reduction in income will not be too severe so that others will not feel they must take the very serious decision that the poor dairyman referred to must have taken.

Finally, it is not easy to devise alternative ways by which dairy farmers can make a living at the moment. For example, if the beef industry were prosperous they could produce calves and perhaps sell them for a realistic return, or if it were possible in some areas to grow fruit or vegetables and sell them at a profit this would make easier an alternative way of generating a living. Those alternatives are not now available and it is for those reasons that it is so necessary that State and Federal governments join together to try to ensure that those members of the Australian community will not continue to be seriously disadvantaged as against all their fellows.

page 1342

AVIATION: AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

Mr SPEAKER:

– The indulgence of the Chair is granted.

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · Gippsland · LP

– On 3 1 March the honourable member for Shortland asked me a question concerning deferment of the regular distribution of airworthiness directives by the Department of Transport. He asked for my assurance that the Government’s control of expenditure would not be permitted to cause a reduction in the high standard of aircraft operation in Australia.

Airworthiness directives are a means by which appropriate aircraft owners, operators and maintenance organisations are notified of required specific modifications or inspections to correct a defect or establish that an unairworthy condition does not exist in a type of aircraft, a type of engine or an item of aircraft equipment. Airworthiness directives are issued in 2 categories. The first category are those which have immediate safety impact and call for corrective action. They are initially issued by the fastest available means- telephone, telegram or even by handand are subsequently confirmed in writing. The second category of directive covers those of less urgency and for which corrective action generally can be accommodated within normal maintenance programs. These directives are issued in the form of monthly consolidated lists.

It is correct that a temporary shortage of funds caused the Department of Transport to delay release of the March consolidated list of directives, that is, the list of less urgent directives. The funds are now available and the directives are being printed. There was no loss of safety in the meantime as the Department re-assessed each of the directives to see whether, in the circumstances, any of them should be upgraded to immediately notifiable directives. In fact, none of the directives was of such urgency as to warrant upgrading.

I repeat the assurance which I have already given that no measure under the Government’s cost recovery program or economy drive will be permitted to put at risk those people who travel by air.

page 1343

QUESTION

DIVORCE DECREES

Mr SPEAKER:

-The indulgence is granted.

Mr ELLICOTT ( WentworthAttorneyGeneral) On I April in this House, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) asked me, by way of a question without notice, whether the Commonwealth Government told the New South Wales Attorney-General’s Department that it did not have the power to withhold information about divorce decisions. He also asked me whether officials in my department told their New South Wales counterparts that they should not have withheld information in a certain divorce case in New South Wales referred to in an article in a newspaper that day. I indicated in reply that I would make enquiries and inform the House about the questions raised by the honourable gentleman.

As to the first question, I have not said anything to the New South Wales AttorneyGeneral’s Department to the effect referred to in the question, nor am I aware that any other member of the Commonwealth Government has done so. As to the second question, I am now able to tell the House that last month, when questions concerning the divorce case were raised in the New South Wales Parliament, an officer of my Department raised the matter in a telephone call to the Registrar of the Family Law Division of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. He did so on his own initiative purely for the purpose of clarifying certain details in anticipation of having to brief me on the case, having regard to my responsibilities under the Matrimonial Causes Act and the Family Law Act.

I am informed by the officer of my department that he did refer to sub-section 73 (2) of the

Matrimonial Causes Act in conversation with the Registrar, and expressed a view as to its interpretation which coincided with that expressed by me in answer to an earlier question from the Leader of the Opposition on the subject also on 1 April. As far as the officer can recall, the Registrar expressed a different view as to the interpretation of the section by reference to rule 299 of the Matrimonial Causes Rules regarding searches of court files.

Rule 229 (1) provides

Subject to these Rules, a party to proceedings, the Attorney-General and, in special circumstances, a person who satisfies a registrar that he has good reason for doing so or obtains the permission of a judge of the court to do so may, upon furnishing to the registrar sufficient particulars and paying the appropriate fee, cause a search to be made for an entry in the Divorce Proceedings Book or for a document that has been or might have been filed for the purpose of proceedings and to receive a certificate of the result of the search.

I understand that the court has consistently taken this view since the introduction of the Matrimonial Causes Act. The officer of my department did not purport to express a departmental direction or view as to how the Registrar should interpret sub-section 73 (2), nor did he tell the Registrar what he should or should not have done in the particular case referred to.

page 1343

DAIRY ADJUSTMENT PROGRAMS

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · New England · NCP/NP

– Pursuant to section 5 of the Dairy Adjustment Act 1974 1 present an amending agreement in relation to dairy adjustment programs in South Australia (1976).

page 1343

BANKRUPTCY ACT REPORT

Mr HOWARD:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Bennelong · LP

– Pursuant to section 314 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966-1973 I present the eighth annual report on the operation of that Act for the period 1 July 1974 to 30 June 1975.

page 1343

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have been informed that certain members claim to have been misrepresented. I call the honourable member for Oxley.

Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley

– At question time the honourable, gallant and learned Minister for Defence (Mr Killen), in an aside -

Mr William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will remember that I spoke to you before the honourable member for Oxley did. As I stood up first, at least I would have expected you to give me precedence so that the position could have been explained before the honourable member for Oxley spoke.

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no order of precedence in personal explanations. In fact, the honourable member for Oxley spoke to me before the right honourable member for Lowe did.

Mr William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I saw him walk up just a second ago.

Mr SPEAKER:

– That was for the third time.

Mr HAYDEN:

-I happen to be suspicious by nature. The Minister for Defence, in what I thought was an uncharacteristic aside, quoted the right honourable member for Lowe (Mr McMahon) as an authority for a comment he made.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable gentleman is making a personal explanation. He is not entitled to recapitulate what was said by the Minister for Defence or the right honourable member for Lowe. If the honourable gentleman claims to have been misrepresented, he will state the misrepresentation and deal with it.

Mr Killen:

– And not argue about it.

Mr HAYDEN:

-I am sorry. The Minister for Defence said that it was untrue to claim that a previous coalition government in 1971-1 said that it was in 1971; I am told that it was in 1971 or 1972- took a decision which resulted in nuclear powered ships being excluded from Australian ports and that that decision was taken by the right honourable member for Lowe (Mr McMahon) when he was Prime Minister. I am advised that the basis of the exclusion was that it was to apply until satisfactory guarantees against accidents were given and that no public official announcement was made. Furthermore, the policy applied when the Labor Government came into office and it was continued by that Labor Government in office.

Mr William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-Mr Speaker, I have been misrepresented by the Acting Minister for Defence in relation to the use of Cockburn Sound -

Mr Killen:

– There is nothing acting about me. I am the Minister for Defence.

Mr William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I am sorry. I am referring to the shadow Minister for Defence, who will remain in the shadows at least as long as he remains in this Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The right honourable member for Lowe will make his explanation.

Mr William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Yes, Sir. The fact is that in 1972, when I was the Prime Minister, I received a report from a special technical committee of the Defence Committee which advised that the Committee as a whole was unable to determine conclusively the security considerations attached to nuclear powered and nuclear armed ships going into Cockburn Sound. Given as I then was to prayer, I decided to rely upon that method of obtaining a solution rather than to implore the technical committee of the Defence Committee to do something which was manifestly in the interests of this country. I left it there. My prayers were not answered. They did not have to be, because I did not have to take any decisive action then.

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · New England · NCP/NP

- Mr Speaker, I too claim to have been misrepresented. In the Australian Financial Review of today’s date there is a suggestion that a factual error was made in a speech delivered by me at the weekend regarding Australia’s beef prospects for the current calender year. There may have been some imprecision in the words used; but certainly in the statement I referred to a proposed shortfall, for in that part of my speech in which I referred to concern about the allocations from the United States I spoke of the fact that there is still no conclusion. I referred only to a proposed shortfall and not to a concluded allocation. It is the Government’s hope that in discussions with the United States Administration we may yet be able to persuade it that in the allocation of any possible shortfall Australia should continue to receive its customary apportionment.

page 1344

ROYAL VISIT

Ministerial Statement

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– by leave- I wish to inform the House that the dates for the Queen’s visit to Australia and New Zealand next year will be released from Buckingham Palace today. Her Majesty plans to visit a number of Commonwealth countries in 1977 as part of celebrations to mark the twenty-fifth anniversary of her reign. I was pleased to confirm to the Palace in December last, after the Government had been elected to office, the invitation which had been extended at an earlier date by the former Prime Minister. The visit to Australia will be planned to begin with an arrival in Canberra on Monday 7 March, and overall it is likely to last between two and three weeks. During that time Her Majesty, who will be accompanied by the Duke of Edinburgh, hopes to visit each State capital. The sequence has yet to be decided and precise dates have yet to be settled. This news will be received with a great deal of pleasure. Every one of the Queen’s subjects in Australia will be delighted to know that Her Majesty and His Royal Highness are able to come again and spend time with us. They will receive a very warm welcome.

The primary purpose of the visit will be to celebrate the silver jubilee of Her Majesty’s accession to the throne and the Australian people will be pleased to know that the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh will be able to visit each State, even though their time in each will necessarily be limited. In March 1974, Her Majesty was to have made visits to South Australia and Western Australia and was greatly disappointed when her constitutional duties in Britain brought about their cancellation. For next year’s visit the Queen has asked that her itinerary include added time in both South Australia and Western Australia as they have not been visited by her since 1963. The royal yacht Britannia is expected to be in Australian waters at the time of the Queen’s visit and will be used as Her Majesty’s home wherever possible. It will also be a means of transport and of rest between engagements, as well as being available for hospitality. I present the following paper:

Royal Visit- Ministerial Statement, 6 April 1 976

page 1345

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Dried Vine Fruits Levy Amendment Bill 1976.

Dried Vine Fruits Stabilization Amendment Bill 1976.

States Grants ( Universities) Bill 1 976.

States Grants (Universities) Amendment Bill 1976.

States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill 1976.

States Grants (Advanced Education) Amendment Bill 1976.

States Grants (Technical and Further Education) Amendment Bill 1976.

page 1345

HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have received letters from both the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Uren) and the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. I have selected the matter proposed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, namely:

The failure of the Government to stimulate the housing and construction industry.

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

Mr UREN:
Reid

-The Australian building industry faces a stark future of sagging investment, dwindling employment and lagging technology. All of the indicators point to a major downturn in the industry over the past few months. In particular, the policies of the Fraser Government have had a savage impact on both the private and the public sectors of an industry which is crucial to economic recovery. I commence by summarising some of these indicators, turning first to the residential sector. Private dwelling investment in 1974-75 fell by about 20 per cent in real terms over the previous year. In particular, the activity in the June quarter of 1975 was the lowest for 5 years. In the second half of last year a very sharp recovery occurred, but there are now grave doubts about whether this spurt in activity can be sustained. In the December quarter of last year private residential investment was 2 1 per cent higher in real terms than in the June quarter. Private approvals and commencements have been strong in recent months. This has been offset by a falling off in public housing activity.

In normal circumstances there would be grounds for qualified optimism about the future of housing investment. On all the evidence there has been a strong recovery over the past 6 months, a recovery which was generated in the final months of the Whitlam Labor Government. For 2 reasons we must be careful about building too high our hopes for the housing industry. Firstly, the recovery has been rather patchy; it has not occurred in a uniform way across the whole housing industry. Secondly, there are signs that the recovery is flattening out and that some falling off in activity can be expected later this year. There has been not the slightest sign of recovery in the key industrial State of New South Wales. In fact activity in the New South Wales home building industry is still running close to the lowest point of the slump. Overall the recovery has been sluggish. There has been no recovery in New South Wales. There is growing evidence that even the limited recovery in other States in the past few months is fading. In the first half of the 1975-76 financial year spending on home building increased at an annual rate of 27 per cent. On present indications spending on residential housing will fall by an annual rate of about 7 per cent in the second half of 1975-76. This massive slide in home building investment will fall quite severely on private sector home building. During 1975-76 there will be a dramatic turnround in spending on new homes by the private sector. In the first half of the financial year the private sector lifted its spending on new residential construction at an annual rate of just under 29 per cent. On present indications new spending by the private sector will fall by about 1.8 per cent in the second half of 1975-76.

It is not too hard to find the reason for this falling away of private sector confidence in new dwelling construction. The private sector is frightened of a credit squeeze. It sees the dangers that are emerging from a monetary policy designed to cut back the growth of money supply from about 20 per cent a year to about 12 per cent. The building industry, and in particular the housing industry, bears the major burden of tight monetary policy in Australia. There is a real danger that the present policies will produce a credit squeeze with further damaging effects on the building industry as a whole and on the home building industry in particular. The reduction in the stock of housing finance and the certainty of higher interest rates will deal a terrible body blow to private housing. In particular, these tight monetary policies will hit the housing sector at a time when it is the only part of the economy which has shown any potential for recovery and future growth. Government policy could knock on the head the fragile and uneven recovery which has occurred in dwelling construction in the past few months.

This trend would be intensified by 2 other factors. The first is the diversion of the bulk of available housing finance into existing dwellings. The latest issue of the Reserve Bank bulletin of economic figures points to the unusually high volume of lending going to existing dwellings during 1975. The Reserve Bank sounded a warning note about housing finance in these terms:

The absorption of funds into Australian savings bonds seems likely to lead to some moderation of aggregate lending for housing by banks and permanent building societies in the early months of 1976.

Lack of funds would mean that most of what was available would go to existing dwellings. There would be no incentive for the risk-taking of new construction. The private sector would be starved for funds for new home building.

A second factor is the danger of a return of rapid increases in the price of residential land. It is not a coincidence that there has been no recovery in dwelling construction in New South Wales, where land prices have stabilised at levels far in excess of the rest of Australia. The grossly inflated price of building blocks has hindered any recovery in New South Wales and in particular in the Sydney metropolitan area. Some of the other capital cities are now facing a very limited supply of residential land. The exception is Adelaide where the South Australian Land Commission’s policies and programs are ensuring sufficient stocks of land at suitable prices for the future. The Land Commission was brought about through the co-operation of the Australian Labor Government and the South Australian Labor Government. If the land price spiral takes off again- there are very strong signs that this is likely- there is no prospect of strong and sustained recovery in the residential sector.

The outlook for the non-residential sector is much more depressing. Quite plainly a very severe crisis exists here. Activity by the private sector is low and is falling. Coupled with a slow down in spending on public works, which the Fraser Government has directed, the industry faces its worst plight since the end of the Second World War. There is no sign of any respite in the present indicators. Let me point to a few. Surveys of builders, investors, engineers and architects point to a low investment at least until the middle of the year. They expect some signs of revival later in the year but if this occurs it will be from a very low base. Surveys of professional groups during 1975 showed a very large fall in work under way. This downturn will flow through from the drawing boards to the construction sites throughout this year. A survey of South Australian firms of architects in January of this year showed that two-thirds had cut their staffs. The value of work in progress was just over half of what it was in the first half of 1 975. It is expected to be down to one-third by June of this year.

The letting of major tender contracts has fallen sharply. Approvals for private nonresidential buildings have fallen. The amount of work remaining to be done on private sector construction has fallen well below the peak level. This is evidence of a very serious predicament in the private sector of non-residential construction. In total, private spending in this part of the economy fell by about 1 per cent in real terms in 1974-75. The trend downwards continued in the first half of this financial year, and there are signs that that trend will step up in the second half.

What has the Government done to bolster the badly hit building and construction industry? It is fundamental that the level of activity in this part of the economy is heavily dependent upon public sector works. About 65 per cent to 70 per cent of public capital expenditure flows from government to industry, with the provision of schools, roads, sewerage works, land development and other capital works programs. In 1974-75 spending by public authorities in this area increased, in real terms, by about 6 per cent. The 1975-76 Budget provided an increase of about 7 per cent for the whole financial year. The increased rate of spending showed up strongly in the September and December quarters of 1975. This cushioned the sharp decline in non-residential construction by the private sector. The changed policies of the Fraser Government will reverse this trend, and it is likely that public spending will fall by about 2 per cent in the remainder of 1975-76. Already at least $60m has been cut from capital spending, of which -about $50m would have flowed through to the building industry. This trend will continue with the framing of the 1 976-77 Budget. There is no doubt that the Government will succumb to the Treasury line and the brunt of its spending cuts will be on capital works programs. It is always hard to reduce current spending. Expenditure on capital works can be deferred or chopped out of the Estimates with relative ease, as will be argued by Treasury.

Clearly there is no source of relief for the sorely pressed building and construction industry in the next Budget. In total, we are looking at a building industry whose total output is falling and will continue to fall. Resources built up by the growth of the industry in the late 1960s and early 1970s are grossly under employed. This is reflected in the high rate of unemployment in the industry which employs about 8 per cent of the work force, with the jobs of about another 10 per cent dependent on it. In November last year unemployment in the whole of this industry was 5.3 per cent, which was much higher than the overall unemployment rate of 3.8 per cent. This unemployment rate could rise in the next 6 months to 7 per cent or 8 per cent of the building work force, with a higher concentration of unemployment in the non-residential sector. There is no sign that the Government has recognised the dimensions of the crisis. Its deliberate action to cut spending will aggravate the situation even further. As a matter of extreme urgency the Government should take 3 measures to reduce the impact of its policies on the building industry. It should ensure that sufficient funds are available for the rest of 1975-76 and through to 1976-77 to prevent any further drop in the output of the building industry. It should adopt a strategy in framing its first budget that would provide a level of expenditure on capital works sufficient to sustain the building industry. Finally it should take measures to cushion the building industry from the impact of a tight monetary policy. One way of doing this would be by making special loans to the savings banks. Unless the Government recognises the extent of the crisis and acts to stem the tide, the building industry faces years of chaos and continued decay.

Mr McLEAY:
Minister for Construction · Boothby · LP

– After listening to the

Deputy Leader of the Opposition my impression was: What a hide the Australian Labor Party has. How could it come in here and cry like that about the building and construction industry in view of the damage that 3 years of hard Labor did to that industry? I do not think any other industry has been damaged more as a result of Labor Party policies than the building and construction industry. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition came in here now and cried about it. Let us hope that industry leaders throughout the country were listening to him. I will leave the question of housing primarily to my colleague the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman). The Deputy Leader of the Opposition told a couple of falsehoods. He said that housing had a sharp recovery in the last days of the Whitlam Government. I think they were the words he used. He implied that housing had taken an awful thrashing during the preceding Vh years of the Whitlam Government. I will deal with the last weeks of the Whitlam Government. So far as the number of building approvals can be used to indicate potential forward work, the figures show that the number of approvals had fallen from the low level of 12 400 in November to 1 1 300 in December, so they had actually fallen in the last days of the Whitlam Government. They have improved slightly since we have been in office, from 1 1 000 in January to 12 100 in February. I believe that the home building industry, which has certainly taken a battering under Labor, is slowly recovering, with the exception certainly of New South Wales.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– And Queensland.

Mr McLEAY:

– I do not think the position in Queensland is quite as bad as the position in New South Wales. New South Wales will take some little time to recover. Let us remember how bad it was when Labor was in government. The shortfall in houses, as I recollect, estimated to November-December last year was about 80 000 over the 3 years of Labor administration. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition talked about housing policies. Labor terminated the home savings grant. We have reintroduced it, in a better form I believe.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Government intends to cut out tax deductibility of mortgage rates.

Mr McLEAY:

– Under Labor, especially during the time that the honourable member for Hughes, who is trying to interject, was Minister for Housing and Construction, inflation in home building reached 20 per cent a year. More than $100 a week was coming out of a person’s wage just to keep up with building inflation. So I do not think that the honourable member should interject too loudly. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition talked about generating activity in the home building industry. I can remember the former Government doing just that about 2 years ago. It injected $150m into the savings banks for use in the home building and housing industries. More than 70 per cent of that was used to buy existing homes or for re-mortgaging, which did not do very much good for the construction industry.

I just happen to have with me a Press release that I put out in July 1 974 as the shadow Minister in this area. At that time I was making a point about the promise by the then Prime Minister, Mr E. G. Whitlam, in his 1972 election campaign that the Australian Labor Party would reduce the cost of housing by between $2,000 and $6,000. 1 think it is reasonable to say that it more than doubled the cost of housing in some areas-by $ 1 5 ,000 to $20,000-and that throughout Australia the average certainly would be in excess of $10,000. At the same time he promised to reduce interest rates. That is the greatest laugh of all. When the Australian Labor Party came into office interest rates were around 6 per cent. When it went out of office they were over 9 per cent. So the Labor Government did not do anything about reducing interest rates. The honourable member for Hughes, who interjected a few moments ago, was so concerned about the soaring house prices that he undertook to refer the whole matter to the Joint Committee on Prices for its investigation. So far as I am aware nothing ever came of that, like many of his other initiatives.

In August 1974 the then Prime Minister, speaking to a building workers conference, used some S-month old statistics to say that the housing industry was over stretched and that it would serve no worthwhile purpose to increase the supply of housing. On 13 September 1974- in the heyday of the former Administration- the then Minister for Housing and Construction, who interjected a moment or two ago, said that so far as welfare housing was concerned he would provide a bottomless pit of funds. He may remember those words. In fact, in the Hayden Budget of last August welfare housing funds were cut back by $20.8m which, having regard to the rate of inflation, certainly was a very much larger figure then than it is now. It is no good blaming the present Government for what is happening to the housing and construction industry. When we went out of office in 1972 the inflation rate was 4 per cent. It actually exceeded 20 per cent during parts of 1975. In 1974 the wages demand peaked. Some awards were increased by as much as 65 per cent. I believe, certainly insofar as South Australia is concerned, that the across-the-board increase in the awards of building workers was almost 50 per cent. At the same time the former Government expanded the public works expenditure. It peaked during 1974, which is when we had a 20 per cent inflation rate. The Hayden Budget of 1 975 started the present cutback. ‘Cutback’ is a word that no one uses much these days. I am of the view that the Labor Party created an expectation in relation to public works which simply cannot be maintained.

I think we should remember that during the term of the Labor Administration wages were 54 per cent of the gross domestic product and profits were 13 per cent, and that when the Labor Administration went out of office in 1975 wages were 61 per cent of the gross domestic product and profits had dropped to 9 per cent. It is my view that the biggest sin that was committed under the Labor Administration was the fostering of the idea that everyone is entitled to enjoy the benefits of this society irrespective of whether he works. Let me remind the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that the deficit in the Hayden Budget was estimated at $2, 800m and that at this moment it is $4, 700m, despite the fact that we have saved $360m by various cuts and economies.

Dr Klugman:

– You have mucked it up, have you not?

Mr McLEAY:

-If the Labor Party were in office now and was supported by the honourable member for Prospect, who has just interjected, that deficit would have doubled. I shudder to think what the deficit would have been if the 2 1 Bills that were knocked out of the Senate had ever become law. We would have had a deficit of mammoth proportions. I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: Where does he think that we should reflate? Where does he think that public funds should be spent to overcome this problem?

Mr Uren:

– I have given you my recommendations.

Mr McLEAY:

-Does the Deputy Leader of the Opposition suggest that we should be spending money on constructing office accommodation? That is one of his pet schemes. He nods his head in agreement. He is asserting that we should be spending public funds on office accommodation. There is a surplus of office accommodation throughout Australia at the moment. There is absolutely no point in building up the deficit by spending public funds on the construction of office accommodation when there is more office accommodation available than one can poke a stick at. What else does he suggest? Does he suggest that we should spend public funds on the construction of factories and warehouses? Surely it is a matter for the private sector to make a judgment on where it will build factories and warehouses. I believe that there are vacant factories and warehouses in every capital city throughout Australia simply because businesses have gone into liquidation as a result of the policies pursued by the former Government.

Does the Deputy Leader of the Opposition think that private enterprise might invest money in shops and shopping centres? The position with respect to shops and shopping centres is the same as it is with respect to factories and warehouses. In fact, most good shopping sites and shopping centre sites have been well picked over and it will be some time before private investors will want to invest in that area. Does the Leader of the Opposition think that the private sector should now start investing in flats? There is a shortage of rental accommodation in this country but, because of the way in which the unions operate at the moment, an investor never knows whether he is going to get his flat development finished. Because a developer could have a strike on his hands, because of the high interest rates, because of the rent controls in some areas and because of the lack of confidence by developers it is perfectly obvious that it will be some time before the private sector will start to spend money in this area. The private sector accounts for one-third of the expenditure in the non-residential area in this country- $ 1,000m a year. The public sector accounts for $2,000m of it. So it is obvious that any policies which squeeze the public sector spending will affect the private sector which constructs the buildings.

What does the Deputy Leader of the Opposition think that this Government should do now? Does he think that it should be spending more money on the construction of roads, reservoirsjust to put a reservoir somewhere to keep an industry going- schools and hospitals when it has a deficit of $4, 700m? The truth of the matter is that with our current rate of growth we cannot afford to expand the public sector spending.

Mr Uren:

– Are you speaking for the Government? Is this the Government’s policy?

Mr McLEAY:

– The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who has just interjected, quoted what some architects had said just a few weeks ago. I would like to quote what architects were saying when his party was in government. I refer to an article in the Adelaide Advertiser on 8 September 1975, which reads:

Some South Australian architectural firms have been forced to lay off staff in the past few months because there is not enough work on the drawing boards.

The previous Government did not understand. Long lead times have to be taken into account in planning these projects. Unfortunately time is running out on me and prevents my referring in detail to a list I have collected of private investment projects in Victoria which have been deferred because of a lack of confidence, profit and viability. The half a dozen projects on this list on their own account for $ 168m. It is no good blaming the present Government for the sins of the past 3 years.

Let us examine now which other industries are in trouble. Does the Leader of the Opposition not believe that the beef industry, the dairy industry, the fruit industry, the mining industry or the ship building industry are in trouble? The situation is that all industries, with one or two notable exceptions, are in terrible trouble and that their troubles are a direct result of the economic mismanagement of the former Government. Our strategy is to combat inflation- that is our first line of attack- in the interests of the total economy so that all industries will have a chance of recovering, not just a particular industry. We cannot do that on our own. We need the support of the States because they are responsible for a great deal of the spending of the public dollar; we need the support of local governments; and we need the support of trade union leaders. They will have a part to play. Some trade union leaders, in my view, have contributed very heavily to the present situation. In many cases they have priced their members out of work. One can see proof of that across the whole spectrum of industry; but it is particularly bad in the building and construction industry, which has suffered from bans, demarcation disputes and frivolous disputes such as that which occurred in relation to the Flinders Medical Centre building just two or three weeks ago when the men went on strike because the contractor would not pay them for when they were on strike. Can honourable members think of anything more ridiculous than that?

I believe that the policies of the former socialist Government, combined with those of the socialist Government in South Australia, are killing the economy of that State. South Australia used to be a low cost State. Industry was attracted there because it was favourable to the production of goods. Since the Labor Government came to power in that State the cost of production there has increased enormously. Almost all- I understand 80 per cent- of the money spent on public works in South Australia is spent on day labour in the public buildings area, the engineering and water supply area, the marine and harbours area and the roads area. There is no public scrutiny of that work. There are confused zoning regulations which add to costs, as do the workers compensation provisions. In South Australia one becomes entitled to long service leave after 7 years service. That is an absolute entitlement. In every other State the period is 10 years. Land tax has increased in some areas by 900 per cent. Stamp duty on property transfers is higher in South Australia than anywhere else. I take the view that the Premier of South Australia and his Government are doing to South Australia what the Whitlam Government did to Australia.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The construction industry has lost the support and the consideration of this Government and is faced with a massive slow-down and underutilisation. There are many who say that it is on the brink of collapse. The Government has almost perfected its blueprint of destruction for this industry from which, I warn seriously, there may be no recovery for many years to come. I want to outline the Government’s recipe for disaster. Government contracts are being cancelled on an unprecedented scale throughout Australia. Some 250 projects have been abandoned or deferred already at a cost of $ 130m, and notice has been given that more will follow.

The Department of Housing and Construction has been dismembered and the surviving unit, the. Department of Construction, has been relegated to Cabinet oblivion. The Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development has suffered a budget cut of $31m. The Australian Housing Corporation has been abolished to achieve a saving of $29m. The Darwin reconstruction program has been retarded. Development of Albury-Wodonga and other growth centres is running dead through declining Government support. The Government has slashed the budgets for the Australian Postal Commission and the Australian Telecommunications Commission by $24m and has made further cuts in the programs of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, the Film and Television School and many other instrumentalities, all of which will have to cut their building programs. There is a curtailment of funds for public housing. Building societies have suffered a liquidity crisis through declining investment confidence. Let me refer to today’s news item, which reads:

Funds in New South Wales building societies dropped by $62.6m in February- the first full month of the Federal Government’s new Australian Savings Bond.

Net withdrawals for all Australian building societies total $64m . . .

The Australian savings bonds Series 1, offered at a phenomenal 10.5 per cent, set a competitive hike to a new interest plateau and drained funds away from housing and construction investment to the extent of its yield of $757.3m from more than 121000 subscribers. Further work on a planned construction industry census has been deferred until at least 1977-78. The Government has cut the housing component out of the 1976 census of population and housing and reduced the budget for the census from $14m to $7m. It has abandoned the third housing expenditure survey for 1976-77. In other words, the Government has set out to keep the industry and the country at large in a state of perpetual ignorance. It is not even going to reveal the facts in relation to the deterioration in the industry. Without those facts, planning from here on is going to be an impossibility.

To heap final indignity on the besieged housing and construction industry, the total money supply was allowed to crash into a savage nose dive of almost unprecedented proportions during February last. That is the state of the industry under the glaring lights of Fraserism. The Government has turned on the lights, but people do not like what they are starting to see. The fact is that the industry is being sacrificed by this Government through its obsession against deficit finance, its addiction to Budget cuts, its pursuit of fanatical frugality in public sector spending, and its hang-up with handouts for the giant cartels and corporations. At the very moment when this great but ailing industry calls for an infusion of Government support, the Government ruthlessly clamps its foot on the oxygen lifeline. The Minister for Construction (Mr McLeay) sought to put his position beyond doubt. So as to clear up any misconceptions, he issued a Press statement on 24 March. The industry has been in a state of shuddering shock ever since that time. This is what he said:

The position is that the total value of capital works for Australian departments deferred is $ 1 37m.

With exceptional frankness, he went on to admit that deferrals in the Northern Territory, with the exception of Darwin, amounted to only $52m. Then, in the Darwin context, he said:

It was quite untrue to claim that $60m for 1 500 living units had been axed from the Darwin reconstruction program, but what has happened is that commencement of building these units has been deferred until the next financial year.

Later he added, as he said today:

It is acknowledged that the building industry is going through a difficult period, but so are many other industries.

Finally he quoted these words:

The Government is determined to press on with its strategy of reducing waste in government and unnecessary expenditure and at the same time not increase taxes.

As I see it, that is poor consolation for an industry concerned with massive underutilisation of resources and unemployment affecting tradesmen, engineers, surveyors, architects and draughtsmen reaching unprecedented levels. The Master Builders Association of New South Wales is among the bodies that are seriously concerned about the current crisis. In the February edition of the publication Builder it had this to say:

Since the end of October the number of registered unemployed in the building industry in NSW increased by 62 per cent to a total of 11 034 at the end of January 1976. This represents an increase from 6705 to 10 423 for on-site workers and from 385 to 61 1 for the professional consultative sector. In the month of December alone there was a massive increase of 1 18 per cent ( 1 574) in the number of apprentices registered as unemployed, which at the end of January 1976 totalled 2953.

Earlier this month, the Master Builders Association, through its Acting Executive Director, Mr John Elder, predicted that 60 per cent of the building industry would be unemployed by May this year. The Building Workers Industrial Union of Australia, at its national executive meeting this month, claimed in its state of the industry resolution that vital sections of the building and construction industry were heading towards a collapse of unprecedented dimensions. The union’s National Secretary, Mr Clancy, claimed that from the end of last November to the end of this year another 50 000 workers in the industry will lose their jobs unless action is taken very soon. The Institute of Quantity Surveyors claims that its personnel are facing major unemployment. Of a total of 900 quantity surveyors in Australia close on half, some 400, are expected to be out of work by June 1 976. They of course are professionally involved with the early pipeline activity and their inactivity spells crisis for many other professional and trade groups. The Royal Institute of Architects is similarly concerned. At December 1 975 the employment level for architectural staff in New South Wales approximated 900 personnel. The estimated level for June 1 976 is 670. So the crisis goes on.

The Executive Director of the Royal Institute of Architects, Mr Donald Bailey, claims that there has been a decline in architectural employment in excess of 25 per cent in the year ended March 1976. He said that indications are for a further 17 per cent decline by the end of September. The industry urgently needs a $500m Government commitment over 3 years, a Commonwealth office program to cater for the 35 000 relocatable public servants identified by the Public. Service Board, and a comprehensive program for hospitals, schools and other public works. The industry needs an indicative planning process designed to ascertain a desirable construction level and to maximise the utilisation of manpower resources. It needs forward planning to achieve 5 -year rolling programs incorporating both public and private sector initiatives. It needs an urgent ‘save the industry’ conference and an acceptance of responsibility on the part of this Government in respect of the ailing housing industry.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

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

Mr CADMAN:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-We are discussing a matter of public importance raised by the Opposition, namely:

The failure of the Government to stimulate the housing and construction industry.

I think we should be debating the housing and construction industry but I do not like the initial words: ‘The failure of the Government’. All the facts and figures that have been presented today deal with the period up to January- from October to January, July to January. To which Administration do those figures refer? The honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) used facts and figures, from organisations that we presented to him over the 2 years of his administration. He refused to take note. He refused to use them. We will use them. The Government will take note and we will act. That is the difference between the outlook of the Government and that of the Opposition.

The building industry provides something like 8 per cent to 9 per cent of total employment. It provides about 25 per cent if related industries are considered and about a similar proportion if the gross domestic product is considered. The skills of those in this industry have been acquired over many years. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Uren) gave certain facts relating to the industry, but I say to him that it was in the 1960s and the early 1970s- I shall repeat to him his own words- under the administration of the Liberal-Country Party Government that the building industry in Australia was built up to the force it used to be before it was destroyed by the people opposite. Let us have a look at building approvals and what the previous Government did to the building industry. I do not feel that building approvals are an accurate indication of what is happening in the industry and I have said so before in this House, but building approval figures are the ones that the Opposition used when it was administering housing, so let us use those figures. Let us have a look at total Government and private expenditure on dwellings over the last year. Let us look at the expenditure in 1974-75. A total of 41000 dwellings were completed in that year. If the full effects of the previous Government’s Budget continued to be felt throughout this year 32 000 dwellings would be completed in 1975-76. But the figure will not finish at that level because there are signs of improvement. There has been a general decline over a long period.

Let us have a look at related industries which the Opposition did not mention. There has been a 50 per cent decline in the production of bricks in Australia over the last 2 years, the 2 years in which Labor mismanagement of the economy had full reign. Production declined by 50 per cent, which meant 50 per cent fewer homes constructed under the previous Government. Let us have a look in other areas, such as home ownership. In 1966, 71.5 per cent of Australians owned their own homes. By 1971 the figure had declined to 64 per cent. I guarantee that surveys would show that the figure is a lot lower at present. I guarantee that the present figure is way below 64 per cent and approaching 50 per cent. Let us have a look at home ownership and building activity in New South Wales. New South Wales used to have something like 36 per cent of the population of Australia and 35 per cent of housing activity. By September 1975 that proportion of population had been retained but housing activity in New South Wales had dropped from 35 per cent of the Australian total to 23 per cent. That is what the Labor Party did to the building industry in New South Wales.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition talked about the Building Workers Industrial Union and Mr Clancy. Mr Clancy said that between November 1973 and November last year 30 000 men were forced out of the industry. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition knew about it but he did not speak up in November or July of last year. It suited him to wait until this stage before indicating to his supporters what has happened in the building industry and what the Labor Party did to the building industry. Let us have the survey reports and let us find out exactly what the previous Government did. Those surveys will demonstrate it right enough. I do not deny that there are problems in the building industry. The previous Government created them. We are determined to do something about them. With the perception, the understanding and the resources that this Government is prepared to use to gain information- information the very existence of which was denied by the previous Government- we will be and are in tune with what is happening in the building industry. We know that there are problems and we will do something about them.

Housing in Australia has become a problem. Land and new houses are too expensive. Who brought about that situation? Remember the early days of 1973 when interest rates on housing mortgages were raised. Mortgage rates are far too high. There is a shortage of rental accommodation caused by lack of new construction. What has happened to material costs over the previous 2 years? They rose by about 23 per cent per annum and they were rising in December 1974 at about that rate. In February of this year they are rising at an annual rate of 12 per cent- quite an improvement and that improvement will continue.

The price of houses boomed in the Labor period. The annual rate of increase in the cost of housing was 30 per cent. What is it today? Something like 12 per cent to 13 per cent. This is a fair indication that things are starting to improve. The costs are coming down to some extent. The completion time of houses has improved by about 50 per cent. But in the boom period of the Labor years housing was a disaster. We told honourable members opposite that it was a disaster. The platitudes and the sunshine talk went on ad nauseam. I should like to refer to additional figures that have been cited in regard to the decline of professional activity in the field. What did honourable members opposite do about the decline? The figures show shop building construction down by 70 per cent; factory building down by 47 per cent; offices by 62 per cent and other business premises 25 per cent. In the professional areas of planning and architecture the figures show a decline of 39 per cent in architectural staff, 14 per cent in consulting engineers and 27 per cent in quantity surveyors. The total figures of employment produced by Mr Clancy are interesting, but it would seem to me that the figure for January is a most revealing one.

Let us go back a little bit further to the month of December when there was a massive 1 1 8 per cent increase in unemployment in the building industry. Who was responsible for the administration that brought that about? I quote from a speech of a previous Treasurer, the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) in February 197S. In his wonderful words of wisdom he said:

The current high rate of loan approvals for housing is in line with the Government’s objective of providing a quick acting stimulus to activity and employment in the home building industry. At the same time, the Government is determined to avoid a return to the earlier boom conditions in the home building industry which were neither beneficial to the community nor to the industry. The combined effect of the various measures taken should be to restore activity in the home building industry to a satisfactory level but the Government would, of course, continue to reassess policy with regard to the availability of housing finance in the light of developing circumstances.

Nothing happened. Things got worse. We now have a homes savings grant scheme. We now have proposals whereby at least people can commence to purchase their own homes. That is something that did not occur under Labor Government administration. Honourable members opposite lent out money to the trading banks but they made it a requirement that that money could be taken up only on second-hand housing. There was no provision for young people or new homes. They refused to recognise the importance of that area. During their period of administration they did not recognise it. I believe that the former Minister at the table, the honourable member for Reid, did mention it on one or two occasions, but he failed to achieve anything in the area of the deposit gap- an important area; an area that assists young people to get their first home. This area has now been covered by the present Government, which is determined to look after the welfare not only of the building industry but of the young home builders and the industrial builders of this nation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

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

page 1353

SOCIAL SERVICES AMENDMENT BILL 1976

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 1 April.

Clause 7 (Repeal).

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-We are dealing with clause 7 of the Bill which will abolish funeral benefits for pensioners. This debate is a continuation of a debate which commenced last Thursday evening. We pointed out that the Labor Party strongly opposes the abolition of this funeral benefit. The honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden), who led for us in this debate, pointed out the miserably small amount of money that is involved- less than $300,000 for the rest of this financial year- and yet according to the Budget, more than $23,000m is to be spent by this Government this financial year. Yet the Government has decided to abolish a funeral benefit, thus saving $300,000 this year, while at the same time it gave $30m for the superphosphate bounty. More than $5,000 was thereby given to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) himself. What a way to look at social services! We objected to this.

We had some typical examples of doublespeak on Thursday night. The other day I pointed out an example of doublespeak on the part of the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) who, in a statement headed ‘Emergency Telephone Interpreter Services in Australia’, said that she was most anxious to examine ways and means of improving the efficiency of the service and client help for migrants. What had she done? What did the statement deal with? It dealt with the proposition that it had been decided to replace the manned operation of the telephone service with an answering service. Apparently that was the way to improve the efficiency of the service and to help the migrants who needed that service. Migrants who rang the service got a telephone number to ring the following day. What a way to cover up what was really happening.

The other night the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) and the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) said they intended voting with us on this issue but said that they had been driven away from doing so by the honourable member for Oxley because he had put the case too forcefully. The following day we saw a story in the’ Melbourne Age, that the honourable members had met with the Prime Minister that afternoon. The Prime Minister had called them in and had told them what to do, quite clearly pointing out to them that they had to vote that particular way. They were not going to crawl out from under as far as Government members were concerned. They have not denied it in this chamber; they have obviously accepted that proposition.

Mr Hayden:

– Look, there they are. They want to wipe the benefit to penalise the pensioners.

Dr KLUGMAN:

– Well, they are doing it. They are now voting for the legislation because they have instructions from the Prime Minister. They prefer the Prime Minister’s word to any queries that have been raised by people back in their own electorates. That night the honourable member for Denison referred to the Hobart pensioners as plonkos. It was a disgraceful performance by the honourable member for Denison who obviously has no contact with the pensioners, and referred to them all as plonkos What beautiful examples of doublespeak we had on that particular evening from the honourable member for Denison. I quote from Hansard, page 1316 of 1 April. The honourable member for Denison said: . . . I support with reluctance this clause.

That is, the clause dealing with the abolition of the funeral benefit.

I see it as the first step along the way to a long-awaited fair deal for pensioners.

Is that not beautiful? The honourable member sees the legislation as the first step towards a long- awaited fair deal, yet the Government is abolishing a benefit for the pensioners. What lovely doublespeak! Then we have the honourable member for Franklin coming into this chamber taking the same sort of line and telling us how terribly sorry he felt for the pensioners but he felt even more sorry for himself because he had been told by the Prime Minister at 6 p.m. that evening that he would not be getting any dinner if he did not vote the Government way. The honourable member for Franklin said, according to page 1 322 of Hansard of 1 April:

The deletion of this funeral benefit has caused me concern. I have to say that I believe it is only the first bite at achieving our social welfare objectives.

What a lovely way of talking about the abolition of a benefit. The honourable member said that this was the first step towards the Government achieving its social welfare objectives. If honourable members opposite believe in a sort of market place economy where people will not die unless they get paid funeral benefit then maybe this is one way of abolishing the death rate amongst pensioners. Is that the way in which the honourable member for Franklin is looking at the matter? He said that this was the first step toward achieving the Government’s social welfare objectives. I take it that the honourable member’s social welfare objectives are exactly the same as those of the honourable member for Denison and those of all other honourable members on the Government side now. The Government’s objective is to cut expenditure on social security. That is its only aim. The whole of the objective of the Government with regard to social services is to reduce expenditure so that it can spend the money on superphosphate subsidies such as that received by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is in receipt of a parliamentary income of $57,000 a year, much of which is tax free plus his large private income. On top of that he has now received a bonus of more than $5,000 paid for by a significant number of these funeral benefits so that the Government can balance its Budget. The Government tries to balance its Budget by giving money to those who have and taking it away from people who have least. But what an admission on the part of the honourable member for Denison and the honourable member for Franklin- this step was only the first bite at achieving the Government’s social welfare objectives. What is this Government going to abolish next? What benefit received by pensioners is this Government going to abolish next as the second bite of its social welfare objectives? What a way to approach the whole topic. Then honourable members opposite refer to pensioners as plonkos. I am disgusted at the way honourable members opposite behaved the other night and I am sure the people of Australia are looking at this in the same way.

Mr RUDDOCK:
Parramatta

-I rise in this debate because I have been somewhat provoked and somewhat maligned in the debate that took place in this place last Thursday. I should like to refer if I may to some rather emotional comments by the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) who suggested that in some way because his speech was one that was deserving of ridicule I was seen to be giggling. The honourable member said:

I can assure the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr Ruddock) who at the present time is giggling like a senior member of the Sistine Chapel Choir and who no doubt has the same physical attributes as a member of that choir -

I think that is a most unkind reference- and his colleague who is sitting on his left that they, among others in the Government ranks, will be mentioned to pensioners in their electorate.

Whilst I may be part of the Sistine Choir- and I am somewhat flattered- I regret to say that honourable members opposite seem to me to be more like members of a glee club who have found some new emotional issue upon which they can let fly and upon which they can look at us on this side and say, ‘Look here, if you are going to take this sensible and rational approach we will go out and mention it to your pensioners; and not only that, we will write letters to all of the pensioners in your electorate ‘ and in that way I ought to be intimidated from taking a decision that I regard to be correct. I want to spell this out very clearly because we have a situation in Australia in which we have haves and have-nots and we have a situation in which benefits are paid to people who do not deserve benefits.

What ought to be known and acknowledged is that here we have not a pensioners funeral benefit but a pensioners’ and beneficiaries’ funeral benefit. In 50 per cent of the cases, on average, beneficiaries are the people who get the benefit, not the pensioners. It is something that in a large number of the cases goes not to people who are in need but rather to people who are beneficiaries- people who may expect substantial assets from an estate. They may receive a home or other things because they happen to accept that responsibility that I might accept in attending to the final arrangements for, say, my own parents who may not happen to be pensioners when their time comes.

Mr Hayden:

– I will include this in the letters to your electors, too.

Mr RUDDOCK:

– By all means. I hope you will take a copy of my speech and distribute it because I will do so with pride because I believe in what I am saying and I believe it strongly as there are real areas of need in Australia that we must reach and which we must solve. We will not do it by having ad hoc benefits that are benefits for pensioners on the one hand and beneficiaries on the other hand.

Another aspect must be looked at in relation to the administration of a benefit of this type. Here we have a system which is expensive to administer for very little money in the hands of those in real need. If the system is worth $ 1 .5 m in a whole year it is really $750,000 to those who are in real need such as a pensioner who loses a spouse. I acknowledge that in that case there is a situation of real need but in the other cases there is the situation in which somebody passes away and his or her pension needs to be determined. What happens is that a death certificate comes into the Department of Social Security and a clerk has to sit down and tick off all the particulars, deal with the matter and arrange a date, a much later date as it happens to be, on which that pension is terminated. In addition, another copy of that death certificate, or it may be the same death certificate, goes to another clerk in another section who has to sit down and take the same particulars off the same certificate and arrange ultimately to draw a cheque. Nobody can tell me that that form of benefit is efficient use of resources, that that is efficient government or that it is assisting in providing for those people in real need.

In our policy great emphasis has been put on the need to rationalise the delivery of social service programs and I accept that this program at the moment is being part of an analysis of rationalisation and ultimately there will be a program which, in accordance with the recommendations coming from the Henderson inquiry into poverty, will be available to reach those people who are in need in our community. I am not prepared to accept the emotional arguments of those people opposite who have been quite determined to cash in on this matter, to cash in on the lack of understanding of these issues on the part of people in our community who may be more elderly and not able to comprehend immediately the analysis of this situation in the form that I have argued it today. Those who sit opposite are saying that here is something that is being taken away from the pensioners and they are building that up as an emotional argument, yet in the same breath they are prepared to ignore the plight of the superannuitants, prepared to ignore the plight of the poor in our community and those who are on small incomes, prepared to ignore the plight of people in rural communities, for instance, those who are relying on farm incomes that have been depleted, and so on. There are many people in these situations who are far more deserving than the beneficiaries of pensioners who happen to have passed away. That is the test, and it is the test that those opposite ignore. I object to the fact that in this place we- have not seen a preparedness on the part of honourable members opposite to come to grips with this issue and to argue it in relation to the matter that we have to discuss and that is the termination of the funeral benefit, but instead have been prepared to argue it only in comparison with other supposed injustices across the board which they allege exist in the Australian society. I cannot accept this emotional approach and I rise with a degree of anger because of the approach that honourable members opposite have taken. I believe that they have most unjustly maligned us and I object with as much force as I can muster to the pressure that they have sought to bring to bear upon honourable members on this side in the emotional way in which they have endeavoured to handle this important issue.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-That was a rather quaint speech from the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr Ruddock. He has some disdain for the emotional approach which he alleges we on this side of the chamber have brought to the subject but he has got quite angry about the fact that we have done so. He thinks it is emotional to want death with dignity for the pensioners. He thinks that it is a matter for anger when people on this side of the chamber put a political point with some vigour. What on earth was he talking about? Apparently he is advocating the soft society approach adopted by one of his colleagues. The honourable member for Parramatta was talking about a sensible and rational approach to the question of funeral benefits, pensions and social security. He says that aged people are unable to understand what the Government is at. I do not blame them for that because we do not know what the Government is at. With a $23, 000m Budget in one of the wealthiest countries in the world this Government has chosen to solve some of the problems of the economy, so it thinks, by a piece of phoney arithmetic. This Government is going to reduce public expenditure by $700,000 in the coming half year and save money by eliminating the $40 funeral benefit in respect of pensioners who are deceased.

The issue behind the funeral benefits is certainly an emotional and psychological one from the pensioners point of view, not those on this side of the chamber. If those people on the other side knew all about it, as they choose to say they do, they would understand what it means. The fear of the threat of a pauper’s grave still hangs over many people of an older generation than anybody in this place and of whom there are countless thousands in the community. That is what it is all about. The funeral benefit has been there for the last 32 or 33 years and now it is being abolished in a fine flurry of balancing the budget at the expense of people who can least afford to pay. That is what this Government is doing.

Honourable members on the Government side talk about rationalising the social security system. The honourable member for Parramatta expects people to understand. What has he tried to get them to understand? He tried to get them to understand that when they are deprived of something it is good for them. Let us consider some of the arguments. One was the administrative exercise. Because departments and governments in the past have not resolved the question of creating economic administrative procedures, because 2 clerks might have to look at a death certificate in order to pay out this benefit, the benefit is being abolished. Would not the more rational and humane procedure be to clarify the administrative procedures instead? Of course it would. This sum of $40 is real when it gets into the hands of the people at the other end.

Honourable members opposite say that this benefit really is a benefit to the beneficiaries of the estate. Perhaps it is; perhaps it is not. Many people who benefit from the death of pensioners do not have all that much going for them anyway. I believe it is nonsense to talk that way. Government supporters are trying to build a case around a situation which is quite indefensible. The other night the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) had something to say about the expense of administration, as did the honourable member for Parramatta. I told the honourable member for Griffith then that some $75m of the allocation of $3, 800m in the current budget for our social security system goes into administration, which is perhaps 2 per cent of the whole. I think the figure cited by the honourable member for Griffith was that it costs $8,000 to administer the social security system for every person in Australia on the poverty line.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Get that right.

Mr BRYANT:

– I think that is the figure the honourable member mentioned.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I said that $8,000 is spent on every person below the poverty level in Australia.

Mr BRYANT:

– I do not know how the honourable member arrives at that figure. I think it is estimated that one million people are below the poverty line in Australia and 8000 times one million is 8000 million. Our total social security payments are $3, 800m and the total budget is $23,000m. I do not know how the honourable member for Griffith came by those figures. Perhaps that is the kind of statistic which his party brings into consideration when dealing with electoral redistributions. I do not know much about where the honourable member for Griffith got his statistics. I do not claim to be an expert on reading his mind but I did learn arithmetic and 8000 times one million is 8000 million. That ought to be clear even to somebody from north of the McPherson Ranges. In all these arguments an immense number of non-facts is produced in order to confuse and confound.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– It was in the Prime Minister ‘s policy speech.

Mr BRYANT:

– Which Prime Minister?

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The policy speech of Mr Fraser, the only Prime Minister.

Mr BRYANT:

-The authority quoted to me is the policy speech of the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser), the Prime Minister of Australia for the time being. Of what is that statement evidence? It is simply evidence that another fact has gone the same way as all the promises of the Prime Minister. This Government was going to restore the dignity of life to everybody in Australia, even to pensioners. What would have been the situation if the formulas the Government has produced for pensioners had been applied? Pensioners would have been $10 a week worse off for the last 3 years than they were under the system carried through by the Labor Government.

The Australian social security system does need a thorough overhaul but, like a lot of things in this life, steps should not be taken which produce irrevocable and irreparable damage to some while things are being worked out. It is said that if you are lost in the air you press on until you manage to find out where you are and what you do next. If the Government does not know exactly where it is going in the field of social security payments the logical step for it to take in a compassionate and humane society is to continue existing benefits until they can be replaced adequately. It should not resolve the administrative question, the financial question or the theoretic economic question by taking things from the pensioners. It should continue on until it has done something about the total social security system. I would be the first to admit that our social security system is complicated, inequitable and perhaps often wasteful in some areas.

Mr Fisher:

– Why did your Government not do something about it?

Mr BRYANT:

– We did a lot of things about these matters. We appointed the social welfare commission and did other things. An acrosstheboard examination was being carried out. No person is going to resolve these questions immediately, not even the blazing intellects of honourable members opposite who arrived in the last few months are going to be able to do so. The facts are as I cited them the other night. In my view the repatriation system has many techniques which would be of advantage if applied to the social security system. Some of the standards that we apply to pensions in the repatriation field could easily and equally be of benefit to pensions in the social security system. On what basis is the Government operating? We of the Labor Party lifted the standard of living of the pensioners of Australia by a very great measure but what, after all, were our aims? We are still flying blind in this area. What is a reasonable standard of living in Australia in 1976? We have not resolved that question. It is quite obvious that the present Government is not going to resolve it either. We on this side of the House think that the abolition of the funeral benefit is a miserable and contemptible action. It has no benefit for the national economy. It will produce anxiety and deprivation to some 17 000 or 20 000 people in the next six or eight months. In my view that is inexcusable and indefensible. I hope the House will vote against it. I hope that honourable members on the Government side who feel as they said they feel about this matter will take their courage in their hands, defy the Prime Minister and vote with us on this issue.

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for Repatriation · Bass · LP

– Last week, in summing up the second reading debate on this Bill, I had to register my sadness at the standard and poverty of speeches made by members of the Opposition. I deplored the misrepresentations and inaccuracies that peppered the speeches of members of the Opposition who spoke. I am afraid that they took no notice of what I said because today the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman), to use the terms of the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant), was contemptible in the misrepresentations and inaccuracies he tried to perpetrate in his speech. Let me clear up a few things so that they are on the record.

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Chairman, the behaviour of the Minister -

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Order! The honourable member for Oxley will resume his seat.

Mr Hayden:

– I am raising a point of order with you.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I remind the honourable member for Oxley that he does not raise a point of order by making a comment about the behaviour of a Minister. If the honourable member for Oxley wishes to raise a point of order he knows that he should do so by saying that he wishes to raise a point of order.

Mr Hayden:

– I was trying to do that but you were too busy talking.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member for Oxley will resume his seat.

Mr Hayden:

– It is your duty to deal with points of order.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member for Oxley will resume his seat.

Mr Scholes:

– I wish to raise a point of order. (Quorum formed). My point of order is that the Minister used the word ‘contemptible’ in describing the honourable member for Wills. That word is unparliamentary and I ask for its withdrawal.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! If the Minister used the word in regard to an individual member, I ask him to withdraw it.

Mr NEWMAN:

-Mr Chairman, what I said was that the previous speaker had used the word ‘contemptible ‘ about some of our policies.

Mr Scholes:

– That is not what you said at all.

Mr NEWMAN:

– I said that his word ‘contemptible’ certainly applied to what the honourable member for Prospect had said in his speech today. I see no reason to withdraw it, because in a few moments I will show why he was contemptible in what he said.

Mr Scholes:

- Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. The Minister described the honourable member as contemptible, and no amount of justification allows him to use unparliamentary words. If he is not made to withdraw, in future there will be no way in which honourable members can be asked to withdraw such statements.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I am perfectly aware that if the word ‘contemptible’ is used in relation to an individual it should be withdrawn.

Mr Scholes:

– It was.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The Minister has said that he did not use the word ‘contemptible’ in relation to the honourable member; that he used it only in relation to what was being said. The Minister has explained that the remark was not a personal reflection against the honourable member. Therefore his remark need not be withdrawn.

Dr Klugman:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. When an honourable member uses the phrase ‘this is a lie ‘ he is ordered by the Chair to withdraw. Such a phrase does not refer to a person; it relates to what a person has said. This position is exactly the same. I ask you, Mr Chairman, to be consistent.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The word ‘lie’ is unparliamentary. One may say that the remarks of an individual are untrue or incorrect. It is parliamentary to use such words. The Minister has said that the remark that he made did not refer to the honourable member.

Mr Hayden:

– Oh, he said it.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The Minister said that the remark did not refer to the honourable member himself; it referred to what was said by the honourable member.

Br Klugman- Mr Chairman, I regard the remarks of the Minister as contemptible, and I regard him as contemptible.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I suggest that the Committee come to order. I suggest to the honourable member for Prospect that his comment in relation the Minister is a personal reflection.

Mr Hayden:

– The Minister said it.

The CHAIRMAN:

– No -

Mr Hayden:

-He did.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The Minister has said that he did not make a personal reflection on the honourable member for Prospect. The Chair can only accept what the Minister has said. The honourable member for Prospect has said that the Minister is contemptible. That is a personal reflection against a member of the Committee and therefore it must be withdrawn.

Dr Klugman:

– I withdraw the reference, but I take it that my reference to his behaviour and the content of his speech as being contemptible is still acceptable? Is that correct?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I have explained to the honourable member for Prospect and the Committee that the use of an adjective to describe the contents of an honourable member’s speech cannot be regarded as a personal reflection against that honourable member. A personal reflection against an individual honourable member must always be withdrawn.

Mr Hayden:

– I understood that the Minister said- and I thought he repeated to you, Mr Chairman, roughly what he said- that the words used by the honourable member for Prospect were contemptible and he was contemptible in using them. I would have thought that that was a personal reflection and that a withdrawal ought to be required.

The CHAIRMAN:

– No. When I first rose to my feet I said that if the, Minister had used the word ‘contemptible’ in regard to the honourable member for Prospect I would ask the Minister to withdraw the word. The Minister said that he did not use the word in relation to the honourable member for Prospect. That is the situation at the moment. If the Minister says that he did not use the word in relation to the honourable member for Prospect he is not required to withdraw it.

Dr Klugman:

– I cannot then ask for a withdrawal, because I find what has been said offensive?

The CHAIRMAN:

– I think that in the circumstances there is a difficulty in the sense of how far the Committee or the Chair goes if the honourable member for Prospect regards the remarks as offensive. The Chair has no power to ask the Minister to withdraw; but I suggest that in the circumstances the Minister might rephrase the comments he made about the speech of the honourable member for Prospect.

Dr Klugman:

– I find the Minister’s remarks offensive. The Minister has had 10 minutes to think of an alternative word. Even with his previous background, he should have been able to think of another word by now.

Mr Scholes:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. The Standing Orders provide that if a member considers that words are offensive to him he may ask for a withdrawal. The honourable member for Prospect has asked for the withdrawal of words used by the Minister. According to the Standing Orders you have the power to ask the Minister for a withdrawal.

The CHAIRMAN:

– In regard to the point of order raised by the honourable member for Corio, I have suggested in the circumstances relating to this situation that the Minister might withdraw the remarks made in relation to the honourable member for Prospect’s speech and rephrase his comments.

Mr NEWMAN:

– If the honourable member for Prospect feels that I was calling him contemptible, I have no hesitation in withdrawing that word. I merely seized on the word ‘contemptible’ because his colleague two up from him used the word in a speech he made a few moments ago. Just to put the record straight, I believe -

Mr Jacobi:

– Are you referring to me?

Mr NEWMAN:

-If the cap fits wear it.

Mr Jacobi:

– I see; now I am contemptible.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I suggest to the Committee that the debate is not being assisted by interjections from either side at this point of time.

Mr NEWMAN:

-Let me remind the Committee of what brought on this matter. I was saying that I thought it was disgraceful and I was saddened that the level of debate should be based on misrepresentation and inaccuracies. I say again that the speech made by the honourable member for Prospect was peppered with inaccuracies and misrepresentations.

Mr Bryant:

– Which one?

Mr NEWMAN:

– I will come to them now.

Mr Martyr:

– Every one.

Mr NEWMAN:

– Yes, that is probably so too. I will deal with just a few specifics. The honourable member for Prospect accused the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) and the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) of having been instructed by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on how to vote in this debate. He wanted a denial of the claim that at 6 p.m. last Thursday the Prime Minister gathered the two together and told then that they were to vote for the Bill. There are 2 things to be said about that: Firstly, the Prime Minister had left Canberra and was not in a position to act in that way. Secondly, I was in close contact with both of those honourable members during the day and their feelings were made very clear in the speeches which they made. If the honourable member for Prospect or any other honourable members on the other side would like to consult those speeches they will see why those 2 honourable members made their decision, free from any interference or influence by any Minister or any other honourable member.

Secondly, and just for the record, the honourable member for Prospect tried to persuade us that the honourable member for Denison had called the pensioners of Hobart plonkos. Again, if honourable members wish to check on whether that is an accurate statement, I refer them to page 1316 of Hansard of 1 April which shows that the honourable member was merely referring to 2 groups of people as well as pensioners when he talked about the battlers and plonkos in Hobart whom he claimed to know personally. The third point that I think has to be dealt with relates to the speech made by the honourable member for Franklin. He has been grossly misrepresented as to the way that he put his point on 1 April. He was quoted completely out of context. Let me quote a couple of things that he said so that the people who may be listening to this debate can realise what the honourable member was getting at. He said:

I too have felt that the withdrawal of this benefit may cast doubts on our overall aims in social welfare policy, but I know that the Government faces severe economic problems. I know that some cuts had to be made. I would have preferred to see this benefit remain but I can understand the dilemma in which the Government finds itself.

I repeat what I said last week: This is exactly the same position as that in which the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) found himself in 1973 and 1974 when he too found that he had to defer increases in some of the benefits that were being paid to pensioners in those years. He too found that he had to defer- I presume, because of the economic problems he faced- the autumn increases for dependent children in March 1973 and March 1974.

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Apart from the untruth involved in this, it has nothing to do with clause 7.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I think it has as much to do with clause 7 as the other comments that have been made in regard to clause 7.

Mr NEWMAN:

-After the freedom with which the honourable member for Oxley used the debate, I am surprised.

Mr Scholes:

– On the point of order, Mr Chairman, the Minister has the right of unlimited time and unlimited opportunities in this type of debate. He is suggesting that the freedom of other members with limited time entitles him to the unlimited freedom each time he rises. I suggest that the Minister’s privileges should be used only in answering matters raised on the particular clause before the House.

Mr CHAIRMAN:

-Order! There is no point of order involved.

Mr NEWMAN:

– I can assure the honourable member that I am well aware of the time being taken to answer honourable members opposite. I have to do it only because of the gross misrepresentations, inaccuracies and reflections that have been made falsely on people on this side of the House. Those have to be answered. Finally, the honourable member for Franklin went on:

The Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) has said that the income security review committee is examining the whole range of benefits with a view not only of rationalising the odds and ends that now exist, but also of producing a new, better and more meaningful scheme of income assistance for those who are in need.

The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) when speaking in the second reading debate made pretty clear those final remarks of the honourable member for Franklin. He summed it up when he said that the whole Bill, including this particular clause, is clearing the way for something better. The Government is proceeding with the review of the income security system as a whole, including the effectiveness of guaranteed income and proposals for overcoming poverty. In the course of this review a study will be made of all aspects of our pension and benefit programs, including benefits which come under that clause dealing with funerals, with a view to ensuring that the amounts of pensions and benefits are determined on an up dated basis and on a just and equitable basis.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

-I should like to register the strongest protest on behalf of the electors of Hunter at the Government’s attitude in removing the funeral benefit for the aged and infirm. These people at the present time - (Government members interjecting)

Mr JAMES:

– Government members may laugh at aged people in poor circumstances, but they will not do it on 27 May when those people come here from all over Australia -

Mr MacKellar:

– I move:

That the question be now put.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! It has been moved that the question be put. The question is that the question be put.

Mr Scholes:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Chairman. Could you inform the House who moved the motion? I thought the honourable member was having a conversation with you.

Mr CHAIRMAN:

-Order! There is no point of order involved. The question is that the question be now put.

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Chairman, who moved the question? I think we are entitled to know. There is an implication contained in the question asked by the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes), and if you do not answer it I am afraid -

The CHAIRMAN:

-Order! There is no point of order. I remind the honourable member for Oxley that he made a comment earlier about paying attention. The question was moved. There is no reason to cover it. The question was moved by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. The question is that the question be now put.

Question put:

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 86

NOES: 33

Majority……. 53

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the clause be agreed to. (The bells being rung)

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 83

NOES: 34

Majority……. 49

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clause agreed to.

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

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 1362

REPATRIATION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 25 March, on motion by Mr Newman:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley

-We have already had a cognate debate on this Bill and on the Social Services Amendment Bill. All the points which I wish to make were made then. So I move:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ‘while not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House deplores the failure of the Government to index dependants allowances to meet increases in the cost of living .

Mr Scholes:

-I second the amendment.

Question put-

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

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr G.O’H. Giles)

AYES: 83

NOES: 34

Majority……. 49

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

In Committee

The Bill.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– I do not wish to detain -

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) put:

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 81

NOES: 34

Majority…….. 47

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Adoption of Report

Motion (by Mr Newman) proposed:

That the report of the Committee be adopted.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– I should like to make just one point in regard to clause 10 which deals with the date on which the increases will be applied. I should like to draw the attention of honourable members, especially those on the Government side, to the speech by the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp) last Wednesday when he repeated in this House the undertaking that he had given during the election campaign on behalf of the now Government that there would be instant and automatic adjustments in social service and repatriation payments according to the cost of living index. In fact the amendments which are to be introduced on 6 May are in accordance with increases in the consumer price index in the December quarter. The ordinary worker in Australia received compensation for these increases in March. Figures showing another increase for the March quarter will be available before the proposed increases in payments are made. I say to honourable members opposite who try to argue on the basis of 6- monthly increases, which is fair enough, that if we have 6-monthly increases we must have them on the basis of the latest cost of living adjustments. If the increases in payments are to be made in May they ought to include the adjustments for the March quarter. I ask honourable members opposite who have some concern, as we on this side have, for social service payments to take this into consideration.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 1363

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE SYSTEM

Dr JENKINS:
Scullin

-On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Parliamentary Committee System I bring up a special report of the Committee relating to the resolution of appointment of the Committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Dr JENKINS:

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

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Dr JENKINS:

– I thank the House. I shall be very brief. In the Twenty-Ninth Parliament this Committee had reached the stage of having prepared a rough draft of the final report. As the resolution of appointment in this Parliament sets a deadline of 26 May for the presentation of the final report it is obvious that the Committee’s task will almost certainly be confined to refining that draft. The Committee believes that for administrative reasons and to facilitate the finalising of the report it is desirable that the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Committee in the Twenty-ninth Parliament should continue in those positions. There are precedents for this course with select committees of the Parliament.

The resolution of appointment prevents the Committee from making this decision. The Committee therefore transmits its unanimous recommendation to the House that this course be followed. On behalf of the Committee I request the House to give the recommendation its urgent and sympathetic consideration.

page 1364

SUPERANNUATION BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 April, on motion by Mr Eric Robinson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Upon which Mr Willis had moved by way of amendment:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ‘while not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that the Bill is deficient in that it removes some important benefits now applying under the current Superannuation Act, thereby reducing the overall value of benefits for existing pensioners and contributors’.

Mr BAUME:
Macarthur

-It is interesting to notice when looking at improvements to a superannuation scheme such as this that honourable members opposite have kicked up what might be described loosely as a fuss during this afternoon about the withdrawal of various benefits. The sum of $40 has been mentioned as a disastrous and disgraceful withdrawal of a benefit. I point out that when one is looking at superannuation one should recognise that the consequences of the Budget of the very vocal honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) were in fact to rip large amounts of money off superannuitants. The word ‘rip-ofF is the most effective and accurate way to describe what he claimed to be a generous handout type of Budget, a Budget in which taxes would be reduced. The consequences of that Budget on superannuitants are as follows. I should like to read from a document sent from the Department of Social Security last year to a superannuitant to demonstrate that in this case $30 a fortnight was to be ripped off this superannuitant by the new, generous Hayden Budget, presented by the same gentleman who objected so violently about a benefit of $40 being removed once in a lifetime.

Mr Wentworth:

-In a death time.

Mr BAUME:

– Once in a death time, as the honourable member for Mackellar interjects. The former Treasurer, the honourable member for Oxley ripped off 35 per cent of the income of superannuitants. The letter reads:

Dear Sir/Madam,

The new personal income tax system operates from 1 January 1 976.

That is the Hayden system.

Under this new system you are required to lodge a rebate declaration form if you wish to gain, in your fortnightly tax instalment deductions, the benefit of -

Etc, etc.

If a rebate declaration form is not lodged a minimum tax deduction rate of 35c in the dollar automatically applies. In your case, without the declaration, your fortnightly superannuation DFRB would be gross $86.87 tax $30. 10 net $56.77.

I wonder whether honourable members opposite believe that superannuitants who have contributed all their working lives to a fund can possibly live on this sort of money. The answer is that they cannot. They have to have another job. That is why a man in this position cannot possibly make this declaration and must lose 35 per cent out of his fortnightly payment for which he has worked and saved and for which he has contributed to a superannuation fund. This is the great benevolence and kindness of the men who cried about a once-in-a-lifetime reduction of a $40 benefit but who happily ripped $30 a fortnight off superannuitants. The absurdity of the the honourable gentlemen opposite is transparent in this situation. I suggest that it is equally disgraceful that the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits fund superannuation scheme had not had an adjustment in payments for 3 and a half years. I must say I am glad to hear today’s news from the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) that such an adjustment is now on the way. How extraordinary that the gentlemen now occupying the Opposition benches failed to do anything to fix up this disgraceful situation; yet they are prepared to complain about our generous and effective approach to the whole question of superannuation and pensions.

I submit that unfortunately this new superannuation scheme, in its effect on the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Fund, does not correct all of the old anomalies. There is an anomalous position under the old DFRB scheme which disadvantages members of the forces who retired some years ago compared with those who have retired recently. I understand that a review of the whole DFRDB scheme is presently before the Government and that the Government is looking particularly at these anomalous situations. I only regret that at the moment these corrections are not included in the current Bill, but I am assured that they will be coming up.

I wish to point out the sorts of things that can happen under this DFRDB scheme and the anomalous situations now existing. One of my constituents has written to me saying:

I came out of the Navy as one of the highest paid lower deck men, and am now one of the lowest paid superannuees

The fact is, as he points out, that if the pre- 1959 fund, which has not yet been distributed, is wound up, there is a real risk of unfair discrimination against these older superannuees who are already getting what I consider to be a bad deal. Yet at this stage it is impossible to transfer from one fund to another. There is also another letter from a constituent which I think bears repetition because of its importance to a large number of retired servicemen. This constituent says:

During my 20 years of RAN service, I did not freeze my DFRB contributions and consider I would have paid at least twice as much into the Fund as others who ‘froze’ early in their service careers.

The problem is that when the July 1973 interim pension increase was calculated on a percentage of cost of living increase- that is 12.2 per centand not on the old notional category method, he wants to know what allowance was made for extra contributions that he paid. Of course, none was. The problem that he raised- I think this question must be answered sooner or later in appropriate further amendments to this DFRB Bill- was:

Why, under the new 1973 Bill, serving members as at 1 October 1972 . . . who joined the Navy prior to 1948 have been able to buy back between 24 and 32 years service each. They had previously elected (repeatedly) to remain on deferred pay after 1948, as this additional pay was to be paid in a lump sum on retirement, in lieu of a pension.

Surely -

This is a key point- this is retrospectivity for non-contributors back to before 1948, giving preferential treatment to a select few who repeatedly refused to contribute to the DFRB Fund. Why have a cut-off date ( 1 October 1972) and why have two separate schemes?

He said:

Further I should like to point out that should t’ e Government decide to continue to adjust pensions on the percentage basis as calculated in July 1973, 1 can expect to receive less than 50 per cent of the increase that will be paid to a pensioner (ex deferred pay member referred to previously) who has paid less than one tenth of my full contributions into the scheme.

There is no doubt that that certainly shows the degree of anomaly that exists within the current DFRB scheme and the sort of anomaly which is not yet corrected in this particular legislation. For interest sake I add that the Regular Defence Forces Welfare Association has communicated with my constituent saying:

Our submissions to the Minister for Defence have been duly acknowledged by him. We contend that the pension being received by the pre-October 1972 retiree has been greatly eroded to such an extent that under the present Act members now being discharged are receiving considerably more in pension than members of equivalent rank under the ‘old ‘scheme.

The Executive Officer says:

In my own case my pension is only equivalent to that of an officer three ranks below my substantive rank on retirement.

You “an rest assured that every effort is. being made to have this, anomaly adjusted. In an effort to secure a correction of these matters each member of the Executive as well as other members, have written to their relevant Members of Parliament, telling them of the shortcomings of the present Act in its relation to the pensions paid to the pre-October 1972 retirees.

I should have hoped that perhaps this issue would have been raised by honourable members opposite. Presumably they also received some letters.

I also want to raise a serious point that concerns mi y of my constituents, and that is that defence forces service does not count as government service for superannuation purposes unless the superannuee was in the Public Service before he entered the defence forces. It is extraordinary that if a person is a clerk and joins the defence forces, he gets total benefit. If he joined up dur.ing any of the recent wars or the second World War and then became a public servant he does not get the benefit of what could be 5 or 6 years of service for his country. I believe it is an unfortunate part of this particular Bill that it does not correct this anomaly.

I am certain that there are many people in the defence forces who feel badly done by. There is no doubt of course that there has been an overwhelming feeling of dismay for the last 3 years among the defence forces about the manner in which they have been handled by the previous Government. They were battered around in terms of prestige and of course were finally and disgracefully assaulted in ‘heir hip pockets on the matter of retirement an,1 retirement benefits. There was no adjustment for 3lA years. What a kind and benevolent Opposition we have! No wonder honourable members opposite are sitting on that side of the House.

The other point that I wanted to raise was that the new Bill will allow the Superannuation Fund to invest in shares of companies incorporated in Australia or in a building society. I think this is a very important part of this Bill. Australian ownership of corporations in Australia is, I believe, a vital part certainly of our policy and, judging by the words, if they are to be taken seriously, part of the Opposition’s policy as well. But when we talk about Australian ownership we talk about ownership by Australian citizens, not ownership by a bureaucracy or ownership by the government. We talk about ownership by the people. The life assurance industry is of course dominated by mutual organisations owned by the policy holders. It now provides the major segment of Australian ownership of corporations in Australia. I believe it has been a great and unfortunate anomaly that one of the biggest funds, possibly one of the biggest contributors to ownership of Australia companies, of development of Australian resources, that is, the Government superannuation scheme, has not in the past been able to invest in Australia. I welcome very strongly this initiative, which is a most worthwhile one. I believe that the more Australian people can be identified with the ownership of Australian companies the better. I might say that this kind of people’s capitalism is certainly an effective answer to the continuing cant from the other side about the ogres and demons of control both in non-existent areas of wealth in Australia and the wicked people from overseas. Most Australian companies are owned by Australians and how fortunate it is now that the biggest superannuation fund in Australia will be able to join in the ownership of Australia.

The last point I want to make about this legislation is that I welcome the changes that have been made to the old scheme to eliminate the disadvantage suffered by women public servants and to achieve a more consistent and balanced scheme in that respect. The changes, as the House is already aware, will enable women to preserve superannuation benefits while their careers are interrupted for such reasons as raising a family. Of course, the changes also mean that pensions paid to spouses of deceased public servants will not cease to be paid on the remarriage of the spouse. It seems unfortunate that it has taken so long for women public servants to be treated fully like people rather than discriminated against.

In brief, I would like to say that I commend the legislation to the House. There are some very positive and worthwhile improvements in this scheme. There are nonetheless, particularly in respect of the Defence Forces Retirement and Death Benefits Amendment Bill, many more amendments which I believe we need and many more which I wish to see. I am determined to join with other honourable members on this side of the House to press for a better deal for people contributing to the Defence Forces Retirement and Death Benefits Fund who have been so seriously disadvantaged in the past. Under the provisions of some of the old sections of the Fund there are members who I believe are still being disgracefully disadvantaged and are getting a much worse deal than people who have subsequently retired. In conclusion I repeat, how extraordinary it is that honourable members opposite can cry about $40 paid once only and happily rip off $30 once a fortnight.

Sitting suspended from 5.59 to 8 p.m.

Mr HASLEM:
Canberra

– I rise to support the passage of the Superannuation Bill, the Superannuation Amendment Bill and the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Amendment Bill. I believe that on the whole they are good Bills and are a major step forward in the conditions of employment in the Australian Public Service and the armed forces. The history of the introduction of the Superannuation Bill has been well canvassed in this, debate. During the recent election campaign this piece of legislation was a major issue in the Australian Capital Territory and we spent a lot of time explaining our proposals to the electorate. The scheme was explained in pamphlets and newspaper advertisements. Discussions were held with the unions involved and, in general, there was a measure of understanding and perhaps reluctant agreement that, while our proposal did not represent the ideal, it was a fair and just scheme and a real improvement on the current scheme. I commend the Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Eric Robinson) and the officers supporting him for the speedy introduction of this complex legislation.

One major criticism that I have found from constituents has been a claim by young and junior employees that their contributions will be higher. This is because their current contributions are less than the S per cent of salary that is to be contributed under the proposed scheme. The other major claim by constituents is that the right to retire at 60 years of age has been removed. The first claim is true for a large percentage of public servants, but to assist them the increase in contributions has been staged so that the increase will be phased in over time. I think that this is an equitable way of introducing the new scheme. These employees will realise quickly, as their salaries increase, that there are benefits in the scheme. They will never reach the invidious position, being experienced by a large number of public servants, of having to pay a high proportion of any increase in salary in superannuation contributions. What young person would like to find that on reaching the age of 58 years at the class 4 level he was expected to pay 13 per cent of his salary in superannuation contributions, or, if at the class 9 level at 57 years ofage, up to 39 per cent of his salary?

The claim that the right to retire at 60 years of age has been removed is not true. That right will be available but at a lower pension and with lower contributions. I emphasise the point about lower contributions. On balance there will be a better scheme for all. Forty-three constituents have inquired of me over the last 2 weeks about particular problems they have found in this legislation. I have checked out each of those inquiries and inevitably, given their particular requirements, some people think that they will be disadvantaged; but, on the whole, my judgmentI think this judgment has been supported by those experienced departmental officers who have answered queries- is that the scheme will make most public servants better off.

We must remember that the right to superannuation is probably the most important right for our public servants. They now have salaries at levels which are very competitive with those paid elsewhere in the community. They have security of employment at a time when approximately 250 000 people are out of work. When we consider this package- superannuation, salary and working conditions- I believe that Commonwealth public servants are treated very fairly by the taxpayers of this nation. I worked in the Public Service for more than 5 years, and I will not fail to praise and defend the work of the Australian public servants and the work they do for the people of Australia. The strength of the nation, until the last 3 years, is a testimony to the effectiveness of the unprejudiced and professional advice that successive governments have received from the Australian Public Service. Once a government rejects the concept of professionalism that I experienced in the Public Service it enters a minefield of terrifying proportions. If it appoints people who are already fixed in their ideas and employs outsiders who bring little real experience to their jobs the risks are enormous.

I would like to make one point very strongly tonight in relation to the future. I am sorry to say that it is in relation to the medium term future and not the immediate future, due to the difficult state in which we find our economy. Those who have worked in the Public Service know of many people who, for various reasons, have reached a level which is probably their pinnacle of achievement. Often this happens in middle age. What is left for these people? Often, after 20 years of doing the same thing or feeling that they do not contribute and seeing the bright young people pass them by, they know that they have the experience to contribute to the wealth of Australia but they are unable to do so. They need a change. They do not wish to continue in their present employment. I hope that when we get this country going again we in government will be able to look very closely at a system of early retirement for the Public Service. The defence forces have such an arrangement to enable those who have served this country well to retire with a minimum of disruption and disadvantage to themselves and their families. It is inhuman to have any system of employment which causes people to be locked into that system in a way that does not allow them to leave without substantial detriment. A system of employment should not encourage people to leave, but it should not discourage them from leaving. The social cost and the money cost of having people going through the motions of working are enormous. In days of higher wages the greatest investment this nation makes is in the people who work for it. It behoves us all to ensure that this investment is well used, that it bears fruit, and that the enormous social responsibility involved in employing thousands of people is well handled.

Employees of all ages are clamouring now to find those meanings, purposes, fulfilments, achievements and involvements which vindicate their personal existence and release them from the terrors of anonymity, alienation and boredom. If job experiences do not provide satisfactory answers to the question ‘Who am I?’ the worker is diminished, whatever may be his status in the pyramid. To dream the impossible dream and to strive towards its fulfilment are activities which indicate health and growth, but these human virtues are diminished or annihilated when the organisational pyramid becomes a tomb for people whose vitality has been stifled by the system. I am certain that the trust that public servants placed in me in electing me to this House will be vindicated in the new superannuation scheme. I will take pleasure in working towards improvements in that scheme to allow public servants who wish to try a second career the flexibility to do so. Having myself left the Public Service to become a commercial lawyer and now a member of Parliament, I can recommend the stimulation of it all. However, I did so under a superannuation scheme which offered positive discouragement in the transition. The social and financial cost of having in the Public Service people who are dissatisfied or disillusioned is enormous. The cost of allowing these people reasonable severance so that they can get back into the work force, stimulated and enriched, is not high. Many have served their country well and have done their share. They deserve a chance to change horses. I will take pleasure in working towards such a scheme.

I commend the new superannuation scheme and speak against the amendment because I believe that the work that has been done has ensured equity. On balance contributors and the people of Australia will be much advantaged by this scheme. Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak in favour of the Bill.

Mr SHIPTON:
Higgins

– I rise to support the Superannuation Bill which introduces a new superannuation scheme for public servants of the Commonwealth of Australia. I believe that we must view this Bill in historical perspective in order to understand it. The first Commonwealth scheme was introduced in 1922. It was amended in 1943, 1 believe, to cover long term temporary public servants, and it was also amended at that time to cover persons employed by approved authorities. A Treasury committee was set up in 1971 under a Liberal-Country Party government. The committee reported to the Parliament in 1973 and recommended that a new scheme be established. In 1975 a very generous- a far too generous- scheme was introduced into this Parliament by the previous Government. This scheme was rejected. Today a sensible and practical scheme has been presented to the people as part of an election undertaking given by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to the Council of Australian Government Employee Organisations and the Administrative and Clerical Officers’ Association. It is important that the Bill be seen in the light of that undertaking.

I welcome the Bill for a number of reasons. There has certainly been a great pressure on a number of public servants who had important personal decisions to make. The old superannuation scheme was based on a unit form of pension contribution. Some members of the Superannuation Fund paid contributions of 2 per cent of their salary in their early years of service, while in their later years of service when they were over 40 years of age they were faced with having to pay up to 25 per cent of their salary in contributions in order to receive a reasonable benefit. That, of course, placed a great personal strain on a number of people. For this reason I welcome the new scheme.

The position of women has been recognised in the new scheme and has been given special attention in 2 areas. Firstly, the qualifying or vesting period for preservation of rights has been reduced from 20 years to 5 years, so that if a woman wishes after 5 years to leave the Public Service for reasons of child rearing, she can do so, return at a later date and have her rights preserved. Secondly, provision has been made in respect of the pension paid to the surviving spouse of a deceased contributor. In the old scheme the pension ceased on the remarriage of the widow. Under the new proposal the pension does not cease on the remarriage of the widow or widower. This is a welcome step because the provision in the old scheme, and in fact in many private schemes, that the payment of pension ceased on remarriage is in fact a fetter on remarriage and in cases where there are dependent children it often encourages people not to remarry. I think that is contrary to the socially desirable ideal of a 2 parent family being a better family in which to bring up children than perhaps a one parent family. Therefore, I welcome those amendments.

I wish to refer to the cost of the scheme and to the views of some Opposition speakers who have expressed disappointment with it. They believe that the scheme will destroy incentive and motivation in the Public Service. The honourable member for Fraser (Mr Fry) is quoted in the Canberra Times as saying that the scheme ‘would destroy incentive and motivation for many younger public servants whose promotion prospects would be thwarted’. I believe that is completely untrue because this scheme is a most generous scheme and compared with schemes in the private sector it is unparalleled and will act as a motivation for people to work in the Public Service. It will encourage people to stay and work harder in the Public Service. I refer to a recent article in the National Times written by Mr Robert Gottliebsen, a respected financial journalist. The article is entitled: ‘Check Canberra’s superannuation scheme with yours’. Mr Gottliebsen states:

For the first time, private industry can compare its superannuation funds with that of the Commonwealth Public Service. Public servants come out clear winners.

I commend that article and comments to my friends opposite. If honourable members opposite compare private schemes with the proposal before the House they will see that that proposal is very generous indeed.

I would like to refer to the position of existing pension scheme contributors because they will be entitled to the benefits of the new scheme but will not be required to complete 30 years contribu.tary service to qualify for the full Government financed pension and will continue to be subject to the less restrictive service provisions of the existing pension scheme. I think that point is worth pointing out. Under the scheme before the House a person retiring from the Public Service can receive a 50 per cent pension, being the equivalent of 50 per cent of his final salary on the day before he retires. He pays 5 per cent of his salary by way of contributions, which he can get back in a lump sum payment on retirement; alternatively he can commute that amount, as an alternative, to a pension. I would imagine that for contributors to private schemes the pension payable would be a proportion of average salary over the final years of service. The pension might be, say, 50 per cent of average salary over the last 6 years of service. Some of the larger and wealthier funds may average it over three or four years. This Public Service provision in itself is a very generous one and puts the private sector under pressure. As a measure of the generosity of this scheme I would suspect that only the largest companies give anywhere near the benefits available under this scheme. Of course, there are many small businesses which have lesser schemes and many medium sized companies and small businesses which have no schemes at all, and of course, they cannot compete.

I think we should look at the effect of the scheme on the private sector when we are criticising this Fund for not giving motivation to people in the Public Service. I believe that the trend when economic conditions improve will be to put pressure on the private sector. I believe that pressure will be put on corporatons by senior staff to get schemes comparable to the scheme which is before the House. I believe that as a result some employee groups will get more than others because employers will see quite clearly that they cannot afford to give to everyone and will give only to those to whom they can. There is, of course, a risk that this may cause a greater gulf between executives of companies and people on the shop floor. I hope that this does not occur but there is a risk that it will.

I believe that public servants must recognise that the benefits that they will be given in this legislation, which as I have pointed out are more generous than those given to the private sector, will have to be taken into account by them in future wage demands. They may in fact have to accept less by way of future wage increases than they might otherwise be prepared to accept. The private sector funds cannot guarantee and really cannot compete with the provisions in this legislation for cost of living increases to be added to pensions. A point of the Bill which I think is forward looking is the point providing for portability between the private and public sectors. Where a public servant wishes to transfer to the private sector his rights are preserved if he qualifies for the period of 5 years to which I have referred. Similarly, somebody coming from the private sector can bring with him that lump sum and buy back service. That is an important step because I believe that as a government and as a nation we ought to be encouraging the transfer of people between the private and public sectors so that each can understand the other better. For that reason I welcome this provision.

A major question raised by this legislation is the one of financial responsibility which is a very important factor. Today, because this legislation is in a simplified form, the people of Australia and the members of this Parliament can know for the first time the cost of the scheme. We are on the road to discovering the real costs and, as parliamentarians in particular and as a Parliament as a whole, we have a responsibility to tell the people of this nation the cost of the scheme. We can see the real costs. I should point out that the extremely generous provisions of the City of New York scheme were one of the many factors that brought that city into its financial difficulties. I am not suggesting that this scheme is going to bring the Government of Australia into financial difficulties but I am saying that it is important that all of us should understand the cost of the scheme. 1 should like to refer to the explanatory memorandum, which states that if the Government liability for benefits were to be funded by the Government making its contribution at the same time as employees, the Government contributions for new contributors under the existing arrangements, expressed as a percentage of salary, under this new scheme would be 1 8.8 per cent of salary. That is, if it were a funded scheme, the Government would pay into the fund an average of 1 8.8 per cent of salaries. It is interesting to note that the private sector could not compete. I do not think that companies could put in 18.8 per cent of payroll for new members and I, by way of comparison, suspect that in the private sector the average contribution would be of the order of 7 per cent to 10 per cent. I hope that the Government actuaries can estimate the 1976 cost of this fund, and I ask the Minister to consider making these figures available to the Parliament and to the people. The estimated capital cost to the Government by way of the estimated capital values as at 30 June 1974 in respect of existing pensioners is contained in Appendix B of the explanatory memorandum and I ask leave of the House to incorporate that document in Hansard.

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

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

NOTES- ( 1) The capital values of benefits under the present scheme for existing pensioners and existing pension scheme contributors include the cost for updating, in July each year, the Government share of pensions being paid by a percentage that is 1.4 times the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (March quarter to March quarter) or the percentage increase in Average Weekly Earnings over the same period, whichever is the lesser. For the purpose of the calculations it has been taken that, on the basis of the assumed 3.9 per cent per annum increase in the Consumer Price Index and 5.5 per cent per annum increase in general salary levels referred to in paragraph 1 12, the increase in Average Weekly Earnings would never be less than 1 .4 times the increase in the Consumer Price Index. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. In the case of existing pensioners, 1.0 times Consumer Price Index increase on the total pension and, in the case of pensions payable under the new scheme, 1 .0 times Consumer Price Index increase on the Government-financed pension. 1. The additional capital values shown as items (a) to (j) above apply only if they are introduced in the order shown. If a different order is used, the compounding effect of the introduction of new benefits would cause variations in the individual amounts of additional capital value, although the total would remain unchanged. {: .speaker-CJ4} ##### Mr SHIPTON: -I am grateful to the House for its indulgence because I do think it is important that we see the capital values. I should say in respect of them that as at 30 June 1974 for superannuation purposes the sum of the salaries of the 214 810 persons then paying contributions into the superannuation fund approximated $1.4 billion, giving an average salary for superannuation purposes of approximately $6,800. From that it will be seen that we are not talking about peanuts or chicken feed. At the end of the 1974 financial year total salaries were $1.4 billion, which means that $0.7 billion would have been involved on a 50 per cent payout. Of course, $0.7 billion is not going to be paid out at any one time, but it is important that the Parliament should understand, and that the people should know, that by enacting this legislation we are enacting a financial commitment of a permanent nature of the order I have mentioned. We are now able to get a figure, and I hope that in the future the Minister will be able to keep us informed of the cost of the scheme. In conclusion, I wish to refer to some points raised by the Opposition concerning early retirement. Members of the Opposition have said that it is a terrible thing that people are not allowed to retire at 60 but have to wait until they are 65 and that in fact that will be a demotivating force. I do not agree with that proposition because in actuarial terms a 45 per cent pension on early retirement at age 60 may cost more than a 50 per cent pension at 65 years of age. I believe that a 45 per cent pension is a generous pension. I do not believe that the public servants of the Commonwealth are money hungry. I think that people at age 60 will be able to make a decision. They are responsible people and they will be able to plan for the next 5 years and take that into account. I think that there will be very little, if any, demotivation for people to retire early. As I have said, the public servants of this nation serve us well and I believe that they know they are being treated generously by this legislation. I cannot see that the legislation is a disincentive. The legislation is before the House. I commend the Minister and I commend the honourable member for Curtin **(Mr Garland),** who played a large part in preparing the legislation. I am pleased to support it. {: #subdebate-33-0-s4 .speaker-9F4} ##### Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP -- At the outset I should like to support publicly the introduction and the general concept of this new scheme. The proposals, which have the blessing of most of the Public Service unions, in the long term will cost the Australian public some $2,000m less than the scheme introduced last year by the Labor Party. The Australian public can only agree that it is a good scheme when it commands the agreement of most of the Public Service unions and public servants themselves and costs so much less. I should like to say further that I regard people who have access to generous superannuation schemes, and they are a minority of people, to be very lucky. Far too often people who get into a superannuation scheme think: 'I'm all right, Jack', and forget that the vast majority of Australians can look forward, particularly at the moment, to retirement pensions of only $38 to $40 a week. I believe that people who have access to a generous superannuation scheme have a special obligation in the area of productivity to give back to a nation, whether it be in the private sector or in the public sector. Public servants are in an even more privileged position. In the last couple of years we have seen an upturn in the number of unemployed in this country. Last December they reached some 360 000, and they came not from the public sector but the private sector. I am yet to meet walking down the street unemployed a public servant who had permanent status. When the Prime Minister **(Mr Malcolm Fraser)** announced some weeks ago that the size of the Public Service was to be diminished by 17 000 people he did not mean that suddenly there were to be mass sackings. He meant that with natural wastage and retirements induced by the finalisation of this superannuation scheme the Public Service could be diminished by 17 000 because these people would not be replaced. I simply leave the message that people with access to superannuation schemes, and particularly public servants, have a very privileged position compared with the vast majority of Australians. Schemes such as the one we are debating should not simply be taken greedily for granted and regarded as simply another perk. The honourable member for Higgins **(Mr Shipton)** said that many private schemes could not be as generous as this one. Even though some people have the advantage of superannuation schemes, to my knowledge only a tiny fraction of these schemes would be as generous as that which covers the Public Service. I turn to another subject. I am amazed at the generosity of the Liberal Party in government when it comes to the Superannuation Bill. The honourable member for Higgins referred to the Superannuation Act 1922-1973. Section 46(1) stipulated if that the surviving spouse of a superannuitant remarried entitlement to a pension would disappear. I agree that in the 1970s it is appropriate that that provision be removed. I agree with the honourable member for Higgins that on some occasions this provision would have discouraged people from remarriage. We all remember that when the widow of a former Prime Minister- an earlier member for Higgins, **Mr Holt-** remarried that was the end of her entitlement to superannuation. This should not be so. What I fail to understand is why we have gone as far as we have gone, because it is unnecessary. I suggest that people should always be entitled to a fair go, but why go overboard and leave out a provision which would ensure that the generosity bestowed by the present Government is not purposely or accidentally taken advantage of at the expense of the public purse in the years to come? I referred before to section 46 of the Superannuation Act 1922-1973. Clause 111(1) in Division 5, under the heading 'miscellaneous' in the Superannuation Bill 1975 introduced by the Labor Government, provided: . . . where the spouse of a deceased person, being a spouse who is entitled to spouse's pension, marries, or is deemed by section 112 to have married, after the death of the person, entitlement to spouse's pension ceases upon the marriage. That was a change from the original Act. We have left that provision out completely. This opens up possibilities. In these days of equality of the sexes I will not prejudge which partner to a marriage will die first, but the surviving partner of a superannuation contributor will receive a large percentage of the superannuation. That person can remarry- that is fair enough- and retain that pension entitlement. But I believe that it is unnecessary to give open slather. Under the present Bill a surviving partner who remarries could lose another spouse, remarry a second time and end up with 2 pensions. That same person might lose a third spouse and collect 3 pensions. With sufficient energy he or she might even collect another pension. The person concerned might selectively and carefully choose elderly public servants to marry and systematically set about ensuring an early demise. A person such as this could end up with six or seven pensions and an income higher than the salary of the nation's Prime Minister. I know that this is a little far fetched. Honourable members might say that this would not happen. It probably will not happen, but if it happens twice or thrice, and I do not rule that out, what right has the Government to allow a leak in the provisions of this new Bill that would create this drain on the public purse? I had intended referring to the cost of the new scheme. I had figures taken out on estimates of the cost over the next 10 years and then an estimate of the cost in 20 years' time. My attention was drawn to the fact that these figures could well be an over simplification of the new scheme as against the old scheme, so I will avoid further reference to that matter. I say only that those who provided me with the figures at least listed in some detail the assumptions which had to be made in costing the future of the scheme. They pointed out that it was very dangerous to predict too far ahead. I conclude where I began. Many people do not have access to superannuation schemes, particularly those as generous as this scheme. Recipients in future should always acknowledge that they are in a very privileged position and that the scheme is not simply funded by their own contribution. The contribution from the public purse in years to come will be over $ I billion annually, and that is not to be sneezed at. I have pleasure in supporting the implementation of this Bill. I ask the Minister assisting the Treasurer **(Mr Eric Robinson)** to consider reintroducing a provision to eliminate the chance of a person being entitled to more than one pension by reason of having survived more than one spouse. {: #subdebate-33-0-s5 .speaker-4H4} ##### Mr HAMER:
Isaacs -This Superannuation Bill provides a generous and well thought out scheme. In addition to being generous, the scheme has the great qualities of being simple and clear. We owe this to our Public Service. I think that we in this country sometimes fail to recognise what we owe to our Public Service. Its ability and integrity are relatively rare in this world. The efficient government of this country depends very greatly upon that integrity. I, as a former member of the defence forces retirement benefits scheme, am very much in favour of the system of paying a contribution fixed on a percentage of pay. That principle was introduced first into the defence forces retirement benefit scheme. I am delighted to see it followed in the Commonwealth Public Service superannuation scheme. I draw to the attention of public servants the fact that they are being treated somewhat more generously than servicemen. Servicemen pay *5Vi* per cent of their salary; public servants, by this Bill, will pay 5 per cent. I do not object to that. I merely draw it to the attention of public servants. This shift to a contribution based on a fixed percentage of pay or salary instead of the old unit system is necessary because of the impact of inflation. All the old superannuation schemesours dates back to prior to the First World Wardepended upon the assumption of a fixed value of money. With the rapid ravages of inflation, the old scheme became, in practice, almost unworkable. Therefore, this shift to a different basis and a more simple form is altogether admirable. There are limits to how far a government can and should go in the support of its servants. We must take into account the effects of our scheme on the community in general. If the Commonwealth Government introduces a scheme which is markedly more generous than schemes which can be afforded by private enterprise there will be damaging effects on the whole economy. I think we learnt that lesson the hard way by the disastrous efforts of the former Minister for Labor and Immigration, the honourable member for Hindmarsh **(Mr Clyde Cameron).** He set up the public servants as pace setters, which did immense harm to the whole structure of the economy and to private enterprise in this country. In our provisions for our servants we must keep a sense of balance and proportion. We are, in effect, making a transfer payment. We are taking the contributions of the present generation of public servants and using them to pay in part the benefits of those who have retired. Incidentally, the contribution by the Commonwealth is a very high proportion. The contributions of the present contributors are used in part to pay the benefits of those who have retired. This entirely is proper, but it cannot be matched in that form by private enterprise. So we must be quite sure that what we are doing in providing for our servants is not damaging to the general economic affairs and stability of private enterprise. I draw attention to one area which I regard as an anomaly. Clauses 56 and 57 of this Bill provide extra benefits for people with long service in the Public Service- more than 30 or 31 years. The anomaly which I believe exists is that war service, when these individuals were working for the Commonwealth in peculiarly dangerous circumstances, does not count as contributory service. I believe that it should. I would like to hear the Minister Assisting the Treasurer **(Mr Eric Robinson)** undertake to introduce an amendment to make this service count for the purpose of the bonus payable to people with particularly long service in the interests of this country. I commend that idea to the Minister. {: #subdebate-33-0-s6 .speaker-KZL} ##### Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP -- I am sorry that I was unable to be in the chamber for the entire debate. I want to respond specifically to some of the points raised during the debate. Before doing so, I commend the honourable member for Gellibrand **(Mr Willis)** for his contribution. It was considered and very worth while. The controversial points raised by him were, I think, effectively answered in a lucid speech by the honourable member for Curtin **(Mr Garland)** who, honourable members will recall, was responsible for the development of the 3 major compromise proposals on which these Bills are based. The honourable member for Gellibrand had incorporated in *Hansard* 2 tables comparing benefits under the new Commonwealth scheme and the schemes of the various States. In 2 important respects the tables were wrong. In Queensland the pension is based on the average salary received over the final 3 years of service. At present the maximum pension at age 65 is likely to be closer to 65 per cent or less of the final salary than to the 75 per cent shown in the tables. In Tasmania the pension is based on the average of salary received over the last year of service, not the salary at retirement. I respond also to the examples that the honourable member for Fraser **(Mr Fry)** gave in his speech. They purported to show that some persons would be much worse off under the new scheme than they are under the present scheme. The first 2 examples that he gave are fairly typical of some of the uninformed comments that some persons seem to be circulating for their own purposes. I am not suggesting that the honourable member for Fraser is in that category. I suggest that he has been misled by correspondence which he has received and from which he has drawn his examples. It is a gross distortion to compare the total pension with no right to a lump sum, as is available under the present scheme, with only the government-financed pension under the new scheme without taking into account the additional pension or the substantial lump sum also available. This was the approach adopted when the honourable member quoted examples which showed, incorrectly, that 2 lower level officers would be much worse off under the new scheme. Perhaps it is of some significance that the same distorting approach was not adopted in the senior officer level example that was quoted later in the speech by the honourable member for Fraser. The Government, of course, does not accept the amendment moved by the honourable member for Gellibrand. The scheme embodied in the legislation reasonably satisfies the aspirations of the Government's employees, while still giving proper weight to the interests of the nation as a whole. That latter point was tremendously important in our consideration. The new scheme is supported and welcomed by the generality of the Public Service and by the Australian Government Employees Combined Superannuation Coordinating Committee. This Committee has asked us to proceed with all urgency to introduce the new scheme on 1 July. The scheme is well balanced and has features that are an improvement on the scheme that was put forward by the Australian Labor Party Administration. Let me quickly list some of them. Prospective service for the purpose of calculating benefits on invalidity retirement or death will be counted to age 65 instead of age 60. The special invalidity retirement and death benefits will be available when invalidity retirement or death occurs between the ages of 60 and 65. Spouses' pensions will not cease on remarriage. I will have a little more to say later about the contribution of the honourable member for Griffith **(Mr Donald Cameron).** The qualifying period for preservation of benefits when a member resigns to move outside the public sector or to leave the work force will be 5 years instead of 10 years. I think this answers one of the questions asked by the honourable member for Ballaarat **(Mr Short).** It will be possible under under this scheme, unlike the Labor scheme, to extend superannuation to part-time employees. The honourable member for Ballaarat mentioned this problem. It will be decided and considered in conjunction with other aspects of part-time employment. I particularly commend the honourable member for Canberra **(Mr Haslem)** for his contribution and for the efforts he has made to ensure a proper understanding of the scheme by his constituents. I know that the honourable member for Canberra has spent an enormous amount of time getting to understand and know what the scheme is all about. I think many more members of this chamber would have been better informed if they had followed his example. We then would have had fewer loose comments concerning it. The subject of war service was raised by the honourable member for Macarthur **(Mr Baume)** and, just a few minutes ago, by the honourable member for Isaacs **(Mr Hamer).** It is true that if the person concerned was in the superannuation scheme before he entered the forces his superannuation contributions would have been maintained while he was away and that if he has remained in the scheme since his return the period of war service would be contributory service for the purpose of the new scheme. A period of war service is, however, not counted as contributory service if there are not contributions in the superannuation fund in respect of that period. This is consistent with the contributory nature of the scheme and the principle adopted in relation to many other kinds of service in respect of which contributions are not held in the Superannuation Fund. The matter raised by, I think, the honourable member for Macarthur regarding transfer between the defence force retirement benefits scheme and the superannuation scheme will be looked into. As to the comments of the honourable member for Griffith **(Mr Donald Cameron),** I think it would be worth while if I were to state quite clearly the position with regard to spouses' pensions after remarriage. As I said earlier, under the new scheme spouses' pensions will not cease on remarriage. Most private sector schemes provide benefits in the form of a lump sum payment and under these schemes a widow usually gets a lump sum payment on the death of a scheme member. In the event of the widow marrying another member of the same scheme and of that member predeceasing her there is no prohibition on the widow receiving a second lump sum payment from the same scheme. In many situations the prospect of the loss of the principal income of the spouse might dissuade that spouse from remarrying and encourage the formation of domestic arrangements outside marriage. Although a rule could be made that the formation of *de facto* relationships should also result in the loss of a spouse's pension such a rule would be difficult to administer and costly to police. On the basis of recent experience it is expected that in 1976-77 some 50 widows' pensions will be continued that would otherwise have been cancelled on remarriage. It is estimated that the total annual value of these pensions will be about $0.2m. It is possible that a particular spouse might receive superannuation benefits on account of more than one deceased partner. However, the expected frequency of this happening is small. I do not think that there are many members of the community who have quite the amount of energy and initiative that the honourable member for Griffith has perhaps suggested. Any attempt to limit the generality of this provision by limiting the number of spouses' pensions payable by, say, the Commonwealth Government's schemes to a particular spouse introduces a number of problems. One is the possibility that it would discriminate against a spouse-pensioner choosing to marry a member of one of those schemes compared with a spousepensioner who married a member of, say, a nonCommonwealth Government or private scheme. Finally, I would like to thank those honourable members who made contributions to the debate. Superannuation, as we all know, is a very difficult, complex subject. The debate has been a valuable one. Honourable members have been well informed. I thank honourable members for the points they have raised. They will, of course, receive my attention. I hope that the debate assists in a better understanding of what the scheme is all about. In my view the scheme is good, just, generous and, more importantly for the Labor Opposition, much better than the 2 schemes that it will replace. Question put: >That the words proposed to be omitted **(Mr Willis' amendment)** stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker- Mr P. E. Lucock) AYES: 81 NOES: 29 Majority....... 52 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. {:#subdebate-33-1} #### Third Reading Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by **Mr Eric** Robinson) read a third time. {: .page-start } page 1375 {:#debate-34} ### SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT BILL 1976 {:#subdebate-34-0} #### Second Reading Consideration resumed from 18 March, on motion by **Mr Eric** Robinson: >That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. {:#subdebate-34-1} #### Third Reading Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by **Mr Eric** Robinson) read a third time. {: .page-start } page 1375 {:#debate-35} ### DEFENCE FORCE RETIREMENT AND DEATH BENEFITS AMENDMENT BILL 1976 {:#subdebate-35-0} #### Second Reading Consideration resumed from 18 March, on motion by **Mr Eric** Robinson: >That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. {:#subdebate-35-1} #### Third Reading Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by **Mr Eric** Robinson) read a third time. {: .page-start } page 1375 {:#debate-36} ### AUSTRALIA-JAPAN FOUNDATION BILL 1976 Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. {: .page-start } page 1375 {:#debate-37} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-37-0} #### MOTOR VEHICLE POLICY Ministerial Statement Debate resumed from 30 March, on motion by **Mr Howard:** >That the House take note of the following paper: Motor Vehicle Policy- Ministerial Statement, 30 March 1976. {: #subdebate-37-0-s0 .speaker-EV4} ##### Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide -The statement made in the House last week by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs **(Mr Howard)** on behalf of the Minister for Industry and Commerce **(Senator Cotton)** is yet another stage in the short history of our motor car industry. Who could have envisaged when Prime Minister Chifley launched the Australian car industry after World War II that in almost 30 years since that date one industry could be the subject of such continuous scrutiny and report? The latest statement is basically the previous Labor Government's car plan. So the whole exercise undertaken by both governments has concluded with a marked degree of bi-partisanship. Whilst we in the Opposition are not opposed to the basis of the report, nonetheless we are using the opportunity provided by this debate to place on record our views on' specific matters contained therein. The most important feature of the plan is the fixing of local content at 85 per cent. This figure understandably is not one that has universal support. However, it does maintain a viable auto manufacturing industry in Australia. The 85 per cent plan is another industry umbrella and who can fit under that umbrella for the next 8 years, as is the duration of the present plan, remains to be seen. The decision of the 2 governments is the result of an exhaustive Labor inquiry into the Industries Assistance Commission's report on the auto industry of 1974 in which the IAC stated: >The considerable number of amendments to the plans since 196S and the inevitable exercise of discretion by the administering authority have contributed to a degree of uncertainty which has inhibited business planning. > >Accordingly, the Commission recommends that the local content plans be discontinued. Later on in that same report the IAC, in giving interpretation to the abolition of local content plans, said: >The Commission's recommendations are expected to have a number of effects on employment in the industry. Over the next decade, during which the adjustments would take place, total employment is expected to fall by about 2000 persons. The phasing out of the uneconomic sections of the industry would, over the next decade, result in the elimination of about IS 000 jobs. However, the natural growth in those sectors of the industry which are expected to remain, will, over the same period, result in the creation of about 13 000 new jobs. These employment effects should be seen in the context of the high labour turnover rate in the industry. The total number of people whose employment would be affected over the next decade is less than the total number of people normally leaving the industry in one year. Those 2 quotes provoked one of the most extensive inquiries ever undertaken of the car industry. All sections of the industry- the manufacturers, the component manufacturers, and the trade unions- appreciated greatly the manner in which the previous Labor Administration opened its doors for a complete and open dialogue on the future of the industry. The concept of the future of the industry as seen by the IAC was rejected. The 15 000 people it estimated to be shifted out of the industry under its plans was seen by the industry as a gross under-estimation. The 13 000 new jobs to be found in the remaining industries under the plans was seen as a calculated guess. In fact I believe the 1974 IAC report, if adopted, may well have in a very short period of time seen the end of an auto manufacturing industry in Australia altogether. The statement by the Minister, of course, will leave many questions up in the air. How many 4-cylinder engine manufacturers shall there be after the Government concludes its negotiations? How will the anticipated 5 auto manufacturers now fit into a market of half a million units? To what extent will the component industry have to be restructured, as a result of the application of the 15 per cent by-law? Will the abolition of the complementation provisions discourage rather than encourage economy of scale production in our country? These questions are not answered in the Minister's statement. It would seem that when one talks of the 5 manufacturers and the workforce to be employed in the forseeable future there will be only a slight alteration in the total workforce connected with the industry. It may require, as I have indicated, only slight restructuring in the component industry, and I want to elaborate on that question a little later on. On the issue of complementation, basically complementation gives Australian content credits for exports of approved automotive products. This was seen as one of the most important elements in Labor's policies. It encourages manufacturers especially in the component area to specialise and to reap the economies of long production runs. It allowed vehicle manufacturers to source abroad but only if they were prepared to use Australia as an export base. Thus, it would seem, Nissan envisaged exporting some of its Adelaide engines in return for its imported body panels. This was the only way to maintain employment and design facilities in Australia; to get volume into the industry especially in the component sector, to let the Australian motor vehicle industry follow the technological trend to international models currently emerging in Europe, North America, Japan and the Asian countries; and to give consumers the choice they deserve. It would be wrong if these plans were designed merely to serve Australia. We could become the centre for design and sophisticated product manufacture. The end of complementation may well be the end of export markets. On the question of the non-reversion rule, economically of course this rule never made sense. However, to abolish suddenly a rule that has persisted for a decade imposes undue strain on the parts industry. In particular to abolish it now before the new manufacturers begin to source locally is bad planning. The parts industry needs to restructure but it should have been gradually encouraged to restructure by specialising in line with an economically attractive complementation program. It would be hoped that by government intervention, when we now have the opportunity, after seeing all the past mistakes, the Government would announce in the not too distant future that only one plant will produce 4-cylinder engines. We must do what we can to attract the greatest technological investment available to us. Such a plant, I believe, will do just that. In saying this I draw attention to the statement made on paragraph 5 of the Minister's statement where he says: "The local industry's ability to contain cost increases should also, in time, enhance the prospects for significant exports of automotive products. The industry would then be in a better position to participate in current developments towards production of so-called "world" or "regional" cars.' It is not difficult to envisage the complete world auto industry developing along these lines, and the development of a 4-cylinder engine is our chance to participate in the predicted world model. Whilst the car plans have eased many minds, there will have to be continuous monitoring of their future development. The monitoring of the effect of those new car plans should have running parallel with it an up-to-date adjustment assistance scheme. If the people in industries or the industries themselves are to be directly affected by government programs the Government must take responsibility for both. Whilst adjustment schemes are relatively new in Australia, their costs can be minimised if a well planned strategy of tariff and industrial reform is employed. Many parts of the world- Sweden, Canada, United Kingdom, United States of America- have adjustment schemes, some directly related to the auto industries. In Canada individuals displaced from employment under the automotive adjustment program can receive benefits of up to 75 per cent of weekly pay for a period of up to 18 months. Firms are also eligible for receipt of benefits. The manpower adjustment program aims to bring management and labour together for early consultations to solve employment problems, including those caused by restructuring, and to co-ordinate private and public adjustment measures to ensure the full range of government manpower programs is made available to complement private measures. Government manpower programs and services include counselling, training, placement and mobility assistance m the form of travelling, living and installation allowances, including $1,000 towards a house in the new location. We must recognise in Australia that when we talk about re-location of resources we are talking about placing an extra burden on an individual or a family to seek different employment in another region. Those people ought to be recognised and catered for. There are other matters that ought to be taken into account when considering the labour intensive industries like the auto industry in Australia. **Mr Deputy Speaker,** I seek leave at this stage to have incorporated in *Hansard* the population projections of the Borrie Committee report. {: #subdebate-37-0-s1 .speaker-KN9} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES -Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. *(The document read as follows)-* {: .speaker-EV4} ##### Mr YOUNG: -I thank the House. If we combined the recommendations of the Jackson Committee report with the projections of the Borrie Committee report, and applied to the population the high educational standards we now require of it, it would seem inevitable that there would be national and gradual scaling down of labourintensive industries in Australia. I do not believe that we as Australians should be greatly concerned that such a course of action may well take place in the long term, because in addition to our responsibility to our own people, we have a very positive responsibility to the people of our region. For the purposes of regional stability we should help those countries around us to reach economic independence; recognising the population explosion that will take place in that region, it would seem inevitable that those countries will become the home of labour-intensive industries. In addition to these factors, whilst the motor car has had the general acceptance and endorsement of the community over the past 25 years, it would be a very game man indeed who would predict that future generations would adopt the same attitude. I mention this, **Mr Speaker,** because it is becoming increasingly obvious that the environment we live in, is emerging as a great political and humane issue and the motor car may play a different role in the next 25 years, related to the role it has played in the last 25 years. I believe that from what I have said members will get some idea of the difficulties that lay ahead for any car plans. As I said at the outset, the present plans included a marked degree of bi-partisanship. To reiterate the main points, we must monitor very closely the early development of these plans. More work should be done on consolidating our adjustment schemes in Australia, and we should not forget our responsibility to assist our regional neighbours to become economically independent. {: #subdebate-37-0-s2 .speaker-009MM} ##### Mr KELLY:
Wakefield -- It is with some satisfaction that I follow the honourable member for Port Adelaide **(Mr Young)** as I did, indeed with some modesty, on *Monday Conference* last night. {: .speaker-AV4} ##### Mr Hurford: -- He got the final word last night. {: .speaker-009MM} ##### Mr KELLY: -- Indeed, he got the final word, as I might on this occasion. I want to make it clear that I support the statement of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs **(Mr Howard)** about an 85 per cent component plan for one reason only- that the present situation in the industry, as held in a vice grip by the 95 per cent component plan, shows the fallacy of a policy on protection that is carelessly handed around. Let us look at the situation as it is now. We have in Australia a market for about 500 000 cars. At present we have 3 manufacturers of motor cars in Australia. The United States has a market for 1 1 million cars and has 3 manufacturers. Because of careless protection we have a fragmentation of the Australian car industry that makes it impossible for the industry to work efficiently. If honourable members want a measure of its inevitable inefficiency let me give them 2 figures. If we want a minimal economic size for stamping panels for motor cars, a throughput of 600 000 units is needed. In 1973- the last time this throughput was measured- we had a throughput of 425 000 units. We should have had one factory pressing those units, but instead we had five. A throughput of 350 000 engines is needed. In 1973 we made 300 000 engines. Instead of making them with one factory, we did it with four. We have then an inevitable pressure to produce things in the dearest possible way. Let us look at the results of this. The number of cars that an employee makes in Australia in components and assembly is 5.9 in a year. In Japan, Nissan makes 37.2 cars a year and Toyota makes 40.5 cars a year a man. The reason for the difference between the Australian and Japanese figures is that in Australia we have fragmented our industry by careless protection, by a 95 per cent component plan which makes it impossible for our manufacturers to compete efficiently with the people who have a larger throughput. The secret of the Japanese, American and Swedish performances is not that the people work betterthey probably do in the other countries; people work badly here- but is chiefly because of the throughput. Because we have a fragmentation in Australia that is encouraged by a 95 per cent component plan it is impossible for the Australian manufacturer of cars to compete with overseas manufacturers. If honourable members want a measure of the mistakes we have made I shall give it to them. For every man we have in Australia making cars the Australian consumer of cars, the purchaser of cars, pays $4,000 extra. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- Where did you get those figures from? {: .speaker-009MM} ##### Mr KELLY: -- They are contained in the last report of the Industries Assistance Commission; they are not my figures. If honourable members want it measured in per car terms, it means that the subsidy in the form of the extra cost to the Australian consumer of cars for a $5,000 car at the retail level, works out at $1,400. That is a measure of the mistakes we have made in the past. I am not going to apportion blame. I am not trying to make any cunning political points; I am not built that way. I am just saying that the measure of the mistakes we have made is that for every person engaged in the industry the user of cars is paying $4,000 and for every $5,000 car the consumer of cars is paying $1,400 extra. They are not fiddling figures; they are not. my figures. But that is the estimation that I get. The subsidy may be worth it. I am not saying that it is not worth it, but it would not be a bad idea to measure it sometimes. It is the kind of burden that the exporter carries. I repeat, the exporter carries a burden of a price increased by $1,400 for every car at the $5,000 retail level. When I began this lonely battle on tariff matters I used to think that the farmer would only be concerned the year he bought a car. But now he realises that every time he buys a car he pays this increased burden and every time the city slicker buys a car inevitably the burden is passed on to the exporter. The thing that I am heartened by is the feeling that now people realise that there is no such thing as a free ride. Now people realise, the exporters, the farmers in my electorate, realise that every time a car is bought, they are paying the price. Let us have a look at the implications thereof. If we take the matter a step further, the reason for the car industry being in such a mess is that we have so carelessly protected it. Take the Volvo company in Sweden. Sweden does not protect its car industry at all nor does it put its industry into strait-jackets which make it impossible for it to perform economically. Volvo supplies only a small proportion- about 20 per cent- of the Swedish market. The Volvo is only about 60 per cent Swedish made. But this is the kind of figure that is desperately important. Volvo makes 290 000 cars a year and exports 77 per cent of them- because it is not held in a strait-jacket like the 95 per cent strait-jacket of the olden days. Volvo is able to buy where the market demands and to sell where the opportunity offers. The company sells more Volvos to the United States than to anywhere else because it is not held in a strait-jacket like we put the Australian car industry into when we put a 95 per cent component plan on it. We are moving away from that component plan. We are getting towards an 85 per cent plan, which gives manufacturers some freedom in which to manoeuvre. But I want honourable members to realise that the next step is not going to be so easy. What gives us some hope that we can have an economic car industry out of the mess that we have made of the industry is the fact that some plants will have to be closed. The honourable member for Port Adelaide spoke eloquently about supporting the plan; but, to make it work, some of the uneconomic plants will have to be closed because the reason we are in the mess we are in now is that we have encouraged the proliferation of plants where we should not have them. {: .speaker-EV4} ##### Mr Young: -- Like dairy farmers? {: .speaker-009MM} ##### Mr KELLY: -- The honourable member cannot resist, just as he could not resist last night, the opportunity to make cunning political points. I am not engaged in that exercise. I am trying to point out the way the industry should expand. I remind the Government and the honourable member that it is all right to talk about an 85 per cent local content plan, but in doing so they should recognise that before we can achieve the economies that must follow from such a plan and before we can get the kind of advantages which are sought under the plan there have to be alterations to the production of plants which everybody knows are uneconomically engaged at the moment. It is comparatively easy to make this statement, but the real crunch point will come when it becomes clear that some of the components produced in some of these plants will not be needed under an 85 per cent plan. That is what it is all about. It is easy to make speeches at this stage, as the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs **(Mr Howard)** did- if he will excuse me for saying this- but the crunch point comes when the inevitable progression follows the implementation of the plan. To make the system work we will have to close some of the uneconomic plants. I hope and pray that when that time comes we will have the courage to take the industry out of the strait-jacket into which we put it in 1964 and which made it impossible for it to continue. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- You are obviously going to take them over. {: .speaker-009MM} ##### Mr KELLY: -- The other point that I want to make is this- and it is a more simple one that I think the honourable member for Hindmarsh could follow: A lot of easy political advantage has been taken against me because people in South Australia say that I do not really fight for South Australia. The thing to do for South Australia, they say, is to fight to have an engine plant in South Australia. I just want to say this to the honourable member for Hindmarsh **(Mr Clyde Cameron)** to give one illustration of the problem: When I became Minister by the effluxion of time, I was given a very special lunch by a special group that wanted me to fight for South Australia. At the end of the lunch these people said to me: 'Did you like that, Kelly?' I said: 'Well, it was a splendid lunch'. They said: 'We want you to fight for South Australia'. I said: 'Any time you want me to fight for South Australia against the interests of Australia, would you please put your request in writing?' This is what it is all about. I said: 'If it is expected of me that I am to do something for the benefit of South Australia that will be to the detriment of Australia, would you please put your request in writing?' There is another way. If people really want to defend the barriers of South Australia, what about having a Customs post at the border? What about going back to the colonial times? Is not Australia a country? Is Australia a country, or is it just a collection of colonies? We have to face up to the facts. The honourable member for Port Adelaide and the honourable member for Hindmarsh, who are sitting together, are seeking to interject. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- Are you picking me? {: .speaker-009MM} ##### Mr KELLY: -- I am not picking the honourable member. I am just saying that the challenge is laid on him equally as it is on me. We have to decide whether we do something for the benefit of Australia chiefly. Our responsibility is not to our own State; it is to our own country. When people close in on me, as they will after this speech, and say 'You are not loyal to South Australia', I will just have to respond to them by saying: 'If you want me to do something to the detriment of Australia, please put your request in writing '. {: #subdebate-37-0-s3 .speaker-5J4} ##### Mr SCHOLES:
Corio -This debate is the culmination of 12 years of frustration and the correction or partial correction of a mistake made some considerable time ago. Having said that, I think I also have to say that I do not believe that the policy on the motor car industry as announced in this House last week will survive until 1984. In fact, I will be surprised if some parts of it survive until 1977. The problems that face the car industry, and the commercial vehicles industry which is also the subject of this statement, are more diverse than can be solved by the simple solution of taking what is academically or economically the correct course. There are people involved, both as consumers and as employees in the industry. The plan, as it is now being adopted and as it was devised by the former Government, will cause restructuring in the industry and a great deal of trauma. I am concerned, obviously, about the situation in Geelong which I represent in this place, because the car industry is the most substantial employer of labour in that area. Unfortunately, because of some political chicanery back in the 1950s, it constitutes not the total industry of the Ford Motor Company of Australia Ltd but the manufacturing side of the industry and it is the design and manufacture side of the industry which is at greatest risk. This plan, whilst it is most likely the best that can be devised if the industry is to survive in total, also poses a very serious threat to about 50 per cent of the employees in the industry in Geelong. That is what concerns me. That is what prompted me last year and prompts me now to question the advisability of the total plan which has been announced. I seek leave to incorporate in *Hansard* some comments which I circulated last year and responses to them by people in the industry in Geelong, including the Ford motor company and Department of Transport officers. These were all made in the middle of last year. They are comments on the plan which was adopted in late 1974 but which substantially is the plan that is now before the House. There are 4 documents. {: .speaker-KN9} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin: -Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. *(The documents read as follows)-* {: .page-start } page 1381 {:#debate-38} ### CAR PLAN Since Caucus approved of the new 85 per cent vehicle plan a number of critical changes have been made by the public service and apparently approved by the various Ministers. In this period the Japanese companies will be basically assemblers but will have the same duty free concession for in excess of 30 per cent of content as the existing manufacturers have for under 10 per cent. This will result in a market advantage of approximately $200 per unit to the Japanese firms. The result of a direct government intervention in the market in favour of the Government's Japanese business partners. Employment for technically trained persons will be reduced sharply, thus making a farce of expenditure to expand technical education. Highly trained design personnel are already working on production lines and are unemployed. GM-H design at Dandenong and stamping in Adelaide will be closed. Chrysler stamping facilities will also be affected. Loss of jobs in the vehicle industry through loss of design and panels, between 4000 and 5000. Loss of jobs as a result of reduction of number of manufacturers to 3, Toyota, Nissan and either GM-H or Ford, the result will be 1 5 to 20 thousand jobs lost. Added to this there is the loss of employment in sheet steel manufacture. The supposed advantage is creation of jobs in components manufacture, estimated 10 000 plus cheaper cars, has yet to be proven. The latter must be a doubtful assumption based on a proposition already of little substance. Flexibility in sourcing components is not available, thus component manufacturers can occupy a monopoly supply position, i.e. recent position regarding spark plugs. Resourcing would have saved manufacturers a third of the cost of spark plugs, the change of source was not allowed. Similarly resourcing of transmissions sourced with BorgWarner (favoured by Ford) will not be permitted irrespective of the savings involved, because of the effect on AlburyWodonga. Apart from the engine plant, it is clear that utilisation of facilities is not likely to improve. In addition to an initial advantage of up to $200 in duty free imports, the Japanese firms will have the advantages of imported design without costs associated with tooling. On account of using surplus capacity in Japan, panels etc. will be very favourably priced thus allowing import content to be expanded. Actual costs of Japanese manufactured goods have proved nearly impossible to establish and has been a source of problems in the past. The actual Australian content in physical terms of each vehicle will decline. At present costs in no way associated with the vehicle manufacture are included as local content, i.e. if the States increase payroll tax or rail freight, this increases local content. Freight charges, maintenance guarantees, suppliers and companies profits are all charged to local content. The price of overseas components is assessed at overseas costs usually on an internal company costing which can easily be manipulated. Rationalisation of components is unlikely as instanced by the spark plug decision. Also it is the intention of the Japanese to use existing assemblers in Melbourne thus maintaining the number of assembly plants not reducing fragmentation of the industry. The need to either write off existing plants, because of the resourcing of panels and design or operate same at uneconomic levels. Technical designers and toolmakers will become redundant and require re-training for some fictitious new area of employment. The jobs created (if any) to replace same will be in the unskilled process worker area. The result, a downgrading in the Australian workforce and a transfer of skilled employment opportunities outside Australia. {: .page-start } page 1382 {:#debate-39} ### CONCLUSION it is clear that efforts should be made to ensure that design, tooling and stamping is retained in Australia. Japanese companies should be required to compete on equal terms with existing manufacturers. Duty should be payable on all components in excess of 5 per cent of actual vehicle components. That one vehicle in each range be of 90 per cent local content or special depreciation allowances be introduced on vehicle tooling to encourage investment in car manufacturing plants in Australia. If a 90 per cent one major model requirement were introduced, Japanese manufacturers would be required to have some panels stamped in Australia. This could be done in existing Australian plants. Costs of domestic tax and internal freight and warranty should be disregarded in assessing local content. The cost of internal freight of an imported component is at present assessed as local content. A weighted scale of actual components rather than wholesale price should be used. Light commercial vehicles should be put back into the car plan and included as part of the companies total vehicles. CKD and CBU vehicles should be treated as part of the imported portion of the plan. The whole of a firms marketing of vehicles in Australia must be taken into account in the assessment of total content. At present Japanese firms can import whole vehicles outside the Manufacturers Plan. This in fact means a reduction in local content of their full range of vehicles and permits selective entry of vehicles into the Manufacturers Plan. With the increase of the number of manufacturers from 3 to 5 the share of the market available to local vehicles should be increased above the existing 80 per cent. This would not reduce the share available to existing assemblers and importers, but would reflect the actual transfer of Toyota and Nissan to the manufacturers section of the market. If the present 80 per cent is retained and Toyota and Nissan allowed access to both segments of the market as at present, the market for manufacturers will contract to below 70 per cent, thus reducing production runs below that required for efficient production, and substantially below existing levels. Obviously this summary will be dismissed by some members as an effort to favour my own electorate and thus indirectly Ford. The future shape of the car industry is critical to the jobs of up to 10 000 persons in Geelong and a similar number in other centres. I therefore consider that I have a right to defend their right to be considered in the assessment of Government Policy. As I have indicated under existing proposals, it would seem that the Government is prepared to use many millions of dollars from public funds to render these employees redundant and obsolete, in an effort to meet some unanoun.ced commitment to the Japanese. This matter is one of extreme urgency as commitment to planning of replacements for Falcon, Holden and Valiant range vehicles will commence this year. Once this decision to import a design from the United States or Europe is taken the loss of employment in panels, design and tooling will be certain plus the reduction in steel sheet capacity. It is important that Caucus be given the real facts and not diverted by abstract theories and cliches about more efficient or more interesting employment and fantasies about cheaper cars. The jobs lost will be designers, tradesmen and process workers. The new jobs, if any, will be on assembly lines. Savings to consumers are extremely doubtful and will be minimal at best. {: .page-start } page 1382 {:#debate-40} ### COMMENTS ON CAR PLAN DOCUMENTS ()- (b)- Details of the components concerned are required as also the reasons for change. A simple change of model appears to negate the Reversion Clauses; this appears to be a serious loophole in the Plan. The comment on protection given to Ford is irrelevant in the present climate. At the time referred to all manufacturers were increasing local content and the measure of protection required to-day was not as important. Protection given to local manufacturers is not enabling any larger profit to be made by local manufacturers than that made by overseas companies. In fact duties are paid into consolidated revenue and local jobs created. (0 If reversions are permitted in engine, foundry and trims a different group of employees will be retrenched and a different technology, no less important to the country, will be lost. No reason can be seen for protection of component manufacturers over panels, engines and chassis components. This so called protection does not appear to be satisfactory to vehicle unions in N.S.W. (Refer Geelong Advertiser 27.9.75.) Representatives of component manufacturers put evidence to the recent IAC hearing regarding a volume drop due to imports. It is estimated that for every employee of Ford, 150 are employed by outside suppliers. 2600 jobs lost at Ford, Geelong, equals a total job loss of 6500. To this must be added losses at other Ford locations and in GM-H/Chrysler plants. Ford's experience with the 1966 model for which many dies were built in Japan indicates that tooling must be designed, built and tried out in the one location. The probability of building tooling in Australia to make panels for assembly with Japanese made panels is remote. Duplicate sets of dies in Japan and Australia would be required. With the current under utilisation of Japanese plants this is most unlikely. All tooling used in the Ford Philippines plant is designed, built and tried out in Australia prior to shipment; to do otherwise means at the least a reduction in the assembly quality of the completed vehicle. The Japanese gain sales by wide model variations. The practice in Australia has been to have a basic model with added options. There is currently a change to build standard option in quantity production runs by Ford, GM-H and Chrysler. It is almost impossible to obtain the actual cost of manufacture in Japan therefore there is no real way of knowing if in fact local manufacture is competitive or not. Japanese entry into the 85 per cent Plan is not a simple matter of increased content. It gives the Japanese companies access to the high volume overseas plants; tooling costs can be recovered much quicker- therefore models can be changed more often giving a sales advantage over local companies. There is clear evidence that there will be a reduced but continued demand for the Falcon, Holden size car. The Cortina and Torana are available as a smaller vehicle and use common components with the Falcon, Holden. It is impractical that production continue of the larger cars if the smaller cars are imported and the total volume reduced. Why is there such concern at giving protection to local manufacturers. This seems to be the multi-national phobia again. Try selling Australian made cars in Japan. There protection is total. GMH are to build an engine integrated with the six cylinder engine (Refer GM-H Evidence to IAC, 25 August 1975.) To bring in an outside manufacturer of engines when the job can be handled by existing companies defies logic. {: .page-start } page 1383 {:#debate-41} ### DEPARTMENTAL REPLY Comments on the points made in the document circulated to the Committee are as follows: {: .page-start } page 1385 {:#debate-42} ### GOVERNMENT MANUFACTURING PLAN Comments on **Mr Scholes** ' Paper The following comments may be used to interpret the commentary on **Mr Scholes'** paper concerning the manufacturing plans. The fact that light commercial vehicles have never been included in previous manufacturing plans is irrelevant as the present plans contain other novel features and purport to represent new Government initiatives in the motor industry. The important consideration is that they should have been included because of their competitive relationship with passenger derivative light commercials which are included in the plans. They are needed in the program if a 'high content industry ' is still an objective. It will be recalled that the IAC considered this question and recommended against Government equity participation as being unnecessary. This should be rationalised by the commentary as the Government apparently did accept the IAC analysis in general as did Caucus expressly. In our view the IAC analysis was in many respects erroneous and the Government has here rejected a very common sense IAC comment. It is true that importation of CBUs is still attractive to importers at a 45 per cent duty rate and this has just been established by evidence given at the IAC inquiry on quotas. CK.D importation at 35 per cent duty is also viable and will be much more so at the rate of 25 per cent which will be applied eventually if CBU quotas are continued. The reversion control was only announced on April 11, and the procedure only just recently. The Brenda sourcing concept had to be decided considerably before this date, and the Government was informed of the sourcing plans for the Brenda. The comment on the Brenda is, in our view, inappropriate and virtually irrelevant. Nobody ever suggested that the Brenda would have no carryover parts as the question was not raised and the sourcing was a direct consequence of the averaging principle. In any event, the averaging concept in the plans has no meaning unless we can use the higher local content on the Falcon to support the lower content Brenda and thus help make our position more competitive in the light car market with Japanese competition. The Brenda lower content in fact helps Geelong by requiring the Falcon to make up for the lower Brenda content in the short term. The IAC in its report said that it considered existing and potential manufacturers should have the same opportunity for local production. The plans do not reflect this broad philosophy. Under the old plans to which the department refers all manufacturers in the industry were offered the same concessions and all manufacturers received the same level of concessions. Whether Ford received $50m over a period is irrelevant. There was equality of treatment between the manufacturing companies competing in the industry. This equality of treatment is not reflected in the Government's present plans, and this is the point made in **Mr Scholes'** paper which is quite valid. As a matter of fact under the old plans the nonmanufacturers received higher concessions- including the Japanese companies. The relativity of competing companies in the industry must obviously be looked at now, and concessions which every company was offered and some received in the past has no present relevance. As can be seen on page 133 of the IAC Report dated July 10, 1974, greater concessions were received by the non-manufacturers than by the manufacturers and the companies, e.g. Toyota and Nissan, who are now being offered comparatively favourable concessions were the biggest recipients of the greater concessions per vehicle given under the old plans. Accordingly, the reference to $50m is misleading in that during the period to which the $50m relates a higher level of concessions was being paid to people who were not manufacturing and not incurring manufacturing investment. (0 The comment on (f) does not deal with the main point and that is the reduction in the skilled workforce associated with sheetmetal work which will follow the development of manufacturing under these plans. This is one of the principle objectives stipulated by Caucus. The reference to Ford really does not have any meaning as we are committed to overseas design up to 1979 and plans have not been made beyond this date. The comment illustrates the underlying problem in the rules in that the plans structure the disappearance in the Australian industry of Australian design with the skills associated with them. This point has just been made by the 'alphabetical' union representative at the recent IAC inquiry on quotas. The fact that Ford has imported 50 per cent of required sheet steel is irrelevant, in that the present base incorporates this 50 per cent sourcing pattern and has done for a number of years. The net drop in steel usage is the point at issue and Ford usage will eventually drop. The costs involved in manufacturing to 85 per cent are quite different from the very minor fixed costs involved in assembly and the generally lower piece imported price involved in assembly. It is still a fact that the plans inject five manufacturers into a given market in lieu of three and history indicates that this is a non-viable situation. It is wholly superficial to treat this as if it were merely a transfer of two assemblers into two manufacturers without considering the quite different cost position which will become inevitable. Certainly the local 4 cylinder engine will be significantly more expensive than its previous imported cost, apart from the higher local piece price of components. The servicing of the considerable investment involved in the Engine Plant, plus the additional freight cost also involved, will increase costs significantly above assembly costs from imported components. There are a number of things in which the job losses can be calculated and many exercises illustrating this have been produced for the Government. The spark plug issue is really a very minor one, and while it constitutes a present difficulty for Ford due to the manner in which it has happened, it clouds the real problem. The real problem is that the manufacturing plans require a reduction in local content from the existing levels and the reversion rule is being used, or probably will be used, to inhibit the only cost advantage given to the local manufacturers compared with the concessions given to the Japanese. As far as we are aware nothing has been done to implement the assistance program which was said to be in planning to help the Borg-Warner Albury situation, and nothing appears to be in the pipeline. If reversion cannot be faced then the philosophy of the plans cannot be implemented and this is an innate contradiction in Government policy. The comment is quite correct where it says the method of calculating local content is unchanged, and the administration is correct in not changing it. It is a known technique of calculating content and the level of content established in the plans depends on the method of calculating the content. If the method of calculation were changed, then the relative significance of the new content levels would be distorted and new levels would have to be set. There is no point in this. The dropping of export credits is a backward step from both an industry cost point of view and a component supplier point of view. With Australia's relatively high rate of inflation, removing export incentives has destroyed the motor industry export performance which had great volume significance when it is considered that Australian manufacturers were exporting 20 per cent of their total production. This had a great volume and thus cost significance to the existing manufacturers and to component suppliers. I believe, however, that the panel situation is a function of the lower 85 per cent content level. About the only way to correct this would be to require at least one model line within the overall 85 per cent average to achieve a content of at least 90 per cent which would have to embrace some panels. The inner panel point is not too relevant as it constitutes such a minor portion of the total. Rationalisation of components will not be assisted by the new plans, as the pans required for the Japanese vehicles can only have a very limited commonality potential with existing manufacturers because the Japanese vehicles will be made to Japanese design. In addition, the maintainence of a relatively high level of CBU import and the existence of significant volume in KD assembly in the interim period increases proliferation. If local vehicle manufacturer cannot revert a part to overseas where the supplier has increased the price unreasonably, then there is no doubt that higher costs are being structured into the industry. This is the case with spark plugs. The administration will face great difficulties in adjudicating the fairness of a resisted price increase after a reversion has been refused. Accordingly, the comment is correct only if the nonreversion discipline is removed or an equally strong discipline is applied to supplier price movements, and the latter is quite impracticable. Furthermore, the supply of an increased variety of parts within a given Australian industry volume will mean that individual costs will tend to increase because each customer will require less parts, and there will be five customers for the same volume instead of three. Increased complexity to a supplier means less real capacity in a given facility because changeover time is increased to provide the greater variety. Good economics and improved costs require longer rather than shorter runs. Where **Mr Scholes** claims that the price of cars will tend to increase rather than decrease, because of the present nature of the plans, he is correct both in respect of the 4 cylinder engine and supplier components generally. In the first place, a content level reduction from 93 per cent on the majority of vehicles in the local market to 85 per cent average with a high percentage of CBUs must mean a reduction in overall employment in any given market situation. The whole purpose of the reversion discipline is to avoid reducing employment. It is not enough to say that this is only the case while we do not have a booming economy, as present indications are that it will be some time before we have a booming economy, if ever, and the Government's objective was not related to any given economic level. Was a 'boom' expected? The existing Australian manufacturers have been building an increased content into their light car range for a considerable period. As an example the Cortina at one stage was sourced in excess of 90 percent pending approval to a 95 per cent program, and the Escort was sourced to about 83 per cent, and was on target to achieve 85 per cent content. The comment in respect of the year's production by the major manufacturers is therefore in our view incorrect. The existing manufacturers have always responded to the market as they did with medium sized cars, and were responding to the market with light cars. The difficulty faced with light cars was an inability to compete cost wise and price wise in the relatively low volume Australian market, with the significantly lower costs enjoyed by Japanese producers due to relatively higher volumes, greater productivity and significantly lower material and labour costs. The latest Ford offering in the light car market is a very positive response. An alternate program has been suggested which reduces imports, increases the local market available for manufacturers and injects a measure of equity into the new entrant rules compared with the rules which apply to existing manufacturers. To say that investment will cease may be slightly extreme as maintenance, etc. investment must obviously continue as must tooling investment in some supplier pans, and in the eventual upgrading of some facilities to maintain an existing status of manufacture- or even the lower level status of manufacture required under the plans. It is very likely that investment will cease for a long time in terms of major facilities by existing manufacturers. It is likely that investment in presses will cease forever. Certainly investment generally will slow down dramatically compared with the recent history of the motor vehicle industry. Why would investment in manufacturing be attractive when even the importers say ( at the IAC inquiry) that the existing duty rates are not protective? The basis of the significant duty concession advantages given new entrants has been rationalised only by reference to by-laws given existing manufacturers years ago in circumstances where all manufacturers were treated equally. All had an equal opportunity and concessions offered did not discriminate against one group of manufacturers. If the only justification of the discriminatory concessions is historical, it is equally relevant to point out that Toyota and Nissan received the higher monetary benefits of the small volume plans in the same period and had every opportunity for six years to embrace the manufacturers' role. They did not seek manufacturer status until the phase out of low volume concessions was announced and the import of CBU's was inhibited by the 1972 rules. Why then are they presently entitled to favourable comparative treatment against the companies who have manufactured in conformity with the Chifley program? Again, exclusion of light commercial vehicles from the plans has been rationalised only in relation to plans regulating manufacture many years ago in circumstances where all manufacturers were treated equally. Light commercials were predominantly car derivatives then. The exclusion of light commercials has now been determined when it was obviously the Government 's intention and the IAC view that they should be included. If the exclusion has not been deliberately to assist the Japanese then critics can be excused for believing this to be the case. Fifty per cent of the light commercial market is involved. Finally, while reduction of the proposed manufacturers from five to three, with the assumption that two of the existing manufacturers will disappear, may be pessimistic, on the other hand, logic says that five manufacturers occupying 75 per cent of the market are not viable. Certainly when existing manufacturers were getting significantly more than 75 per cent of the market between them, one manufacturer went out of business and a second one of the previous five eventually could not make it. History tends to support the gloomy forecast. {: #debate-42-s0 .speaker-5J4} ##### Mr SCHOLES: -- The types of problems that I see for the industry are that, if we accept that the 2 Japanese firms are to come into the industry and if we accept that economic viability or an ability to compete in the market place is based on production runs, then we must also accept that S firms cannot operate within the market that exists. That is impossible; but this plan envisages S firms attempting to operate, plus two or three assemblers on whom quotas have been lifted. Those assemblers are required to meet an additional S per cent tariff, but in fact their quotas have been lifted and therefore they eat into that part of the market which belongs to the manufacturers under existing circumstances. At the end of this year the quota on the 90 000 imported vehicles will also be lifted. I hasten to say that I believe that it will be forced off before the end of this year because of the difficulties with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade that already exist and because of the difficulties in the balance of trade which I think honourable members will understand. The plans now before us constitute a drop in security, if such is possible, for people in the industry in my area and in South Australia because of some changes which have taken place. The complementation arrangements have been dropped. More significantly, the non-reversion provisions have been dropped. This is something that the car companies asked for originally. This places at risk not only the people working directly in the car companies, because reversion can take place without any reference to government or without any justification; it also places at risk the component suppliers who can and will be subjected to pressure by manufacturers to meet commitments which they cannot meet, or else lose the contracts to overseas or other suppliers. Component suppliers will be placed in much the same area as some of the smaller suppliers to the big chain stores in food and other areas, who are always subject to the threat that their businesses are dependent on the big chain stores and that they will go to the wall unless they do what the big chain stores say. This will happen to component suppliers-I do not think there is any doubt about it- and they now have no protection. Previously they could go to the reversion committee. The new plans also enable the reversion of equipment which may well be vital to employment in some area or another. Panels and tooling are obviously vital to employment in the Geelong area. I believe that there are means by which that employment can be protected to some degree- or at least encouraged- which will not mean an alteration in the plans. It seems that these are high cost and high employment areas with regional consequences. At the moment the Ford Motor Company of Australia Ltd has a fairly substantial and fairly modern plant in the Geelong area but that will eventually fall due for replacement and at that time the temptation to take panel manufacturing outside Australia will become great. I understand that a new model is due to enter the design and tooling stages. I imagine that it will certainly have to reach those stages within the next 12 months if it is to meet the market requirements of 1 979, 1 980 and 1 98 1 when a new model car will be expected from the Ford Motor Company. General Motors-Holden Pry Ltd has a similar time-table although it has already announced that there will be no further Australian designs. If there is no designing there will be no tooling and panelling and that is where the threat to employment exists in this industry. Whilst it may be easy for the honourable member for Wakefield **(Mr Kelly)** to say that this is an economic use of resources, those people will become what Government supporters call dole bludgers because opportunities for alternative employment do not exist in those areas. It is important and significant that the situation should be looked at in that regard. I suggest that the means that can be and should be considered are special investment allowances, depreciation allowances and other forms of concessions which are used in the United States, Canada and some European countries such as West Germany to encourage tooling and other highly skilled areas of the motor car industry to remain in those countries. We have not tackled this type of protection of skill in Australia. As we move into what people describe as efficient areas of production in each industry, what we are doing is removing the skilled areas of designing and tooling. They are being moved out of Australia and those skills are becoming redundant in those industries. We are importing the skilled work and we are turning our employees in the motor car industry into production line workers. The first thing that has been lost to the car industry- even though the honourable member for Moore **(Mr Hyde)** shakes his head- is the highly skilled design team which was built up under plans introduced by a Government of the honourable member's political colour. It was possibly a mistake but nevertheless highly skilled design teams were built up. These teams are leaving the electronics industry and they are going out of other industries just as quickly. We ought to be considering whether we believe Australians are capable of participating, and should be encouraged to participate, in highly skilled and saleable activities such as design and tool making as well as bolting together panels for which in most other car industries throughout the world imported labour is used. There is hardly a Western country where the labour force in the production lines of the motor car industry consists of natives of that country. Local people may be employed at the moment because of the recession in the industry but, a couple of years ago, if one went to Germany one found Yugoslavs doing such work. If one went to Australian factories one found Greeks and Yugoslavs doing it. If one went to the Swedish factories one found Finnish people doing it and if one went to the United States factories one found Negroes doing it. Those countries have always operated on the basis that someone else should do this terrible work, and this is the only part of our industry we appear to be able to maintain if we believe what the Industries Assistance Commission said in its 1974 report and contradicted in its 1975 report. I recommend that honourable members who have faith in that organisation read the 2 reports. They are totally contradictory. Another part of the IAC report which is significant and ought to be commented on relates to commercial vehicles. International Harvester Australia Ltd is the only major manufacturer in Australia of medium trucks. It manufactures a truck which has close to 85 per cent local content. It needs a level of protection higher than 25 per cent and this has not been provided in the IAC report. I understand that the company could go to the Temporary Assistance Authority but I hope that it has more success than most of those who have been to that particular body because it has a record of almost 100 per cent rejection. It may be that the retirement of **Mr Rattigan** will be a boon for Australian industry seeking assistance. It is certainly a retirement that I personally welcome although some other honourable members, on both sides of the House, may not- it depends on whether one is a free trader or a protectionist and I am a protectionist. The International Harvester Co. is the front runner in Australia in that area. It has substantial manufacturing and designing components in Australia. Because of the way in which this report has been presented that company has something like 800 employees immediately at risk. {: .speaker-L1V} ##### Mr Yates: {: .speaker-5J4} ##### Mr SCHOLES: -- The honourable member may talk about Dandenong; I will talk about Geelong where 500 people are at risk. The proposals in this area are not satisfactory. They mean, in fact, that the only manufacture and design capacity for our truck industry in Australia is about to disappear. Everyone else in the industry is an assembler and 25 per cent is not sufficient protection. The car industry under this plan will obtain an almost permanent 45 per cent protection against imports yet we expect the truck firms to compete on 25 per cent protection. There is no evidence to suggest that imports will fall below 20 per cent and, as I see it, there is no evidence to suggest that truck manufacture can survive in areas where it is a major factor, that is, from 10. 16 tonnes down to 2.72 tonnes. It cannot survive in that area on a protection level of 25 per cent. Prior to the change of government it had been decided by the Australian Labor Party Caucus that protection of 35 per cent would be given to that area of the industry. There was some discussion over the manufacture of vehicles 2 tonnes heavier and that delayed a Cabinet decision, but the decision to give that protection had been made. I hope that the Government will have another look at that area and do so quickly. I do not think that a reference to the Temporary Assistance Authority is the means by which long term planning for design and manufacture can be established. Finally, I think it is important that the House understand that this plan, whether recommended by a Labor or a Liberal Government, is one which will damage a very large employing industry in Australia. I do not think I can put forward proposals. I would hope that the situation in Geelong is not as bad as the union thinks it is. But one has to look at the possible worst side. I would commend to the Government a look at proposals whereby encouragement of another sort can be given to companies which are prepared to maintain tooling and design in Australia because they are skilled areas which this country ought to be able to encourage and maintain. {: #debate-42-s1 .speaker-6I4} ##### Mr MACPHEE:
Balaclava -- I agree with a great deal of what has been said by the honourable member for Corio **(Mr Scholes).** I do not think, however, that he does himself justice when he says that he is a protectionist as against free traders. I think that too much time has been spent in Australia debating under these 2 labels. It is important to recognise that there are most commendable principles adopted in the ministerial statement, the principles of efficiency, resource allocation and manageable change. But it is also important to recognise that certain people who will be affected by this plan, by this ministerial policy, will not have received and will not receive adequate notice of change under the policy as it now stands. That means that whether they have invested their capital or their labour they are not receiving sufficient notice of the proposed change. Perhaps the reference by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs **(Mr Howard)** to the Temporary Assistance Authority is meant to accommodate that but I do not believe that that goes far enough. I should say that I am in full agreement with the broad aims of the policy. I believe that the aims are effectively stated by the Minister in these terms at page 1129 of *Hansard* of 30 March 1976: >The Government's policy is directed towards gradual restructuring of local manufacturing to achieve increased competitiveness, and more freedom of choice for consumers. That is an important aim. However, I would like to make 2 comments. Firstly, this aim should apply more clearly than it now does to the component parts manufacturers; and secondly, there are too many vehicle builders under this plan. We have come back to 5 builders. This point has been made by other speakers and I agree with it. One has to ask: At what cost do we get a rationalisation back to three or two? Such a rationalisation must come if we are to achieve the aim of other statements which are in the policy in respect of the economic viability of the industry. There are many hard questions unanswered by this ministerial statement. For example the Minister, as recorded on pages 1128 and 1129 of *Hansard,* said: >High costs of production in Australia, resulting mainly from the smallness of the domestic market and short production runs, mean that the higher the level of Australian content in vehicles the less competitive they become against imports and to the extent that higher protection is provided the greater is their price to consumers. Some relaxation of local content requirements is necessary if the Australian vehicle builders are to remain viable with acceptable levels of protection in the longer term. One has to ask: What is an acceptable level of protection in the longer term, and how does the Minister demonstrate the earlier assertions which indeed are very hotly contested about higher production costs in Australia. Perhaps I should justify my last remark by referring to the Industries Assistance Commission *Report on Passenger Motor Vehicles, Etc.,* dated 10 July 1974. Table 5.8 on page 82 of the report is headed: 'Price Disadvantages for Locally Produced Vehicles Under Reference'. The figures are given on a percentage basis and the vehicle categories are as follows: Small light, large light, medium, upper medium, light commercial and 4-wheel drive. It is fairly clear from that table that the least protection is given to vehicles which have the highest Australian content. It is by no means clear that there are high cost components in the high Australian content production. It is also not clear that one can make an easy cost comparison between the particular component parts produced in Australia and corresponding component parts produced elsewhere. Certainly the IAC only went only as far as comparing category by category and that is an important point. How do the principles which I have just quoted relate to the components industry as opposed to the vehicle builders themselves? The Minister said, as recorded on page 1129 of *Hansard:* >At the 95 per cent level, costs of local componentry became so high that vehicles were non-competitive with imports. That is the matter to which I have just referred. I believe that by implication serious doubt is cast upon that statement by the IAC's own report. I do not believe that one can ascertain clearly the actual cost of component parts. If one looks at page 1 130 of *Hansard* one sees the following important statement: . . . that local content of components be determined after a 2-year phase-in period on the basis of the cost to the vehicle producer less the value of any parts imported by the component manufacturer. This is a most important point which causes great embarrassment to component parts manufacturers. They are now forced to say to vehicle manufacturers how much they are paying for the imported content of any of their components. There may be only one small imported element of the component they are making. But the vehicle builder can easily work out from the information which he has about the equipment and the information he is now given just what the cost of the original equipment purchasing is. This is an invasion of privacy as far as the component parts manufacturers are concerned. It is a serious invasion of a traditional market principle that one does not disclose this kind of information. I think it is important to add that on page 1 1 30 the Minister committed himself when he said: >However, if a viable motor industry is to continue in Australia considerable changes will be needed in the industry's structure and the nature of manufacturing operations in Australia. He went on to say: >The Government's policy has been developed to ensure change occurs in a manageable and controlled manner. Consideration is being given to appropriate structural adjustment measures to assist an orderly transition. One has to ask: Are these decisions being made with regard to the component parts industry? To what extent has the Minister had discussions with the component parts industry? As I understand it, the panel on the motor industry has not met since October of last year. It has not met since the present Government came into being. The Minister made a most important statement on page 1130 when he said: >Consistent with the decision to include actual content in local content calculations the Government had decided that component manufacturing programs would cease from 1 January 1978. The Government will also continue to encourage all moves by manufacturers designed to increase component commonality. One has to ask: How is this component commonality to be achieved? In the component sector 2 years ago 30 000 people were employed. Now there are 20 000 persons employed and further retrenchments will follow the adoption of this policy. This is especially true- and this comes to the nub of the problem facing the component parts sector- if current reversion controls are removed. Much of what the honourable member for Port Adelaide **(Mr Young)** said regarding the gradual restructuring of the component parts sector makes a great deal of sense. I think it is implicit in the reasoning of the ministerial statement that high cost components will be purchased overseas, but the interesting thing is that that is not necessarily so. At least 35 cases have been brought before the Government under the existing reversion control provisions, and yet there is no pattern in the manner in which these applications have been made- no pattern which relates to the high cost element or the margin of disability on costs of local producers, as best that can be ascertained, with respect to the costs of overseas component parts manufacturers. On that basis it is wrong to assume that only the expensive component parts will be imported. There may be all kinds of commercial reasons why vehicle builders will decide to continue to purchase high cost components domestically. Of course, the Government can say legitimately that that is a matter for the market place and not a matter for government interference, but in relation to the component parts manufacturers one has to say that unless the reversion policy remains under the control of the Government, the Government will be leaving the component parts manufacturers to the mercy of the multinational car manufactures. Many of those component parts manufacturers are Australian owned companies and they will be left to the capacity of the vehicle builders to bargain or bully. Many of the vehicle builders have their own component parts manufacturers overseas. I believe that it is a serious mistake to phase out the reversion controls in the way in which the Minister has indicated. Another presumed reasoning in this statement is that jobs may be lost in the component industry but gained elsewhere. That may be true, but problems may arise in the short term which could be avoided by gradual restructuring of the component industry. I repeat that this statement is silent upon that and that is a very important point. Another assumption implicit in the statement is that consumer costs will fall when the Australian content is reduced. That is not demonstrable, nor is it demonstrable that the rate of increase in the cost of component parts in Australia, and therefore of the vehicles themselves, will be reduced. In fact, one has to remember that while we have 5 manufacturers, as this plan encourages, the standardisation of components will be more difficult. Until we have some rationalisation again, we will find that when Australian content is reduced the Australian consumer will be paying higher prices. How can 5 manufacturers produce economies of scale? There must be an additional cost to the consumer? I agree with the honourable member for Wakefield **(Mr Kelly)** that the crunch decision must be taken in due course and that whichever party is then in power must face up to that decision. That is when we will have to be Australians and not residents of South Australia or Geelong. Meanwhile, the honourable member for Corio and others have made most important points about the gradual restructuring of the components parts industry. I repeat that for the benefit of those who have invested their capital so that they can redeploy that capital for the benefit of this country, for those who have invested their labour, so that in turn they can be retrained- and this statement is silent upon the retraining of employees- those problems have to be grappled with when the crunch decision comes. Another important observation to be made is that this plan has 2 sides to it, the reduction from 95 per cent to 85 per cent on the one hand, and the bringing of Japanese manufacturers up to an 85 per cent content level on the other hand. As it appears now, the reduction from 95 per cent to 85 per cent will probably proceed faster than will the bringing up of the Japanese section to 85 per cent. That means that the 2 arms of the plan are out of kilter and that will cause problems for the component parts manufacturers, too. The gradual restructuring of the components industry, therefore, could well correspond with the phasing in of the Japanese entry into the Australian market, and I think that that is a most important aspect. One solution to the problem of the component parts industry, and one way in which this could be tackled gradually, would be to make the reversion controls continue at least for as long as the phasing in of the Japanese industry is contemplated. During that period the Government will have to grapple with the very hard questions raised in the report and not answered in this ministerial statement. Otherwise the principles on which it proceeds are commendable, but the short term problems are very great and are largely ignored by this statement. {: #debate-42-s2 .speaker-CV4} ##### Mr JACOBI:
Hawker -- I do not intend tonight to traverse the excellent speeches made by the honourable member for Port Adelaide **(Mr Young)** and the honourable member for Corio **(Mr Scholes),** but I would like to pass some remarks in. relation to the speech made by the honourable member for Balaclava **(Mr Macphee).** Frankly, I share the same concern that he has with regard to the reversion control factor as it will affect the component sector of the industry. It is my belief that that aspect of the Minister's report ought to be reviewed urgently, for the very basic reason that without governmental control it will undoubtedly lead to an open *misere* for the large multi-national corporations in Australia which have a total grip on the market. The other point I would like to make relates to the reference by the honourable member for Wakefield **(Mr Kelly)** to the motor vehicle industry being in the grip of a straitjacket. That straitjacket was designed, fitted and tailormade by his Government back in 1 964, and if it was illfitting, either because of clumsy measurements or cut, the responsibility clearly lies with his Government's failure to measure accurately the needs of the industry back in 1964. The Labor Government inherited that legacy in 1972. When the previous Labor Government announced its proposals for the motor industry it produced a carefully considered plan which was in the best interests of the industry, the people who work in it and the consuming public. I find it rather ironic that many honourable members on the other side of the House who brought the people who are now working in the industry to Australia on assisted passages could well be responsible for their retrenchment. The 85 per cent local content requirement, together with the manufacture of the 4-cylinder engine by the Chrysler-Nissan-Toyota Australian Industry Development Corporation consortium at Lonsdale, formed a composite program to realise an efficient motor vehicle industry while minimising disruptions to employment opportunities during the rationalisation procedure. This Government, after considering plans for the motor vehicle industry for *Vh* months, has come to the conclusion that the 85 per cent local content is the best plan. It is now up to the Government to ensure that the proposed 4-cylinder plant at Lonsdale is proceeded with. Only then can the Government produce the best plan for all concerned in the industry. In the statement to the House the Minister said: >The Government would like to see a rational development of 4-cylinder engine production in Australia rather than fragmented production in several locations. Elsewhere in his statement the Minister said: >The Government has identified a number of elements of fundamental importance to a coherent and comprehensive policy. Two of those elements were the importance of the passenger motor vehicle industry to South Australia and the need to keep costs of production as low as possible by avoiding fragmentation of production and taking advantage wherever possible of economies of scale. Taken together, those statements lead to the conclusion that the Government must endorse the 4- cylinder plant at Lonsdale and that that plant must be the only one allowed in Australia. I trust that the reason for delaying the decision on the 4-cylinder engine production is only for the Minister to finalise discussions on the Lonsdale plant and to dissuade General Motors-Holdens from proceeding with its own plans. If production of the 4-cylinder engine is not rationalised to one plant, the same problems that brought the car industry into its present predicament quite obviously will continue. In revealing the problems of Australian car manufacturers, the report of the Industries Assistance Commission stated: >The Australian market supports about 4 times as many stamping and engine manufacturing plants ... as would be compatible with an efficient industry structure. In urging the Government to proceed with plans for 4-cyhnder manufacture at Lonsdale it should be stressed that the case for the venture is not just a parochial one. The Lonsdale plant stands on its own feet as a viable, practical and economic venture. Let us look at the advantages of the 4-cylinder engine plant being located at Lonsdale. Firstly, it has been suggested that the proposed engine plant at Lonsdale will be capable of producing the cheapest 4-cylinder engines anywhere in Australia. Secondly, as body panel production is the least economic aspect of vehicle manufacture in Australia, local manufacturers may choose to press body panels overseas under the 85 per cent plan. Any loss of employment in South Australia will be offset by the employment opportunities in the new engine plant. Consequently, minimal disruption to the industry will occur. Thirdly, the proposed plant will make use of the existing facilities at Lonsdale. It will fully utilise the existing foundry and machine shop- a state of affairs which has not existed up until now. Fourthly, the existing plant at Lonsdale is a very modern and efficient workshop with transport facilities provided. Fifthly, our major trading partner, Japan, will be provided with an outlet for its vehicles on the same basis as existing manufacturers. Sixthly, with only one 4-cylinder plant the output will approach the economies of scale of overseas producers. This will mean a greater chance of exporting vehicles as well as reducing the cost to Australian consumers. Seventhly, the increasing popularity of 4-cylinder vehicles will be catered for to the benefit of consumers and the industry alike. Eighthly, South Australia is comparatively deficient in natural resources and is not well located on major trading and transport routes. Consequently, South Australia is heavily dependent on manufacturing industry to provide employment. The Lonsdale plant is vital for South Australia's future. Ninthly, there is the prospect that struggling South Australian component manufacturers will receive new orders if Nissan and Toyota enter the venture at Lonsdale. Tenthly, if the major manufacturers can combine to produce a common engine there is a good chance that commonality for other com- ponents can be achieved. This will further enhance the economics of the industry. I feel obliged, obviously, to impress on honourable members just how important the motor vehicle industry is to my State of South Australia. Chrysler's plant is in my electorate, but the proposed 4-cylinder plant will be at Lonsdale. Not only is it crucial to the strength and economic viability of the motor vehicle industry in South Australia, but the continued economic growth of South Australia is crucial to the nation. {: #debate-42-s3 .speaker-YI4} ##### Mr Ian Robinson:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP; NCP from May 1975 -- This subject concerns the interests of every Australian. It was the aspiration of this country many years ago to have a motor vehicle manufacturing industry. The early post-war years saw many arguments as to how this could be achieved. This aspiration came to fruition when the decision was made, first of all, for the production of the Holden. The then Prime Minister of Australia, Ben Chifley, forecast a great future for a motor industry in this country. In the event, however, we have experienced the symptoms of many difficulties in industrial relations, changes in technology and, in more recent times, the tremendous impact of inflation on the production of motor vehicles. Over the years there has been a spate of propositions and plans. The previous Government was faced with a real problem in the industry after it lifted import restrictions and there was a flow of imported vehicles into this country. It then saw the need to curtail the importations and a decision was made- I think it was in October 1975- to restrict imports to some extent, and a plan was produced. This created circumstances which the present Government inherited. I suppose that those circumstances could properly be described as unavoidable because of the historic background. So tonight we debate a statement which sets out what I believe is the only practical way of dealing with the problem at this stage. The first requirement is very positive consideration of whether in the foreseeable future we will have partly produced in this country what might properly be described as a family car, the cost of which will be kept within the reach of the average Australian. I believe that this possibility is almost slipping out of reality because of the imported content, the effect of technology, and in particular the imbalance in the cost factors that play such an important part in the economics of all of this. I believe that previous speakers, in particular the honourable member for Balaclava **(Mr Macphee)** and the honourable member for Hawker **(Mr Jacobi),** made excellent contributions which covered the factual aspects of the difficulties which this industry now encounters. The honourable member for Hawker, of course, put up a case for South Australia. I suppose we cannot blame him for that, but I want to emphasise the broader view expressed by the honourable member for Balaclava. We must look at the whole problem in a total Australian context, because unless we do we will force upon the industry a sectional situation which we will not be able to sustain economically. The ministerial statement sets out very clearly the considerations of the Industries Assistance Commission and the facts relating to the circumstances with which we are faced. The importance of the industry as an employer of labour and capital and the desire of the consumer to have access to reasonably priced cars are 2 cardinal factors which must be very important considerations, but then immediately we come to the technological considerations and the fact that there is a swing in demand towards the smaller 4-cylinder vehicles. This is understandable because of the incredible cost increase that has occurred. In the last 2 years the Prices Justification Tribunal, set up by the previous Government, because it could not do anything else time after time rubber stamped increases in the prices of motor vehicles- increases which were the result of all the ingredients- the material, the labour and all the rest- that constitute the production of a motor vehicle. Yet when we look at the considerations on the manufacturing side- the plant capacity which has been overdone in so many ways, the difficulties in respect of components, and so on- then of course it is obviously timely for the recommendations in this statement to be given positive consideration. I believe from the consensus we find that this Parliament is correct tonight in recognising the new percentages that have been proposed- what I suppose can best be described as the 85 per cent component plan-and the aspiration that there be a reduction in the scope of plant capacity, which will be concentrated in the interests of more effective and less costly production. There has been no real argument about restructuring. I suppose it is unique that restructuring and rationalisation find common ground in the philosophy of the Australian Labor Party and the philosophy of the free enterprise parties which I naturally espouse. We must not look at this matter in the short term. Although this report refers to certain time scales, it must be recognised that rapid changes can and will occur. There is the question of the displacement of labour. When that question arises there could be grounds for considering some of the elements in the production of motor vehicles or in the production of motor vehicle components. There could be some changes even in respect of those things envisaged in the statement to the House by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs **(Mr Howard).** Notwithstanding that, the basic principle enunciated must undoubtedly be adhered to. The decision of the industry in relation to the production of 4-cylinder engines or in relation to the setting up of the engine plant will determine the considerations on a sectional basis, the realities for South Australia and for Victoria. From a national point of view, once that has been settled, it is hoped that the industry as a whole will see the need for cohesion and for an avoidance of further fragmentation Where possible, the desirable result or consequences of this single plant approach could be that components to a large extent might become more interchangeable. Any ordinary citizen who shoulders the responsibility for his family of maintaining a motor vehicle- in these days life is impossible without one- has constantly in mind the capital outlay, the depreciation and the maintenance of that vehicle. If one goes to a motor garage one's first thought is: What will the bill be? These days, because of component costs and so on, it can be extraordinarily high. We must do what we can to avoid any accentuation of this. Costs are the enemy of the policies which we believe are essential if we are to arrest inflation in this country. This can be accomplished only if propositions of the sort advanced in this statement are taken seriously and are applied generally, firstly in production and then in respect of the effect and the utilisation of that production. That applies particularly to the motor industry. There is a lot of criticism from time to time of propositions for other industries to rationalise to try to jump the hurdle of ever increasing costs. It is very pleasing that that kind of destructive criticism has not emerged in this debate. I believe it is to the credit of those who have applied themselves so assiduously to this matter that they have made contributions such as we have heard tonight. I make one final observation, and it is this: Our country of 13 million people must strive to preserve to the maximum extent the production in this country not only of motor vehicles but of whatever else our work force and our technology are capable of producing. But we cannot be foolish. Therefore a plan of this kind means the growing of a partnership between what we can do internally and what we must depend upon our trading partners to do together with our own enterprises. This is the only way we can maintain an effective economy that takes into account our internal production, our trading relationships and our overall need to be part of the technological age which is upon us. In a spirit of recognition of these things, I believe the motor industry can be sustained. If we were foolish to the point of saying that we would not agree to this kind of proposition we would get the worst of both worlds. We would find our capacity unattainable, and we would be less able to have a trading arrangement to bring in components and to bring in a certain amount of the content for the trade in this industry. So I commend this statement as a practical one and as the only solution to the problem which the industry faces at present. {: #debate-42-s4 .speaker-K9J} ##### Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP -- Tonight we are debating a ministerial statement on motor vehicle policy. For a change it seems that there is some degree of unanimity on both sides of the House as to what should be happening in the motor vehicle industry. I find the statement contains some contradictions. In one part it speaks of a freedom of choice to consumers, that is of cars, and it speaks of the desire of consumers to have access to reasonably priced cars. Then it sets about virtually establishing in Australia 5 manufacturers to service a market of 500 000 units a year. Then it speaks of economies of scale. How the industry will weld all those things together and give what the Government clearly wants to give- that is, a reasonable priced car for the people- I am blessed if I know. It seems to me that the whole statement, if it does nothing else, proves that the free enterprise system does not work. Putting people in the market place will not reduce prices but will increase them. That is exactly what this whole plan seems to be doing. As I understand it, the difficulty seems to have arisen because 3 manufacturers in Australia- the Ford Motor Co of Australia, General MotorsHolden's Pty Ltd and Chrysler Australia Ltdhave been hell bent on building 6-cylinder motor vehicles that would normally be called family cars, when clearly the consumer was looking for something other than that. He was looking for a smaller but more economical vehicle- a 4- cylinder car for preference- than those which were being basically produced by the 3 companies. Although they in turn made smaller, 4- cylinder cars, they seemed to promote more their larger, 6-cylinder and 8-cylinder cars which were not overly popular with the Australian people. That is not a phenomenon that grew overnight. It had been developing over a period. To the best of my knowledge, it was known to the manufacturers. I suppose one could almost liken the position to the position of people who make pies. If they keep on making apricot pies when the community shows a clear desire to eat meat pies, clearly they will put themselves out of business. I do not think Australian consumers buy Japanese cars because of any mad love affair with the Japanese or because the Japanese cars are necessarily better than cars manufactured in Australia. The Japanese cars are certainly promoted to a better extent. I do not knock the Australian content. {: .speaker-KVQ} ##### Mr Sullivan: -- The Japanese cars are better. {: .speaker-K9J} ##### Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP -Those sitting in cocky 's corner are telling me that the Japanese cars are better. I have never owned one. I have always owned Australian made cars and have been quite satisfied with them. The preference of the Australian consumer clearly is toward a smaller vehicle. The imported cars are certainly promoted better. {: .speaker-KVQ} ##### Mr Sullivan: -- They are better. {: .speaker-K9J} ##### Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP -I am assured once again that they are of better manufacture. The 3 Australian manufacturers have done nothing, in my view, to cater for the market or for the demand of the consumer. The proposed consortium to manufacture the 4-cylinder engines certainly comes into line with the line of thinking on the part of at least one Australian manufacturerChrysler. There is an indication that another large manufacturer, General Motors, will probably build its own 4-cylinder engine anyhow, without joining the consortium. I am not quite sure where the Ford Company stands. It has a plant in my electorate. It is an assembly plant. It does not actually manufacture things there. They are manufactured in the Corio electorate. The components are brought in. If there is a change in the plan as is proposed, it probably will not have a great effect on the plant at Broadmeadows. It will have an effect on people outside that area. Certainly the Ford Company at Geelong, where panels are pressed and engines are made, would be affected. It would certainly have an effect on those who supply the component parts for the assembly of Ford motor cars at Broadmeadows. If I understand the whole situation properly, they are the people at whom the statement is aimed. It is made in an endeavour to encourage continued participation by component manufacture and perhaps even to encourage more companies such as the Nissan and Datsun companies to set themselves up in Australia. Debate interrupted. {: .page-start } page 1395 {:#debate-43} ### ADJOURNMENT {:#subdebate-43-0} #### Court Proceedings -Decentralisation : {:#subdebate-43-1} #### Australian Government Centre, Parramatta {: #subdebate-43-1-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -Order! It being 10.30 p.m., in accordance with the order of the House of 18 February I propose the question: >That the House do now adjourn. {: #subdebate-43-1-s1 .speaker-JPG} ##### Mr BIRNEY:
PHILLIP, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP -On 1 April last the honourable member for Hunter **(Mr James)** made an unjust, miserable, false and vitriolic attack on a colleague of mine - {: .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr Armitage: -- I raise a point of order, **Mr Speaker.** It has always been the position insofar as this House is concerned that whenever the motion for the adjournment of the House is moved the Chair calls first a speaker from the Opposition side of the House. {: .speaker-KET} ##### Mr King: -- There is no substance to the point of order. The honourable member is only wasting time. {: .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr Armitage: -- I am sorry, but if the forms of the House are being changed I think the House should be informed of the reasons why they are being changed. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- I shall inform the honourable member for Chifley of the practice of the House and the reasons for it. Normally a Minister moves the motion 'That the House do now adjourn'. The Minister, having got the call, is entitled to speak to the motion. The Minister does not have to speak to it; nevertheless he has had the call. Therefore the call then goes to the Opposition. That is the practice. I believe that it should be observed. However, it is important to understand that the adjournment debate is usually for only half an hour, which means that if those who receive the call take their full time there are only 3 speakers in the debate. If a member of the Opposition receives the call first every time the adjournment is proposed not by a Minister but in accordance with the sessional order there will always be 2 calls to the Opposition to one to the Government. I believe that it is desirable to give honourable members the opportunity to speak in the adjournment debate on roughly an equal basis. On this occasion I proposed the motion for the adjournment of the House and I looked around the chamber. Only one honourable member was standing, namely, the honourable member for Phillip, so I called the honourable member for Phillip. {: .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr Armitage: -- I was rising, **Mr Speaker.** {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- I now call upon the honourable member for Phillip to continue his speech. {: .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr Armitage: -- I rise to another point of order, **Mr Speaker.** I gather that in future when a Minister moves the adjournment of the House you intend to call first one night a member of the Opposition and the next night a supporter of the Government. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- I suggest to the honourable member for Chifley that he read *Hansard* tomorrow to see what I did say. {: .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr Armitage: -- I was actually rising in my place and you did not look this way, **Mr Speaker.** {: #subdebate-43-1-s2 .speaker-JPG} ##### Mr BIRNEY:
PHILLIP, NEW SOUTH WALES -- The honourable member for Hunter made an unjust miserable, false and vitriolic attack on a colleague of mine of the New South Wales Bar. {: .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr Armitage: -- I rise to another point of order, **Mr Speaker.** I also raise the point- at that stage you could not even hear what was happeningthat at the time I was rising you did not look this way. You deliberately looked straightaway at the honourable member for Phillip. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -The honourable gentleman is reflecting on the Chair. I looked around the chamber. One honourable member had stood. It was the honourable member for Phillip. I called the honourable member for Phillip. {: .speaker-JPG} ##### Mr BIRNEY: -- I am just wondering how I now stand for time, **Mr Speaker.** {: .speaker-EV4} ##### Mr Young: -- It is obviously going to be a good speech, **Mr Speaker.** I draw your attention to the state of the House. *(Quorum formed.)* {: .speaker-JPG} ##### Mr BIRNEY: -On 1 April last the honourable member for Hunter made an unjust, miserable, false and vitriolic attack on a colleague of mine of the New South Wales Bar. I refer to **Mr David** Rofe, Q.C. It was made under the cloak of Parliamentary privilege. He enlarged these slanders to embrace **Mr Rofe's** client, a **Mr Danny** Sankey, and a stipendiary magistrate, **Mr Darcy** Leo. He was referring to prosecutions launched by Sankey against the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr E. G. Whitlam), Mr Justice** Murphy and others. The attack was obviously designed to discredit those 3 reputable men in an attempt to shroud the current prosecutions. It was alleged that Sankey and **Mr Rofe** had been friends for some time in that they had apparently shared chambers at one stage or another and that Sankey had given a false alibi to one of his unsavoury clients, namely, one Stuart Harold Tange. The truth of the matter, which can be confirmed by the Bar Council of New South Wales, is that Sankey never shared chambers with **Mr Rofe.** In fact, his chambers were situated in another building. As far as the allegation about a false alibi is concerned, it is scurrilously false and should have been known to be so. The further allegations that the proceeds of the robbery found their way to Sankey was equally false. A record of the trial shows, firstly, that the robber escaped from a Mascot bank with $9,411 and that the whole of this money, with the exception of $132, was recovered by police later that same afternoon at Hunters Hill in New South Wales, which is the place where Tange was apprehended. The money recovered was identified by the bank officers as being the money taken by the robbers from the Mascot bank. The slanderous statement that Sankey gave detailed evidence as to the time and place of the meeting with Tange and that Tange was committing an armed robbery at the same time is equally scurrilous. I say that the record of evidence given at the trial indicates, firstly, that the Mascot bank was robbed by 2 armed, masked men at approximately 1.S0 p.m. on 25 August 1970; that the police arrived at the bank at about 1.55 p.m. when the robbers had left; that Tange, who was on that day a client of the firm of solicitors to which Sankey was articled, called into its Pitt Street, Sydney, offices at aproximately 2.50 p.m. on the date of the robbery concerning, of course, another matter; that later that day Tange 's solicitor was advised that Tange had been arrested and Sankey, in the company of a partner of that firm, went to the police station where Tange was being held; and that Sankey and the solicitor were called to give evidence on these events and Sankey was asked to describe what Tange was wearing when he saw him at approximately 2.50 p.m. I stress that, contrary to what the honourable member for Hunter has stated, Sankey 's evidence was in no sense alibi evidence for the simple reason that it was not suggested by anyone that Tange could not have been at the Mascot bank at 1.50 p.m. and at the Pitt Street office one hour later. No one suggested at the trial that Sankey 's evidence was false in any respect whatsoever. In fact, alibi evidence was given by another witness completely unrelated to Sankey. These facts, which are permanently on record, give the lie to the character assassination attempts by the honourable member for Hunter. The insinuation of a close working connection between **Mr Leo,** the stipendary magistrate, **Mr Rofe** and **Mr Sankey** is equally outrageous. There has been an attempt to link them together on the basis that they had acted in concert in having the prosecutions which I mentioned earlier heard in Queanbeyan. Suffice to say that the New South Wales Attorney-General, **Mr Maddison,** is on record as placing the association between **Mr Rofe** and **Mr Leo** as purely that of counsel and presiding magistrate. As far as the laying of the venue at Queanbeyan is concerned, that is simply explained by the fact that the allegations in the informations are that the alleged offences took place both in the Australian Capital Territory and in New South Wales. If the statements made by the honourable member for Hunter on 1 April had been made outside the Parliament a prosecution for criminal libel certainly would have been well-founded. *(Extension of time granted).* Having outlined the facts as such as they are known to me, I say by way of conclusion that they are in complete contradiction of what has been uttered by the honourable member for Hunter in his attempt to character assassinate 3 good, decent, upright citizens of the community. I suggest that he should withdraw his foul utterances and apologise. {: #subdebate-43-1-s3 .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley -Last Wednesday night the honourable member for Parramatta **(Mr Ruddock)** was in a most emotional frame of mind. As a matter of fact, the honourable gentleman seemed to be most upset that I had taken him to task on the previous evening for not having supported adequately the needs not only of his electorate but also of the whole of the western suburbs of Sydney in relation to matter of the so-called deferment- one could say the indefinite deferment or the abandonment of the proposal to build the Australian Government Centre in Parramatta. He said at one stage, if I recollect his remarks correctly, that it was of no use building that office block if it was intended to get rid of 18,000-odd public servants anyhow because, as he put it, there would not be enough bottoms to put on the seats. That is an extraordinary admission in itself- that there would not be enough bottoms to sit on the seats. It is quite obvious therefore that the honourable member has completely misunderstood the whole concept of the Whitlam Labor Government in establishing the Australian Government Centre in Parramatta. The purpose of its establishment was not to take up surplus bottoms of public servants; it was not to ensure that there would be more public servants. In fact, its whole purpose simply was to ensure that the Public Service was decentralised, that many of the public servants who are at present stationed in the centre of Sydney- and particularly those who actually live in the outer western suburbs of Sydneyare, generally speaking, nearer to their homes by working in Parramatta rather than in the centre of Sydney and would therefore have a much more amenable type of job. In other words, they would not have to spend so many hours in the morning on the train or on the bus- on the transport system of the New South Wales State Liberal Government in which the honourable member's father was the erstwhile Minister for Transport. Of course, they finally demoted him; they finally got rid of him because in his period the transport got worse, the railways got worse and the derailments got worse. During that time, of course, it was found when finally the new Premier came to power that the Minister had to be demoted and sent back to his original bailiwick. The facts are that many public servants in Australia and many public servants in the honourable member's own electorate of Parramatta, in the electorate of Berowra as well as in the electorates of Reid, Prospect, Werriwa, Chifley, Macarthur and of Mitchell would far rather go to Parramatta to work than go to the central area of Sydney and have to use the worn out public transport system for which the honourable member's father is partly responsible. I cannot blame him for the lot. However, that is one point in the whole issue. One of the reasons why the Whitlam Labor Government decided to build that centre in Parramatta was simply to ensure that many public servants would be closer to their work. But far more important than that was the fact- I emphasise the words 'far more important'- that it would give ample opportunity in the building trades to work in the outer western suburbs of Sydney where, without a doubt, unless something is done in that regard there will be a very high rate of unemployment throughout the area. That is the first point. The second point is that it will not only provide far more employment for the people in the outer western suburbs but also it will mean that the decentralised public servants who occupy these offices- it will be a similar situation to that introduced by the Whitlam Government in decentralising the Taxation Office to Parramatta will spend more money in the outer western suburbs. I refer not only to Parramatta but also the other surrounding electorates. In turn that would help the economies in those areas. It is in that regard that the honourable member for Parramatta seems to have missed the whole point of the establishment of that centre. We are not arguing about the number of public servants the Government intends to sack or find redundant. That seems to be the whole argument as far as the honourable member is concerned. He says that the Australian Government Centre would be empty because the Government intends to get rid of all these public servants. I surely and sincerely hope that that will not occur. I hope that the Government will not be that heartless. I hope the Government does not set out on a deliberate campaign of creating more unemployment. Far more important than that I think is the fact that the establishment of the Australian Government Centre will provide employment for a large segment of the building trades in the outer western suburbs. Still more important than that, it will mean that a large amount of money will circulate there, once again creating even more employment right throughout the area. The honourable member for Parramatta also stated that I should not interfere in the affairs of the electorate of Parramatta. I am not actually interfering in that electorate. I am expressing my opinion as a member of the Parliament representing the outer western suburbs of Sydney. I do not think the honourable member should be so parochial in this regard. Surely the Australian Government Centre will not affect only the electorate of Parramatta; it will affect all the electorates in the whole of the western sub;urbs of Sydney, as I have already pointed out. If the honourable member is not capable of standing up for his electorate, if he is not prepared to fight the Government and the Prime Minister **(Mr Malcolm Fraser)** to ensure that that project is established in the outer western suburbs, if he is not prepared to go into the committees and approach members of the Cabinet to see that this job is done effectively, then somebody has to. come to the party and do the job for him, andthat is all I am endeavouring to do. I do not think . it is a bad proposition. When I called the honourable member little boy lost the other night and when I pointed out that he had to run to his daddy for advice whenever any problem arose he said that I was ridiculing the project. I want to assure the House that in no circumstance was I ridiculing the project itself. Far from it. It is one of the dearest projects to my heart. It is one of the major Whitlam offensives originally proposed by the Whitlam Government, and one which I supported right from the very beginning. I still support it to this day. I was only ridiculing the honourable member. I was certainly not ridiculing the project. Nothing was further from my mind than to: ridicule the proposal. I ask the honourable member that he do the right and decent thing not only by the electorate of Parramatta but also by the people in the outer western suburbs of Sydney who are crying out for decentralised industry so that factories are moved out into the area to provide localemployment. In the Press today the State member for Mt Druitt is reported as being very critical of the Liberal Government of New South Wales for failing to encourage industry into the outer western suburbs of Sydney. By the same token, I am very critical of the honourable member for Parrramatta and of his Government. I cannot altogether blame him. He probably has to abide, by the instructions and dictations of the dictatorial Prime Minister **(Mr Malcolm Fraser),** to do precisely as he says and to go along with the indefinite deferment or abandonment of the project. He still has not given any date when the project will be recommenced. I ask very decisively that action be taken. Finally, I say that I am a very charitable man. If the honourable member wants some advise from me he should come over and find out how to get on with this job and to try to influence the people around him whom he obviously cannot influence. I ask him to remember that old biblical verse: 'Suffer the little children to come unto Me'. I suggest that the honourable member come unto me. {: #subdebate-43-1-s4 .speaker-JVS} ##### Mr NEIL:
St George -- It is with considerable regret that I depart from the topic with which I had intended to deal tonight. I do so because I must make some statement about the matter dealt with by the honourable member for Hunter **(Mr James)** the other day and dealt with tonight by the honourable member for Phillip **(Mr Birney).** This House has to consider a very serious issue; that is, whether the type of speech made the other day by the honourable member for Hunter should set a precedent for the grossest possible abuse of parliamentary privilege that one could imagine. In that one speech the most scurrilous allegations were made against a private citizen without notice; disgraceful allegations were made against the entire legal profession in New South Wales- and I will snow why; disgraceful allegations were made against a magistrate; a disgraceful allegation, which was really an aside, was made against 2 members of this House, one the Prime Minister **(Mr Malcolm Fraser);** there was a disgraceful innuendo or imputation against the Governor-General; and there was one of the worst possible breaches of privilege of this House one could imagine in an attack on the entire administration of justice in New South Wales. I quote the honourable member for Hunter, who said: >I said that the New South Wales courts would not wish to muddy their track record of double standards in the administration of justice. What the honourable member for Hunter was saying what that there was a track record, a history and a tradition of double standards in the administration of justice in the New South Wales courts. That is from the Court of Appeal right down to the magistrates courts which are the courts of the people. These are the courts to which the people throughout the State go for justice, the courts in which the people have confidence, the courts of British justice in which the people have had confidence for thousands of years. In my understanding there has never been any sort of general or blanket attack upon the administration of justice in New South Wales such as was made by the honourable member for Hunter. If ever there should have been a withdrawal of statements in this House, it should have been by that honourable member. I am not certain of the correct procedures, but the matters are sufficiently weighty, in my respectful submission, that they should be referred to the Committee of Privileges to deal with them. Before dealing with the allegations in detail, I merely say that there are other places where there can be unqualified privilege. The principal areas are, of course, in the courts. It is right and proper that persons speaking in the Parliament or the courts should not be inhibited in what they say and should not be dissuaded from bringing up important matters. But, of course, even in the courts there are some limitations on what may be said because of the possible consequences of making statements. It must always be borne in mind that the courts in New South Wales and in the rest of the common law world held that there is a duty upon counsel to ensure that he does not make unwarranted allegations. I remind the House that I am dealing with matters of principle. I am not going into individual aspects of the case. I do not know anything about individual aspects of the case other than from what I have read in newspapers. I would not enter into areas which might be *sub judice.* But it is well known under the authority of New South Wales in Clyne's case and other cases that if counsel makes allegations unsubstantiated, without any shred of evidence to back them up, he is subject to disciplinary proceedings and is likely perhaps even to be suspended or thrown out of the profession. Indeed, if the honourable member for Hunter had said these things in such a place- I hear a learned honourable member referring to it in other terms- he would have been disqualified for life from practising in that place. Indeed, there should be at least some sort of qualification in this respect. Dealing with the particular matters involved, I will gloss over the first one which was probably nothing more than an aside, but it was a nasty reference to the honourable member for Bradfield **(Mr Connolly)** and the Prime Minister. I turn to the statement that the police had believed that some of the proceeds of the robbery had found their way to Sankey. I know that in popular parlance occasionally it is said that some lawyers get money from clients who have committed offences. It has never to my knowledge ever been alleged in this country. I know that it was canvassed recently when some firm made complaint about these matters. It was fully canvassed by **Mr Galbally** in Victoria. To his knowledge and to the knowledge of the profession in Australia, there has never been one single case of any such matter coming to light. Yet, a former police officer comes into this Parliament and degrades and slanders the entire profession in New South Wales and Australia in a disgraceful fashion. Furthermore, he is using police state methods in bringing to this House what must have been to his own knowledge rumours and innuendo that had been going around perhaps in the police force. We all know how at times police officers get disappointed with the results of cases. Sometimes in respect of a committal for trial proceeding, a police officer might genuinely believe that a man should be convicted, and he is not. The police officer will go home and blame British justice. That is not the way in which we act in the courts. That is not he way in which we act in this Parliament- that is, to come here and to produce the griping, the complaining, the innuendo and the slight grizzling over a beer that police officers might do. The matter is brought to this House as an allegation in the form that 'the police believed'. The honourable member was at pains to point out that they were decent police officers. This disgraceful allegation was in itself an abuse of any confidence he had of information coming to him as a police officer and is a total abuse of his privilege in this House. The honourable member then sought to deal with the learned magistrate in a manner which can only be an attempt to intimidate a magistrate in the course of his duty. Rules apply if one attempts to intimidate counsel in the course of his duty. There are well known cases where counsel has been interfered with on his way to or from the courts. That is a very serious contempt which should be dealt with, this is a serious contempt of the judicial process and indeed such a contempt that it should be referred to the appropriate committee. Next came a claim against the Governor-General. The honourable member for Denison **(Mr Hodgman)** dealt with this the other night. That was a most serious reflection and the honourable member for Hunter was called to order. I have dealt with the matter about the New South Wales courts. The Attorney-General in New South Wales has given the lie to these preposterous statements. I do not, as I say, go into the merits or demerits of the matter at all. But the matter is one of very considerable importance. When I took a point of order as to *sub judice* and the Deputy Speaker warned the honourable member for Hunter, the honourable member continued. He claimed to have taken advice to the effect that he would not be breaching the Standing Orders. Well, that is almost impossible to believe. To say that he took advice and then come into this House to deliver the diatribe that he did in complete contempt of the House is almost unbelievable. **Mr Speaker,** the need is for notice. I refer not to an impediment on the right to speak but to notice that should be given before an individual, individuals, the courts or anybody else can be attacked viciously in this Parliament. Notice of 24 hours or 48 hours should be given to enable a person to have some chance of defending himself unless the honourable member concerned can show urgency or in some way convince the Chair that there is some reason for him to come straight out with such allegations. I would commend to the House a serious consideration of this matter in view of what I say, on an objective clinical analysis of that speech must rank as the grossest abuse of privilege or one of the most gross abuses of privilege in the history of this Parliament. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -Order! It being 1 1 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 2.15 p.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11 p.m. {: .page-start } page 1401 {:#debate-44} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated: {:#subdebate-44-0} #### Prescription Drugs (Question No. 15) {: #subdebate-44-0-s0 .speaker-2E4} ##### Mr Lloyd:
MURRAY, VICTORIA asked the Minister for Health, upon notice: >What are the arrangements for the dispensing of prescription drugs in each State, and are dispensing fees charged in respect of (a) outpatients at public hospitals, (b) hospital patients in public hospitals, (c) private patients in public and private hospitals and (d) hospital and private patients in small country hospitals. {: #subdebate-44-0-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The dispensing of prescription drugs in each State is controlled by State legislation. In regard to the pans of the question relating to dispensing fees charged by hospitals the supply under the Medibank arrangements of drugs and medicinal preparations to hospital inpatients and outpatients at recognised hospitals is free of charge to those patients. > >Private inpatients at recognised hospitals are required to pay hospital charges consisting of a daily rate which covers all hospital services including the supply of any drugs and medicinal preparations. Generally, public hospitals are recognised hospitals. > >Patients in private hospitals which are approved hospitals under Section 94 of the National Health Act are entitled to receive pharmaceutical benefits from the hospital dispensary or the private pharmacy (where no hospital dispensary exists) upon payment of patient contribution, or if a pensioner free of charge. If the patient is supplied with drugs and medicinal preparations which are not pharmaceutical benefits the patient may be charged such amounts as the hospital or the private pharmacist (as the case may be) considers appropriate as the Commonwealth does not exercise control over prices charged for drugs which are not pharmaceutical benefits. > >Patients in private hospitals which are not approved hospitals under Section 94 of the National Health Act are entitled to receive pharmaceutical benefits from an approved pharmacist upon the payment of patient contribution, or if a pensioner free of charge. As stated above, the Commonwealth has no control over prices charged for drugs and medicinal preparations which are not pharmaceutical benefits. > >The answers provided above would also cover hospital and private patients in small country hospitals. {:#subdebate-44-1} #### Prescription Medicines (Question No. 17) {: #subdebate-44-1-s0 .speaker-2E4} ##### Mr Lloyd: asked the Minister for Health, upon notice: >What arrangements have been made with the States to prevent people obtaining their prescription medicines at outpatients departments of public hospitals where there is no $2.00 charge when they could have used a general practitioner in private practice and a retail chemist. {: #subdebate-44-1-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The Medibank Hospital Agreements with the States provide that a patient of a recognised hospital (generally a public hospital) will be supplied drugs, biologicals and related preparations free of charge by the hospital. The preparations to be supplied will be those considered necessary by the hospital in the treatment of the patient's condition by the hospital. A similar situation exists regarding treatment of out-patients. > >It accords with the general principles of Medibank and, in particular, the Medibank hospital arrangements, that people who attend recognised hospitals as out-patients should get treatment free of charge with no additional costs for extras such as drugs, etc. > >The Medibank Review Committee is carrying out an overall review of the Medibank arrangements. The matter of the provision of outpatient treatment and services in recognised hospitals is one of the matters that would at present be under consideration by the Committee. This would include the supply of pharmaceuticals. > >Information made available to the Commonwealth from the respective State hospital authorities indicates that there is no evidence that people are attending recognised hospitals merely for the sake of getting free medicines etc. There has been no significant change m the number of bed days in recognised hospitals compared with pre-Medibank figures, and most States have reported no overall increase in outpatient attendances. It could be expected that the number of persons seeking outpatient treatment at hospitals will fall since pensioners and persons uninsured under the previous private health insurance scheme can now attend private practitioners and specialists instead of needing to attend outpatient departments of hospitals. {:#subdebate-44-2} #### Prosthesis and Orthoses (Question No. 19) {: #subdebate-44-2-s0 .speaker-2E4} ##### Mr Lloyd: asked the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What provision is there under Medibank for prostheses and *orthoses* for (a) hospital or standard ward patients in public and private hospitals, (b) private patients m public and private hospitals, (c) outpatients, (d) surgery consultations and (e) repeats of orthoses or prostheses. 1. Is there any variability in the provision of these items between the States or Territories. {: #subdebate-44-2-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. (a) and (b) Under the Medibank Hospital Agreements between the Commonwealth Government and each State Government, the States have undertaken to provide whatever prostheses and orthoses are necessary for a patient's discharge from a recognised (that is, public) hospital. Such items are free to both hospital patients and private patients. The Agreements with some States provide that some items such as crutches and splints will be provided on a loan basis. With reference to private hospitals, there is no provision under Medibank for the free supply of such items. In most cases private hospitals require payment over and above the daily bed fee, or else leave it to the patient's doctor to supply the item and charge the patient. {: type="a" start="c"} 0. The Medibank Hospital Agreements provide that outpatient services provided by recognised hospitals are to be free of charge and without means test, with the exception that the Tasmanian Agreement specifically excludes the provision of free dental treatment, while the Agreements with the other States provide that a means test may be applied as a criterion of eligibility for persons seeking dental services or spectacles. It is therefore implied in the Agreements that, with the exception of the supply of dentures in Tasmanian hospitals, prostheses and orthoses necessary for the treatment of patients' illnesses and within the individual hospital 's ability to supply them, should also be supplied free. 1. and (e) Prostheses and orthoses, once provided free by a recognised hospital, would be replaced as needed on the same basis on the understanding that the patient remains in the care of the hospital. Medibank does not cover the cost of prostheses, orthoses and similar appliances purchased privately by patients. However, Medibank benefits are payable on a consultation basis towards the cost of a professional service, as defined in the Health Insurance Act, associated with the fitting of an initial or repeat prosthesis or orthosis. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. During the negotiations leading to the Agreements, this matter was not discussed in detail. The Commonwealth's understanding was that individual hospitals would, for the time being at least, continue their past practices in this regard. An investigation carried out by my Department has since confirmed this understanding. It is probable that practices in regard to the supply of prostheses etc. differ among hospitals of similar size and function even within the one State. Of course, it will be found that small country hospitals will be suited to supplying a smaller and simpler range of prosthetic appliances than say large metropolitan teaching hospitals. State health authorities generally determine the services available from recognised hospitals. The introduction of new services that will eventually be cost-shared with the Commonwealth requires my prior approval. {:#subdebate-44-3} #### Animal Quarantine (Question No. 20) {: #subdebate-44-3-s0 .speaker-2E4} ##### Mr Lloyd: asked the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Does the delay in finalising arrangements for the high security animal quarantine station at Cocos Islands now constitute an unacceptable situation, and will he authorise the construction of the Station on Christmas Island or some other site. 1. If so, what progress has been made with the alternative site. 2. If not, how much longer is he prepared to wait. {: #subdebate-44-3-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) The delay in establishing the high security quarantine station at Cocos is a matter of concern. It is hoped to place proposals which will reactivate the matter before the Government in the near future. Construction at Christmas Island or some other site is not under consideration at this time. 1. My objective is to reach resolution on the location of the station as soon as practicable. {:#subdebate-44-4} #### Wines: Sugar Content (Question No. 24) {: #subdebate-44-4-s0 .speaker-2E4} ##### Mr Lloyd: asked the Minister for Health, upon notice: >Further to the answer to my question No. 3069 *(Hansard,* 1 October 1975, page 1597) what action is being taken to enforce a health standard for the sale of imported wine in Australia similar to that which is required of Australian wine, that is, the prohibition of the addition of sugar to wine, other than sparkling and flavoured types. {: #subdebate-44-4-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The standard for wine recommended by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NH and MRC) covers imported, as well as locally produced wines. > >It includes specific provision for all wines to be labelled with the country of origin. > >Provisions of the standard have been incorporated in the legislation of all Australian States. Victorian legislation is a little more stringent than the NH and MRC recommendation, in that it does not permit the addition of sugar to sparkling wines. > >In view of the interest of the honourable member in this subject, I have arranged for a copy of the NH and MRC standard to be forwarded to him. {:#subdebate-44-5} #### Workers' Compensation (Question No. 96) {: #subdebate-44-5-s0 .speaker-KFB} ##### Mr FitzPatrick: asked the Minister for Health, upon notice: >Does the Government intend to review the Health Insurance Act to close the loophole whereby insurance companies can claim for straightforward medical costs of injured workers, and avoid calling on their workers' compensation insurance cover. {: #subdebate-44-5-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >This matter falls within the terms of reference of the Medibank Review Committee appointed by the Government. {:#subdebate-44-6} #### Aerosol Propellants (Question No. 106) {: #subdebate-44-6-s0 .speaker-2E4} ##### Mr Lloyd: asked the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Does he consider that there is any danger in the use of fluorocarbon or hydrocarbon aerosol propellants. 1. If so, what action does he propose to take. {: #subdebate-44-6-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1) If used in accordance with the instructions, for the purpose for which they are intended, there is no danger from these substances. I am aware that deliberate concentration and inhalation of aerosols can cause adverse effects and may even be fatal. I would point out, however, that this is a deliberate and gross misuse of the product. 1. I understand that some States are investigating possible courses of action and I have asked the National Health and Medical Research Council to consider what actions can be taken to discourage misuse of these substances. {:#subdebate-44-7} #### Television Reception: Canberra Hospital (Question No. 107) {: #subdebate-44-7-s0 .speaker-2E4} ##### Mr Lloyd: asked the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Further to question No. 2916 concerning poor television reception at the Canberra Hospital, is it a fact that a private quote of $20 per point was made in November 1971, well under half the figure of $ 1 8,500 obtained in 1 973. 1. If the offer of $20 per point was discussed at a hospital board meeting at that time, why was it not accepted. {: #subdebate-44-7-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) The Canberra Hospital has no record of a private quote of $20 a point to rectify the television reception problem at the hospital. {:#subdebate-44-8} #### Hearing Aids (Question No. 110) {: #subdebate-44-8-s0 .speaker-2E4} ##### Mr Lloyd: asked the Minister for Health, upon notice: >Is it considered that the present range of NAL hearing aids caters satisfactorily for young children or should there be a smaller behind the ear model for this group. {: #subdebate-44-8-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Yes. The present range of hearing aids supplied by NAL caters satisfactorily for children. However, there will always be some on whom any aid will appear cosmetically unsatisfactory. To reduce the number of these, the development of an ultra-small behind-the-ear aid in the low and medium power range was added to the list of programs last year. However, because of the deterioration in performance and quality of sound reproduction in smaller aids of this type, continuing research and development is required. {:#subdebate-44-9} #### Australian Savings Bonds (Question No. 119) {: #subdebate-44-9-s0 .speaker-KSF} ##### Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Treasurer, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has the floating of the Australian Savings Bonds resulted in increases in interest rates of building societies and other financial institutions. 1. If so, will this increase in interest rates, together with a consequent reduction in bank and building society liquidity, mean a reduction in home building activity. 2. Is it a fact that the building industry is a barometer of economic activity in Australia. 3. If so, does he contemplate any corrective action, such as an injection of funds into the building industry, through the housing authorities, to compensate for the effect of floating Australian Savings Bonds. 4. Has his attention been drawn to recent reports which indicated that the rate of increase of money supply as at 1 January 1976 had reduced considerably. 5. If so, have the recent policies of the Government to reduce dramatically the rate of money supply been illfounded. {: #subdebate-44-9-s1 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Since the floating of the Australian Savings Bonds there have been small increases in some sensitive short-term private interest rates. Deposit rates of Permanent Building Societies in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory rose by 0.5 per cent and in Queensland by 0.25 per cent. These adjustments have brought the previously 'fine' rates, which the period of excessive liquidity had produced, into line with rates prevailing elsewhere in the building society movement throughout Australia. Medium and longer term interest rates have held steady. 1. The liquidity of banks, building societies and other institutions providing finance for private home building has been very nigh. The readjustment of portfolios that has resulted from the measures to drain off some of the excessive liquidity in the system is likely to cause some temporary fluctuation in the amounts of funds being provided for private home building by particular financial institutions in particular States. However, there is no reason to expect that, this adjustment period having passed, there will be any lasting reduction in the amount of finance being provided private home building activity. 2. The building industry is a large and important area of economic activity, but I would be reluctant to single it out in that precise way as a 'barometer of economic activity'. 3. No. In any case the housing authorities operate in the public sector, not the private home building area. 4. Yes. 5. No. Short-term fluctuations in the growth of the volume of money must be discounted. The total volume of liquidity in the economy and the underlying trend, which is soil one of strong growth, are the important considerations; neither one month's, nor one-quarter's figures should be taken as an indication that the excessive rate of money creation is at an end. The slowing in the growth in the volume of money recorded in the December and January figures was largely due to the large non-recurring, speculative outflow of private capital in December. As I said in my Statement to the House on 4 March 1976, the volume of money (M3) is expected to grow by 11-13 per cent in the first half of this year in seasonally adjusted annual rate terms. {:#subdebate-44-10} #### Community Health Centre: Hobart (Question No. 129) {: #subdebate-44-10-s0 .speaker-2E4} ##### Mr Lloyd: asked the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What is the Government's attitude to the establishment of a community health centre on the eastern shore at Hobart. 1. What differences will there be between any centres built by the Government and the plans of the previous Government. {: #subdebate-44-10-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The Commonwealth Government of the day entered a formal and public commitment to construct a community health centre on Eastern Shore, Hobart, at the request of the Tasmanian Government. Our Government's policy is to honour such commitments to the States. On 13 March 1976, my colleague, the Minister for Construction, and I announced the letting of a contract for $840,000 for the construction of this centre under the Commonwealth capital works program. The State health authorities will have responsibility for the conduct of this centre, including decisions as to the categories of services to be provided from it. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. You will be aware that our Government's stated policy is to 'encourage the development of a community-based health system throughout Australia'. Detailed proposals for projects will be considered in the light of this principle as they arise. {:#subdebate-44-11} #### Superannuation (Question No. 140) {: #subdebate-44-11-s0 .speaker-KUX} ##### Mr Stewart: asked the Treasurer, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. When is the new superannuation scheme for Australian Government employees to be introduced into the Parliament. 1. Can it be guaranteed that the new scheme will be ready to come into operation on 1 July 1976, as promised. {: #subdebate-44-11-s1 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Superannuation Bill 1976, the Superannuation Amendment Bill 1976 and the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Amendment Bill 1 976, which provide for the new superannuation scheme, were introduced into the Parliament on 18 March 1976. 1. The Bills provide for the new scheme to come into operation on 1 July 1976. {:#subdebate-44-12} #### Commonwealth Transport Services (Question No. 156) {: #subdebate-44-12-s0 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What level of expenditure has been incurred by the Government light passenger transport service in each month since 1 July 1975. 1. What level of expenditure has been incurred by the Government in respect of private contract light public transport in each of the same months. {: #subdebate-44-12-s1 .speaker-KVM} ##### Mr Street:
LP -- The Minister for Administrative Services has provided me with the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) The Department of Administrative Services provides Commonwealth car transport in the States but not in the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory. The Department of Capital Territory provides car transport in the Australian Capital Territory and the Department of Northern Territory in the Northern Territory. In addition to the car pool services, Commonwealth cars are issued to Departments and Authorities on weekly hire with driver, or on a self-drive basis. As the costing systems used are not identical, separate figures are provided below .for each Department. The levels of expenditure incurred by Department of Administrative Services in respect of Commonwealth passenger car pool services and private contract hire car and taxi companies since July, 1975 are as follows: Department of Northern Territory has provided the following information: {:#subdebate-44-13} #### International Aid Program (Question No. 161) {: #subdebate-44-13-s0 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice: >What are the details of cuts to be made in the International Aid Program in 1975-76. {: #subdebate-44-13-s1 .speaker-MI4} ##### Mr Peacock:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Recently announced reductions in overseas aid to the amount of $2 1 .5m will be made in the following areas: Food Aid- Grain Shipments The reduction in the potential shipment of food aid by $5.3m to $29.7m will permit Australia to honour her commitment to supply 225 000 tonnes of wheat equivalent under the Food Aid Convention. Bilateral Assistance Programs Although there will be a reduction in the budget of $3.25m for the bilateral program on-going aid projects will not be cancelled or delayed. There will be no reductions in aid to Papua New Guinea. Multilateral Aid Savings and Deferments The savings of $ 12m in multilateral aid consist largely of temporary deferments until 1976-77 of Australian contributions to international organisations and will not impede the operations of these organisations. The main organisations involved are the World Bank Group and the International Fund for Agricultural Development. Savings include $lm for the UN Special Fund (which is not yet operational) and $150,000 for humanitarian assistance for African Liberation Movements. Bilateral Aid Training Program The money available for this program in the current financial year has been cut by $ 1 m to $ 1 5.07m. Awards will not be offered to individual developing countries above the quotas offered at the beginning of the financial year. Offers not taken up or awards not utilised will not be reallocated to other countries seeking extra awards, as has been the practice in the past. Planned increases in living allowances for sponsored overseas students have also been deferred. In short the Government has preserved the integrity of its development assistance program while effecting some economies. {:#subdebate-44-14} #### Hearing Aids (Question No. 212) {: #subdebate-44-14-s0 .speaker-2E4} ##### Mr Lloyd: asked the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Further to Question No. 22, why was not the lowest tender accepted for the provision of 6000 hearing aids for the National Acoustic Laboratory. 1. Did the lowest tenderer have technical and service facilities in Australia. {: #subdebate-44-14-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. All hearing aids offered were assessed on performance, appearance, usability, price, ease of service and battery usage. Each aid was rated using a system based on these assessments in which performance was heavily weighted. The hearing aid submitted by the lowest price tenderer did not score as well on performance, appearance, usability, battery usage, and overall, as did the one from the successful tenderer. 1. No. NEAT Scheme: Attendance Records (Question No. 56) {: #subdebate-44-14-s2 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Are records of attendance at training courses maintained by the Department for people training under the NEAT System. 1. Are deductions made from NEAT allowances because of non-attendance at training courses. 2. If so, are NEAT trainees informed at the commencement of their courses that their allowance will be reduced for non-attendance. 3. What deductions have been made from NEAT trainees since the system's inception, according to (a) State and (b) training courses. 4. From how many persons have deductions been made for non-attendance, how many were (i) males and (ii) females, and what has been the total sum deducted. {: #subdebate-44-14-s3 .speaker-KVM} ##### Mr Street:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. to (5) All trainees under the NEAT System are required to submit a fortnightly statement to their training supervisor in the Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) showing attendance and noting the reasons for any absences from training during the period. Emphasis is placed on maintenance of satisfactory progress with training as shown by attendance rather than penalties through deductions because of non-attendance at training courses. Where attendance is considered unsatisfactory, the training supervisor may caution the trainee and, if necessary, recommend suspension or termination of the trainee's allowance. Before the commencement of training, NEAT trainees are informed of the procedures governing the payment of allowances and of the obligation to submit statements of attendance. They are also advised that non-attendance may result in suspension or termination of allowances. As from the inception of the NEAT system on 1 October 1974 and up until 31 December 1975, 739 trainees-382 females and 357 males- had their training terminated. The reasons for termination of training varied but the majority were attributable to failure to maintain satisfactory progress, including unsatisfactory attendance.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 6 April 1976, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1976/19760406_reps_30_hor98/>.