House of Representatives
2 November 1976

30th Parliament · 1st Session



Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon. B. M. Snedden, Q.C.) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2177

DEATH OF MR F. M. KIRWAN

Mr SPEAKER:

– I inform the House of the death on 28 October 1976 of Mr Frank McLeod Kirwan, who was a member of this House for the division of Forrest from 1969 to 1972. On behalf of the House I have forwarded a message of sympathy to his relatives. As a mark of respect to the memory of the deceased I invite honourable members to rise in their places.

Honourable members having stood in their places

Mr SPEAKER:

– I thank the House.

page 2177

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Australian Broadcasting Commission

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government:

  1. Subscribe to the view that the Australian Broadcasting Commission belongs to the people and not to the government of the day whatever political party,
  2. Eschew all means, direct or indirect, of diminishing the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Commission,
  3. Reject all proposals for the introduction of advertising into ABC programs,
  4. Develop methods for publicly funding the Commission which will prevent the granting or withholding of funds being used as a method of diminishing its independence,
  5. Ensure that any general inquiries into broadcasting in Australia which may seem desirable from time to time shall be conducted publicly and that strong representation of the public shall be included within the body conducting the inquiry.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Jacobi, Mr Les Johnson, Dr Klugman and Mr Morris.

Petitions received.

Metric System

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

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

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

That the traditional weights and measures are eminently satisfactory.

Your petitioners therefore pray.

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

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

Petitions received.

Symphony Orchestra in Newcastle

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

The lack of a resident professional symphony orchestra in Newcastle and surrounding areas, with consequent denial to the citizens of adequate provision of concerts, opera, ballet, school concerts, teaching of various orchestral instruments and career opportunities young musicians.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament give due and early consideration to the provision of funds, in association with the N.S.W. State Government, Local Governments and the community of this region, for the establishment and maintenance of the Hunter Symphony Orchestra, consisting initially of 40 players, located in Newcastle and serving the cultural needs of the 500 000 inhabitants of the region, in accordance with the proposal and budget submitted to the Industries Assistance Commission.

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

Petition received.

Tasmanian Shipping Service

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

That the decision to withdraw the Australian Trader from the Tasmanian service:

  1. is a great injustice to the State of Tasmania,
  2. has delivered a severe blow to the Tasmanian Tourist Industry, and
  3. has caused grave concern that this is the commencement of the dismantling of the Australian National Line.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled will move to restore the Australian Trader to the Tasmanian service.

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

Petitions received.

Chiropractic Services

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

  1. Whereas the West Australian State Government has seen fit to register Chiropractors licensed under the provisions of the Chiropractors Act,1964. This unique and specific branch of the healing arts is utilised by an everincreasing cross section of the public who can neither gain compensation nor make claim for expenses so incurred under existing Income Tax provisions.
  2. Whereas your petitioners respectfully request that action be taken to provide legislation to cover both of these matters in the States or Territories where Chiropractic is recognised by the administrative powers.
  3. Whereas your petitioners respectfully request consideration be given to:

    1. Adequate cover by Federal Health Insurance schemes.
    2. That fees payable to a Chiropractor, qualified under States or Territories Chiropractic registration acts, be made a full tax deductible item.

Both of the above being without the prerequisite of referral by a medical practitioner.

Therefore your Petitioners pray your Honourable House to legislate accommodation of these matters under the provisions of Federal law.

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

Petiton received.

South Africa

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

That many Australians are concerned at the recent outbreak of racial riots and killings in South Africa.

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

  1. Call upon the South African Government to eliminate apartheid and racial discrimination;
  2. Withdraw the Australian Trade Commissioners from South Africa, in accordance with U.N. resolution 3411G (December 1975)

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

Petition received.

Social Security Payments

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

That distress is being caused to social security recipients by the delay in adjusting pensions to the Consumer Price Index months after goods and services have risen,

And that many medications, formerly a pharmaceutical benefit, must now be paid for.

In addition, State Housing Authority waiting lists for low rental dwellings for pensioners never become less, and funeral costs increase ever greater.

Your petitioners call on the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to:

Adjust social security payments instantly and automatically on announcement of increases in the quarterly Consumer Price Index.

Restore pharmaceutical benefits deleted from the free list

The State Grants (Dwellings for Pensioners) Act 1974, eroded by inflation, be updated and increased to overcome the backlog.

The funeral benefit be updated to 60 per cent of a reasonable funeral cost This benefit, when introduced in 1943 at 200 shillings ($20.00), was seven times the pension at that time of 27 shillings ($2.70) per week, or more than twice the basic wage of 97 shillings ($9.70).

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

Petition received.

Uranium

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

That the products of nuclear fission create risks unlike those of any other single technology and, furthermore, it is uncertain whether or not nuclear fission technology, taking all inputs into account, is a net producer of energy.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to bring about the wishes expressed in our petition that:

By reason of the hazards associated with the use of uranium in nuclear power plants, mining of uranium in Australia be restricted to that needed for physical and biomedical research and medical diagnosis.

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

Petition received.

Income Tax: Home Mortgage Interest

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia by this our humble petition respectfully showeth:

  1. That the proposal to exclude all persons from the benefit of tax deductibility for mortgage interest rates other than first home buyers in their first five years of home purchase is a repudiation of the Government’s election undertaking to maintain the scheme.
  2. That the effect of the proposal will cause hardship to many current beneficiaries of the scheme, in that existing benefits will terminate, thus putting housing loan repayments beyond reach.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

  1. that the Government reconsider its decision to drastically curtail the scheme;
  2. that the principles applying to the scheme as introduced by the Labor Government be maintained; and
  3. that benefits be upgraded by indexation to take account of the effects of inflation.

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

Petition received.

Aboriginal Land Rights

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia do humbly pray that the Australian Government:

  1. Extend the freeze on alienation of vacant Crown land in the Northern Territory (Land Rights) Bill 1976 to give effect to:

    1. The restoration of the role of land councils and the Land Commissioner.
    2. The removal of distinction between ‘needs’ and traditional claims.
    3. The re-introduction of the1975 Land Rights Bill’s provisions regarding mining.
    4. The withdrawal of power from the Northern Territory Assembly to make laws over sacred sites, permits and entry to pastoral properties.
    5. The control of all roads through Aboriginal land being held by the Aboriginal people themselves.

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

Petition received.

Fees and Levies

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

That the new Government during the recent election campaign, promised lower taxation and more money in people’s pockets.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That the House of Representatives will take immediate steps to prevent the introduction of Television and Radio licence fees, the imposition of a tax levy for Medibank and the introduction of higher charges for drugs dispensed under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

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

Petition received.

Budget 1976-77

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

That the Budget will increase unemployment to unprecedented and crisis proportions at a time when hundreds of thousands of Australians, especially school-leavers, young workers and apprentices, are without work;

The Budget completes the dismantling of Medibank as a simple, effective universal health insurance scheme, providing basic coverage for the total community;

The Budget, by its heavy cuts in urban and transport programs, will worsen the quality of life available to many Australians;

The Budget will compel state governments to reduce their services and increase charges;

The Budget reduces spending on Aboriginal affairs by 30 per cent and returns expenditure on Aborigines to pre- 1972 days;

The Budget seriously disadvantages migrant groups, most notably in employment and health, and leaves room for concern over the future of ethnic radio;

The Budget, despite the government’s earlier rhetoric about defence threats to Australia, continues to hold the size of the armed services at present levels;

And the Budget, despite all the above, still cannot be expected to reduce Australia’s annual inflation rate below twelve per cent;

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the 1976 Budget be redrafted to provide for economic recovery within the guide-lines laid down by the Australian Labor Government’s 1975 Budget.

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

Petition received.

Dockyards at Newcastle

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

That shipbuilding and repairs play a vital role in the economic stability of the Newcastle region.

That a recent study by the Hunter Valley Research Foundation showed that SO 000 people were partially or wholly maintained by the State Dockyard.

That stability is at present in jeopardy, as a new ship order is required within the next few weeks if serious unemployment and hardship is to be avoided.

That the previous Government’s plan for the building of a graving dock in Newcastle should be continued as proper ship repair facilities are a vital factor in the maintenance of a viable shipbuilding industry.

That the Government’s election pledge to restore business and employment can be implemented in Newcastle if new orders and a graving dock are granted.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government place immediate orders with the Newcastle State Dockyard and implement the previous Government’s plan to build a graving dock in Newcastle.

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

Petition received.

Pensions

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 those who have retired and those who are about to retire, are being severely and adversely affected by inflation and Australian economic circumstances.

The continuance of the means test on pensioners causes undue hardship to them.

We call on the Government to immediately abolish the means test on all aged pensions.

To ensure a pension for all on retirement, and a guarantee that all Australian citizens will retire with dignity.

Acknowledge that a pension is a ‘right and not a charity’.

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

Petition received.

Human Rights

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

That the Government of the U.S.S.R. has been and is continuing to harass, intimidate and practise discrimination against Jews who reside within and are citizens of the U.S.S.R. and Jews who seek to emigrate to Israel, contrary to both the Constitution and Laws of the U.S.S.R. and to International Laws, Conventions and Agreements concerning human rights and freedoms.

Your Petitioners therefore do humbly pray that the Australian Government call upon the Government of the U.S.S.R.to:

  1. Respect its own Constitution and Laws, to fulfil its obligations as set forth in International Declarations and Agreements in the field of human rights and fundamental freedom, and to implement the Helsinki Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe;
  2. Recognise and respect the right of Jews in the U.S.S.R. to be united with their brethren in the land of Israel, the historic Jewish homeland.
  3. Remove all obstacles in the way of those who wish to leave and desist from all harassment and intimidation;
  4. Free forthwith the Prisoner of Zion- the prisoners of conscience incarcerated for their struggle to return to Zion;
  5. Recognise and respect the freedom of our brethren within the Soviet Union to profess and practice their religion and to enjoy their cultural heritage and language;
  6. End the campaign of anti-semi tism and acts of discrimination against Jews,
  7. Allow all Jews in the Soviet Union to establish and maintain ties with the rest of the Jewish people.

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

Petition received.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-I move, under the provisions of standing order 1 30:

That the petition presented today by me relating to the treatment of Jews in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics be printed.

In accordance with the requirements of standing order 131I now indicate the action I propose to take and inform the House thereof. I propose to submit the petition for examination by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence with a request that it explore ways and means of obtaining from the Ambassador of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics some advice as to the policy of his Government on the matters raised in the petition and also in regard to the reality of freedom of religious worship and instruction for the Jewish and other religions in the U.S.S.R.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2180

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

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

– I ask the Prime Minister a question. Since most and perhaps by now all of the Premiers have publicly expressed objections to many features of the States and Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Bills, has he decided to hold the Premiers Conference they seek, or will any of his Ministers have a conference with the relevant State Ministers to discuss the features to which the Premiers object? Will the conference take place before the House resumes the debate on the Bills?

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

– I thank the honourable gentleman for the question because it gives me the opportunity to clarify one or two matters in relation to this issue. There will not be a special Premiers Conference about the matter and I do not really believe there is a need for other Ministers to meet to discuss the issues concerned. I believe there has been a good deal of misunderstanding about the provisions. Indeed, one or two States have criticised a provision that would be very much in their own interests. I refer to a provision in the Bill which will entitle States to share in the personal income tax collections of the Commonwealth.

There has been some objection to clause 5 of that Bill which provides that the Treasurer could declare a surcharge or a rebate. The purpose of that is that if there is some need in the future for a temporary change in levels relating to economic management, that temporary change should not be used either to increase or decrease the shares going to the States. For example, if, as in the honourable gentleman’s time, there were a minibudget on some occasion in November following the Budget and there were tax concessions made, that would in fact reduce the share going to the States unless there were in the legislation a power designed to exempt that particular matter from the provisions of this legislation. I see this particular measure, therefore, as a protection for the States, a very necessary protection so that they can have certainty as to the funds coming to them in any one year and budget on an appropriate basis. I would also say that the Treasurer will not use that power in any instance unless there has been full discussion with the States concerned in relation to it. I would have thought that those matters in relation to that particular objection had been made plain enough at the Premiers Conference.

Turning to the other legislation, and I am not going to be exhaustive in the matters that the Premiers have raised because they will be dealt with in the debate in the Parliament, I can well see how, under clause 4 (b) (iv), one or two of the Premiers might have believed that we were requiring under our legislation copies of all reports from the States grants commissions, whether those were reports that related to the distribution of funds that came from the Commonwealth or to other matters. Obviously it would be quite unreasonable for there to be any provision in this legislation except that which related to funds which came from the Commonwealth. That sort of matter will be clarified and I am grateful to the Premiers concerned for bringing it to the attention of the Commonwealth.

I mention one other matter to give an instance of the sorts of things that have been raised and the Commonwealth’s reaction to them in clarifying the issues. In the same piece of legislation there was an allegation in relation to clause 6(1) (b) the Commonwealth Minister would have the power to veto or vet- change- the recommendations of States grants commissions. Our concern in these matters was to see that the recommendations in relation to local government were made by States grants commissions as the Premiers agreed at the Premiers Conference and that they were proposed in a forum which all local government bodies would be able to understand, not by a mere administrative means without giving local governments an opportunity to argue their case.

We were concerned also to have a situation in which people would know that Commonwealth funds were, in fact, Commonwealth funds. For example, about 2 months ago- anyway, some considerable number of weeks ago- local government bodies in at least one State were advised that payments would be made. They were being advised about Commonwealth funds. But I do not believe anyone would have understood that these were Commonwealth funds unless the details of what was happening were known. We believe that the Commonwealth ought to be advised at the same time as the States make decisions about these matters so that the members of the Commonwealth Parliament who wish to do their jobs as members of the Parliament- this obviously applies to members from the Government side and from the Opposition side- can advise local governing bodies in their electorates. I think that is an appropriate and proper function in relation to funds which come from the Commonwealth.

We have, however, had a look at the wording of clause 6 (1) (b). We have found that we are able to protect that wish, which I think is a perfectly proper thing to want to protect, and at the same time remove the suggestion that there will be Commonwealth approval of the actual grants. This implies, of course, that the Commonwealth might upset the actual grants made by the States grants commissions. I believe that that would be an intrusion insofar as the grants are made by statutory States grants commissions. I believe it would be an intrusion for the Commonwealth to try to upset judgments made by those grants commissions. Since there can be an implication in the wording of the legislation as it is that the Commonwealth might want to do that, that implication will be removed. The requirement that the Commonwealth should be advised of the funds before matters go out into the public forum will remain. We believe that it ought to remain. There are other matters but I shall not mention them at the moment.

Mr Cohen:

– You make Al Grassby look like -

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I thought the Leader of the Opposition was showing some interest in the answer to his question. If honourable gentlemen sitting behind him are not interested in the details of this matter- it is quite an important matter of administration between the Commonwealth, the States and local governmentthen I am surprised. I would have thought that most honourable gentlemen would have been interested. When the debate resumes a Minister will make a fuller statement about the clarifications which we are prepared to put into the legislation.

page 2181

QUESTION

NEW ZEALAND HORSES

Mr KELLY:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. Because of the consistently strong competition from New Zealand, will the Minister see what can be done to put a tariff on New Zealand horses in order to prevent them running faster than our home produced horses?

Mr HOWARD:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The question catches me very much off balance. I do not think that the problem to which the honourable gentleman refers can, on this occasion, be blamed upon the activities of the Industries Assistance Commission as has been the practice in respect of a lot of other things. The honourable gentleman’s customary courtesy in these matters has not been apparent on this occasion and therefore I am unable to offer him the type of helpful response which I normally give when he asks questions on a subject which is very dear to his heart.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I am afraid the Minister weighed in light.

page 2182

QUESTION

URANIUM

Mr UREN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct my question to the Prime Minister and preface it by referring to an earlier question seeking a wide public debate on the mining and export of uranium before a Government decision is made. Now that the Fox Commission has recommended such a public debate, will the Prime Minister give a firm assurance that a wide public debate will take place before any Government decision is made to mine or export Australia’s uranium?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The report by Mr Justice Fox is obviously a very serious and weighty report and I do not believe it is one about which the Government or the Opposition ought to make hurried or unthought decisions of any kind. The Government has made a relatively brief examination of some aspects at this point. It has not come to the stage of making any decisions about any aspects of the report. When it has carried its own examination further, the Government will state quite clearly what its attitude will be.

page 2182

QUESTION

URANIUM

Mr CHIPP:
HOTHAM, VICTORIA

-I should like to ask the Prime Minister an almost identical question on the same subject as the question asked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Will the Prime Minister give this House an assurance that the contents and recommendations of the Fox report will be fully debated in this House before a Government decision is taken or announced?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I have no doubt that at the appropriate stage the matters will be debated fully in this House. Other than that, I have nothing to add.

page 2182

QUESTION

URANIUM

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

-Might I ask the Prime Minister a question on the same subject. He will know that last Thursday his Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development issued a statement that the Government ‘will be looking very closely at the first report of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry and will be announcing its decisions’. I believe I have quoted the precise words, and the Minister nods his agreement. I ask: Will the Prime Minister assure the House that the Government accepts the Commission’s recommendations that there should be ample time for public consideration of the report and for debate upon it and that no decision should be taken on the report until there has been an opportunity for the usual democratic processes to function, including parliamentary debate? The right honourable gentleman will recall that I am quoting the Commission’s own words in its recommendation. In view of the unreasonably short time, as the Commission has expressed it, which was set for preparation of this first report, I ask how long the Government proposes for the public consideration of the report and debate on it in the Parliament?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– If the honourable gentleman will have a little patience, I have no doubt that all these questions will be answered. The Government is not going to pre-empt its own position when it has not fully considered the matters. When it has considered them it will make its views known.

page 2182

QUESTION

TRADE UNIONS: POLITICAL STRIKES

Mr CONNOLLY:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct my question to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Has the Minister seen recent Press reports that the Leader of the Opposition encouraged trade unions to engage in political strikes? Does the Minister regard industrial stoppages, bans and the like on political or non-industrial issues as a legitimate use of union power?

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

-Of course I am concerned at the trend to pursue political or non-industrial objectives by the threat of or direct industrial action. I am greatly concerned- and I believe everybody in this community should be- to find that this technique apparently now has the approval, indeed it seems the encouragement, of the Leader of the Opposition. The list of actions of this kind is quite extensive and includes trade, mining and major building projects. During the Medibank strike- again a strike of a political nature- Australian workers lost a staggering $50m to $60m, approximately, in what seemed to be a futile exercise. There is a greater awareness in the community today of the social and environmental issues and, of course, that is a highly desirable thing. But any trade union is made up of members with widely varying political views and imposing on them by industrial means the pursuance of political objectives cannot possibly accommodate the wide variety of views held by union members.

I am concerned to see Australia’s export trade threatened by actions of this kind. I am concerned to see that Australians continue to be unemployed when they could get a job if, for example, bans on building projects did not exist. Apparently the Leader of the Opposition sees the role of the union movement as taking away from the Parliament those things which are properly the responsibility of Parliament. Unions are an important part of Australia’s social and economic life. But they do not have, nor should they have, any God-given right, or even a right conferred by the Leader of the Opposition, to usurp the democratic process and to take away the proper role of Parliament. It is entirely irresponsible to suggest that they should do so.

page 2183

QUESTION

INSTITUTE OF CRIMINOLOGY

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I draw the attention of the Attorney-General to the report of the Institute of Criminology which indicated that the cost of crime last year was approximately $950m. In view of this enormous amount of money, would the Attorney-General give serious consideration to funding pilot projects in the States whereby people who first come under notice are given assistance to rehabilitate themselves by expert guidance without being committed to penal institutions in the first instance?

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

-I thank the honourable member for his suggestion and also for his reference to the report of the Institute of Criminology. The report did not deal with the whole cost of crime. As we know this is a serious problem. I think that $960m represented only the direct cost, that is to say the direct loss that occurred through crime plus the cost of law and order and public safety. I think that the honourable member will agree that the Institue of Criminology does a very remarkable job in this area. The Institute was set up as a result of a decision, I think, of the McMahon Government and it came into operation during the period of the Labor Government. The Institute does considerable work in the criminological area with a view to dealing with the sort of question that the honourable member raises. I will draw the honourable member’s question and suggestion to the attention of the Institute and my Department.

page 2183

QUESTION

PAYROLL TAX EXEMPTION IN THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Mr HASLEM:

– I address my question to the Treasurer and refer to the honourable gentleman’s Budget Speech in which he said that the present exemption from payroll tax in the Australian Capital Territory would be increased from $20,800 to $41,600 per annum to bring the Australian Capital Territory into line with neighbouring States. Is the Treasurer aware that New South Wales and Victoria have recently made decisions to increase the exemption to $48,000 and to phase out the exemption of $48,000 for employers with payrolls in excess of that figure at the rate of $2 for every $3 of the excess? The Treasurer would be aware that the Government has in the last few months rather abruptly brought Canberra into line with the rest of Australia. When there are a few benefits around is he going -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member will not debate his question. He may seek information.

Mr HASLEM:

– Will the Treasurer bring Canberra into line with the rest of Australia in respect of payroll tax?

Mr LYNCH:
Treasurer · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

– I thank the honourable member very much for the question. I can certainly pay credit to the honourable gentleman and also to his colleague, Senator Knight, for having made quite sustained and robust representations to me in relation to this matter. The honourable gentleman has referred to the concessions which were outlined in the Budget Speech. I can say to himwith a degree of satisfaction to him, I am surethat as a consequence of the submissions he has made the Government will bring the Australian Capital Territory payroll tax arrangements into line with those existing in New South Wales.

page 2183

QUESTION

HANDICAPPED PERSONS

Mr SCHOLES:
CORIO, VICTORIA

-Is the Treasurer aware that income tax concessions for the care of handicapped persons are allowed when the persons involved are over 16 years and in receipt of a Commonwealth pension? Is he also aware that the level of the Commonwealth pension is such as to debar any claims being made in respect of such a handicapped person? In view of the conditions laid down for claims, under what circumstances can a person claim as a tax deduction the expenses incurred in the care of a handicapped person?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– As I recall the information provided by the honourable gentleman in his question, the facts he has put down are certainly accurate. I will discuss the position which he posed with my colleague in another place and provide the honourable gentleman with a written reply.

page 2183

QUESTION

HANG GLIDING

Mr FALCONER:
CASEY, VICTORIA

-Does the Minister for Transport recall that earlier in the year I asked him a question about the safety of hang glider operations? Has he noted with concern the number of fatal or serious accidents involving hang gliders in recent months? Can he inform the House whether he has any plans to deal with the situation?

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

-It has been my wish to allow hang gliding to remain in the same sport category as scuba diving and things of that nature. Unfortunately, because of the number of hang glider accidents and the fact that recently taxpayers’ money was involved in assisting a hang glider who got into difficulties, I have been forced to reconsider the position. The hang gliders’ association has drawn up some voluntary regulations. Those regulations apply to those people who are members of the association, but of course the regulations do not have regulatory force to those who are not members of the association. I propose, therefore, to discuss with my State colleagues what ought to be done about this matter.

page 2184

QUESTION

DEFENCE SERVICE HOMES

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I address my question to the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development. Can the Minister confirm or deny widely published reports that his Government intends to renegotiate the Commonwealth and States Housing Agreement with a view to increasing interest rates for welfare housing, raising interest rates for defence service homes, selling off land for defence service homes estates and doubling the period of service to establish eligibility for defence service homes?

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development · BASS, TASMANIA · LP

-The honourable member has raised 2 main issues. One is the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. It is well known that we are negotiating with the States to make the Act embodying that Agreement a better Act in regard to the provision of public housing for the States. There has been some speculation in the newspapers on defence service homes. I answered a question I think from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on this matter. I gave him a categorical denial that I or my colleague the Minister for Defence had recommended that interest rates should be set at one point, I think, be) the bond rate. We are looking at the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. The honourable member should not believe what he reads in the newspapers about the other issues he raised.

page 2184

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS

Mr BRAITHWAITE:
DAWSON, QUEENSLAND

– I address my question to the Treasurer. Following recent comment and criticism from business leaders relative to the

Australian Bureau of Statistics, can the Treasurer advise whether the Bureau would be prepared to circularise private industry and business requesting details of relative costs incurred in answering the Bureau’s questionnaires and the inconvenience involved in attending to the Bureau’s requirements, as well as their comments as to the worthwhile nature and accuracy of the figures produced?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

-The Government Statistician, of course, administers an independent statutory authority. He therefore exercises judgment in his own right. To that extent I will refer the honourable gentleman ‘s question to him for response.

page 2184

QUESTION

NATIONAL HIGHWAYS

Mr MORRIS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Has the Prime Minister received a written request from the Minister for Transport asking him to participate in an extravagant ceremony at or near Albury-Wodonga to mark the erection of signs distinguishing the national highway route? Does he agree with the assertion by the Minister for Transport in his letter that the introduction of the signs warrants widespread publicity? Given the heavy reduction in escalation grants for road funding in this year’s Budget, has the Prime Minister agreed to the request? If so, how does he justify such waste?

Mr NIXON:
LP

-The honourable member for Shortland ought to talk to his colleague the honourable member for Newcastle and learn some of the facts of life. The fact is that following the declaration of the national highways programs, which came out of the report instituted by a previous Liberal-Country Party Government in 1972 and picked up again by the Whitlam Government in 1 973, a number of national highways were declared around Australia by the former Minister for Transport, the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones). I have to say that he shows a greater degree of knowledge in the area of transport than the present incumbent of the shadow transport portfolio on the front bench. As a result of the national highways being declared and as the State Ministers for transport have .agreed that due recognition ought to be given by the setting up of signs along the national highways to indicate that these are in fact national highways funded completely and totally by the Federal Parliament, I thought it appropriate on their behalf to issue an invitation to the Prime Minister to take part in the first ceremony. It will be a very modest ceremony done at very little cost.

page 2185

QUESTION

RADIO AND TELEVISION INDUSTRY

Mr HAMER:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

– Is the Minister for Post and Telecommunications aware of the widespread interest in the community in the structure of the radio and television industry? Is there a strong desire for improvements in the standard of radio and television without political control or bias? Does the Green report tackle these problems? When will the Minister be tabling this report and will there be an opportunity for the House to debate its conclusions?

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The Green report has been available to me, I think for about a month. It does look at the overall structure of the broadcasting system. It is a large report. It will need to be considered. That has occurred and I would expect to be able to table the report for the benefit of members of Parliament within the next day or two. Flowing on from that I am sure that there will be valuable debates in the Parliament about the report itself and, more importantly, about decisions which flow from the report.

page 2185

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS: NORTHERN TERRITORY

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

– I am encouraged to ask a question without notice of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Now that Mr David Hay’s report concerning the proposed amendments to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill, for which the Minister gave the second reading on 4 June last, has now been received, will the Minister table it so that members of the House and the Australian public can examine Mr Hay’s recommendations prior to the debate on the Bill being resumed? Will he also assure the House that the freeze on the release of Crown land in the Northern Territory will be extended beyond 3 1 December 1 976 in view of the lengthy delay in the passage of the legislation and the Government’s instruction to Mr Justice Ward, the Interim Land Commissioner, to suspend the hearing of land claims?

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

-The report by Mr David Hay referred to by the Leader of the Opposition was a report to government for the purpose of sifting out the various public representations which have been made to the Government on the Bill which I introduced. It was to present an analysis of those representations to the Government to better enable the Government to make its decisions. That report has been considered by the Government and, as the Prime Minister and I have both said, it is the intention of the Government to see the legislation complete its passage through the Parliament this session. So the honourable gentleman can expect debate on the matter to resume in this House in the near future.

The freeze referred to was imposed to enable Aboriginals to make claims to traditional land without fear that the vacant Crown land would be alienated before their claims were determined. The freeze was extended until 31 December 1976. 1 think it was about 2 months ago that I wrote to both land councils in the Northern Territory advising them that I had the agreement of my colleague, the Minister for the Northern Territory, that all those claims of which notice had been given, or those claims which had been lodged, would be protected in the sense that there would be no alienation prior to determination of those claims. All that the 2 land councils need to do is give notice of intention to make claims in respect of areas of vacant Crown land. Because of the time that has elapsed it is believed from experience that that will enable all possible claims to be made. However, I have told Aboriginal groups that should it be established that additional time is required, notwithstanding the agreement I have made with my colleague, they will receive all due consideration. I am quite satisfied that with the combination of those 2 things Aboriginals will be fully protected in any claims they wish to make to vacant Crown land.

page 2185

QUESTION

TASMANIAN MILITARY TATTOO

Mr GOODLUCK:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

-My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. The Tasmanian military tattoo, as a result of the one held in 1976, has become a successful tourist attraction, much like the ‘Big E and is of benefit to the State’s economy. Would the highly respected Minister please assure the House that assistance once again will be given for the 1977 tattoo and clarify any misunderstandings with the organisers, particularly those relating to the rumoured tattoo in Victoria?

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

-In reply to the last part of the honourable gentleman’s question I warn him about rumours in Parliament House. I have never heard anything about a rumoured military tattoo in Victoria. The honourable gentleman s interest in the Tasmanian tattoo is well known, and since the honourable gentleman has been in this Parliament he has sought to press upon me and my colleagues with a rare sense of exuberance the need for the tattoo to be maintained. I inform the honourable gentleman that the Prime Minister has been in correspondence with the Premier of Tasmania regarding the proposed tattoo. My understanding is that Her Majesty the Queen will be in attendance at the tattoo and, consistent with Service exigencies, will do everything possible to ensure that the tattoo is a thundering success.

page 2186

QUESTION

IRON ORE

Mr KEATING:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Treasurer Has the Government talked to the Goldsworthy consortium about the percentage of Australian equity in its proposed Area C iron ore project in Western Australia? If so, has the Government approved the proposed equity arrangements? Has the case been before the Foreign Investment Review Board? If so, what was the Board’s decision and the reasons for the decision? Lastly, when can I expect an answer to the question I asked without notice 6 weeks ago concerning the 3 per cent Nippon steel purchase of Robe River to which the Minister promised me a reply?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– Whilst I appreciate the honourable gentleman’s interest in this matter he ought to well understand that matters which concern confidential affairs between a company and a government are not normally ones which ought properly be the subject of a question without notice. However I can tell him that as Treasurer I have not had direct discussions with the company concerned. I am unaware whether my colleague the Minister for National Resources has had such discussions. I shall check with my colleague in another place to enable me to provide the honourable member with a response in writing and, at the same time, I shall convey to the honourable member any information which can properly be provided from the Foreign Investment Review Board.

page 2186

QUESTION

FRASER ISLAND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

Mr MILLAR:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– I address my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the far reaching consequences of the recommendations of the Fraser Island environmental impact report, will the Prime Minister give an assurance that adequate time will be provided for the proper assessment of that report and the furnishing by affected parties of submissions to the Government prior to a final decision? Further, does the Prime Minister agree that the provision of opportunity for public comment would be consistent with the claims made by conservationists in respect of Government action on the Fox report?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– When there is an inquiry and a report of this kind, I think it is important that we do not try to resurrect the circumstances so that there is an inquiry and report on the report itself. People have had opportunities to put their views and to provide information to the Fraser Island inquiry. As I understand it, there has been an opportunity to rebut any views that have been put. I have had representations, not from governmental sources but from other sources, which would seem to be assertion not based in fact in relation to the Fraser Island report. I urge caution against creatine circumstances in which by one means or another, after an inquiry has been properly constituted and has sought evidence from all those who might be available to give evidence and who would want to give evidence, people are given a second go at the conclusions of the inquiry. If that were to happen in all such matters as the Fraser Island inquiry and report, quite clearly the business of the Commonwealth would be clagged up with inquiry after inquiry and inquiry on top of inquiry. I cannot see that this would really serve the purposes of good government.

Having said that, I think it is important obviously that there be discussions with the Queensland Government. I have already been in touch with the Premier of Queensland. I have sent him a message today suggesting that there should be discussions with him and such other of his Ministers as may be concerned. If he is able to come here, the Government will welcome those discussions being held here. If he is not able to come to Canberra, the relevant Ministers will be available and ready to go to Queensland to discuss these matters with him at almost immediate notice. Discussions with the Queensland Government are, I think, of the greatest possible importance. Again I would say that the issues in this matter are very serious ones. They are obviously serious issues for the company and the people employed by that company. They are vastly serious for the very many environmentalists who believe that important environmental issues are involved in Fraser Island. When discussions have been held with the Queensland Government, I hope it will be possible to say something more about the attitude of the Federal Government.

page 2186

QUESTION

MESSAGE TO MR HUA KUO FENG

Dr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

-My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I remind him of the congratulatory message which he sent last week to Mr Hua Kuo Feng on, as the Prime Minister put it, ‘his recent appointment as Chairman of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party’. I ask: On what other occasions has the Prime Minister sent messages of congratulation to persons achieving positions of leadership in, firstly, foreign communist parties and, secondly, foreign democratic parties? Would it not in any case be more appropriate if he signed such a message as ‘Leader of the Fraternal Liberal Party’ rather than as ‘Prime Minister of Australia’?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Before I call the right honourable the Prime Minister I remind the honourable member for Prospect that it is the practice in the House, when referring to a member of this place, to use the prefix ‘honourable’ or, where appropriate, ‘right honourable’. I now call the right honourable the Prime Minister.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– It is a common international practice that on accession to power in various countries messages of congratulation be sent to the leaders of those countries. I do not know whether any particular distinction has been made concerning the philosophy of the governments in the countries concerned. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has said on many occasions, and I have said also on behalf of the Government, that the Government conducts its foreign relations with other countries on the basis of their publicly stated attitudes, not on the basis of internal ideology. If our foreign relations were to be conducted on the basis of internal ideology, discourse between nations of the world would be markedly reduced. Such a system just would not work. I do not think there is anything of substance in the question.

page 2187

QUESTION

CHILDREN’S TELEVISION

Mr SHIPTON:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA

-I wish to ask a question of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications concerning children’s television. The question is in part supplementary to that asked by the honourable member for Isaacs. Does the Green report refer to the declining standards of children’s television in Australia and does it make any recommendations in respect thereof?

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The Green report is concerned mainly with the structure of broadcasting. The question of standards will flow subsequently from the Green report.

page 2187

QUESTION

VISIT TO AUSTRALIA BY MR LEE KUAN YEW

Mr YOUNG:
PORT ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Is it true that a film report of the visit to Australia by Lee Kuan Yew that was taken by the Australian Broadcasting Commission was given to the Prime Minister of Singapore when he left Australia? Does that film include footage of the demonstrations which were held against him in Australia? Is the Minister aware that people are held in Singaporean gaols without trial? What interest could the Prime Minister of Singapore or the people travelling with him possibly have in having a film report? Would it be political interference in the operations of the ABC for the Minister to stop such a practice forthwith?

Mr ERIC ROBINSON I am not aware of whether the Australian Broadcasting Commission has made a film available to the Prime Minister of Singapore. I will ascertain whether that is a fact and let the honourable member know. As to the balance of the question, I do not intend to respond to the honourable member’s comment with regard to the conduct of affairs within Singapore. We will not interfere with the Australian Broadcasting Commission. It has a right to conduct its affairs responsibly. I will look closely at the question asked by the honourable member and, as much as possible, see that he gets a full answer to it.

page 2187

QUESTION

TASMANIAN FREIGHT RATES

Mr HODGMAN:
DENISON, TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Transport. In view of its considerable importance to the Tasmanian manufacturing sector and to the Tasmanian economy generally, will the Minister advise the House of the progress being made on the guidelines and details of the proposed southbound freight equalisation scheme that is to operate between the mainland of Australia and Tasmania?

Mr NIXON:
LP

– The honourable member for Denison and other honourable members from Tasmania will be pleased to know that the administrative details governing this very complex matter have been sorted out and that I am to hold discussions shortly with my colleague the Treasurer about the aspects of payment under the southbound freight equalisation scheme. When those discussions are concluded it is proposed that my departmental officers travel to Tasmania and enter into discussions with as many businessmen and people in Tasmania as may be interested in the scheme on the methods proposed to be used under the southbound freight equalisation scheme. The cost of southbound freight differs markedly from the cost of northbound freight for a variety of reasons. I am well aware that the honourable member for Denison and other honourable members from Tasmania have been hotly pursuing me on this matter. I have been trying as much as I can to expedite it.

page 2187

PERSONAL INCOME TAX SHARING BILLS

Mr HURFORD:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-My question is directed to the Treasurer and is supplementary to the first question asked by the Leader of the Opposition.

Is it a fact that the proposal that the Treasurer may by notice in the Gazette declare any income tax as a special surcharge gives him complete control over the level of financial assistance available to State and local governments and thus results in grave uncertainty for those levels of government? Is it a fact that the particular clause in the legislation before this House does not so much protect the State and local governments, as has been suggested by the Prime Minister in his answer, but hinders them in their planning to provide essential services in the future? If such a surcharge has to be introduced would it not be more appropriate to introduce it by legislation rather than by regulation? Is this proposal an example of the Government’s decision to use regulations rather than bring matters out into the open in this Parliament?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– I find it difficult to accept the bona fides of the former Administration in relation to Commonwealth-State relations because its members know full well the extent to which they denied the States responsibility and maintained a very hard line with regard to a number of areas of spending by attaching detailed conditions to them. I would have thought that the question about clause S of the States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Bill was adequately and amply answered by the Prime Minister. The provision will allow between the Commonwealth and the States the clear and explicit understanding which was reached during the Premiers Conference and that is that the yield or cost of special surcharges or rebates applied in appropriate circumstances by the Commonwealth will not be included in the base figure from which the States and the local government entitlements will be calculated. It does, as the Prime Minister observed earlier to day, protect the States.

The honourable gentleman will be very well aware that in the second reading speech I made it perfectly clear that the Commonwealth would not use clause S without due notice to the States because we believe in the process of consultation. In fact, any declaration by any Treasurer of any special surcharges or rebates without some prior processes between the governments would be completely contrary to the various agreements with the States concerning consultation and for the review of tax-sharing arrangements generally. So far as I am concerned it is a protective mechanism for the States. We believe it is the most appropriate mechanism to be employed in the present circumstances. I believe that the publicity surrounding this matter has been subject to considerable distortion and beating up in the media.

page 2188

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION

Mr LYNCH:
Treasurer · Flinders · LP

-I present the following papen

Taxation, fifty-fifth report of the Commissioner of Taxation dated 1 October 1976.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 2188

AUSTRALIAN CHICKEN MEAT RESEARCH COMMITTEE

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

– Pursuant to section 16 of the Australian Chicken Meat Research Act 1969 I present the interim annual report of the Australian Chicken Meat Research Committee for the year ended 30 June 1976.

page 2188

AUSTRALIAN MEAT RESEARCH COMMITTEE

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

– Pursuant to section 17 of the Meat Research Act 1960 I present the annual report of the Australian Meat Research Committee for the year ended 30 June 1 976.

page 2188

COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO THE MARITIME INDUSTRY

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · Gippsland · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the four final reports of the Commission of Inquiry into the Maritime Industry entitled Report on Australian Maritime Legislation, Report on International Maritime Conventions, Report on Maritime Standards and Controls, and Report on the Future of the Australian Maritime Industry.

page 2188

BUREAU OF CUSTOMS

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

– For the information of honourable members I present a report entitled Bureau of Customs 1976: A Review of Activities.

page 2188

BANKRUPTCY ACT

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

– Pursuant to section 3 14 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 1 present the annual report on the operations of that Act for the year ended 30 June 1 976.

page 2188

AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT

Mr MacKELLAR:
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs · Warringah · LP

– Pursuant to section 42 of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 I present the annual return of persons granted Australian citizenship during the year ended 30 June 1976.

page 2189

AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF ABORIGINAL STUDIES

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

– Pursuant to section 30 of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies Act1964I present the annual report of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies for the year ended 30 June 1976.

page 2189

AUSTRALIAN RESEARCH GRANTS COMMITTEE

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for the Northern Territory · Fisher · NCP/NP

– For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Australian Research Grants Committee for the triennium 1973-75.

page 2189

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL COMMISSION

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Pursuant to section 102 of the Postal Services Act1975 I present the annual report of the Australian Postal Commission for the year ended 30 June 1976.

page 2189

HOUSING LOANS INSURANCE ACT

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development · Bass · LP

Pursuant to section 39 of the Housing Loans Insurance Act1965I present the annual report of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation for the year ended 30 June 1976.

page 2189

FRASER ISLAND ENVIRONMENTAL INQUIRY

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development · Bass · LP

For the information of honourable members I present the final report of the Fraser Island Environmental Inquiry. A statement will be made on this report after consultation with the Queensland Government and after the Government has taken decisions on the matter.

page 2189

RANGER URANIUM ENVIRONMENTAL INQUIRY

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development · Bass · LP

For the information of honourable members I present the first report of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry.

Mr Keating:

– I move:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman is not entitled to move that motion. Has any arrangement been made between the Manager of

Opposition Business and the Leader of the House?

Mr SINCLAIR:
Leader of the House · New England · NCP/NP

– I move:

That the House take note of the paper.

I am happy to do so.

Debate (on motion by Mr Keating) adjourned.

page 2189

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Advisory Council for Inter-Government Relations Bill 1976.

Australian Film Commission Amendment Bill 1 976.

National Health Amendment Bill (No. 3 ) 1 976.

Health Insurance Amendment Bill (No. 3 ) 1976.

Australian Film and Television School Amendment Bill 1976.

Social Services Amendment Bill (No. 3)1976.

Repatriation Acts Amendment Bill (No. 2 ) 1 976.

Australia Council Amendment Bill 1976.

page 2189

CARE FOR THE AGED

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have received letters from both the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass) and the honourable member for Swan (Mr Martyr) proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 107 I have selected one matter, that is that proposed by the honourable member for Maribyrnong, namely:

The failure of the Government to provide adequate care for the aged.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

Afore than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places-

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong

– In speaking to this matter I think it relevant that I should read from the social welfare policy of the Liberal and National Country Parties. I think it is relevant to be aware of their aspirations before we consider this matter. I shall quote a few pertinent points. It states:

Our social welfare policy seeks to enhance the security, dignity, self-reliance and well-being of Australians We recognise different levels of need and base our priorities on them. The first priority is to meet basic physical needs, including nutrition, shelter, health and social security.

I cannot disagree with any of those statements. The Australian Labor Party certainly would not disagree. It continues:

Our desire to give power and responsibility back to individuals and groups in order to effectively meet the requirements of social welfare, distinguishes our policy from alternative approaches.

This could be good; it could be sinister. Item 7 of the objectives is:

Ensure that the real value of welfare programs is not eroded by inflation.

That is a line ideal. I do not dispute that either. The Parties ‘ policy further states:

Retaining the present over-70 pension and child endowment. (At die appropriate time, we will abolish the means test on the 65-69 aged group pensions).

The next item is:

Protecting benefits from erosion by inflation through automatically adjusting benefit levels every 6 months, according to movements in the consumer price index.

There is a lot more, but I thought that they were most pertinent to the topic we are discussing this afternoon. They are very fine words, but unfortunately represent no overall policy. The results of inquiries so far ordered by the Government may never be released to the organisations caring for the aged or to spokesmen for the aged such as the Australian Pensioners Federation, or for that matter to the general Australian community, who after all supply the funds. As the Holmes-Sax recommendations for Medibank were that the Commonwealth should pass half its responsibilities to the private funds, we may expect that in line with the Fraser Government ‘s policy it will try to find somebody else, be it the States, local government or voluntary agencies, to take over policies for the aged. It may even believe that market choice in aged accommodation and nursing homes will determine what should be financed.

Then we have the Bailey Committee ‘s terms of reference, which particularly emphasised that ways were to be found of eliminating and consolidating programs for more effective delivery by States, local government and voluntary organisations. That statement relates to the intentions expressed in the Government’s policy. It could be good; it could be sinister. The terms of reference suggest that continuing machinery would co-ordinate social policy development at Commonwealth level, but there is no policy without financial backing and if the Commonwealth Government is not prepared to back its own policies and is concentrating on block grants rather than specific funding there will be no such thing as Commonwealth Government policy. The reality is that the opportunity being taken by the Government in its new federalism policy to hand back responsibilities to the States is just a way of opting out of responsibility for declining to develop a real policy for these problems. The National Consultative Committee on Social Welfare is a token body giving advice only and taking only single references. There is no suggestion that it will take the place of the Social Welfare Commission, which the Labor Government set up and which was in a position to take a continuing over-view of policy.

I come now to some of the specific changes of policy, changes which have been brought about by the present Government as compared with the programs implemented by the Labor Government. In regard to building programs, on 20 May the Government halved the building subsidy for aged persons accommodation. Instead of announcing this in the Parliament as a further economy measure, detectives discovered it buried on page 9 of a statement circulated the next day by the Minister for Social Security, (Senator Guilfoyle) which made a casual reference to the fact that the Government would pay two-thirds of the building costs. There was no mention of the fact that the amount had been reduced from a subsidy of four to one to a subsidy of only two to one or of the significance that this would have for councils and religious and charitable agencies and thousands of aged persons waiting for housing. It was a deliberate piece of cost cutting which the Minister hoped would escape unnoticed. We now have to scrutinise carefully any statement the Minister puts out to detect further examples of attempts to mislead the Australian community.

On 20 May, in the same circulated statement, the Minister announced that only $45m would be allocated for aged persons accommodation. That is a reduction of $26m from the amount allocated in the last Labor Budget in 1975-76. But the Minister did not announce it as a drop. Instead, she gave a 3-year figure of $225m, subject to Budget allocation. It is the same old precaution, the same thing as was contained in the policy statement: ‘We are going to abolish the means test when we can’. I recall that Mr Menzies- he was only Mr Menzies at the time when he first proposed it- proposed the abolition of the means test. It was never done because the condition imposed was ‘when appropriate’. It was never appropriate for the Liberals to do it; it never will be. In announcing on 29 July details of grants contained in the $4Sm, the Minister still did not admit to reducing the money but tried to make things look better by announcing that in the 22 years since the beginning of the aged persons program in 1954, 62 530 elderly people had been given accommodation, while in the next 3 years of Liberal Parry rule 1 5 000 beds would be provided. But she did not say that in the course of Labor’s 3 short years in office we managed to provide 16 895 beds without resorting to selfadulation or self-deception. The Minister had tried earlier to practise the same deception trick by talking about the amount of money provided, but the shoddy arithmetic was pointed out and she has not tried to repeat it. Incidentally, this action was taken at a time when under the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act, 658 projects valued at approximately $270m were awaiting approval, and under the Aged Persons Hostels Act 249 projects valued at $ 160m were awaiting funding.

I have mentioned the question of pensions and allowances, and pensions for persons aged over 69 years, free of means test. It was part of the 1975-76 Hayden Budget to abolish the means test for all persons over 69 years of age. No announcement was made by the Government that this benefit was going to be cut out, but early in 1976 its omission was noticed and then we started to ask questions. The matter of funeral benefits is a good example of deception by the Government. It was only because legislation was required to abolish this benefit and some Liberal senators would not go along with it that the Government was forced to back down. On the question of pension changes, in legislating for the awarding of consumer price index rises to pensioners the Government has watered down its election undertaking. The increases will be given in May and November each year, whereas during the election campaign both the caretaker Minister for Social Security, the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp), and the caretaker Prime Minister were on record as promising increases immediately after the announcement of consumer price index figures. In his Press statement on 8 December 1975 the caretaker Minister for Social Security said:

We propose to bring in legislation which will allow increases in pensions to be made instantly and automatically as soon as the new index is announced.

In Rockhampton on 6 December the Prime Minister was reported in the following terms:

Mr Fraser said there would be no need to wait 3 months as with Labor’s proposed adjustment for price index rises.

That statement appeared in the Sun News Pictorial on 8 December. In spite of that specific promise, the November increase will reflect the increases for the first half of the calendar year and the May increase those of the second half of the previous year. Reasonably, pensioners see no reason why they should have to wait 4 months longer than wage earners.

The personal care subsidy has not been raised or indexed by the Fraser Government. As a consequence, religious and charitable organisations are being forced to drop their standards of service to the elderly in hospitals. The domiciliary care benefit has remained unchanged at $14. Once again, the New South Wales Council on the Ageing has produced a valuable study entitled Dedication which shows the difficulties faced by the families of these people. Something must be done. When will the Government act? Do we have to await endless secret reports which no one will ever see and still get no action? One could go on. The Australian Assistance Plan has been scrubbed, and over 50 items scrapped dealt specifically with aids for aged persons. Since the abolition of the Assistance Plan, nothing has been proposed to take its place. Community information centres help mainly the aged. Sir Henry Bland has advocated that perhaps twenty of the regional offices set up under the Labor Government should be closed down. The main sufferers will be the elderly. One could go on and on. Let me continue to touch on areas of socalled enlightenment. I presume that that is what was meant by ‘turning on the lights’ in the Liberal Party’s propaganda in the last election, what enlightened Liberal legislation means. Oddly, it seems to make the present and the future darker for the aged.

Let us consider Medibank. The Labor Government introduced the facility for bulk billing for pensioners. A pensioner could consult any doctor in the community- specialist or general practitioner- and the doctor did not charge the pensioner but simply bulk billed Medibank, which meant that the doctor got 85 per cent of the scheduled fee and the pensioner paid nothing. The Liberals have changed that, to the detriment of the aged. They have retained the bulk billing facility, certainly, to guarantee that doctors will get their money- that is all - because now the doctors are free to bulk bill Medibank and at the same time to charge pensioners. Of course, the Government piously said that it hoped the doctors would not charge the pensioners, that they would waive their right to charge the 15 per cent which they are now able to charge for anybody, including pensioners. The truth is that far too many- not all- doctors in the community are both bulk billing and charging the pensioners not just the difference between the 85 per cent rebate on the scheduled fee and the scheduled fee, but also the difference between the 85 per cent rebate and their fee which is often higher than the scheduled fee. So now pensioners are being caught as is everyone else in the community, and the doctors are being guaranteed at least 85 per cent of the scheduled fee because they use the bulk billing facilities. That is a gross distortion of the whole concept of what was after all- let us face it- a Liberal Government introduced pensioner medical scheme which the Labor Government under Medibank simply extended enabling the pensioners to consult any doctors, not just those designated as dealing with or treating pensioners.

Finally, I would like to refer briefly to the problem of nursing homes. Just to show that I am not bringing up something that is nagging at myself but is also nagging at back benchers on the Government side, I point out that on 19 October the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Jull) asked the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) the following question:

Is the Minister aware that there are a number of residents of private nursing homes and their families in my electorate who are facing severe hardship because of the present level of subsidies for nursing homes?

The Minister, of course, played for time. He said, yes, he was aware of it and that the Government was terribly concerned. Indeed, we all are concerned about this matter. He went on to say that the Government had set up a special committee to look into the problem of care for the aged and the sick. He said that the Government hoped to have the report of that committee soon but, of course, the Government was not going to do anything when the report was received. He said that the Government was going to wait for a few more reports because it thought it should look at all the reports dealing with all of these various problems. This is just another example of further delay and no action.

The honourable member for Barton (Mr Bradfield), another Liberal backbencher, followed that question by asking:

Is the Minister aware that the delay in the presentation of the report until next month may mean that it will be too late to assist many hundreds of pensioner patients who will be forced from nursing homes due to the fact that they can no longer meet the fees for their accommodation? Is he also aware that some nursing homes will have to close, leaving many pensioners without any alternative accommodation?

These are the problems facing the aged. These are the problems that the Government is doing nothing about. All of the Government’s programs are effectively cutting down the little the Labor Government was able to achieve. We are not claiming that we solved all the problems. But we were trying to solve them. Every action the present Government has taken is simply reducing what we were doing, increasing the insecurity of the aged in the community and increasing the burden on families of the aged, so that in fact the lights are going out for the aged.

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

Mr LLOYD:
Murray

-The subject under discussion is the failure of the Government to provide adequate care for the aged. This is a rather curious subject for the Opposition to bring up because the provision of care for the aged is just not an overnight proposition. There are time lags and questions of planning, programming, implementation and so on. The present Government has been in office for less than 12 months. Therefore any criticism of the Government in respect of failure to care for the aged would be better directed at the Labor Government itself. When we look at the wording of the matter proposed for discussion we see that that is the only description that can be given to it. How many of the programs for the aged in our community were new ones instituted by the Labor Government and how many were really instituted or implemented by the previous LiberalCountry Party Government? The answer must be that the great period of implementation of initiatives for the care of the aged came with the previous Liberal-Country Party Government. I believe that when the various planning reports and so on are received by the present Government we will see a resurgence of initiative and effective programming in this area. For the first time we have a government that is really reviewing what is available and is planning for the future.

The honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass) mentioned 2 committees. He referred to the Bailey Committee, which is a health and welfare task force and about which there are a certain number of rumours. He also referred to the Holmes Committee on aged accommodation. If one looks at the timetable for these committees it must be acknowledged that the Government is pressing ahead with its planning and review of these new programs in order to reduce what must in many cases be overlap and gaps. For example, the Holmes committee was instituted only in June and is committed to all programs of care for the aged. There are 2 discussion papers ready for the Minister’s concerned, namely the Minister for Health and the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle). The first paper is on the aged in the community in institutions- nursing homes and so on. The second paper is on the construction of self-contained units and the capital costs of nursing homes. After these discussion papers have been presented to the Ministers, they will be reviewed and discussed with the

States and with some voluntary organisations involved in this area, including the Australian Council of Social Services and the Council on the Aging. So much for the honourable member for Maribyrnong and his criticism that these organisations will not have any input to the Government’s programming and planning. The recommendations and options will come back to the 2 Ministers and will be presented finally to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). The Bailey task force will also report to the Government. These reports are all listed for about the end of this month. Therefore nobody can say that this Government is wasting time or procrastinating in this important area of the most adequate and efficient forms of care for the aged.

If one looks at some of the present situations, which in a way were exacerbated by the Labor Government, one has to admit that there is room for further programming and planning. The honourable member for Maribyrnong mentioned that the present Government halved the building subsidy from $4 to $ 1 to $2 to $ 1 under the aged and disabled persons homes legislation. But what he did not mention was that the effective level of subsidy under the Labor dropped to below 60 per cent. The subsidy was $4 to $1 in theory only, because of the re-ceilings on the maximum subsidy limit and the upper cost limit. The maximum subsidy limit was not increased after December 1974. We all know what happened to building costs as a result of Labor imposed inflation. The effective level of subsidy to anybody building an aged or disabled person’s home dropped to below 60 per cent by the time Labor lost office. What has this Government done? It has introduced a genuine $2 for $ I subsidy on a genuine basis by indexing building costs on a quarterly basis with variations to allow for the inflation rate. This is something that the Labor Government never did. This will guarantee a level of subsidy to these organisations of approximately 66 per cent. The subsidy will retain approximately its $2 for $ 1 value.

Let us look at the reality of the situation. For all its talk the Labor Government’s contribution fell to below 60 per cent. This Government will guarantee 66 per cent. So much for the rot talked by members of the Opposition. Let us look at the Labor Government’s building program. We have heard a great deal of noise from members of the Opposition about this. During the 3 financial years the Labor Party was in office- that is the financial years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76- $135m was spent on aged and disabled persons homes and hostels. This Government has promised to spend $225m over the next 3 years. This is a significant increase. It is no use saying that this is just a promise in the sense that the promise may not be honoured. When announcing the 3-year program the Minister for Social Security said that those organisations which had been announced as being included in this program could proceed with certain construction. Arrangements have been made which tie the Government to providing assistance in this area. Therefore this is a real program and not just pie in the sky. We have an amount of $225m as against $135m. So much for Labor and its talk about building arrangements. The Government is also guaranteeing that any transferrable rights for hostels will be honoured. Such a scheme was introduced on a limited basis by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) in 1972. 1 support what Labor did in extending that transferability when it was in office.

The honourable member for Maribyrnong also mentioned the great crime of this Government in deferring the half-yearly increase in pension payments from October to November and then for the following 6 months through to May. But who made the first deferment? Thus Government did not make that deferment. The first deferment from October to November was introduced in the Hayden Budget last year. The people of Australia and the pensioners of Australia want to wake up to this. This Government did not begin the deferment from October to November; the previous Labor Government did. The present Government did not introduce the proposition that pensions be tied to 25 per cent of the consumer price index. The Hayden Budget introduced this. So much for the Labor Party’s concern because that Party when in government introduced these things. For the first time the pensioners of Australia are guaranteed automatic 6-monthly adjustments, something that the previous Labor Government did not do. We have honoured the promise of 6-monthly automatic adjustments. The legislation has gone through.

In addition we have introduced one of the greatest pension reforms. I refer to the provision of an income test only on pensions. This has replaced I believe the most unjust form of property as well as income test for age and invalid pensions. This dicussion shows the topsy-turvy situation we have in this Parliament. I think 12 months or 18 months ago we brought up for discussion a matter of public importance which to a large extent was on the same subject as the one put forward by the Labor Party today. The reality is that in an inflationary situation aged people are one of the groups that are most hurt or affected. We made the point when we brought up the matter of public importance that Labor was not acknowledging the basic cause of the problems for so many of the aged in our society, and that is the rampant inflation that we have in this country which was introduced or let get out of hand- whatever you like- by the Labor Government The inflation rate was 4.6 per cent when we lost office; it was 16 per cent or 17 per cent when Labor lost office. The aged in our society are the people most affected by inflation.

I refer now to nursing homes. I remember the earlier days of the Labor Government known as the ideological period. It wanted to do away with private nursing homes altogether. The Labor Party applied certain restrictions to private nursing homes. More than 50 per cent of the nursing home beds in Australia are private; they are not government or deficit financed. Because of Labor policy the number of nursing home beds in the private sector dropped by almost 2000 in 3 years of Labor Government. How absurd it is for anyone on the Labor side to talk of the problems of the aged infirm getting into nursing home accommodation when 2000 of those beds were lost because of Labor policy. I believe the private sector is the most efficient section in the nursing home area.

The Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) stated in answer to a question less than 2 weeks ago that when the Holmes Committee reports to him and through him to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and Cabinet the nursing home benefits will be reviewed and he will consider a retrospective increase in this area which we know is of concern to many of the aged in this community. Let me remind honourable members that this is not the first time that the aged in nursing homes in this country have suffered a gap situation. The gap commenced under Labor and grew to its present proportions. When we were in office certain schemes were introduced. There was to be $6 left to a pensioner after payment of his nursing home fees. That amount was reduced initially by Labor to $4 a week and then the homes were run at a deficit of $20, $30 and $40 a week depending on the State in which the nursing home was situated. I acknowledge that that situation still exists and is still of great concern to all members of Parliament.

Mr Young:

– It is worse.

Mr LLOYD:

– I do not believe it is worse, but I acknowledge that it still exists. The point I wish to make is that Labor supporters should not suddenly say that this is a new problem that has been caused by this Government, because the problem was there equally when they were in power. I believe they were less successful in this area in the 3 years they were in office than we have been. I believe the situation will improve with the release of the Holmes report.

The general need for planning in care for the aged is long overdue. This Government is at least starting to do something about real planning on the divisions between acute hospital bed care, nursing home bed care, various forms of aged persons accommodation and, as important as all of them, domiciliary care arrangements. There is a great division between the present arrangements in the States on nursing homes. I believe it is quite correct for members of the Bailey task force to talk to the States about the differentials in nursing home payments because the States, through their own requirements, have caused these differentials. It is no good members of the Labor Party saying that is wrong because they introduced the movement towards a uniform nursing home bed fee in which the principle, if not stated, was inherent. If one State wanted to have a higher standard of nursing home care it was up to that State to provide the extra money. Quite frankly I agree with what Labor did and I agree with what we are doing now in having the Bailey task force talk to the States on this matter.

One wonders whether self-contained unit aged persons accommodation can be allowed to continue in its present form. The self-contained sector has been heavily subsidised by both forms of government. In many cases the middle-class middle aged in our society have been able to transfer their responsibility for their aged parents or relatives to somebody else- to a certain extent to the community and the government. I believe we have to look at new arrangements. Those who can afford self-contained accommodation in their old age have to be encouraged by government policy to do more for themselves in the form of retirement villages. We have to make sure that the needy in our community have first priority for hostels, nursing home beds and selfcontained accommodation. I challenge Labor to criticise that approach which we are now following. I challenge Labor to deny that the inflation which it unleashed in this country, which reached 17 per cent, has done most to harm the aged in our community. If members of the Labor Party are sincere in this matter of public importance they must look at what they did in government and realise what inflation did to the aged in our society.

Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley

-The honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) deserves to be commended for seeking to mobilise a vigorous albeit unconvincing defence for a very weak case. With all honourable members I noted that as the volume of his projection increased the content of what he had to say diminished. Most of his speech had a very large volume. The facts are that the Government is winding back the clock on the provision of suitable accommodation, care and attention for the aged in the community. As has happened in so many instances since this Government came to office, a simple principle is being applied affecting the condition and circumstances of the aged. The simple principle is that those who have borne most sacrifice in our community are best equipped through experience to continue bearing it. Accordingly we find people like the aged continually disadvantaged by the winding back of the clock on the provision of services for them.

Let us look at one instance and one instance alone to illustrate my point at this stage of my speech. The Budget Papers show that in 1974-75, $56.2m was provided by the Australian Labor Government for aged persons accommodation. We increased that amount by nearly 68 per cent to $94.2m in the following year. This year the amount being provided by the coalition Government is $66.8m, a reduction of 29 per cent at a time when costs are expected to escalate by at least 12 per cent this year. Quite clearly the Government is not serious and does not expect to be taken credibly when it argues that it is being more generous than any previous government in the provision of attention for the needs of the aged especially in the field of accommodation. Some spurious arguments were put forward by the honourable member for Murray in the course of his speech. He said that in the last 3 years of Labor Government an amount of $2 17.2m was provided for accommodation.

Mr Lloyd:

– I rise to a point of order. The figure was $ 135m.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I am sorry; I take the correction. My point still stands with full force. The honourable member said that in the next 3 years an amount of $225m will be provided by the coalition Government under the aged and disabled persons accommodation program. He then made a spurious comparison, drawing attention to the amount that we provided under that program but neglecting to include the amount which we provided also under the aged persons hostels program, a program that is in the course of being wound out. The total amount which we provided was $2 17m in the last 3 years of our period of government. Accordingly, the total amount being provided by the coalition Government for its 3-year program represents an increase of only 4 per cent. With the greatest generosity I cannot accept that, with inflation, costs for building in the next 3 years will increase by only 4 per cent. The fact is that those commendable people in the community who provide accommodation and services for the aged through various organisations will be severely disadvantaged. There will not be as much money made available for them in real terms as was the case under the Labor Government.

It is a poor reed to lean upon to suggest, as the honourable member for Murray did, that the Bailey Committee will present a report which will help the Government to improve the sorts of policies that it applies in this area. The Bailey committee is colloquially known as the demolisher. Its charge is to discover ways in which the coalition Government can shed itself of a wide range of responsibilities. That is well known; the dogs bark it in the streets of Canberra. Among the many responsibilities that the coalition Government wants to shed to the States is the responsibility of providing adequate accommodation and care for the aged in the community. We all know from experience the uneven standards which will result from that and the neglect that will occur in the non-Labor States where welfare rates a poor priority by State governments. The fact is that the amount that should have been provided this year under the aged persons accommodation programs merely to equal in real terms what we provided last year should not have been the $66.8m which was allocated but over $105m. Therefore, in real terms the Government has saved nearly $29m at the expense of pensioners. It saved also $30m at the expense of pensioners earlier this year by deferring the date on which pensions would increase. The Government did that because it had to pay for another welfare benefit, the reintroduction of the superphosphate bounty- a bounty to subsidise the wealthy graziers like the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) at the expense of the aged in the community.

Let us talk specifically of the aged and disabled persons homes program. In 1975-76 we provided $36.9m. This year- the honourable member for Murray did not attend to this pointthe Government has provided only $20m, a reduction of nearly 46 per cent at a time of quite substantial increases in the cost of living. We had a record of extensive innovation in this area in the period in which we were in government. I must fairly restrict myself to this area in view of the limited time that I have available in the debate. For instance, we changed the title of the

Act The rate of subsidy was increased from $2 for $1 to $4 for $1. Let me illustrate how people have been disadvantaged by the change which has now flowed from what the coalition Government has done, that is, its action which has reversed our initiative and which has reestablished the subsidy at $2 for $1. The Queensland Sub-normal Children’s Welfare Association operates a school for sub-normal children at Ipswich where I live, in a very old building called Claremont, an historic building, a building totally unsuitable for use as a school for sub- normal children.

While we were in government I was able to make representations successfully that the building should be purchased by the National Trust because it is an historic monument, being one of the oldest buildings in the State. The money provided from the purchase would enable the Queensland Sub-normal Children’s Welfare Association to build a new school suitable for subnormal children, who are probably the most disabled and most disadvantaged children in our community. Thus, a decent school building could be provided for them. The presumption upon which the whole project was based was that there would be a $4 for $1 subsidy provided as we established. Now that the subsidy has been reduced to $2 for $1, the Ipswich committee of the Queensland Sub-normal Children’s Welfare Association cannot afford to erect a school building. They have to pay approximately $8,000 a year in rent to occupy the Claremont historic building owned by the National Trust. As costs escalate, unless the Association is able to establish some other reasonably generous system or source of income it will be increasingly disadvantaged. That sort of situation has been multiplied throughout the Australian community time and again. The worst aspect of it is that the $4 for $1 subsidy tended to help mainly the community organisations providing accommodation for the aged and the disabled in the lower income areas. These were the areas in which notoriously it was more difficult to raise sufficient cash to establish services and to provide accommodation for these sorts of people. They are the people who are now being disadvantaged.

We introduced many other innovations. I do not have time to go through them, but some deserve to be mentioned for the record. I instance the separate land subsidy and the provision of day care activity centres. Several others are mentioned at page 35 of the annual report of the Department of Social Security for 1974-75. The fact is that the Government is neglecting its responsibilities to the community and to the aged in particular. What it ought to be doing is approaching this problem at 2 levels. Firstly, it ought to be approaching it on the long term level. The development of services for the aged in the community has proceeded in a piecemeal, spasmodic way. Those services are provided also in a most inappropriate way. There is too much institutionalisation of the aged. There is not enough support for programs which encourage people to maintain involvement in the community, providing on a much more generous and more conveniently available arrangement domiciliary care in the home and visiting services in the home. This is one of the reasons why a succession of governments- our Government was not immune to this- have been burdened with the enormous problem of trying to fund nursing home benefits. The fact is that there is now a critical situation in that area too, because of the neglect of the Government.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr LLOYD (Murray)-Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr LLOYD:

– Yes, on several occasions. The recommendations to which I referred and upon which the Government will base its policy for aged care are from the Holmes Committee and not the Bailey task force as suggested by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden). The Bailey task force is dealing with the question of duplication of health and welfare services. The figure that I cited of $ 1 35m, which was for the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act and the Aged Persons Hostels Act for the 3 Labor Budgets, has been checked with the Department of Social Security. The actual expenditure was $ 1 35m and not the figure otherwise suggested. If one looks at the last Budget of the previous Liberal-National Country Party Government of 1972, the actual allocation for these categories was higher than that provided in the first Labor Budget in 1 973.

Mr HAYDEN (Oxley)-As it appears to be the appropriate moment to have the record made accurate, I would refer to the -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I do not want us to become involved in the continuing debate between the honourable member for Oxley and the honourable member for Murray. I suggest that the honourable member for Oxley, if he claims misrepresentation, should explain briefly where he has been misrepresented. Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr HAYDEN:

– Yes. The Budget appropriations for this year show the aged persons accommodation appropriations for 1974-75 as $56.2m, for 1975-76 as $94.2m and for this year, 1976-77, as $66.8m, making an amount of over $2 17m. The annual report of the Department of Social Security for 1975-76 makes the point at page 45-1 shall not read it out but I will make the point- that the Aged Persons Hostels Act has been extended by 12 months for a new deadline, but not beyond that period. Accordingly, within the 3-year period that the honourable member is talking about, the amount provided under that program will be insignificant. The correct comparison is the $2 17m provided for aged persons accommodation in the last 3 years by our Government and the $225m total to be provided under the Coalition Government’s 3-year program commencing this year. That represents a miserable increase of 4 per cent at a time when, depressingly, we can expect the inflation rate to average 8 per cent or 9 per cent per annum.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I think that the honourable member for Oxley has pointed out where he was misrepresented.

Mr LLOYD (Murray)-Mr Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member -

Mr LLOYD:

– These Budget estimates include figures appropriated for services and programs in addition to the Aged and Disabled Persons Homes Act and the Hostels Act. Those figures are not comparable.

Mr HODGES:
Petrie

-When the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) commenced his contribution to this debate he used the words ‘it is a curious subject’. I could not agree more with the honourable member for Murray and I suggest that the arguments put forward by both Opposition speakers are nothing less than spurious. This matter of public importance in my view is a non issue, not in respect of the subject matter but in respect of the arguments put forward. Let me assure the Opposition that pensioners and aged people in this nation are of paramount importance to the Government. As a member of the Government’s health and welfare committee I can assure the people that we show deep concern. Ours is a compassionate government and the majority of the programs that have been instituted over the last 20 to 30 years were brought in by a LiberalNational Country Party Government.

I want to refer to some of the arguments which have been put forward and to rebut them. The honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass) talked about a halving of the subsidy and the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) also is guilty of making such a statement. They referred to a halving of the subsidy under the Aged Persons Homes Act from four to one to two to one. It sounds like a halving of the subsidy. Two is half of four. But when we look at it more closely, we find that a four to one subsidy means that four-fifths are provided by the Government and one-fifth by a church or charitable organisation. In other words, it is 80 per cent to 20 per cent. A two to one subsidy means 66% per cent is provided by the Government and 33W per cent by church or charitable organisations. I hope the honourable member for Oxley is listening; the honourable member for Maribyrnong has left the chamber. It is not a halving of the subsidy. The organisation will be required to provide 13 W per cent more. Let us not forget this. It is true that it is a reduction but by only 13VS per cent, not by half. So let us have no more misleading of the House and the nation with spurious arguments like this.

Mr Hayden:

– Do you espouse being tough on them?

Mr HODGES:

– It is true that the slightly decreased subsidy will mean the provision of more hostel and nursing home beds. It is true that a greater effort will be required on the part of the community, but I believe that the community is prepared to accept that challenge. The fact that the subsidy has been reduced from four to one to two to one should not be stated as being a reduction as was suggested by the honourable member for Oxley and the honourable member for Maribyrnong- that is, as a halving of the subsidywhen it is not. I want now to talk about the abolition of the means test. The Hayden Budget Speech is a handy document to keep in one ‘s hands, and I want to refer to it. The honourable member for Maribyrnong was rather critical of this Government for not further abolishing the means test for persons 65 years and over, so I quote from the Budget speech of the honourable member for Oxley on 1 9 August 1 975. Under the heading ‘ Abolition of the Means Test ‘, he said:

For budgetary reasons the Government will not be able to complete the final stage of the abolition of the means testfor those aged 65 to 69 years- as quickly as it had hoped. Nonetheless we intend to make as much further progress as economic circumstances allow.

What an admission from the honourable member for Oxley and his Labor Government! Yet they are critical today and call on this Government to abolish the means test. Of course it is part of our policy to do so. Of course it is part of the policy of the Labor Party to abolish the means test for those 65 years and over, but the facts speak for themselves. The Labor Government could not do it 12 months ago in its Budget either. One has only to look at the current outlays to see that this Government places a great deal of importance on social welfare. Twenty-five per cent of total outlays of this Government of $24,32 lm, namely $6, 187m is being spent on social security and welfare. That is not to be confused with the extra $2,909m or 12 per cent provided for health programs. When we compare that funding with the funding of education and defence, both at approximately $9,600m, we see that this Government really has concern for the aged and the disadvantaged.

Let us now look at the consumer price index increase and at what was contained in the Hayden Budget. The honourable member for Maribyrnong was quick to tell the House that the Government was increasing pensions twice a year in conformity with the increase in the consumer price index but that there was a lag of 3 months. I quote from the Hayden Budget Speech once again to show that what is stated there is exactly in line with what this Government has done. It is good enough now for the Opposition to criticise us but when it was in government it did not do what it is saying we should do. Under the heading ‘Social Security Benefit Rates’ the Hayden Budget Speech stated:

The standard rate of social service pensions and benefits will be increased in the spring of 1975 by the percentage increase in the consumer price index between the December quarter 1974 and the June quarter 1975; and again in the autumn of 1 976 by the increase in the consumer price index between the June and December quarters of 1 975.

That is exactly the policy that this Government is following. Pensions and benefits will be increased twice a year in May and November in accordance with movements in the consumer price index with a lag of 3 months. Another spurious argument put forward by the honourable member for Maribyrnong was based on our slogan ‘Turn on the Lights’. I suggest that in 3 years the Labor Government plunged this nation into the dark depths. Look at its record and at the way in which the finances of this nation were handled by the honourable member for Oxley and his predecessor bar one, the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns), who was the only Treasurer in the history of this nation who never brought down a Budget. The expected deficit in 1974-75 was $570m but was in fact $2,567m. What an abysmal record! The honourable member for Oxley in 1975-76 budgeted for a deficit of $2,800m. He finished with a deficit in the vicinity of $4,700m. Only a tightening or reining in of expenditure by our coalition parties when we came to government in December last reduced this figure by in excess of $ 1 ,000m.

The honourable member for Maribyrnong also talked about Medibank and bulk billing. It is true that I as a supporter of the Government deplore the action of some doctors in charging pensioners, but there is no change in this practice from what was going on previously. The doctors are able to bulk bill and get 85 per cent of the standard fee. If they so desire they can charge pensioners full price. There is no change in that situation. Those who hold the pensioner medical service card pay no Medibank levy. I deplore the actions of those members of the medical profession who see fit to charge pensioners rather than bulk bill them which I believe is what should be done. The honourable member for Maribyrnong also said that Labor was not claiming that it had solved all the problems. Heaven’s above, when one looks at the record and at some of the things I have mentioned today, and time will not permit me to go into too many of them, the Labor Government created many problems but did not solve too many.

I now move to some of the issues that concern the aged. One has only to look at this Government’s record on pensions to realise that the Government is compassionate. In fact it has increased pensions as it stated it would. I refer honourable members to the 1972 policy speech of the then Prime Minister, the right honourable member for Lowe (Mr William McMahon). He said:

We have also decided that age, invalid and widows’ pensions, and war and war widows’ pensions will, in future, be increased in line with increases in the consumer price index.

Our actions since illustrate that we are true to our word. The opening speech of the 1974 Federal election by the then Leader of the Opposition, now Mr Speaker, contained this statement:

All pensions and benefits will be automatically adjusted every half year to changes in living standards. The first increase- not less than the consumer price index rise- will be introduced immediately Parliament sits.

From The Way Ahead, the title of the LiberalNational Country Parties’ policy document of 1974, comes this statement:

We guarantee that age, invalid, widows’ pensions, war and war widows’ pensions, and other weekly social security and repatriation benefits, will in future be adjusted automatically, every half year to changes in living standards.

An earlier statement released by the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp) on 20 October 1975 stated:

Protecting benefits from erosion by inflation through automatically adjusting benefit levels every 6 months, according to movements in the consumer price index.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr LLOYD (Murray)-Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! Does the honourable member for Murray claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr LLOYD:

– I have been further misrepresented, Mr Deputy Speaker. The honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) when talking about the Queensland sub-normal children, implied that this Government reduced the ratio under the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act from 4 to 1 to 2 to 1. This Government has not reduced the ratio from 4 to 1 to 2 to 1. The ratio remains at 4 to 1, as does the correct figure of $135m.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The discussion is now concluded.

page 2199

ESTATE DUTY ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 2 1 October, on motion by Mr Lynch:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr SHORT:
Ballaarat

-When the debate on this Bill was adjourned on 21 October I was saying that estate duty should loom large in the reform of the taxation system which is urgently needed and which this Government has pledged itself to undertake. I said also that major overhaul of the taxation system would be a long, slow and difficult process. In the meantime, however, I hope that in the next Budget the Government will be able to build further on the important and socially responsible advance which is the subject of this Bill. In particular, I hope that the Government will give very close consideration to abolishing totally estate duty on spouse to spouse transfers, subject, as may be necessary, to appropriate safeguards. This may be necessary, for example, where a surviving spouse remarries within a short period oftime.

I would also like to see the Government raise significantly the general exemption levels in the existing law with provision for regular review of those exemption levels to take account of the erosion of real asset values resulting from inflation. As well, I would like to see the Government extend the powers of the board established under section 265 of the Income Tax Assessment Act so as to cover hardship cases relating to the imposition of death duties. At present the board has power to grant relief to taxpayers only in respect of serious hardship arising from income tax liability. I hope the Government will look at this suggestion which was recommended by the Senate committee which inquired into death duties and which was endorsed by the Asprey Committee.

The suggestions I have made would mean a loss to revenue. Therefore, they may require offsetting increases in other areas. But the amount of revenue involved would be small, so this should not be an overwhelming argument against further reform in the field of death duties if such reform is considered desirable on social and equitable grounds, as I believe it is. Reform, by its very definition, will normally involve changes where benefits in one area meet offsets in other areas. I have pleasure in supporting this Bill. As I said earlier in my remarks, the legislation is compassionate legislation. It meets a real need and shows a real concern for people at a critical time in their lives.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

-The Opposition offers no objection to this measure. I support generally the contention of the honourable member for Ballaarat (Mr Short) that it is a bit unfair that what is basically the same estate should be taxed twice in a short period of time and that in many respects the clever people can avoid paying double tax if they want to, simply by making proper legal arrangements in the first place. I want to say something about this form of taxation generally because I think most honourable members have been pestered from time to time over the years by people who somehow seem to see something iniquitous in the fact that estates are taxed at all. Candidly, that is a point on which I will never yield. I believe that in the absence of a proper system of capital gains taxation, estate or probate duty is one of the very few measures left for redressing the maldistribution of wealth and incomes that exists within a community. Also, it seems to me-

Mr Graham:

– Why wait till he dies? Why not rob him while he is alive?

Mr CREAN:

– At least you cannot kick when you are dead. With all respect to the honourable member for North Sydney, that is scarcely a rational answer to the argument I am trying to put. Most of the objections that were being raised by people tended to be applicable in the State field rather than in the “Federal field. If people were to look at the statistics that are published in some detail each year in the annual report of the Commissioner of Taxation-because it is he who has charge of Commonwealth estate dutiesthey would find that whereas approximately 120 000 people die each year in Australia, the number of estates that are liable for estate duty is between 12 000 and 16 000. In other words, nine out of ten, or certainly seven out of eight, of all Australians who die do so in circumstances in which they are not liable to pay estate duties because their estates are smaller than the minimum subject to taxation. Even the tax, when levied, does not take away a great deal of the estate. In fact, for the last year for which the statistics are published there were 12 052 estates with a gross value of $964m and the amount of tax raised on those estates was $65 m. So it is really not a very heavy form of taxation, to say the least.

One of the problems which this Bill remedies is the problem of the matrimonial home. These days one does not need to have much of a property for it to be worth perhaps $60,000 or $70,000. One might not have paid that amount to build it in the first place but these days the value of any sort of property in metropolitan areas is likely to be between $60,000 and $70,000, at a minimum. This measure does something to remove the difficulty which arises if the husband pre-deceases the wife and the main asset is a dwelling place. In that case, the widow is often forced to obtain a mortgage to keep a roof over her head. I think that kind of difficulty, at least, is overcome by this Bill. The other area in which problems arise is in the application of this tax to rural properties. I do not know how easy most people believe it is these days for a boy to become a farmer, if he wishes to do so, and if his father does not happen to be a farmer. It is not very easy for a boy or girl to attain that desire.

Mr Sullivan:

– It is impossible.

Mr CREAN:

-As the honourable member for Riverina says, it is almost impossible.

Mr King:

-He wants about $100,000 to $200,000.

Mr CREAN:

-Yes, he would need at least $100,000 to start something like a poultry farm these days.

Mr Sullivan:

– And no brains.

Mr CREAN:

– Maybe having no brains is an asset in that circumstance. It requires a great deal of courage to set out on such a course. I sometimes wonder what will be the reality in a society in the finish. In Australia today over 70 per cent of people who have homes either own them outright or are paying off a mortgage. What will happen at the end of the road when everybody has a house, including the sons and daughters of those who are about to pass on? What are we to do with these kinds of accumulation of property? After all the logic behind the imposition of estate or probate duty in the first place was the belief that the dead hand should not rule the current generation. It was regarded as a matter of equity that some tax should be imposed upon large inheritances. Whether the tax should be based on the value of the estate at the time of death or ought to be imposed differently upon those who inherit is a matter that I think requires a great deal more systematic examination than has been given so far.

I understand that a committee of the Senate inquired into this whole area some years ago. I think its members were divided in their opinions as to what ought to be done. Some thought that the Commonwealth ought to get out of the area altogether and leave it entirely to the States. That would mean giving up something like $70m or $80m a year because that is about what is collected from it. On the other hand there are great difficulties because there is not much uniformity amongst the States as to how they levy the various probate or estate duties. I certainly do not think that any community that is interested in questions of social equity can decide to abandon the field altogether.

The honourable member for Ballaarat has suggested that what was thought to be a minimum size estate ten or fifteen years ago should be adjusted upwards to allow for changing money values and so on. There may be a case for doing that. If the exemption were as high as $100,000 one would not lose a great deal of revenue. One might then be able to be a bit more scientific about the larger estates upon which one decides a tax ought to be imposed. When one looks at the fact that something like twenty of the estates of 12 000 people were valued at over $ lm each, I do not think that one necessarily can be too sympathetic about the amount in tax that is levied upon them. Those estates had a dutiable value of $35m and the tax that was raised from them was less than $5m. I doubt whether anyone can say that that is a very harsh impact by the tax upon what are very large estates. I think it is certainly true to say in respect of the rural areas that the best holdings in the best farming areas still tend to be held in very large aggregates and that there are still properties of 10 000 or 15 000 acres whose capital value, if they are in the right sheep or cattle country, must be well over $lm. They therefore tend to be family inheritances rather than an opportunity for anybody to buy into them and, as it were, start from nought.

I believe that occasionally we ought to have a look at the logic behind taxes that have been imposed for a long while. Primarily that is why I have chosen to make a few comments today. I do not object to what is being done in this respect. I think that it is a logical enough extension of the amendments that I made when I was the Treasurer to apply a larger exemption to the matrimonial home than previously was the case. The present Government seems to regard that move as being inadequate or having some anomalies in certain circumstances. I am not too sure that what is being done in this respect is necessarily better, but it is certainly a tendency to move along in the right direction. I have always had the view that it is wrong to tax what is really the same estate twice in a short period of time. I go along with the honourable member for Ballaarat on that aspect. Perhaps that anomaly ought to be removed altogether in the future. The honourable member for Ballaarat acknowledged that one may have to take certain safeguards in doing so. It is amazing what the ingenuity of lawyers can sometimes do with what is the good intent of legislation. The shrewd lawyer and accountant can often drive the proverbial coach and horse through the spirit of the law by rigid adherence to what is known as the letter of the law. But I do not believe that any modern community can afford to do away with some form of taxation upon estates, particularly large estates, because of the existence of large estates does pose very many difficult problems in a society that claims to give support to equity and social justice.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– On behalf of the Government I thank those who have taken part in this debate. Regrettably I was unable to be present to hear the speeches of a number of honourable members. The Bill follows the commitment of the Government in its policy speech and reflects the attitude of the Government towards a general reduction in all forms of taxation, particularly estate duties generally. The decision taken in this respect will be of assistance to a number of people. We all know that this form of taxation comes about at a time when there are substantial personal stresses and strains and that it creates problems which all of us would seek to decrease and diminish if not completely to avoid. The Government has indicated its concern in this respect, particularly insofar as the effect upon primary producers is concerned.

I believe that this is a step in the right direction and that it is one which governments in the future should seek to improve upon. I do not agree with every decision of the Queensland Government, but its decision to abolish death duties in that State effective from 1 January next year is one which has been approved by not just the Queensland community but all sections of the Australian community. The comments which have been made by the honourable members during the course of this debate will be drawn to the attention of the Treasurer (Mr Lynch). No doubt the views expressed will be considered by him. I will see that any of the matters raised which require comment from him are attended to.

Mr BRAITHWAITE:
Dawson

-My remarks on this Bill concern the situation that exists in Queensland relative to the Federal legislation. The amendments to the federal legislation that are now going through are designed to alleviate a difficulty and to increase the level of the general exemption in the case of the death of a spouse and transfers between spouses whereas the Queensland Act, which will become effective from 1 January 1977, goes the full distance of abolishing death duty or succession duty as it is known in that State. I think it is pertinent at this time to examine the difference that exists relative to this matter and to question whether it might be necessary for the Federal Government to look more realistically at the way in which the States are administering their Acts. It has been suggested in the past that the Commonwealth should look at the total abolition of the duty, as the States are doing at this moment. Queensland has abolished it and Western Australia might do so. I rose only to bring out those points about the Queensland situation, although that State might be alone in this regard.

Perhaps the Federal Government will take these amendments relating to deductions between spouses a little further in the future. Perhaps it will provide a total deduction and abolish the duty altogether or in some other way alleviate the situation. There has been some suggestion that the cost of collection is not very great, but as States move out of this area the costs will be greater. Then there will be better reason, I believe, for us to look more carefully at the matter with a view to providing total exemption in respect of property passing between spouses.

This Bill goes only a short distance at the moment. Perhaps at a later stage the Government will go the rest of the way. I am not suggesting that at this stage Queensland is right, but if the other States are going to follow suit perhaps we should go the complete distance. I rose only to make those few points, particularly in defence of the Queensland Government.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2202

EXPORT FINANCE AND INSURANCE CORPORATION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23 September, on motion by Mr Anthony:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-The Opposition does not oppose this Bill. The Export Finance and Insurance Corporation was established by the Labor Government at the beginning of 1 975 to extend the powers of the previous Export Payments Insurance Corporation. The new export bank function of EFIC was begun to facilitate provision of export finance for medium and long term credit sales of machinery and capital equipment and the establishment of lines of credit especially to developing countries and State trading corporations. EFIC was set up in response to both suggestions from trade associations and industry associations in Australia and in response to the increasing competitiveness of world export markets for machinery and capital equipment. EFIC was designed to complement rather than to replace the role of existing Australian financial institutions in this field.

At the time when the EFIC Bill was introduced to the House in late 1974, Mr Anthony, now Minister for Overseas Trade, supported the Bill with reservations, arguing that there was a danger that the Corporation would become a bank operating in competition with the existing financial institutions. The Bill we are discussing shows continued support by the Liberal and National Country parties for this Labor initiative. The amendments to the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act provide for new arrangements for funding to EFIC by the trading banks at commercial interest rates. The Government will provide an interest rate subsidy to enable the Corporation to on-lend these funds at internationally competitive rates. The Budget papers say that the gap between the commercial rates at which EFIC will borrow and the Corporation ‘s on-lending rates will be financed from the Budget by an interest rate subsidy payable to EFIC each year and, $500,000 has been set aside in this year’s Budget for this purpose.

The amendments also empower the Minister to guarantee the repayment of loan moneys provided by the Corporation rather than actually advancing the necessary loan funds to EFIC from the Budget. The Opposition supports these amendments because they indicate the Government’s decision to continue an important Labor initiative aimed at encouraging Australian manufacturing exports. The proposed method of borrowing from banks for on-lending will reduce the call on budgetary outlays, so releasing funds for other high priority government expenditure. As well, this involvement by a statutory authority in the Australian capital market will facilitate effective use of Australian capital resources in a high priority distributional activity. This of course amounts to little more than window dressing for the Government is borrowing from the private sector outside the Budget rather than within normal loan programs. If the EFIC activities had continued as during the last financial year, Budget outlays would have been higher by perhaps $20m, the Minister says. As it is, borrowing from the private banking sector will be used to offset this reduction in potential outlays. So the net effect on the private sector would have been much the same under either arrangement.

EFIC is performing a useful function in facilitating higher exports of manufactured and capital goods. In the period of its operation up to October, the value of tenders supported was $232m. Of these supported tenders, $32m worth of tenders had been won and $162m worth was still outstanding. Only $15m worth of tenders had been lost. The importance of the work of EFIC becomes clear when put in the perspective of both the level of domestic demand for Australia’s manufactured goods and the level of exports. The Jackson Committee remarked in its introductory chapter

Now that the domestic market is satiated and can grow only slowly, most manufacturing is stalled and lacks purpose. It needs to export to grow.

Yet our exports declined last year. In the financial year 1975-76 exports of machinery other than electrical equipment fell to $223m from $235m in the previous year. Similarly, exports of electrical machinery and appliances fell from $106m in 1974-75 to $ 101m in 1975-76, and exports of transport equipment fell even more sharply from $223m in 1974-75 to $171m in 1975-76. This means that exports of capital equipment fell by about 12 per cent between 1974-75 and 1975-76. This decline was undoubtedly due at least in part to the international economic recession but also it was partly due to the increased penetration of markets to which Australia has traditionally exported by other manufacturing countries including, certainly, Japan.

That more than the international recession was involved in the decline is shown in the recent monthly figures for manufacturing exports. When exports for July 1976 are compared with exports in July 1975 for machinery and transport equipment, sharp falls are noticeable. For example, $21m of non-electrical machinery was exported in July 1975 and $ 16m in July 1976. Electrical machinery worth $9m was exported in July 1975 but only $8m in July 1976. And most strikingly of all, $ 17.6m of transport equipment was exported in July 1975 compared with only $1 lm in July 1976. This latter figure was probably influenced by a major ship export in July 1975, but this does not relieve the apparent picture of substantial continuing decline of exports of capital equipment.

The amendments we are debating now are essentially negative. They do nothing further to encourage successful export activity by our manufacturing industry. Creative government policies are required to stimulate and facilitate expansion of overseas markets for our exports. This negativeness is consistent with the Government’s overall approach to the economy. Real Government outlays are being reduced by 4 per cent this financial year and an unprecedented reduction in Government services is involved which is retarding economic recovery.

These mistaken macro-economic policies are mirrored in policies in particular areas. For example, support for the Export Development Grants Board was slashed by the Government when it came to office. Instead of the appropriation of $27.5m in the 1975-76 Labor Budget, only $17m was spent. The allocation for this financial year of $28m is much lower in real terms than the appropriation last year. The Government is making false economies which are contributing to the long run problems of Australia’s manufacturing industry. Creative and effective collaboration between the public and private sectors is required to deal with the problems of Australian manufacturing industry.

I want to take this opportunity also to make some remarks about the problems that we are going to have in ensuring that our industries achieve overseas markets. It has been put to this Parliament on a number of occasions, particularly by the Treasurer (Mr Lynch), that our problem in competing has its base in only one area and that the problem is the wage structure of the Australian work force. We cannot expect to be able to compete with other countries, irrespective of what government initiatives are taken, until such time as the Government is successful in getting a real reduction in the wages of the Australian work force. I dispute that statement, firstly, because the wage system of Australia is directly related, of course, to our standard of living. When we ask for a reduction in the real wage of the Australian work force we are asking people to lower their living standards. Secondly, it ignores not just the competition which we have if we are using the wage of the Australia work force vis-a-vis the wage of people overseas. There are many other factors of which this Government is well aware. All the issues are documented and the Government can view these documents to see what other countries are able to do.

One development which has continued under this Government is the going off-shore of Australian industries. A lot of industries no longer look to export from Australia. Rather, they look to maintain their traditional export markets by producing goods in other countries. It is not just a question of wages- of paying a fitter in Australia 5 times the amount which a fitter may receive in South Korea, Singapore or the Philippines. These countries which are setting up what we now term industrial zones pose a very new threat to Australian manufacturing industry. When we talk about what this Government has done to try to encourage industries to go out and get export markets, I think it is well to look at what industry itself is saying. First and foremost I think it is necessary for the Government to accept that there are other factors which attract industries from Australia. There are other factors which make Australian industry noncompetitive with other industries in other countries. We will not overcome the problem merely by saying that it is all the problem of the wage structure in Australia.

In the latest copy of Manufacturing News, which is the journal of manufacturing industry in Australia, the leading article points out that ex-

E oners are disenchanted with the Government’s hard line. When the announcement was made to cut back on export grants we on this side of the

House predicted that it was a false economy. We said that the Government could not cut back in these areas if it wanted to be successful in trying to attract export markets to Australia or in getting Australian industries to obtain export markets. It seemed to those of us who observed manufacturing industry that many of the industries we now have can continue only if they can expand their markets. We will not be a country with a population of 20 million plus as some people predicted years ago. The market in Australia will remain very much as it is. Industries will need encouragement, government initiatives, guidance and direction m some cases to go out and get the markets so that we can get the economy of scale in production which other countries have.

We will never be able to compete with these countries in offering industry all the sugar-coated advantages which those countries offer. We cannot, for instance, ask an industry to come to Australia and tell it that there will be no trade unionists working in that industry. We cannot tell any industry that we have taken the Australian worker back to the stage of slavery by taking away the right to strike. We cannot tell industries outside Australia that they can come here and we will give them the same standards which these industrial zones of South Korea, Singapore, the Philippines and Taiwan are now offering. We have to take great initiatives on behalf of industry and with industry. There has to be a great deal more government involvement in trying to obtain these overseas markets. Today we are discussing one way in which to do this. But it was a very stupid economic decision which was made earlier in the grants.

Mr Bourchier:

– You are talking about defence cuts.

Mr YOUNG:

-It may even affect the honourable member for Bendigo who never has his mouth shut. But if he has a look at some of the industries in his electorate he will probably find that they have been affected by the Government’s very stupid decision to try to save a few million dollars. Perhaps this is affecting the industries which were doing something about getting out and getting export markets. As I say, a great deal more has to be done on this matter. The Government will have to be involved. It should reverse forthwith its decision on export grants because we are losing markets at the behest of this Government’s economic decisions. Industry will say, trade unions will say and everybody outside the Parliament will say that the decision was wrong. The only way we will survive as a manufacturing country is to obtain these export markets. I plead with the Government to stop wailing about the wage level in Australia as if pegging that level will overcome all problems. It will not. I ask the Government to stop wailing about the fact that it cannot come up with a recipe to overcome all the problems of industrial relations. No one has a recipe to overcome all the problems which are manifest in the contradictions between capital and labour. We will have to put up with a certain degree of industrial unrest. We will have to put up with a certain degree of competitiveness with other countries. The Government ought to take a great deal more initiative in trying to compete with those countries. The decisions which have been taken over the past year by this Government have done a great deal to destroy industry, not to help it.

Mr BAUME:
Macarthur

– I think I should make a few points in reply to what the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) has said. In the first place, it is extraordinary that after 3 years of economic policies which created inflation and which created an atmosphere in which Australian exports are no longer competitive, the honourable member should once again be calling on the Australian Government to pour more money into somethinginto anything. He suggests that Government spending will fix all; it will fix our export markets; it will help our manufacturers. The fact is that 3 years of pouring government money, which did not exist, into the Austraiian economy, into areas which happened to be attractive, which happened to be good, was clearly disastrously inflationary. It is extraordinary that in those 3 years the government of that time- the Opposition as it now is- learnt nothing. The honourable member has suggested that the answer to every problem is to pour in more government money. The reason that our exporters are doing badly in the manufacturing sector is very simply explained. Inflation has priced them out of overseas markets because our rate of inflation has become so much worse than that of other nations. It has become so much worse for one simple reason and that is that, as in Great Britain, the level of government spending has risen at a far faster rate than in any other developed country in the western world. The answer put up by the honourable member for Port Adelaide is nonsensical. This was shown in the period of the Labor Party’s disastrous control of the economy. That is not the answer at which this Government will look.

The honourable member for Port Adelaide says that there is no difference in this amendment, that it is a negative sort of amendment and that it really does not do anything to improve the situation. The point is that in the past, and certainly under the Labor Party Government, nonexistent money- it was financed out of an inflationary deficit- was being directed to assist the private enterprise sector. In other words, money was theoretically being taken out of one private enterprise pocket and put into another. This Bill, quite properly, redirects that finance and, in fact, reintroduces a level of sanity in the government role in financing exports.

No longer will it be government money, taxpayers’ money, or in fact deficit money that is going to assist exports. It is going to be private sector money assisting the private sector. That is what our economy is all about. It may well be that honourable gentlemen opposite wish to have a different kind of economy in which the Government provides all, dictates all. It was interesting to hear the honourable member for Port Adelaide say that exporters needed direction, and one wonders who is going to provide the direction. The power mania that I submit is centred in the few tattered remnants of the Party opposite manifests itself once again in their determination to maintain control over the financing of exports in this way so that they will have power of direction over a large section of the private enterprise sector. I believe that this is not a proposition that this Government can or will wear.

I submit that the proposition this Bill puts forward is very sensible. The fact is that in future the banks- the ordinary banking system- will provide loan funds to the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation at the commercial rates of interest applicable to this category of business. For its part, the Government will provide an interest rate subsidy which will enable EFIC to on-lend these funds on internationally competitive terms. Very simply, that means that the Government will not be putting up its own money; it will simply be guaranteeing the loan and providing an interest rate subsidy so that exporters will be no worse off than their competitors. The one thing on which I do ask the Government for an assurance is that this interest rate will be no higher than it would have been had all the money been coming from the Government in the first place. I believe that is implied in this statement but it is not exactly stated. I must say that the exporters to whom I have spoken would like a degree of assurance that there is no risk of the interest rate paid after subsidy on EFIC loans being greater than it would have been had the Government provided all the money. That is implied in the Minister’s statement but not clearly asserted.

Of course, the change will enable our exporters to match the credit terms being offered by their competitors. So the clear situation which will emerge is that the only reason any of our exporters will be disadvantaged in any way as against their competitors will not be government action, as the honourable member for Port Adelaide so wrongly asserted, but will be that the competitive position of Australian industry has been decimated by 3 years of deliberate and encouraged inflation under the Labor Government. It was ludicrous to expect money to keep on being poured into the economy when in fact the money was coming from nowhere. It was paper money being printed at a reckless pace. >ur wages are such that many trade unionists unwittingly have priced themselves out of jobs in the export industries. They have priced themselves out of jobs internally. That is not the unionists’ fault; it is the fault of massive inflationary pressures created largely by the reckless deficit funding of the Labor Government.

One point I should like to make in relation to the technique, a most admirable technique being used by the Government, which limits the Government’s role to underwriting the contingent liabilities involved in this and to making up the interest rate gap, is that I believe the Government should look to extending the principle into many other areas. It is a useful principle. It saves the taxpayers’ money but still provides a much lower rate of interest and guarantees the provision of private sector money to finance private sector activity. The Queensland Government has been doing this quite successfully in a commercial way for some time and I submit that there are many commercial situations where the governmental role should simply be to guarantee and subsidise the interest payment rather that to lend taxpayers’ money, for example in growth centres. There is no doubt in my mind that many of the commercial activities of the Macarthur Development Board in the Macarthur growth centre, which is in my electorate, could well be financed in this way by the Government’s guaranteeing the borrowings of that Board if in fact it were allowed to borrow. This would diminish governmental involvement directly, would not mean a diversion of Government funds and would certainly not be inflationary in the sense that it would not be creating new money. Let us face it; The Macarthur land acquisition program is commercial in the sense that theoretically money is supposed to be put aside now to purchase land which is not going to be used for some time. There is clearly a benefit to the society doing that and I believe that is how it should be financed.

One could also guarantee the borrowings of sporting organisations. For example, I know that in my area the Campelltown Rugby League Football Club has of necessity a rather chaotic borrowing structure. It would strike me as a very useful system if this method of guaranteeing, evidenced in this most sensible Bill, were extended into other areas. This would mean that the Government would not be obliged to subsidise in actual money terms the large requirements of growth centres and of sporting organisations, for example, and the principle could be extended to many areas throughout society. One would simply be asking the Government to guarantee the provision of funds and this would reduce the rate of interest that would be payable by the people concerned, while not diminishing the reasonable rate of return that should be expected by the lender. I put to the Minister that this may well be a useful area of activity emerging out of this very sensible Bill.

Finally, there have been some comments from some of the exporters to whom I have spoken about the nature of EFIC itself. In general, there is no doubt that the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation has performed an excellent job for Australian exporters. However, there is a realisation- and I think we all must have itthat it is not ideally perfect. There are perhaps some small blemishes in its operations. I have heard from some rural exporters in particular that it has a tendency to be a little too inflexible, that in many instances proposals cannot be amended after they have been put up. I believe that that is probably because there is not a sufficient degree of discretion available within the organisation. I am assured by exporters that they are always very courteously and very cooperatively dealt with by the people in EFIC. It has also been put to me in relation to the insurance section that in many instances in commercial terms the assistance being provided is far too low per customer. I know of one instance where a shipment to a European nation worth $400,000 was taken to EFIC, which said that the customer would merit a $50,000 limit. That meant that it was simply not practicable. Nonetheless, given those very minor reservations, may I say how much I welcome this Bill, how much I welcome the efforts of EFIC, how much I welcome the Government’s determination not to undertake the sort of reckless throwing around of money demanded by the honourable member for Port Adelaide, and how I welcome the Government’s positive initiatives to restore the capacity of Australian industry to export by stopping the main thing that is killing our exports. That main thing is inflation. I believe that this Government’s determined policy to stop inflation is the only way we can save our export industries.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

-Like my colleague, the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young), I support the measure before us. I should like to commend this very fine socialist enterprise- the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation, as it is now called. I had the honour to be its Minister for some time and in February, I think it was, last year I was able to have amendments made in this House which added to the types of undertaking that the organisation was able to finance.

I am afraid that I cannot support altogether the statement of the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume), that inflation is crippling Australia’s ability to export. For the most part Australia’s exports are in areas where unfortunately we do not determine the price that we get. If one looks at the very admirable report of the Department of Overseas Trade one will see Australia’s exports and imports listed in some considerable detail. Of course, the main Australian exports are still primary products and raw materials. Although manufacturing has improved somewhat, much of what is loosely denned as ‘manufacturing’ in respect of exports tends to relate to raw materials that have had some processing. As a result these raw materials rank as manufactures. But they are not the sort of manufactures that for the most part provide large scale employment in Australia.

The report of the Committee to Advise on Policies for Manufacturing, known as the Jackson report, which was recently tabled in this House, made the observation that if Australian manufacturing industry in the future is to maintain its relative position economically- I presume by that the report means as a contributor to gross domestic product and as a provider of employment- it will only do so if there is an increase in Australia’s exports of manufactures. However, none of the various manufacturing groups very readily come up with candidates that are likely to be successful exporters of manufactures in the foreseeable future. It may well be that there will be a considerable time lag before

Australia takes off in finding new sorts of manufactures that it will be able to export.

The new credit arrangement that EFIC now undertakes enables the financing of exports from Australia in the machinery type of area where the contract tends to be over a long period of time. Of course, the difficulty of the Australian producer is that he wants to get his cash fairly quickly. The annual report of EFIC draws attention on page 18 to what is called ‘unconditional guarantees to banks’. It points out that the practical effect of that facility can be twofold- it may be the only basis upon which the bank is prepared to finance its customer if a large amount is involved and from the exporter’s viewpoint it turns a credit sale into a cash sale. In other words, it is the organisation that bears the credit risk until the buyer at the other end is finally able to pay. Meanwhile the producer in Australia can be paid in cash and, of course, he can get on with further production. In the next section of the annual report the corporation goes on to note what are called ‘buyer-credit facilities’. It would seem to me that this may be one of the areas that will have to be expanded in the future. I know from my own experience while administering the Department of Overseas Trade that often people nibbled at the prospect of Australian contractors being able to supply them with capital goods over a period of several years but then we found that other countries were able to offer better terms on the credit side. It was not that Australian costs put us outside the market. What finally put us outside the market was the availability of long term credit over considerable periods of time and for relatively large sums of money. I believe that this is the area to which we will have to devote our attention in the years ahead. I am one who believes that some industries in Australia have declined over recent years in the manufacturing area. Some industries may yet continue to decline. But we now ought to be looking systematically at what industries we can establish in Australia on a longer term basis. I believe that it is in that sort of exploratory area that our future will lie.

It is interesting to note that Australia, for instance as a sugar producer, has also been successful in exporting sugar harvesting machinery to a number of countries. I think that we have sold such machinery to Latin American countries. According to the annual report Australia recently sold sugar milling equipment to Thailand amounting to about Sim. This was not a tremendously large amount of money but nevertheless it was a move in the right direction. I do not agree with all of the nonsense that is spoken about Australia costing itself out of the market because of high wages. Does anyone seriously believe that there will be a drop in real wages in Australia in the years ahead? We are stuck with the structure as we find it at the moment. When labour costs are high there is always a challenge to industry to install labour-saving machinery. I believe that this is the direction in which Australia has to go. Perhaps instead of Australia believing that it can continue as a producer of textiles it may well have to become a manufacturer of textile equipment and supply countries like Indonesia and India where there are considerably large populations. The economic history of most countries has been to start with light industry and then to get progressively into heavy industry. Some years ago motor cars produced in Australia were exported to other countries. But now we face competition externally in the motor car field and it is very difficult for Australia to export competitively motor cars.

In fact in the golden days of the early 1970s when the export of manufactures was a bit larger than it is now, motor cars were exported principally to 3 places. Firstly they were exported to New Zealand which is our closest market. The price at which our cars were sold to New Zealand was competitive because of the transport problems which other countries faced. Secondly, we sold motor vehicles to South Africa. We were able to do so competitively because of the export incentive scheme that existed at the time. Thirdly, of course, we sold them to Papua New Guinea. Now we find that New Zealand is not disposed to take as many motor cars because of its general adverse trade position. The country is in a very difficult situation. We do not export to South Africa now because the export incentive scheme has changed. In some respects we were achieving exports in earlier days on a marginal costing basis. The incentive scheme made some exports payable propositions that otherwise would not have been profitable. That scheme was abolished. Candidly I believe that was the right decision. It was costing a tremendous sum and in my view it was not the sensible way to be assisting Australian industry.

We began in Australia a year or so ago to tinker with what is called structural change. I believe that Australian industry in the years ahead has to face up very seriously to structural change. I believe that government assistance and encouragement will be needed for that sort of structural change to take place. It will not occur by accident. I believe in the final analysis that Australia can still be one of the world’s great exporters of foodstuffs and raw materials. The problem here again is finding customers who have money in their pockets. This is one of the reasons why it seems sensible to me that Australia should be in the forefront of things such as multilateral trade negotiations and bodies like the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Of course every time someone suggests altering any single tariff in Australia there is bound to be a cry from the industry that is affected.

The annual report of the Department of Overseas Trade shows that about 28 per cent of the gross domestic product of Australia is made up of export and import trade. Countries cannot expect to export if in tura they do not import. There has to be at least some sensible give and take in the process. I am not sure that in the long run there is a great future for expanding manufacturing industry in the export direction. I do not think any categorical answer can be given. It certainly is difficult at the moment to nominate the areas in which an increase of any spectacular kind is likely to occur in the next four to five years. It may be that we will have to resign ourselves to manufacturing industry supplying only the local market. Perhaps there will have to be a tj tapering off of manufacturing as the major single source of employment in Australia in the future. If that is the case we have to begin to do a lot of hard thinking about where people will find employment in the years ahead.

I was rather astonished the other day during a meeting of the newly-formed House of Representatives Standing Committee on ExpenditureI think the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) was present at the same meeting- when Professor Karmel told us that in Australia in 1976, despite the large amounts that we have spent on education, of every 100 boys and girls who start the high school course, only 35 pupils complete it. What will be the fate of the 65 out of 100 pupils in Australia in the years ahead who have less than the full high school educational qualifications? In Japan he told us by contrast that out of every 100 students who start high school 9 1 students finish. This seems to me to pose a very serious problem in the future. Certainly some of the 65 pupils who do not complete high school go on and do apprenticeship courses and so on, but again the intake of apprentices is less than most people believe will be required in another five or ten years. If people are not trained now a shortage will occur in five or ten years in some of the skilled areas. We have to consider the purpose for which people in Australia are being educated. There can be a lot of argument about the quality as well as the quantity of education. We still unfortunately have to have a work ethic whether we like it or not. I believe that for a long time in Australia we have been training people for jobs that are not there and have not been training people to fill jobs that will be needed in the years ahead. I think this sort of thing is suddenly coming home to roost in Australia.

It is easy to moan about what are called high wages and inflation. I say categorically that real wages in Australia will not be allowed to fall to any extent despite reading between the lines of Budget Statement No. 7. The workers of Australia will not see their real standards decline. I believe the challenge is there for a greater efficiency in Australian industry. A lot of speeches are made by members opposite about private enterprise. In my view it has been anything but enterprising over the last 10 or 15 years. The Jackson report shows that all the faults found in Australia at the moment are not due to the 3 years of Labor Government. I do not know how long this Government intends living on the kind of mythology that everything was wrong when it came to office and that it was the Labor Party’s fault and not the coalition’s. I cannot think of any single substantial action that has yet been taken by this Government which can be said to have improved the way in which the economy will operate. I tend to be a bit optimistic about the future not because of this Government but because I think that the Australian economy still is so good that even a Liberal Government cannot muck it up. After all we had 23 years of Liberal-Country Party Government. In many ways they were the best years of economic performance but they were anything but the best years of political performance by the government then in office.

I believe it is time for us to get down to some of the real fundamental problems that are afflicting us. I do not think we can continue to say that we have inflation higher than we would like and unemployment greater than ever before. Unemployment is greater now than when the Government came to office. It is a bit dubious that inflation is much different from when the Government came to office. The Government has been in office near enough to a year. When we reach the dividing mark when no longer the Government can blame everything on the period when it was not in office we may begin to look at some of the serious problems. In my view we should extend this long-term credit facility for Australia’s exports, particularly in the heavy machinery area.

Sitting suspended from 5.59 to 8 p.m.

Mr MACPHEE:
Minister for Productivity · Balaclava · LP

– We are discussing a Bill dealing with the Export Finance Insurance Corporation. It is a Bill which I most wholeheartedly support. The requirements of the business of the House are such that one must confine ones speaking to approximately 10 minutes. There is much that I would have liked to say in support of this legislation and by way of analysis of the operation of the Corporation itself. However, I will confine myself to saying in the 10 minutes I have that the most important distinction between EFIC- the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation- and its predecessor EPIC- the Export Payments Insurance Corporationis that EFIC is obliged to provide export finance for medium and long term credit sales of machinery, capital equipment and associated services, and the establishment of lines of credit, especially to developing countries and State’ trading organisations.

In order to match where necessary the export financing facilities which are available to competing foreign suppliers, EFIC is able to provide loan funds at concessional rates of interest. Of course, this is most important. The first report of EFIC which covers the period from 1 February 1975 to 30 June 1975 records the limited terms upon which this concessional rate of interest may be granted. This year’s Budget has improved the effective position of EFIC. I congratulate the Government upon that, but I cannot urge too strongly upon it the fact that much more extensive export incentives are required if we are to achieve the growth in markets, technologies and economies of scale needed to sustain export oriented manufacturing industries spoken of so sensibly in the Jackson Committee Green Paper. In this regard, I must say that whilst I cannot canvass in the time available all of the remarks of the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean), he pointed out many of the difficulties involved in achieving what the Jackson Committee sought.

The honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) the former Minister for Overseas Trade, in presenting the second reading speech of the Bill establishing EFIC set out very eloquently the reasons why manufacturing industry needed this form of export assistance for the benefit of Australia. I think it is a great shame that EFIC was not then made more extensive, for the reasons set out by the Minister, and has not been made more extensive since. It is also a great shame that the reasoning applied by the honourable member for Lalor was not also applied to the Export Market Development Grants Act. I know that the honourable member for Melbourne Ports says that the previous system of export incentives by way of tax deduction was abused. I say in reply to that that if they were abused, eliminate the abuse; do not eliminate the incentives. What happened was that the incentives were eliminated and the export Market Development Grants Act which was put in their place was quite inadequate. The present Minister for Overseas Trade and Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) and I in Opposition condemned that Act as being quite inadequate. I have reread those speeches recently and I find that they stand the test of time. I trust that the Deputy Prime Minister will soon rectify the deficiencies which he then pointed out in that scheme. I trust that there will be extensive treatment of EFIC under future Budgets. Certainly under this Budget there has been an extension of EFIC. I hope that this Bill is an earnest of the Government’s determination to implement its election undertaking by introducing an extensive export incentive scheme.

Of course, it is no fault of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation itself that it has not been more effective. It has been confined by the Act under which it operates. To some extent we are adding to its flexibility by way of this amendment. It has been confined also by the depressed state of the world economy. I hope that in the next 18 months we will see infinitely more progress in both regards than we have seen in the past 18 months. One has to ask whether the new facility which was added to the former EPIC and converted into EFIC which we are amending here really improved the situation. I think the short answer to that question is that it is an improvement but that a great deal more assistance to manufacturers is required in order to encourage more exports. Certainly we have to overcome a good many obstacles if we are to be, as a country, an effective exporter of capital goods. One sees that the EFIC scheme has been expanded under the Budget. I congratulate the Government for that. It certainly has expanded in recognition of the need for increased export incentives. It is stated on page 86 of Budget Paper No. 1:

A new arrangement for financing EFIC’s export finance activities began in July this year. The trading banks have agreed to fund the export finance facility by way of loans at commercial rates of interest The Corporation will on-lend the funds to foreign buyers at concessional rates of interest. The ‘gap’ between the commercial rates at which EFIC will borrow and the corporation’s on-lending rates will be financed from the Budget by an interest rate subsidy payable to EFIC each year. A provision of $500,000 has been made in the Budget for this purpose.

The Government is to be commended for this extension in this year’s Budget. The same Budget Paper adds that the subsidy commitment authority for this financial year will be extended to $15m and that this figure will be renewed annually. Although genuine congratulations are in order, I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister will not need to be reminded that exporters are far from happy with the extent of export assistance granted and that a great deal more is necessary. I trust that with the aid of the board of EFIC, the Minister will monitor the new scheme carefully and that he will examine independently the adequacy or inadequacy of the Export Market Development Grants Act of which he is only too well aware. The Minister has committed himself publicly over many years on the need for export incentives for manufacturing industry. Therefore, my remarks are not so much intended for the Minister for Overseas Trade and Deputy Prime Minister as they are intended for any other persons within the Cabinet or the bureaucracy who may need convincing about the need for export incentives for manufacturers.

It is a fact that manufacturing industry is in serious, even grave, economic trouble. Those parts of manufacturing industry which are able to earn export income for Australia are entitled to expect and receive assistance in so doing. The honourable member for Melbourne Ports cast doubt about that but let there be no doubt that the problem to which he was referring- the problem of employing future generations of Australiansis very much linked with the viability of our manufacturing industry which in turn is very much linked with its capacity to gain technology and economies of scale by way of exports. This is especially important when one considers the reasoning of the Jackson Committee which was referred to by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports and which showed the need for export oriented industries which are internationally competitive. The recent movements in costs, taxation and exhange rates have cost Aus.tralian manufacturers dearly. Many will find markets difficult to regain even with Government assistance. This is no argument, however, to say that we should not have Government export incentives. I have spoken in this House and elsewhere of the urgent need for the Government to set forth its vision for a restructured manufacturing industry in which both capital and labour know the rules. They can then invest their resources in a way which is both satisfying for them and beneficial for Australia. I believe that it is of crucial importance for Australia that the Government adopt policies with this aim in view. The White Paper on manufacturing industry is therefore of the utmost importance. In this, there is a most important role for an enlarged export Finance Insurance Corporation and an extended Export Market Development Grants Act. Quite clearly, future tariff and exchange rate policies must be linked if we are to foster export oriented internationally competitive manufacturing industries. Such a linkage of policies, hitherto regarded separately, will provide the best stimulus to exports of manufactured goods.

Nevertheless, EFIC will always be needed. I trust that this Government will always heed constructive criticisms of its operation and continue to improve it. Likewise in the strongest possible terms I urge the Minister to heed the trenchant criticisms of the Australian Manufacturers Export Council regarding the operation of the Export Market Development Grants Act. In listening to the debate in this House about exports one would be entitled to assume more often than not that only the mining and rural industries contribute to the export earnings of Australia. This is not so. Statistics show that over SO per cent of our exports in most years comprise mining and manufacturing exports and they in turn are competing neck and neck for the greater share of that SO per cent. If one includes mineral processing in mining rather than in manufacturing, then mining just edges manufacturing out of second place.

I wholeheartedly support this Bill in the same way as when we were m Opposition I supported the Export Market Development Grants Bill. In both cases and for similar reasons I regard them as quite inadequate to stimulate to the necessary degree the export of manufactured goods and I hope that in the coming 12 months this Government will consider very seriously the need to extend exports of manufactured goods.

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

– in reply- I thank honourable members who have contributed to this debate and the Opposition for the support that it has given this Bill. As has been acknowledged during the debate the basic purpose of this Bill is to give legislative effect to the decision already announced by the Government to alter the funding arrangements applicable to the export finance facilities of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation by transferring the source of funds from the Budget to the trading banks. This decision was taken by the Government as part of its overall effort to restrain the growth in public sector expenditure while at the same time returning to the private sector those functions which appropriately belong there. Adoption of the new arrangements followed detailed discussions with the trading banks; discussions which were both positive and constructive and they have led to a sizable growth in the level of funds available to support capital goods exports while at the same time achieving significant budget savings which will amount to some $20m during 1976-77.

As one might expect, during the course of the debate there has been some reference to the problems which exporters in Australia face at present, particularly in the manufacturing sector, and quite properly there has been some reference by honourable members on both sides of the House to some of the difficulties under which manufacturing industry is operating in Australia at the present time. The honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young), who led the debate for the Opposition, suggested that there had been a downturn in exports of manufactured goods particularly of the metal variety. I inform the honourable gentleman and the House that I am advised that forecasts for 1976-77 suggest that there will be a 16 per cent increase in exports of manufactured goods from Australia despite the inflationary pressures which the honourable gentleman referred to and which this Government makes no apology for saying are a very difficult problem for manufacturing industry in Australia. The Government and I claim that this upturn is in part attributable to the policies which have been pursued by the Government since it took office.

The honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) appeared to me to be putting the proposition that there was absolutely no point in the Government pursuing the policy it currently has on the wages front. He put the proposition to the House that the Government might as well give up on wage restraint in Australia. Whilst I, as have a great number of honourable members on this side of the House, have a great regard for the honourable member for Melbourne Ports, I inform the House that the Government does not intend to give up the fight for its wages policy. The Government in no way apologises for saying that the wage escalation which occurred in Australia during the past 4 years, whilst not being the only cause of the problems of manufacturing and many other industries in Australia, was a major cause of the problems that manufacturing industry experienced in 1973 and more so in 1974. The Government does not in any way retreat from the attitude that it has struck towards the problem of wage escalation in Australia at present.

It is an undeniable fact that the cost disadvantage suffered by Australian manufacturing industry at present is the principal cause of the non-competitive nature of the Australian manufacturing industry when contrasted with the manufactured products of so many countries which are exporting to Australia. Whilst we are talking about an export finance facility Bill it is worth noting that root cause of many of the problems of manufacturing industry in Australia es in this enormous cost disadvantage. It is quite unrealistic of the Opposition to suggest that we might as well exclude from our consideration of the cost disadvantage of manufacturing industry in Australia the enormous contribution’ to that disadvantage made by escalated wage claims and escalated wage settlements in recent years.

Turning more specifically to some of the issues raised by honourable gentlemen who participated in the debate, the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume) sought an assurance from me that interest rates on EFIC finance under the new arrangements would not be greater than the interest rates that prevailed under the old arrangements. I inform the honourable member for Macarthur that it certainly is not the intention of the Government, nor does the Government believe that it will be a consequence of this legislation, that such an increase should occur. Naturally the rates applicable to the operations of EFIC will be market rates. EFIC is not in the business of giving more generous credit terms than are necessary in a normal commercial environment to gain business but it is not the intention of the Government that interest rates which will prevail under the new arrangements will be any greater than those which prevailed under the old arrangements. The honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) drew attention to the importance, as the whole debate on this Bill underlined, of encouraging as far as possible the export of manufactured products from all export industries in Australia. That is a need which the Government recognises and a practical gesture of that recognition is contained in this legislation.

I remind the House that the type of facility provided by the EFIC legislation is not the only manner in which export incentives can be granted. There are other methods and other devices by which encouragement can be given to exporters and the recent Budget contained a number of incentives to industry, particularly rnining industry which has in recent years made a contribution to the export earnings of this country. It is therefore a little strange that while in this debate the Opposition expresses support for the measure contained in the Bill, something which the Government welcomes, and expresses its general support for incentives to exporters, when the concessions contained in the Budget for the rnining industry were announced they drew some very heavy criticism from the Opposition. It is an undeniable fact that the contribution made by the mining industry to our balance of payments and to our export performance in recent years has been very considerable. The concessions that were contained in the Budget were quite unambiguously designed to assist the mining industry because, amongst other things, it made a major contribution to the export earnings of this country. I believe that that fact should be mentioned in case there should be any belief on the part of honourable members that the only way in which one can assist actual exporters and potential exporters is through the payment of direct export related incentives such as those which have been under discussion during the debate on this Bill.

The purpose of this legislation is to put into statute the decision of the Government to give to the private sector the facilities previously provided directly by the Government or the operations of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation. The legislation and the decision of the Government have achieved 2 objectives. Firstly, the legislation and the Government’s decision have returned to the private sector something which is more appropriately conducted by that sector. Secondly, it has achieved some significant Budget savings of the order of $20m. I thank honourable members who have supported the legislation and thank the House for the prospective unimpeded passage of the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2212

HOMES SAVINGS GRANT AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

page 2212

STATES GRANTS (FRUIT-GROWING RECONSTRUCTION) BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 14 October, on motion by Mr Sinclair:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

-The Opposition does not oppose this Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to extend the fruit growing reconstruction scheme until 31 December 1976 by the provision of up to $ lm to assist in the pulling of canning fruit trees in the States of Victoria and South Australia. This scheme, which began in 1972, complements the rural reconstruction scheme inasmuch as it is peculiar to the horticultural industries. The basic thrust of the scheme is to assist the fruit growers in financial difficulties either to extricate themselves from the industry completely or partially to pull trees on properties which may become viable if some trees were removed and the land put to alternate use. The scheme offers assistance by way of a loan which is converted to a grant after 5 years, conditional upon the farmer not replacing fruit trees during the 5-year period. The scheme is applicable only to fresh pears, apples, canning peaches and canning apricot trees. The Bill relates only to the deciduous fruit industry.

While the Opposition welcomes continued support for primary industry, particularly those industries hard hit by diminishing markets and cost pressures, the Opposition nevertheless points out that the tree pull scheme for deciduous fruit will not be extended beyond the end of 1976. This decision could cause severe hardship if markets for canned fruit do not improve and at the moment this seems unlikely. The indications are that domestic sales are sluggish at around the 3 million basic carton level. The cause of this is the resistance to a price tag of 65c.

The Bill is in itself an admission by the Country Party of its bankruptcy in dealing with the problems of primary industry in general and the horticultural industry in particular. The tree pull scheme was intended to provide funds for deciduous fruit growers to move into other areas of primary production. But, of course, we have heard nothing of this from the Country Party. Apparently these growers now have to pull their trees and politely and quietly move onto die dole. With great promises during the election campaign, which fostered high expectations for the growers in this industry, the Government has produced just an extension of a patch and fill scheme which will end at the end of this year.

For instance, what can the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) who is sitting in the House tonight, offer his factory workers and fruit growers. Perhaps he can offer them a mere referral of the repayments on their loans. That is not a policy. It is just agonising their lives from one year to the next. The Government has given them absolutely no hope for the future. Not only is there no hope but also this scheme operates in direct opposition to the apple and pear stabilisation scheme. This is another fruit growing scheme which, on the one hand, encourages apple and pear growers to produce fruit because it guarantees a payment of* $2 a bushel, yet the fruit growing reconstruction scheme encourages growers to pull out their trees. So one scheme conflicts with the aims of the other. The real issue is, of course, that a policy which looks purely at reconstruction from a horticultural standpoint is bound to fail.

Australia needs a combination of a reconstruction policy based on the substitution of other forms of employment such as secondary industry, other than avenues of exclusively agricultural production. A combination of various industries in the regional areas where fruit growing takes place would provide alternative employment. It is not possible to solve the problems of an area engaged in the fruit growing of apples and pears because of the regional factors involved, such as in the Goulburn Valley in Victoria, Riverland in South Australia and Manjimup in Western Australia.

The Government, of course, hails as a great advantage the fact that farmers are allowed to collect the dole without the work test. This is a great achievement for a Party which professes to represent rural interests. What does it matter if the farmers can collect the dole? It does not mean that their families or their businesses will survive or that there will be prosperity for their families. The plain fact of the matter is that Country Party policy over the years has done nothing to discourage production in market areas with diminishing demands so that production has been maintained by stabilisation schemes that have been to the detriment of the industry and at the expense of the taxpayer.

The Australian Labor Party, on the other hand, is concerned about the welfare of the people and the families involved in this section of the horticultural industry. It recognises that piecemeal reconstruction schemes are not the answer to the problems of this industry. It regards many of the recommendations in the Industries Assistance Commission Report on fruit growing released in January this year as relevant to the problems of this industry and considers that these recommendations go right to the kernel of the problem. I list some of the proposals of the IAC. Its first major proposal was the establishment of a national reconstruction authority. Other proposals were for area reconstruction authorities, counselling services and finance.

These are the mechanisms which the Government should be looking at if it genuinely has the interest of these people at hean. Of course, it does not. It uses them cynically to hold its Country Party seats in rural Australia. It has tried to persuade rural dwellers for years that the Labor Party does not have their best interests at heart. Behind this very loose charge it rests upon its laurels. It has been the Australian Labor Party only which has made significant contributions to the long term welfare of Australian agriculture. One of these contributions was the wool reserve price scheme, which has again refurbished the Australian wool industry. In addition, the wheat stabilisation scheme was introduced many years ago to eliminate the sinusoidal peaks and troughs out of the growers’ returns in this industry which have plagued this scheme, of course, almost since its inception.

I refer also to the recent dairy farm reconstruction scheme, an ambitious $26m project introduced in the days of the former Labor Government. When have we seen the Country Party embark upon ambitious schemes of this nature? The government will retain the wool reserve price scheme, as has been stated in the Budget. This is easy while the market is ahead of the reserve price. It was not easy for the former Labor Government when the difference was $320m. It was a $320m punt. At the moment, the Government is taking no punt on the reserve price system and it rejected the pleas for a reserve price system when it was last in government. We had to introduce a scheme when wool prices were around 1 1 9c per kilo. We guaranteed 250c per kilo. And the same is the case for fruit growing. The Labor Party believes there has to be a completely new approach to reconstruction if it is to take place in a meaningful and humane way. The communities depend upon adequate adjustment to help more fruit growers rationalise their properties.

Price stabilisation support schemes will not help in the longer term. Extensions to cover the 1976 and 1977 crops were recommended by the Industries Assistance Commission to limit dislocation in these industries while alternative measures were being considered and adopted. At the same time, the extension of the stabilisation schemes slowed down the rate of adjustment while conditions in the economy were such as practically to guarantee that alternative employment would not be available to former fruit growers. Reconstruction of this industry is not easy. That is obvious. It is intrinsically a labour intensive industry and the small area of land per farm in most of the fruit growing industries severely inhibits the scope for adjustments into other avenues of farming. As well as this, because fruit is sensitive to climate, soil and the availability of water and markets, the industry has concentrated itself in specific areas in Australia. Some areas are highly export orientated while others exist primarily on domestic demand.

While many problems have faced fruit growers in the areas where their industry is dependent upon export markets, other welfare problems have become evident in non-export areas due to the fact that stabilisation schemes distort the pattern of production. We then see a huge flood of fruit into other market areas. For instance, Batlow and Orange in New South Wales and the granite belt in Queensland have been dramatically affected by the consequences of the Tasmanian fruit equalisation scheme. Perhaps the honourable member for Calare (Mr MacKenzie) and the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Gillard) can explain to their growers why they are being battered to death commercially in the interests of the Government Parties’ politicking in Tasmania. In essence the Government has not thought seriously about fruit growing reconstruction. This Bill is an easy resort to a patch and fill operation for a mere $lm addition to the scheme affecting only 2 States. It is, as I said earlier, another demonstration of the inadequacies of the Country Party’s agricultural policy, or to be more accurate the Country Party’s agricultural non-policy. The Opposition does not oppose the legislation because it does help some producers in these fruit growing areas. However, it deplores the manner in which the Government has deceived these people and the way in which it plays so cynically with the lives of growers.

Mr LLOYD:
Murray

– I am speaking on behalf of or in place of the honourable member for Angas, Mr Giles, who is the Chairman of the Government Members Rural Committee. I inform the House that the Government Members Rural Committee basically supports this legislation and had a chance to study it before it came before the Parliament. The speech by the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) was quite interesting because it was completely full of contradictions. For example, the honourable member for Blaxland criticised the adjustment scheme. If we had not introduced an adjustment scheme to bring supply and demand into line the Labor Party would criticise us for propping up or continuing to prop up an industry for which there is no longer a market. Therefore it is trying to have it both ways. Whatever we do for the industry will not be accepted by the Labor Party. The second contradiction in the honourable member’s speech concerned the price stabilisation arrangements for fresh apples and pears. This Bill is basically a Bill for the provision of additional tree-pull money for the canned fruit industry. That has nothing to do with the stabilisation scheme for export apples and pears in the sense of the canned fruit industry because there is no stabilisation proposal or arrangement for that sector of the fruit industry. The honourable member for Blaxland then talked about alternative employment opportunities in these regional areas. The unemployment rate in my area is double the national average and has been for at least the last 12 months because of the Labor Party’s policy. Partly because of inflation, which has increasingly priced us out of overseas markets, and partly because of the tariff cuts of the Labor Government there are reduced employment opportunities in many of the decentralised industries which are subject to import competition. Alternative employment opportunities certainly were not created when the Labor Party was in office.

Let us look at an alternative that the Labor Party is suggesting- its alternative land use proposal. Because we now have the highest cost of production in many products as a result of our inflation rate, for which Labor is responsible, there are no alternative land use proposals. In fact at this time, for the first time in our history, many agricultural industries are subject to import threats because of the continuing higher inflation rate in our country than in other countries. In fact, the horticultural sub-committee of the Government Members Rural Committee is basically concerned about the growing import threat to many of our horticultural and agricultural industries. If one looks at the processing of canned fruit, which we are talking about tonight, one will find that the wages of a female employee in any of the Goulburn Valley canneries are higher than those in any other fruit cannery in the world, including the Californian fruit canneries. With such a high percentage of the total cost going in processing it is completely absurd for the Labor Party to talk about alternatives. The Labor Party, through its policies, has reduced to nil the alternatives that are available to this industry.

If this tree-pull scheme is a bankrupt scheme why did the Labor Party not change it during the 3 years in which it was in power? In the 1972 election, which was known in my electorate as the rotten fruit election, the spokesmen for the Labor Party at that stage- the then honourable member for Dawson and the then honourable member for Riverina- made lavish promises about what the Labor Party would do with regard to the tree-pull scheme if it were in office. It was said that it would completely abolish the means test. The Labor Party did nothing during the 3 years in which it was in office about altering the tree-pull scheme. It cannot have it both ways. It cannot say that the tree-pull scheme is a bankrupt scheme when, during the 3 years in which it was in office, it did absolutely nothing to change it.

There has been talk about alternatives that the Government should be seeking. The fruit industry itself tried to bring in alternative products, but what happened? A most successful and encouraging venture resulted from the requirement for the use of 5 per cent of fruit juice in aerated waters or, if you like, soft drinks. Labor removed it. One of the canneries in the Goulburn Valley spent over $2m on converting pears to pear concentrate for use in this project, only to see the requirement removed by the Labor Party. So I do not want to hear any more talk from the Labor Party about the agricultural policies of this Government. The Labor Party talks about the welfare of the people. Is it prepared to stand up in this chamber and say that the people in this industry should not have been entitled to the dole? If it were to do so that would be the most absurd contradiction that anybody could think of.

It is not often that one has the opportunity to speak on a Bill that is designed both to establish a program and to bring an end to a program. This Bill provides for the finalisation of this scheme on 31 December, after a life of 4V4 years. A Bill was introduced on 20 September 1972 to provide for the establishment of the scheme initially for a period to 30 June 1973. It provided for an allocation of $4.6m, of which it was expected that half would go to fresh fruit, particularly export apples, and half to canning fruit, particularly canning pears. It related to the 2 categories of partial pull and clear fell. It was introduced because of the loss of viable overseas markets, particularly the traditional United Kingdom market, due to the United Kingdom’s entry in the European Economic Community and the external tariff that it would provide on fruit. In other words, we were changing fairly rapidly from a situation of tariff preference in the United Kingdom, where at one stage well over half of our total fruit pack went, to one of tariff exclusion. This has required of the fruit industry a greater adjustment than has been required of any other industry in Australia. If one looks at the adjustment that has taken place in the canning fruit industry- I will leave it to the next speaker from the Government to talk about the fresh apple industry- and compares it with any secondary industry in Australia one will see that the canning fruit industry has done a far better job in adjusting to what is the realistic market situation. This Government introduced that Bill at a time when it knew that the entry of the United Kingdom into the EEC was imminent and that therefore that market would be lost. Britain ‘s entry into the European Economic Community and the tariff exclusion have been compounded by Britain developing its own canned fruit industry in southern Europe and also by better storage methods for fresh fruit.

The original proposal of the previous LiberalNational Country Party Government was a means test free tree-pull compensation scheme to remove the surplus trees, to protect people remaining in the industry and to assist those who had to leave. The State governments would not agree to come in with compensation assistance and the growers were not able to provide for themselves financially. Therefore the means test was introduced. It is of some interest that the Australian Industry Development Corporation report on cannery rationalisation still recommended a grower contribution for tree pull, which to my mind is completely unfair and unjust at the present time. The means test was eased on 2 occasions before the December 1972 election by the then Minister for Primary Industry, the present Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair). It was reduced to a nil net asset figure and then to a $10,000 phasing out figure. As I said earlier, the Labor Party promised in December 1972 that it would remove the means test, but upon gaining office it did nothing about it. The overall result of the scheme has been significant in regard to fresh apples in Tasmania and it may be significant in the case of canned deciduous fruit, particularly pears, in the Goulburn Valley.

There has been a varying degree of success in the different States. To a certain extent this has been due to the way that the State administering authority applied the criteria. No one has been really happy with the scheme, and I include myself in that group. The Government- this must go for both governments, Labor and non-Labor, because the Labor Government did nothing to change it- in a way was setting a precedent in agriculture in Australia by actually financially assisting people to leave a farm or to re-structure a farm to a degree that had never occurred in agriculture before. The growers were not happy because the scheme was not generous enough. Many growers could not qualify and others felt that it was not a significant enough attraction for them to remove trees, particularly in the canned fruit industry, until this year. So generally speaking the scheme has not been successful in adjusting supply and demand.

Values for compensation have not been increased in line with inflation over the four years and the partial pull criteria has not been adequate to result in the removal of a great number of trees. In the Goulburn Valley, where 70 per cent of the canned fruit is produced, the scheme was not of great significance until this Government further eased the means test in May of this year, at which time this Government actually doubled or halved, whichever way you like to put it, the qualifying figure under the means test on clear fell but did not change the criteria on partial pull. There had been some removal of peach trees because of a combination of climatic problems and inadequate cannery prices for the higher cost peaches. However, since the easing of the means test by this Government in May more trees have been removed in the Goulburn Valley, or applications have been made in respect of their removal, than in the previous 3V4 years of the scheme.

To a certain extent this has been due to the easing of the means test. It has been due also to the continually deteriorating situation in the Goulburn Valley so far as export and processing opportunities for fruit are concerned and also to the announcement that the scheme will not be continued beyond December. The scheme has been extended three or four times and people have come to believe that it will continue to be extended. However the Minister has stated quite firmly that it will not be extended beyond the end of this year. I support his proposal because it has to end at some time. People have to be made to make a decision on whether they are going to be in it or not.

Above all, the major reason why the canned fruit industry in my area is in such a terrible situation at present is because of the inflationary situation in Australia which was caused by the Labor Government. This has made our produce completely uncompetitive with that from South Africa or from the United States of America on world markets. I already have given the example of the cost of processing in this country as compared with other countries.

I believe that the adjustment in this industry has been very significant. Many trees have been pulled outside the scheme. Originally there were 12 000 acres of canning pears in the Goulburn Valley. The true market situation requires about S000 to 6000 acres. At this stage there are about 8500 acres, and in that figure I am allowing for the 2000 acres of pears which have just been removed, or whose removal has been approved, and a similar area of pear trees which have been removed privately. Additionally, 1000 acres in the Goulburn Valley at the present time are, in effect, mothballs. Those trees will not be bearing fruit this year but they have not been pulled. However, this still leaves 60 000 tons to 65 000 tons of pears available this year. That figure is down from the figure of 120 000 tons of a few years ago. There has been a most significant adjustment in a difficult situation, but the market can absorb only 30 000 to 35 000 tons, there still will be a tremendous surplus of canned pears in the Goulburn Valley this year. I am talking about the Goulburn Valley but this must be true of some of the other canneries in other areas as well.

There is an additional problem in that while 3 canneries remain in the Goulburn Valley the overhead cost of their continued operation will significantly reduce net returns to growers. In spite of reports by the Australian Industry Development Corporation, pressure by grower organisations and the continued disastrous fall in sterling prices, 3 canneries will be operating in the Goulburn Valley this season. In my view that is a tragedy. In spite of all efforts these 3 organisations will Still be there. I only hope that the rationalisation proposal by the Victorian Government due to be announced in the next 2 weeks will be more successful than all the proposals up to now.

It should not be thought that there is excess cannery capacity in the Goulburn Valley only. It is equally so in Riverland in South Australia and in the Mumimbidgee Irrigation Area. In fact the Goulburn Valley has a better chance to adjust because it can move from a 3-cannery situation to a 2-cannery situation. The other two fruit growing areas cannot do so. In fact they will require more propping up by State governments than will be required in Victoria in the future. One could look at certain other political proposals by South Australia in this regard at this time.

The continued devaluation of sterling has been a disaster to the canning fruit industry. There have been at least 5 devaluations in the last 12 months. This has hit the fruit industry, both fresh fruit and canned fruit, ‘more than any other product in Australia. In fact devaluation of the Australian currency probably would assist the fresh apple export industry and the canned fruit industry more than any other industry. Reduced production has been chasing sterling devaluation. Balance has been virtually impossible if not impossible in the last 12 months. Various AIDC reports and other proposals have been out of date by the time they have been presented because the latest reduction in the value of sterling has reduced further the profitable market opportunity for a certain tonnage of Austraiian canned fruit in that country.

I want to conclude by making several points. One is that there is a need for continual reconstruction after’ 1 January. The honourable member for Blaxland made a point about one of the Industries Assistance Commission’s reports. I know it is the Government’s intention to bring together the various reconstruction schemes presently in operation and to have a more general scheme with emphasis in certain other areas after 1 January. That reconstruction proposal, although it will not contain tree-pull compensation, must have in it certain procedures of value to fruit growers in allowing them to adjust. In particular I hope that a household support scheme is introduced and that at the same time it does not exclude the possibility of unemployment benefits. In spite of what the honourable member for Blaxland said, the Government is concerned for the welfare of fruit growers and dairy farmers throughout Australia and their ability to gain unemployment benefits. I am not referring to the abolition of the work test but to a modification of the secondary work test, which has never applied to any salary or wage earner. These people have to pass a more difficult work test. Extension of the unemployment benefit to these people has brought some relief to hundreds of fruit growers and dairy farmers in my electorate. I believe this Government has demonstrated that it is genuinely concerned about social welfare. It should be applauded by the Opposition rather than derided by it. The second point is that the Minister must provide more money than the Sim set out in this Bill if more money is required. He is on record as saying that more money will be required if the expected applications are received by the due date.

Mr James:

– Do you believe that?

Mr LLOYD:

-Yes, I do, actually. He has always lived up to his statements, as far as I am concerned. The third important point is that the Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee which sets the prices for canning pears, peaches and. apricots should set these prices, particularly for pears, earlier than usual. The prices should be set in early December rather than in Januarylast year they were not really set for some months -to allow fruit growers the last opportunity to apply before 31 December for tree pull. We still have this excess of 2000 to 3000 acres of canning pear trees which will still remain unless the rate of application increases beyond its present level. An important point in this matter would be to set the official price for pears earlier and for the canneries to more openly declare their intake requirements so that fruit growers who may be considering whether to enter for tree pull can make up their minds whether they have a future in the industry.

The fourth point is that the Government still has time- I urge the Government to take some action on this point- to reconsider the partial pull criteria. Partial pull is not working. If it were allowed to work by making certain adjustments to the criteria, a significant area of canning pear trees would be removed. I do not think any government supporter from Western Australia will be speaking in the debate. Last week in Western Australia when we were having talks on the fruit industry generally, the point was made that the apple industry in Western Australia suffers under the tree pull scheme because of the mixed farming nature of the apple growers. Therefore, they come under the partial pull criteria rather than under the clear fell criteria. The partial pull criteria just does not work for them. It does not work very well in the Goulburn Valley or anywhere else, either. I believe that if the Government is genuine in relation to the market situation of canning pear trees, the partial pull criteria should be eased. The next point is the absolute necessity for canning rationalisation if there is ever to be a commercial return to canning fruit growers in the Goulburn Valley in the future. Finally, I suggest there should be reconstruction of the Australian Canned Fruits Board to give it greater power to change its representation so that it can have greater power over marketing. Then we will never witness again the cut price situation which developed under the Labor Party Government 18 months ago. We should allow a better form of underwriting and first advance to fruit growers so that they can get some money within a few months of their production rather than waiting up to 12 months for a small percentage of the amount as happens at the present time.

Mr FitzPATRICK (Darling) (8.53)- I support the States Grants (Fruit-Growing Reconstruction) Bill because it gives parliamentary approval to an agreement which is to be entered into between the Commonwealth and the States along the lines set out in the exchange of letters between the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Premiers to extend the fruit growing reconstruction scheme until December 1976, and an additional provision of up to Sim for the removal of certain fruit trees in Victoria and South Australia. I was very amused to hear the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) say that the speech of the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) was full of contradictions. In listening to the honourable member for Murray I heard him say that the canning fruit industry was in a very serious position owing to inflation caused by the previous Government. But later he said that the industry was in serious trouble owing to the devaluation of sterling. It seems to me that there is a little bit of contradiction there. Also the honourable member mentioned that during the period of office of the Australian Labor Party Government no change was made to the reconstruction scheme. Of course, in that period the reconstruction scheme was serving the purpose for which it was set up. It looked as though there would be some re-establishment of the industry.

It should be quite obvious to everyone now that this industry is no longer viable and that something should be done about it. The honourable member for Blaxland made the point that there is some contradiction between setting out a stabilisation scheme which gives people encouragement to stay in the industry and giving them money to pull the trees out. I think this is the only contradiction which the honourable member for Blaxland was pointing out. The present scheme which the Government intends to introduce provides supplementary assistance to the main rural reconstruction scheme which was commenced on 14 July 1972 to meet the special needs of the horticultural industry. There is no doubt that at the present time this scheme is urgently needed. Indeed, I think the honourable member for Murray and I would be in agreement on that point. I do not think anyone connected with the growing and sale of fresh apples and pears or canning pears, peaches or apricots would have any reason to be satisfied with the financial outlook of the industry as it is shaping up at the present time. The reconstruction scheme was originally intended to operate for one year up to June 1 973. It has been extended on 2 occasions, namely, to June 1974 and then again to 31 December 1975. As the Industries Assistance Commission was looking into special reconstruction measures for the industry which were to take place after 3 1 December, this scheme was held in abeyance.

The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) in his second reading speech stated:

A subsidiary benefit of the scheme is that the removal of surplus trees has helped to bring the industry’s productive capacity into closer alignment with the market for its products.

It seems to me very surprising that the Minister should use the words ‘a subsidiary benefit’. If we read the report of the Industries Assistance Commission we gain the impression that this is the major consideration which justifies the spending of over $5m of taxpayers’ money. In any case, there appear to be 2 distinct considerations; that is, the sale of fresh apples and fresh pears and the sale of canning peaches, canning pears and canning apricots. These 2 considerations appear to me to be wide apart. Apple and pear production is concentrated in areas with favourable climatic and soil conditions. The major part of the production is sold on the domestic market and returns from these sales have generally kept pace with the production and marketing costs. This is a finding in the IAC report. According to the report these fruits have the potential to be thoroughly viable activities without production or marketing subsidies.

The minority part of the total production has faced growing marketing difficulties. Australia’s remoteness from the major world markets in Europe and North America is a major problem. Of course, fresh apples and pears are costly to export. They need a good deal of looking after, and of course the freight rates are very high at the present time. The honourable member for Murray has already pointed out that the currency has appreciated relative to the currency in the Southern Hemisphere. Between 1967-68 and 1974-75 an amount of $30m was spent to reduce the rate at which export income on these commodities had fallen. The Commission has found these schemes to be too expensive to the community. In 1973-74 direct subsidies averaging $14,000 to each grower were provided to Tasmanian apple growers with a net farm income which averaged less than $4,000. In the light of that information, it would be hard to justify further production for export purposes. Of course, it is the people who produce, service and market the production who are important, and it is those people and not production whom we should consider when introducing Bills such as this. While $30m was spent to continue uneconomic production between those years, payment for the apple and pear industry under the treepull system amounted to only $2m.

It is obvious from the experience gained over that period that there should be some reversal of that trend. It is not much good saying that, in the light of the experience we had over that time, the Labor Government should have done something about it. We have gained that experience and we should be able to bring about some change in our approach. What is the good of making it more attractive to produce more fruit when we cannot sell it? Would it not be better to make it more attractive for people to leave the industry? That is what we should be aiming at in this Bill. Subsidies often result in increased production in areas which already have an over-production problem. These subsidies have not provided sufficiently for the personal well-being of the growers and their families who are involved in the production of these fruits. The grower with larger exports and often a larger income has received a greater part of the assistance. Where the need to maintain the income of the grower is the greatest, as in the case of the small fruit grower, the assistance has been the least. We should be considering provisions to pay .a larger amount of money to encourage growers to leave the industry instead of making it more attractive for them to stay there. The operation of the treepull scheme at the same time as the provision of a price subsidy resulted on the one hand in encouragement to growers to grow more and on the other hand in paying other growers to leave the industry. Of course, that system has had to be maintained to some degree in order to provide against a complete collapse of the industry, with consequential severe hardship for many of those involved.

Moving to the canning of fruit, other schemes are involved where a heavy subsidy has been provided to the canning factories. I think the Minister ought to have said more about this in his second reading speech so that honourable members would be fully acquainted with all the factors concerned in the growing of fruit. At the present stage, all we can do is support the Bill before the House and hope that the Minister and those concerned in the industry will give further consideration to some of the points put forward.

Mr GOODLUCK:
Franklin

– I rise to support the Bill and to commend the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) for his wellprepared address and constructive remarks. Politicians and primary producers have much in common. Both callings are very precarious. Decisions made by both should be directed at long term objectives.

Mr Stewart:

– The farmer will last longer than you.

Mr GOODLUCK:

– Thank you very much. Because of the very nature of their callings, short term expediency prevails and they are forced to act in order to minimise the symptoms when they should be tackling the disease. Many Australian fruitgrowers are facing extreme economic difficulties which stem from the rapid escalation of their costs, particularly for labour and freight, and from their declining competitiveness in world markets. Fruitgrowers and the regions under greatest pressure are those which have been most directly oriented towards exports. This applies particularly to Tasmania, from which two-thirds of the total Australian apple export trade is derived. Reconstruction schemes were introduced in part to assist fruitgrowers who were in financial difficulty to leave the industry, thereby improving their well-being and that of their families, and also to encourage growers to remove their least productive trees, making their farms more economically viable and productive.

It saddens me, along with many other Tasmanians, to see the continual reduction in production and the desperate decisions to pull trees to enable orchardists to stay on the land and meet urgent financial commitments. Between October 1973, when the scheme was introduced, and October 1975, 40 per cent of the total tree area was pulled. Admittedly, some of the trees were old, but we as politicians allowed a situation to occur which future generations may condemn. Should we have encouraged those hard working people to stay on their farms and fought ferociously against the reasons which necessitated such a plan? The base rate for apples sent to the United Kingdom and Europe in 1969 was approximately $1.70 a case. The anticipated rate for 1976 is $5.50 a case. Since 1971 Australian production costs and international marketing costs have increased more rapidly than they did during the previous decade. In particular, the cost of labour has risen more rapidly than the cost of most other production inputs, and for that reason fruit growers have been more disadvantaged because of increases in their costs of production than most other Australian exporters. The cost of export freight has also risen more rapidly than have most other marketing services. Freight costs thus represent a high proportion of returns for fresh apples and pears sold in Europe. Those costs are currently about 60 per cent.

Much has been said about the dramatic escalation in freight. After taking inflation into consideration, I believe quite firmly that this Parliament should have a very hard look at all aspects of the stevedoring and shipping industries.

Perhaps the following questions should be asked: Why has freight increased from $1.70 a case in 1969 to an anticipated $5.50 a case in 1976? Why has the dairly average loading rate for ships for Hobart reduced from 15 494 cases in 1969 to 12 487 cases in 1976? Why is the daily loading rate in Hobart 15 000 cases a vessel, in Nelson, New Zealand, 50 000 cases and in South Africa 90 000 cases? Why was the gang hourly loading rate in 1975-76 296 bushels in Hobart and 418 bushels in the 2 other Tasmanian ports? There are unsuitable ships and frequent delays. We should query the payment of $656,700, excluding salaries, to the 5 directors of the stevedoring firm James Patrick and Co. Pty Ltd for the financial year ended 30 June 1975. That gold is not located in any remote range of hills in the desert heart of Australia but right smack on the wharves of our major ports.

Tasmania, often known as the ‘Apple Isle’, has been exporting high quality apples and pears for more than 90 years. Our fruit industry plays a vital role in the economy of the State, particularly in southern Tasmania where more than 1500 people are directly or indirectly employed. That figure has been halved since 1966. The industry represents 1 1 per cent of the Tasmanian gross value of agricultural production as compared to 0.78 per cent in New South Wales, 1.14 per cent in Victoria, 0.60 per cent in Queensland, 0.58 per cent in South Australia and 0.83 per cent in Western Australia. From this comparison it is easy to gauge the importance of the industry to Tasmania.

Tasmania has been promised a continuing fruit industry. Its orchardists have answered the call for efficiency to the packing shed and sometimes they have worked themselves to a standstill to stay in an industry that has been their life and their livelihood. My colleagues from Tasmania have pledged their support for the apple industry. We are determined to fight at all costs to ensure its economic survival. It can once again be a great income earner, not just for Tasmania but also for Australia. It will achieve stability and provide permanent employment for thousands of Australians only if the Government decides here and now that the industry is worth saving and only if the Government acts promptly and effectively to promote the industry’s future.

Mr Hodgman:

-It must have a firm decision.

Mr GOODLUCK:

-Exactly. In the main orchardists do not want handouts and complete reliance on governments for the future but they do ask for comparable support to enable them to compete fairly with their competitors, namely Argentina, South America and New Zealand.

The Government has decided to recommend in 1977 a maximum level of support of $2 per box for a maximum quantity eligible for support of 2 million boxes for eligible markets. This will provide for at risk sales to Europe, including Great Britain. I say it should be $3 per box and I will fight determinedly for that particular objective. I am sure that my colleagues from Tasmania will stand by me in this particular fight.

Mr MacKenzie:

– And New South Wales.

Mr GOODLUCK:

-And New South Wales; and, of course, Queensland. But 93 per cent of the taxpayers must be prepared to subsidise the 7 per cent who comprise rural producers who grow everything we eat, most of what we clothe ourselves with and much of the materials which give us shelter. In addition they contribute some 40 per cent of the total exports to other communities upon which the high living standards we enjoy are founded.

The honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) needs to study carefully this statement relating to the advantages of Tasmanian producers as compared to the producers of Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. These advantages are apparently enjoyed because of the freight equalisation plan. But Tasmania does not enjoy these advantages. Tasmania enjoys an advantage only in regard to quality, and that is the particular worry that the other States have. I should just like to repeat a couple of sentences of a speech I made last week because I think they are most applicable tonight in view of the use of the term ‘reconstruction’. We need reconstruction but we also need stability, particularly in the apple industry in Tasmania and also in the other States of Australia. I assure Tasmanian apple producers that they have the full support of all Tasmanian Liberal politicians and, I hope, of all Tasmanian Labor Party politicians in order to ensure that they are given the greatest assistance possible for the forthcoming season. The limited support scheme of the Federal and State Governments for this season’s crop cannot be regarded as having any degree of permanency. For this reason alone it is imperative, if the industry is to have any future, that marketing arrangements and quality control must be first rate. If all the words spoken about the need for a national marketing authority could be translated into action perhaps the future of the industry would be much brighter. But the tortuous history of such moves, including interstate and even intrastate jealousies andthe procrastination of politicians, including myself, does not auger well for the establishment of a cohesive marketing set-up.

The apple tree frequently figures in mystic literature as the tree of life. In fairy tales the apple appears as a source of immortal youth. With 40 per cent of apple trees pulled out since the introduction of the tree pull scheme one is apt to become extremely cynical of such romantic sentiments. Economists are funny people. They have always been regarded with suspicion by the man on the land. It cannot be explained that there is something inherently dangerous about a breed of theorists who come a ‘preaching to the gentry.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for a third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2221

ASIAN DEVELOPMENT FUND BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23 September, on motion by Mr Sinclair:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for the Northern Territory · Fisher · NCP/NP

– May I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation? Before the debate is resumed on this Bill I would like to suggest it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill and the Asian Development Bank (Special Funds Contributions) Amendment Bill as they are related measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of both Bills to be discussed in this debate.

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

-Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the 2 measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-The Opposition supports these Bills. In one way I am grateful to the Government for bringing them on tonight because I will not be here on Thursday when it was originally intended that these Bills should be debated. In another way, I am not so happy because I have had only an hour’s notice that the Bills were to be debated tonight. I am worried that important Bills like these will not be given the consideration from me in this debate that I would have liked. But the Asian Development Bank (Special Funds Contributions) Amendment Bill illustrates clearly this Government’s lack of commitment to aid. This has to be said in a debate like this even though the Opposition is supporting the Bills. This Bill is at least 6 months late. The Asian Development Bank’s annual report, which was published in March states: the Australian Government has indicated its intention to untie its contribution (to the multi-purpose special fund) and so allow it to be transferred to the Asian Development Fund as soon as necessary Parliamentary authorisation could be obtained.

In other words, this Government told the Asian Development Bank at least in March, and probably earlier, that it would arrange for this Bill, which authorises transfers of funds from an old concessionary loan fund to a new Asian Development Fund as quickly as possible. It has taken the Government at least 6 months to draft and present this one page Bill. I wonder whether the Minister for the Northern Territory (Mr Adermann) who is at the table- I know he is not responsible for this Bill- could ask whoever is the responsible Minister- I presume it is the Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Eric Robinson) or the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) himself- to give an explanation, when replying, about the cause for this delay. It does not do our country’s reputation any good to find a charge like that being made in a report such as the report of the Asian Development Bank.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Order! I wonder whether the honourable member will stop his speech there. Would the honourable member for Robertson like to recognise the Chair when he comes into the chamber and then take his seat?

Mr Cohen:

– I always recognise the Chair, Sir.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Perhaps it could be done more obviously.

Mr HURFORD:

-Referring to the charge about the 6 months delay, I would like the responsible Minister, when replying, to tell the House whether the delay was related to the decision the Government announced in February to defer a large part of Australia’s contributions to multi-lateral organisations. In fact, of course, those contributions were not deferred; they were a simple way of reducing Australia’s total aid commitment.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) said in his second reading speech to this Bill that the Government decided last August to untie the outstanding balance of our multi-purpose special funds contribution so that it could be transferred to the Asian Development Fund. There is a serious inconsistency here. On the one hand the Minister is saying that the decision was made in August. On the other hand, the Asian Development Bank says in’ its annual report, which I repeat was published in March, that the Government had already indicated its intention to untie its contribution. Either there is a serious misunderstanding between the Asian Development Bank and the Australian Government, between the Fund and the Asian Development Bank or between the Bank and the Minister. Someone is misrepresenting the situation. I hope the Minister can clarify this matter in his reply.

The Asian Development Bank (Special Funds Contributions) Amendment Bill 1976 authorises Australia’s contribution to the second replenishment of the Asian Development Fund. The Australian contribution is only 5 per cent of the total contributions. This must surely be the minimum we should be contributing.. The Government is limiting the impact of this contribution to this year’s Budget by using promissory notes rather than lodging cash with the Fund. I have already drawn attention to the poor aid record of this Government. Official development aid for 1976-77 will be only 0.49 per cent of gross national product- the lowest percentage of gross national product since 1963-64 when it was also 0.49 per cent. It is important to continue to publicise this disgraceful figure in the hope that the Government will change its policy and begin to move towards the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent of gross national product.

These Bills give an opportunity to draw attention to the Government’s aid record. At the time the Government came to power it announced large reductions in government spending. Of course aid was included. This was iniquitous because such aid is not spent in Australia for the large part and is not an inflationary factor within Australia. It was tragic for the reputation of this country that such cuts were made. I have on many other occasions drawn attention to the disastrous effects on the economy of this country of cutting government spending. I know I will not be allowed to ouline my arguments again while speaking to this Bill. I repeat that I hope the Government will change its policy and begin to move towards the United Nations target of 0.7 percent.

The Government is also reducing the quality of aid. This is symbolised most clearly by its decision to abolish the Australian Development Aid Agency. One would have hoped that through its support for the formation of the Australian Development Aid Agency and an apparent bipartisan support for aid generally the Government would have maintained the initiatives of the Labor Government. However, it seems to be backtracking. Before concluding I want to reiterate the Opposition’s support for the Asian Development Bank. Total loan approvals grew from $550m in 1974 to $660m in 1975. The proportion of these loans going to agriculture and agro-industry increased from 24 per cent in 1974 to 37 per cent in 1975. This is vitally important because it is in agriculture that the majority of the populations of the countries in our Asian region work and it is in agriculture that the greatest causes of poverty are found. Another 29 per cent of lending in 1975 was for public utilities involving mainly the exploitation of indigenous power resources in Asian countries.

Aid is not only a humanitarian objective but is also a very great means of helping our neighbours, the developing countries, to build up thenstandards of living thus increasing their trade with our country and helping us to increase our standard of living. Let me stress that aid is important for humanitarian reasons and for our own material interests in this country. I repeat that the Bills are late and inadequate. I hope that they show that the Government is at least committed to continuing its aid policies, inadequate though those policies are at present as illustrated by those very stark figures of the percentage of gross national product going in aid. As I said the figure is the lowest since the financial year 1 963-64. The Opposition supports the Bills.

Mr CONNOLLY:
Bradfield

-The legislation we are debating is to enable the Parliament to approve the Government’s spending some $30.73m towards the first replenishment of the Asian Development Fund established within the Asian Development Bank. Much of what the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) said in relation to the problems of foreign aid are, of course, correct. I think it would be fair to say that on both sides of this chamber there is virtually a bipartisan approach to the fundamental and major international, social and economic problems which many countries face. The honourable member has emphasised that in his opinion this Government does not give sufficient funds for international assistance. As has been pointed out by many speakers on numerous occasions the fact that we are unable to give as much as we would like must be sheeted home to the irresponsible attitude adopted by members of the honourable member’s Party when in Government only some 10 or 11 months ago. Whether we like it or not in every area of national endeavour and certainly in the area of international assistance we are faced with the reality of having to cut our coat according to our cloth.

The improvements in living standards of the world’s poor must be one of the major challenges of our time. It will remain a challenge for at least the rest of this century and I would expect well into the next. In fact it is possible to look over the last 25 years of international and national development efforts and claim that much has been achieved. Developing countries have improved their basic infrastructure; railways, roads, bridges and power systems have been built. The skills of many of their peoples to provide the basis of a higher level of economic activity have also been developed. This has, of course, been assisted by technical and financial aid from virtually all developed countries in the world. As stated in a recent report of the British Ministry of Overseas Development:

Major progress has been made so that, for example, in the fifteen years since 1960 the Aggregate Gross National Product (GNP) of developing countries, taken as a whole, more than doubled in real terms, rising on average by almost 6 per cent per annum. Even taking into account population growth, average income per head grew by some 3 per cent per annum. However, this overall picture conceals considerable differences between countries, and the poorest countries as a group have recorded a much lower rate of growth (under 4 per cent) over the same period.

But regardless of what has taken place in the past the inexorable fact facing us today is that although there has been some improvement in certain areas of the world, notably, I am pleased to say, in South East Asia with perhaps the major exception being Bangladesh, greater problems have been created in parts of Africa with the Sahelian famine, droughts and other international catastrophes which the best planners have been incapable of anticipating.

The Government recognises that the economic and social progress of mankind is of fundamental importance if we are to achieve any degree of stable international relations in the future. Therefore, the progress we are seeking on an international level requires growth in productivity, education, higher living standards and, of course, the necessary social changes which will bring those about. To achieve this, developing countries will continue to require substantial imports of capital, technology and managerial skills as well as a continuation of bilateral and multilateral aid from the developed world. The Asian Development Bank has been an organisation with which Australia has been associated right from its earliest days. In fact, I believe that the Bank and its fund will be seen in the future as a very good example of what a regional aid body can achieve, provided it has within its ranks both aid donors and aid recipients realistic enough to appreciate that the problems they are trying to overcome together can be overcome only by a rational approach and a utilisation of the existing resources available to them.

The Asian Development Fund which the Bank has created is based on the simple premise that we must look to the fundamental economic base of most Asian countries before we can seek to understand how best they can be developed. Of course, the basic objective on the economic level is to reach the point of self-sustained take-off, as it has been called by various writers. Regrettably, this point of self-sustained growth has been somewhat a figment of the imagination and we still seek it. We see that there are many countries in which the birth rate continues to grow at some 3 per cent or even more to the extent that whatever gross domestic product growth can be achieved is lost by the continuation of the high birth rate. This is a fundamental problem. The Indian Government in recent times has developed what we would regard in this country as being the most Draconian methods to try to achieve some stabilisation. We have yet to see whether they will be successful. It is my personal opinion that they will not succeed. This is because the reason why there is this massive increase in births is a fundamental social one. We are dealing with a society in which most people are involved in primary production. Whether the people are in fact land owners begs the question.

The people find themselves in a situation in which their families represent a social welfare insurance policy for the future. When parents have about 6 or 7 children and it can be guaranteed that half of them will die before they are 2 years old, there is obviously a fundamental tendency for families to go for broke, so to speak, to increase the size of their families to the maximum extent in the hope that at least a reasonable number will survive and therefore be in a position to look after their parents in their old age. Of course, this is a very sad reflection on the sociological imperfections of the system and the way of life in which many of our fellow human beings find themselves. Nevertheless, it is a fact that we have to recognise.

Together with this fundamental population problem we must also take into account the question of land distribution. Again, in the case of India, much has been done. Nevertheless, a lot yet has to be actioned. At any one time literally millions of landless peasants believe, perhaps incorrectly, that the bright lights of the city will at least offer them a concept of employment which they have never known before. While in this nation we talk of unemployment being a problem, in the countries to which we are referring tonight it is not just a question of unemployment, but also of under-employment. This is because many millions of people are guaranteed that in their entire lives they will never find a job which will last for more than a few weeks. To us it is almost an incomprehensible concept. Nevertheless, it is a very real one. We may well look around us and wonder why we see today, developing since 1972, the concept of the ‘New World Economic Order’.

Of course, the seeds of this grew from the oil crisis of that year when the developing world, through no fault of its own, found itself in an even worse position than the developed world. While our prices increased to a massive extentthis was one of the fundamental reasons for the later high level of inflation which beseiged us all- the people in the developing world suddenly found themselves in the position in which over two-thirds at least of their total import bill was doubled or even trebled in some cases. Sadly most members of the oil producing cartel were themselves developing countries in the terms of the United Nations formula. Nevertheless they have not shown themselves to be particularly partial towards giving special rates for the export of oil and so forth to their brethren who are often in a much worse position than they are.

Therefore, the developing world today is asking- it is not only asking but has reached the stage of demanding- that there be a fundamental redistribution of the world’s resources to ensure that their people can have a reasonable standard of living and some expectation that this world into which they have been born will enable them to at least keep body and soul together. In rich countries like Australia, this is something which we have read about. We see photographs depicting the position. Perhaps we are rather inured to what poverty really means. But ultimately it is not just the developed world which has to give in some form or another to the developing world. The answer lies fundamentally with the fact that the developing world itself must be prepared to play a much greater part than it has in achieving its own economic progress. This is not a new argument. It is one which has been heard on many occasions in the past.

But I am a little concerned about what happened at a recent international conference which I attended. I saw the representatives of many developed countries- in fact, virtually all of them- agreeing to resolutions which in sense were quite outrageous and in terms of the normal economic realities with which we must all live had no hope whatsoever of ever reaching fruition. What I am concerned about is that if this is allowed to continue indefinitely we run a real risk of building up in the minds of the people of the developing world an expectation of achieving their objectives which in reality cannot be achieved. The dangers of that at the international level are only too real. I believe that the developed world must give a much greater degree of thought than it has in the past, not just promising to improve the relationship between the developed and the developing world and not just signing various international agreements to give more money or to promise more aid and then going off at the end of the conference to forget all about it. If we are to do that indefinitely, I believe that ultimately the dangers will become only too evident. But by that stage it could be too late.

I mentioned earlier the need for the developing countries to do more for themselves. There is, of course, a very real tendency for the ruling classes in many of these countries, regardless of whether they be there by the democratic process or by force of arms, to take the view that having achieved power, the object of the exercise is to maintain it regardless of how the people under them are expected to live. For example, there are countries in Africa where model French chateaux have been built and where every member of parliament is equipped with a Mercedes-Benz and driver. While many honourable members may wish they had similar benefits, at least we can say to our people that we do not live beyond our means. On a recent visit to Africa I was in a small state which was about to get its independence. There were 6 magnificent palaces which had been built for the president and his first S ministers. When I asked the person taking me around why they had to live in such luxury, I was told in a very off-handed manner, ‘You do not expect them to live like the rest of the people, do you? After all they could not possibly respect a man who did not live in a sumptuous mansion in the manner to which he was allegedly going to become accustomed.’ Of course, I found some difficulty in accepting this thesis but nevertheless

I do not expect other countries and other peoples to have the same sense of values which we may have. This is one of the problems we face in terms of international development. We have a tendency to see other people through our own eyes. We believe that what we have is therefore suitable for everyone else. This is too ambitious an objective.

We in Australia are lucky to have such a very rich country and such a relatively small population to share that wealth but in many of these less developed countries their greatest wealth is their people. We have seen that in the case of Singapore where in a mere 10 years that small country has literally dragged itself up by its bootstraps and is now reaching a point where its balance of payments is even comparable with that of this country. One naturally says we can hardly consider it to be a less developed country. However, as I said earlier, in India, in Bangladesh, in the Philippines and elsewhere there is at last a very real indication of some progress being made. In a sense the green revolution was an achievement but there are many people today who look upon the green revolution as being a disaster for although it did result in a much greater yield per acre for crops, at the same time it introduced into basic peasant societies expectation of technological innovation and, when added to the fact that they have already such a huge population which is underemployed, one must seriously question whether a high standard of technology is the answer to their difficulty.

Following independence they believed that the only way to catch up with the West was to compete on the basis of technology and secondary industry, and consequently we are facing even in Australia the problem of a large textile industry in the Philippines, for example, which wishes to export to markets like ours which they believe should be open to their products. Therefore we have in a sense a fundamental difficulty. On the one hand governments, especially elected governments in South-East Asia, nave tended to take the approach that from the point of view of the electorate they need to have prestige projects to show where their aid has been spent. Technical schools have been built next door to the local textile factory and when one asks where these students are to be employed one is told in the textile factory, but obviously there is alimit as to how many students can go there. Therefore we find a fundamental weakness in the structure of their secondary development because they have spent their aid funds and their own hard-won foreign exchange resources in the development of prestige projects which ultimately are not necessarily the answer to their problems.

On the other hand, many of these developing countries see themselves merely as quarries which the developed world regard as its source of primary commodities. Of course, this is not new. Our own country has for such a long time been essentially a primary resource exporter and in that sense we have a lot in common with many of these developing countries. We are able therefore to share with them the fundamental difficulties and frustrations they feel when we see an international market which has a tendency to vary depending on the international economic environment over which they have absolutely no control. On that basis, therefore, to them foreign aid or assistance at various levels is still essential.

However, we have to come down to the realisation that there is a limit to how much money or technical assistance can be given by the developed countries. We also have electorates with requirements which must be met and therefore I believe the time is not far off when we will have to say- not just Australia but most of the developed world- to many developing countries that aid must be allocated on the basis of the use to which it is put and those governments which can show a good record in the way they have utilised their aid should obviously be given first priority. There is, of course, the other argument to the effect that this is not a humanitarian view, but I am sorry to say that ontoo many occasions I have seen massive aid projects which have been misdirected and have failed in their basic objectives, enabling governments to line their own pockets with foreign aid which should have been spent for the good of their people.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

-I support the Bills that are beforeus. While I appreciate what the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) has just said about a particular instance of aid not being rightly applied, I am afraid that that sort of thing happens. The honourable member is on a committee, as I am, and we sometimes wonder whether everything spent in Australia is properly applied. When one looks at the totality of what Australia supplies in terms of the needs that are evident one can come to the conclusion only that Australia’s efforts in the aggregate are pretty piffling. The Government publishes annually a document entitled Australia’s Official Development Assistance to Developing Countries and the other day I took out the figures for Australia’s official development assistance over the 10-year period from 1967-68 to what is estimated for 1976-77. They show that over the 10-year period Australia has devoted to official development assistance what appears to be the very magnificent sum of $2,395m. I also happened to look at the figures of the national income account and found that in a single year in Australia- not a 10-year period- we spend $3, 600m on tobacco, cigarettes and alcoholic beverages. That is SO per cent more in a single year than we spent in aid in 10 years. I simply give this as a comparison. Over 10 years we spent roughly $2,400m on aid but in a single year on cigarettes, tobacco and alcoholic beverages we spent $3,600m. If anybody thinks that by this standard Australia is stinting itself to provide assistance to other countries he needs to re-think the matter.

The Bills before us deal with the Asian Development Bank which seems to me to be one of the better endeavours in the field of international aid. We have had the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund but at least with the Asian Development Bank we endeavour to provide assistance on what are called soft terms or less than normal market rates of interest to areas adjacent to Australia, fdo not think that we always realise that Indonesia has more than 100 million people, that Japan has more than 100 million people, that India has something like 700 million to 800 million people taking into account various other areas, and that China has 800 million people. All of them are adjacent to Australia. Something like half the world’s population is reasonably adjacent to us, yet we seem to think that we are doing remarkably well with the sums we assign annually to what is called official development assistance. Certainly a fanpart of it goes to one area, Papua New Guinea, where we do have economic, moral and social obligations. However, when one takes that expenditure out of what appears to be a large sum devoted to aid, there is not a great deal left to devote to other areas of the world.

The Government has recently taken great unction to itself for spending $12 billion on defence in the next 5 years. If one divides $12 billion by five, one finds that as much is spent on defence in a single year as has been spent in the past 10 years on official assistance overseas. I sometimes wonder when people are debating these issues whether Australia would be less safe or more safe if it spent another $250m on aid to these countries and spent $2S0m less on defence. If Australia reduced defence expenditure by onetenth and doubled its assistance overseas, would Australia be safer in consequence? In my view, it would. When we talk about these great sums for defence expenditure we never ask ourselves against what we are supposed to be defending ourselves. We certainly haggle about what we will defend ourselves with and we certainly can get into some great arguments in this regard.

However, I think we have become unduly complacent about measures like this which add another $30m to Australia’s assistance to the Asian Development Bank in order to assist areas that have populations twenty times greater than the population of Australia. A schedule at the end of Budget Paper No. 8 which details Australia’s assistance to developing countries in 1 976-77 shows that Australia is the fourth largest shareholder of the Asian Development Bank after Japan, India and the United States of America since the inception of the Bank. It is Government policy to give high priority to the Asian and Pacific regions in its foreign assistance and to co-operate fully with multilateral agencies, such as the Asian Development Bank, in the region.

Pretty cursory attention is given to these matters in the Parliament. With all respect, one only has to look around the House at the moment to see how few members are present. This Bill was brought on suddenly because we ran out of business this evening. It ought not to have been debated for another day or so. Unfortunately, it is typical of the attitude of the Parliament to these great problems that we become involved in all sorts of heated debates about the cutdown on defence expenditure and whether a certain proportion of the gross domestic product should be spent on defence. I would like an honourable member to justify one night why it is so much better to have a S-year plan for defence and to spend $12 billion. Why is this money being spent? What is to be done with it?

Mr Innes:

– All the hordes pouring down from the north!

Mr CREAN:

-Exactly. But we give with restraint to assist those countries to raise their own economies. Nearly every honourable member in the chamber at the moment has been at some time to places like Indonesia, Kuala Lumpur, Thailand, Cambodia and India. Does any honourable member seriously believe that India is going to invade this country or that China does not have enough on its hands in looking after its own internal problems? What the blazes are we supposed to be defending ourselves against? We get into highfalutin arguments about whether there are submarines in the Indian Ocean. Surely the oceans are free to everybody once outside the 200-mile limit. Surely it is no worse to have Russian submarines than to have American submarines, except that this Government happens to like American submarines better than the Russian submarines.

Surely we are blinking our eyes at what is the real problem of the world today. The real problem of the world today is that at least one-third of the world’s population lives at a level below what a Christain country would call human dignity. The piffling amount that Australia is providing is all we give to raise the standards in those countries to something resembling preferable economic opportunity. I was astonished the other day when I added up the figures of Australia’s official aid to find that in 10 years in that area Australia spent two-thirds of the amount spent annually on beer, cigarettes and other consumable pleasures.

The House is discussing the expenditure of $ 12 billion or an average each year of $2,400m on defence, as much as has been spent in the past 10 years on international aid. I believe that, in the long run, Australia’s security will be built up by establishing friendly relations with its neighbours. We will not make friends by having more submarines, more battleships, more aircraft carriers or anything else. Unfortunately, the attitude is that we still like to talk loud and big about what we can do. Australia is a country of nearly 14 million people. I sometimes use as an illustration when I talk to groups other than political groups that in many ways Australia would be the least missed country in the world if, by some freak of geography, the Australian continent was turned upside down one night and we all drowned. The only people who would grieve for us would be a few relatives in Italy and Greece of recent immigrants. The Scots, the English, the Irish and the Welsh would hardly give a damn for us because we left there 100 years or more ago. Australia’s contribution to the world is best made by sensible trading with the rest of the world and by assisting those parts of the world that are less fortunate than ourselves.

I hope that Australia will become more progressive with regard to the amount of assistance it gives and less aggressive when talking about what other countries are supposed to be doing towards each other. I applaud both these Bills because I think they are moves in the right direction but they are very small moves in terms of the totality of the problems that we face.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2227

ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK (SPECIAL FUNDS CONTRIBUTIONS) AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from21 October, on motion by Mr Peacock:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2227

NAURU (HIGH COURT APPEALS) BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 7 October, on motion byMrEllicott:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– The Opposition does not oppose this Bill. In making that statement I point out that the Opposition is mindful of the fact that Nauru was originally a mandated territory and was granted independence in 1968. The Opposition is of the opinion that it should not be thought that we are retaining some vestige of neo-colonial power by saying that the High Court of Australia should be the court of appeal for the Nauruans. We want to make the point that we readily understand the situation. The population of Nauru is very limited indeed. As it has had the advantage in the past of being able to appeal to the High Court by leave, it obviously felt that it should continue to avail itself of those facilities. As a friendly neighbouring country we readily accede to Nauru’s request.

The Bill itself virtually encompasses an Agreement made between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Nauru relating to appeals to the High Court of Australia. In the preamble it recalls that immediately before Nauru became independent the High Court of Australia was empowered, after the leave of the court had been obtained, to hear and determine appeals. Article I of the

Agreement mentions the types of matters that can be dealt with. It states that in the exercise by the Supreme Court of Nauru of its original jurisdiction there may be an appeal to the High Court of Australia in criminal cases as of right by a convicted person, in civil cases as of right against any final judgment, decree or order and, with the leave of the trial judge of the High Court of Australia, against any other judgment, decree or order. Article 2 provides that in certain cases an appeal shall not lie to the High Court. That is where the appeal involves the interpretation or effect of the Constitution of Nauru, is in respect of a determination of the Supreme Court of Nauru of a question concerning the right of a person to be or to remain a member of the Parliament of Nauru, and is in respect of a judgment, decree or order given or made by consent. The other relevant articles are articles 4, 5 and 6. Article 4 states:

  1. Pending the determination of an appeal from the Supreme Court of Nauru to the High Court of Australia, the judgment, decree, order or sentence to which the appeal relates is to be stayed, unless the Supreme Court of Nauru otherwise orders.
  2. Orders of the High Court of Australia on appeals from the Supreme Court of Nauru (including interlocutory orders of the High Court) are to be made binding and effective in Nauru.

Article S, which is important, provides:

This Agreement shall come into force on the date on which the two Governments exchange Notes notifying each other that their respective constitutional and other requirements necessary to give effect to this Agreement have been complied with.

Finally, article 6, which I think it is very important to emphasise, states: . . this Agreement shall continue in force until the expiration of the ninetieth day after the day on which either Government has given to the other Government notice in writing of its desire to terminate this Agreement.

One can see from that that there is no suggestion of our wishing to retain any influence should the Nauruan Government wish to set up its own appellate court jurisdiction. I emphasise that because I think it is a tribute to our own High Court to think that it has been and is still held in such high esteem. We in Australia value our judiciary. Its members have been very well trained. In the course of exercising their talents early in the piece at the Bar they often found themselves in an adversary situation. They are born fighters for freedom. I think that they have a recognition in the world that is beyond equal. To that extent it is important that we applaud the fact that other people have recognised the value of our High Court. In the world at times there is not always justice. People are confined without trial. People often do not get a fair hearing. It is on that basis that I say that our courts always stand for the best thing that I think the British have ever given us, that is, their system of justice where all people are equal and no man is denied a fair trial and no man is denied his freedom. With those thoughts in mind one can readily understand why the Nauruans, small though they are in numberthere are some 6500 of them- readily applaud the fact that they can appeal to a court of such distinction.

In the course of looking at the legalities of the situation it is interesting to look at how our own High Court, in dealing with cases which I think related more to Papua New Guinea, has been in a bit of a dilemma in the past as to whether its powers were virtually under section 122 of the Constitution or what is known as the external affairs power, which is placitum (xxix) of section 51. While there have been decisions either way, one is prone to think about the decisions of Mr Justice Evatt in Jolley v Mainka and later in Ffrost v Stevenson, where he emphasised the fact that in his opinion the power was in the external affairs power. We agree with the AttorneyGeneral (Mr Ellicott) that the external affairs power provides a sufficient constitutional base for this Bill. The external affairs power is a most important power. In the decision in R v Burgess ex parte Henry, Mr Justice McTiernan and Mr Justice Evatt both said that it is a great and important one.

The Attorney-General would be aware that there are moves afoot to limit the Parliament’s powers in respect of external affairs. At the recent Constitutional Convention there was a move to try to write it down and a suggestion that it should be limited specifically to matters which are deemed to be basically external, of an international nature. I do not think this is fair to our Constitution or to the powers of our court. I think this Bill is an example of the wider aspect. Accordingly we welcome this approach. We commend the fact that the Bill allows for an easy method of repudiation. While we understand that the High Court has its rights as well, we also applaud the fact that Nauruan independence is in no way affected. In fact, Nauru can terminate this Agreement at any time.

I do not want to go into the history of the situation, but it is significant to note that we have had an association with this island for some 60 years. The association arose under certain tragic circumstances during the First World War. Nauru’s position certainly was not helped during the Second World War with the Japanese invasion. But it is very pleasing to note that at all times Australia has been able to stand by and that Nauru is now going to get the benefit of our judicial system. I say no more except to wish the Bill a speedy passage.

Mr MACPHEE:
Balaclava · LP

– I have great pleasure in supporting this Bill. I congratulate the Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott) on it. As the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) has said, this is a matter which we do not view in any former colonial perspective. We welcome the fact that in a post colonial situation we have reached that stage of maturity that we welcome the fact that the independent Republic of Nauru is seeking the High Court of Australia as its ultimate court of appeal.

I speak on this matter because of a somewhat nostalgic reason, a personal involvement. I was involved, together with Senator Chaney of this Parliament, in a case in the court of appeal of the then Colony of Nauru some 10 years or so ago. That case concerned the very kind of factual situation which has led the Republic of Nauru to feel that it should bring a further independent tribunal to bear on its judicial system. That case involved criminal charges against persons who were not residents of Nauru but in fact were from the Gilbert and Ellice Islands. Those people are in the situation of being virtually guest workers in Nauru.

The purpose of this Bill, as the AttorneyGeneral said in his second reading speech, is to seek parliamentary approval to an agreement made on 6 September 1976 between the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Nauru. That agreement provides for appeals to lie to the High Court from certain classes of decisions of the Supreme Court of Nauru. The text of the agreement is set out in the schedule to the Bill.

It is noteworthy that a former colony, for want of a better word- in the strict technical sense it was not a colony- has sought this facility from its former colonial master, if one uses the rhetoric which certain people in this chamber would like to use. It is noteworthy also that clause 7 of the Bill, in referring to the constitution of the court, provides that the High Court, when hearing an appeal or application for leave referred to in clause 5, is to be constituted as a full court of not less than 2 justices. The Supreme Court of Nauru consists of a single Chief Justice and therefore it is appropriate to ensure that appeals or applications to appeals from his decisions are determined by at least 2 justices of the High Court. This arises, of course, out of the feeling of the citizens of Nauru that justice would be seen to be done if cases were dealt with by 2 persons independent of the rather limited environment and atmosphere of the island of Nauru which has been delineated by the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith.

Clause 8 refers to the judgment of the High Court and sets out the nature of the judgment - that the High Court may. give on an appeal from Nauru. I think the nature of that judgment is set out in sufficiently wide terms in clause 8 to enable the High Court to express its judgment in any form which is appropriate to a particular case before it It is not a rigid situation and it is not a matter of saying that what prevails in Australia is necessarily appropriate for Nauru. Equally, clause 9 provides for a difference of opinion and enables a decision to be reached in the event- of either a majority of the court being in favour of or the court being evenly divided on a question before it.

Clause 10 deals with the right of appearance. Subject to this clause, subclause ( 1 ) enables a party to a proceeding to appear personally, or to be represented by a practitioner of the High Court of Australia or the Supreme Court of a State or Territory, or by a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nauru. Under this clause it is recognised also that in its terms the laws of Nauru relating to the admission of practitioners are to be applicable. Sub-clause (2) prevents a party to a criminal appeal from appearing in person if he is under sentence of imprisonment by a court of Nauru and has not served the sentence or so much of the sentence as is required of him.

I do not wish to repeat what was said by the Attorney-General in his second reading speech; suffice it to say that the substantive clauses of the Bill vest jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals and applications that come within the scope of the agreement in the High Court and make appropriate provisions for relevant procedural matters. The High Court has held that it may have conferred upon it appellate jurisdiction other than from State courts so long as there is a proper source of power for legislation conferring other jurisdiction. The power in the Constitution to legislate with respect to external affairs and also with respect to relations of the Commonwealth with the islands of the Pacific would enable the Parliament to enact the Bill so there is no doubt about the constitutional validity of this Bill.

Nauru, as we know, is a small independent country. I think I am correct in saying that it is the smallest country which is a member of the

United Nations. It has a community of mixed ethnic origins. The population of Nauru is around the 7000 mark, about half of that number being citizens of Nauru, about onequarter being people from other Pacific islands, mainly from the Gilbert and Ellice Islands as I mentioned before, and the remaining quarter being Chinese and Europeans in equal proportions. It is particularly with respect to the Gilbert and Ellice Islanders that this measure is sought so that justice may be seen to be done by all concerned in Nauru. The Nauruans have been most anxious to demonstrate, particularly in matters of a civil or criminal nature, that there are available, especially to those non-Nauruan communities, rights of appeal beyond the Supreme Court of Nauru. That Court consists at the moment of a single chief justice and obviously it is important to the Nauruans to ensure that there are rights of access to the appellate court sitting as a full court in matters that are not of special or peculiar interest to Nauruans. The matters left outside the arrangements for appeal to the High Court are, for example, constitutional questions relating to Nauru, entitlement to sit in the Nauruan Parliament and land ownership. This question of land ownership involves matters determined under the traditional Nauruan system and has nothing to do with matters considered ordinarily by the High Court of Australia.

When Nauru was a trust territory administered by Australia an appeal lay, as the AttorneyGeneral ‘s second reading speech described, from the then Court of Appeal to the High Court of Australia. At the time of which I spoke the then Court of Appeal was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea. In that period there were no appeals from thethen Court of Appeal to the High Court and no reliable estimate of the volume of appeals to the High Court under the new arrangements is available. I think it is fair to say that while there may be some initial interest, there is not likely to be a great deal of work arising for the High Court under this Bill. However, this Bill is, in every conceptual sense of the word, a most worthy measure and something of which this Parliament should be proud. It represents something which this nation of ours should be pleased to do for one of our near neighbours, the Republic of Nauru.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2230

ADJOURNMENT

Local Government Finance-Community Youth Support Scheme-Succession and Estate Duties-Medibank -Message to Hua Kuo Feng-Export Roads-Defence Force Academy-Regional Employment Development Scheme

Motion (by Mr Ellicott) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

MrINNES (Melbourne) (10.19)-I rise to speak about the plight of local government under the Fraser Government. I draw the attention of the House to the Government’s deliberate attempt to mislead the public in relation to the real nature of its support to local government this year. On 27 May this year, as page 2539 of Hansard reveals, the Treasurer (MrLynch) proclaimed that a new deal for local government would involve some $140m in general purpose assistance. The Minister went on to state:

This represents an increase of some 75 per cent over the amount for the current year.

When my colleague the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) asked about specific grants the Treasurer replied:

He will find in the due process of time that when the amount for specific grants is included with the amount for general purpose assistance grants, local government will be decidedly better off than when it was under the Labor Party’s administration.

Since that time there hasbeen much discussion in this Parliament about the principles of federalism and particularly the function of local government in it. On each of these occasions the Government has puffed out its chest and told the people of Australia that the Fraser Government has increased payments to the States by 75 per cent. An analysis of the Budget papers shows that this claim, made as far back as May, is totally incorrect. True, back in May the Treasurer was gracious enough to admit that this 75 per cent increase applied only to general purpose assistance. Since that time, however, honourable members opposite have been content to use this figure of a 75 per cent increase as representing the total picture of the respective commitments of the Whitlam and Fraser governments to local government. The honourable members concerned know this to be nonsense. After all, they have taken these figures from Table 99 in Budget Paper 7 which the

Deputy Leader of the Opposition (MrUren) tabled in this place on 7 October. This is to be found on page 1 675 of Hansard of that date.

This table summarises the various forms of Commonwealth Government payments made to or for local government authorities in 1975-76 and 1976-77. Yes, the table shows a 75 per cent increase in general purpose assistance for local government. But the reason I say that Government members perpetrating the nonsensical idea that the Fraser Government has increased expenditure on local government must know that they are spouting nonsense is that these figures are lifted from the very middle of the table. Surely honourable members are not so blind as to be unaware of the rest of the table. If they were to cease being so selective in their choice of statistics they might manage to see, at the bottom of the table, the total figures for comparative outlays to local government. To assist them in this fairly simple endeavour, which they seem to find surprisingly difficult however, I shall cite the relevant statistics. In 1975-76 a total of $274,255,000 was allocated to local government. In 1976-77 the amount is a paltry $195,263,000. This somewhat reverses the picture. Far from an increase of 75 per cent, these figures really show a decrease of about 30 per cent. Honourable members continue to hoodwink the Australian people by putting up this ludicrous proposition.

The time available to me for this speech is running out. Through this whole issue one looks at the comparisons. While it appears from the table that the total of direct payments to local government will, with the exception of the Regional Employment Development scheme, be somewhere in the vicinity of last year’s allocation, it is obvious that the provision of $35.77m for other payments through the States will not nearly match last year’s amount. So this is deceptively misleading. It is high time that the Ministers responsible for this situation, particularly the Treasurer, really outlined the clear issue. The Government has misled local government. It has deprived local government of the resources which it believed from various speeches in the House, were indicated in the Budget to be allocated to those bodies.

Mr Les McMAHON (Sydney) (10.24)- Tonight I shall discuss an issue which relates to a Press release from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, the honourable Tony Street. It deals with the community youth support scheme. The news release is dated 21 October and it sates:

Mr Street today announced the introduction of a further Government initiative to assist young people who are currently unemployed.

The scheme, to be known as Community Youth Support Scheme (CYSS), will provide financial assistance to community groups, including recognised youth organisations, for supportive programs and services to the young unemployed.

I became involved at the point where this release states:

Local Federal members will be given the opportunity to chair, or nominate, chairmen, of local programs. The local office of the Commonwealth Employment Service will be available to help organise these activities. The scheme will operate from 1 . 1 1 . 76.

The release is dated 21 October 1976. On 22 October the Sydney Morning Herald stated:

Government plan to aid young jobless.

The article stated:

Participants will be paid up to$6 a week to meet incidental expenses including fares, while on an approved program.

I received a telephone call last Wednesday, 27 October. On 28 October I received 2 other telephone calls from youth organisations in the Sydney area. Then I sent a telegram to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. It stated:

Considerable inquiries for information re your Press statement of 2 1 . 1 0. 1 976, Community Youth Support Scheme. As a matter of urgency could the Minister supply this office with more detailed information of this scheme which operates from 1.11.1976.

I signed the telegram. I received a telegram that afternoon which stated:

Thanks your telegram re CYSS. Letter with detailed information being despatched to all MPs 29th August

The Minister made a mistake; that date should have been 29 October. The telegram was signed:

  1. A. Street Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations.

I received correspondence from the Young Women’s Christian Association in Sydney. It referred to my telephone conversation with its program planner during which the YWCA pointed out that it had read the Press statement and it was worried too. It wanted to know where to get information dealing with the worthy cause which the Minister had mentioned. I hope I am right and that $1m is to be spent on schemes for young people with organisations like the YWCA and other organisations in Sydney which will help the unemployed. In relation to employment information the YWCA asks:

What job do you want?

What qualifications do you have for such a job?

What jobs are available?

What further training opportunities are available?

The general information it wants relates to health, welfare, legal and financial assistance and library facilities. In relation to the Seekers Club the YWCA states:

It is envisaged that the Club would be open to school leavers- and possibly others- seeking employment.

It is proposed to open from 9 a.m. until 4 p.m. This Press statement has been out for a couple of weeks now. The scheme was to start on 1 November. I, as a Federal member, like many other Federal members, have no idea when this scheme will start. We are all worried. The unemployment situation is bad in the Sydney electorate and in other electorates. I hope the Minister will give me some information about this matter. Tonight I telephoned his secretary and told him that I would mention this case tonight. I think other Federal members are in the same position as myself. We are trying to help. We think that we are in a position where we might help and we might do a bit of good for our country and for the unemployed youth.

Mr PORTER:
Barker

– I want to speak about a problem which relates to the interaction of State succession duties and Federal estate duty. Many States have recently announced deductions or rebates in their succession duty legislation. For example, in South Australia I understand that the Labor Government intends to introduce legislation to abolish succession duty on estates passing between spouses, a policy which, I ought to mention, it stole from the Liberal Opposition in that State. I ask honourable members to remember that Federal estate duties are calculated net of State succession duty; that is the overall assessable amount for Federal duty is reduced by the level of State succession duty. This will mean that the gross value of an estate, dutiable for Federal purposes, will be increased by the amount of the State succession duty which would have applied. Therefore the Federal estate duty will be greater in some cases. Thus the States ‘s removal of succession duty on estates passing between spouses will mean that the Federal Government will increase its revenue in this area. The Treasurer (Mr Lynch) stated this year in answer to question on notice No. 684:

It is thought that the additional estate duty revenue that will accrue to the Commonwealth from the New South Wales proposals and from the proposal to abolish Queensland succession and probate duty might be about $5m per annum.

In other words, the benefit given by the State would be taken in part by the Commonwealth.

Of course, until it is known precisely what the State Governments do, it will be impossible for the Commonwealth Government to assess the effect on the Federal duty paid. However, I do ask that the Treasurer- as I am sure he willexamine the effect of the State legislation on Federal estate duty receipts and consider what steps he can take to ensure that any benefit given by a State government is not absorbed by the Federal government.

I think that at this stage I ought to point out that there could easily be a catch in the South Australian legislation. I think it is generally recognised that there is a high statistical probability that the husband or wife will survive his or her partner only by a few years. Given that assumption, people should take extreme care not to think that there will be less duty to be paid by passing the whole of their estate from one spouse to the other on death instead of passing portion to their children at that stage. In fact, the case could be quite the opposite. Let us take the case of, say, a husband and wife and 3 children. Under the proposed South Australian legislation the husband may feel that he will avoid duty by giving his estate wholly to his wife and leaving her the responsibility to pass it to their 3 children on her death. Duty will then only be paid on the second passing of the estate from the wife to the children. Under the old legislation the husband would probably have given a quarter to his wife and a quarter to each of his children. Of course, this would depend on the size of the estate, but when his wife died she would undoubtedly pass the quarter she received or the remainder thereof to the children and they would have paid duty on that quarter, if it were a dutiable amount. In South Australia, with ‘the sliding scale of duty payable depending on the size of the estate, it could quite easily occur that if the estate, as in my first proposition, goes as a whole to the wife and then on her death in one-third shares to the children, more duty will be paid on those 3 large estates than by the estate going in quarters to the wife and children and then the wife passing on her share when she dies.

In other words, because in South Australia proportionally more duty is paid the larger is the estate, then it could be that in total the duty paid on an estate split 3 ways will be more than the duty paid on an estate split 4 ways, even with additional duty being paid on one of those quarters being further split 3 ways on the wife’s death. Therefore, people should be extremely carefuland I give this warning to the people in South AustraIia-about the way in which they make their wills. It has been suggested by many that certainly in South Australia the State Government will lose nothing by introducing this measure as people will fall into the trap I have mentioned. From the vague references to this matter in the South Australian Budget, it appears that the Government expects the cost to revenue to be about $4m. However, it expects that amount to be absorbed by the effects of inflation on the size of the estates and it expects revenue to be about the same as last year.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– I should like to raise the question of Medibank Private, which is part of the Health Insurance Commission’s responsibility. As we all know, Medibank Private was established recently and came into force on 1 October this year. I wish to complain about the fact that Medibank Private has decided, on instructions from the Government, to have all its banking done by the Bank of New South Wales rather than by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. The net result of that will be a loss of revenue to the people of Australia because the Commonwealth Bank will not be the banker for Medibank Private and there will be a very significant profit for the Bank of New South Wales. I am sure it is quite obvious to all of us, even those on the other side of the House, that this is a payoff for the large amount of money that was either donated directly by the Bank of New South Wales or indirectly raised by such people as Russell Prowse of the Bank of New South Wales for Liberal Party electioneering at the last election and the previous election in 1974. 1 think it is up to the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt), who is at present overseas, to explain to the House why he gave instructions to Medibank Private to bank with the Bank of New South Wales rather than to do what is normally done by Government departments and authorities and have the banking done either by the Reserve Bank or, in other cases, by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia.

Could I take the two or three minutes remaining to me to deal with a question that I asked of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) earlier today. In effect, I asked the Prime Minister why he had sent a message of congratulation to Hua Kuo-feng, the Chairman of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party. Let us be quite clear about this. The handout from the Prime Minister’s office for the Press on 27 October 1976 reads as follows:

The Prime Minister has sent the following message to China’s Chairman, Hua Kuo-feng. It was delivered today by the Australian Ambassador, Dr Stephen Fitzgerald.

His Excellency, Mr Hua Kuo-feng

Chairman of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party,

Peking

It gives me great satisfaction to send you my congratulations on your new appointment … I

The signature is ‘Malcolm Fraser, Prime Minister of Australia’. My objection is to a Prime Minister sending a message of congratulations to a person because he has been elected chairman of any organisation but especially of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, Peking, which is not exactly the son of organisation with which we ought to be aiming particularly to ingratiate ourselves.

We have had the spectacle during the 11 months of the Fraser Government of a pilgrimage to Peking by the Prime Minister and his retinue, and of 2 panegyrics in this House by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Country Party (Mr Anthony), first on the death of Chou En-lai and second on the death of Mao Tse-tung. What will be the impact of this son of thing on people to the near north with whom we are trying to establish good relations? We talk a lot about the Russian threat. Nobody could accuse me of being pro-Russian in this House or anywhere else, but surely if one looks at it in an intelligent way the threat in this area, if there is a threat, from the communist countries is not coming from the Soviet Union. Certainly it is not seen to be coming from the Soviet Union as far as the countries of south-east Asia are concerned. It is a threat that is coming either directly or indirectly from China or from countries and from parties which are strongly influenced by the Chinese Communist Party. Here we have a Prime Minister who goes out of his way to congratulate the person who by the obviously undemocratic methods that are prevalent in China at this time has now become Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party. Here we have a Prime Minister who goes on a pilgrimage to Peking, a Prime Minister who for the first time, as far as I am aware, goes to the trouble of having panegyrics in this House on the deaths of leaders of foreign countries.

Mr BAUME:
Macarthur

-The road grants that the Federal Government provides to the State governments under the export roads scheme are a very useful and very important part of the provision of major roads leading to the coast. Unfortunately, the new State Government in New South Wales has not made up its mind what it wants to do about Botany Bay. This means that about $5m to $6m of Federal money is at present lying idle because the New South Wales Government cannot make up its mind whether or where it wants to use it. The fact is that this money could be very well used in the Illawarra region.

Mr Armitage:

-Be honest. You know that there is an impact study on it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Order! The honourable member for Chifley will be entitled in a minute to rise and make a speech.

Mr BAUME:

– I know perfectly well, as even the honourable member for Chifley is probably aware, that an environmental impact study is being done on Botany Bay as an appropriate window dressing job to satisfy the Labor electorates around that area tenuously held in the State Parliament. The fact is that this window dressing job has meant that the money is lying idle. It could be used, and very well used, in the Illawarra region, which is having to carry the burden of the failure of the State Government to proceed with the alternative port situation in Botany Bay.

The facts are that the capacity of the coal loader in Port Kembla is to be doubled which will double the amount of road traffic already making the Appin Road and the Picton road death traps.. The main road from the southern highlands to the Port Kembla area running through the Macquarie Pass is a disaster area. As a main road, it is totally untenable. It also happens to be in my electorate and I am obliged to use it regularly. I am well aware of the risks to life and limb to people who follow huge trucks up and down this road. It is clearly an export road. The New South Wales State Government has $6m lying idle and is too incompetent to ask that this money be directed to an area in which it is clearly needed. It would rather have the money doing nothing than provide it for use where it is needed.

The upgrading of the Port Kembla coal loader will mean that the town of Picton in my electorate will be increasingly inundated with coal trucks. I asked the Minister for Transpot (Mr Nixon) in June of this year would he, if he were requested by the New South Wales State Government -

Mr Armitage:

– I rise to order. As the honourable member has already pointed out and I had pointed out to him, this matter is the subject of an environmental impact study. A House of Commons resolution of 23 July 1963 was that the -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles)Order! The honourable member will make his point of order. He knows that the honourable member for Macarthur has only 5 minutes in which to make his speech.

Mr Armitage:

– The House of Commons resolution of 23 July 1963 which was that the general principle -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no substance in the honourable member’s point of order. The honourable member for Chifley will resume his seat.

Mr BAUME:

– I thank the honourable member for Chifley for trying to take my time. I wanted to point out that a deviation road through Picton -

Mr Armitage:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I move dissent -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr Armitage:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I was taking a point of order based on a document of this Parliament which is based on a House of Commons decision and you refused to hear the point of order before giving your ruling.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! Would the honourable member for Chifley make his point? It is difficult to hear him. Is he moving a motion? If so what is it?

Mr Armitage:

– I am making the point that the general principle - .

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– That is not what I am asking the honourable member. Did I hear the honourable member correctly -

Mr Armitage:

– You refused to hear a point of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! Will the honourable member for Chifley resume his seat while I am talking? Did I hear the honourable member correctly when I thought I heard him say that he wished to move dissent from a ruling?

Mr Armitage:

– I said that I would move dissent, Mr Deputy Speaker if you refused to allow me to finish putting my point of order. You told me to resume my seat before I had completed stating my point of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Chifley has now successfully used up the time of the honourable member for Macarthur which I do not think is entirely fair. If the honourable member is really genuine in wishing to raise a point of order I shall give him the next call so that he can make his point of order during the adjournment debate. I call the honourable member for Chifley.

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I was drawing attention to the sub judice rule. The matter raised by the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume) is the subject of an environmental impact study. The House of Commons resolution of 23 July 1963 to which I referred is as follows:

The general principle is that, subject always to the discretion of the Chair, where a matter is before a court or is awaiting adjudication-

Note the operative words ‘or is awaiting adjudication’- then the matter should not be canvassed by the House.

I was attempting to submit, sir, that the matter that was raised by the honourable member is awaiting adjudication and therefore should not be canvassed by the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– In answer to the honourable member’s point of order, I think that what he is suggesting to the Chair is that there is a procedure in the House of Commons in relation to the point of order that he wishes to raise. As I understand it the honourable member referred to an environmental impact study. It is completely beyond the cognisance of the Chair to know whether such an inquiry is taking place. Even if the Chair did know I would take the point that it is outside the ambit of the jurisdiction of this House as such. I hope that the honourable member is comparatively pleased about that because that is the best I can rule at this point of time. I call the honourable member for Macarthur.

Mr BAUME:
Macarthur

-Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. It is very kind of you.

Mr Scholes:

– I rise to order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Howard:

– Why do you not stand in your place?

Mr Scholes:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I am standing on the floor of the chamber where I am entitled to stand.

Mr Howard:

– We cannot hear you.

Mr Hodgman:

– This is not a confessional.

Mr Scholes:

– If it were a confessional the honourable member would be expelled.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! Would the honourable member make his point of order?

Mr Scholes:

– The point of order is that the time of the honourable member for Macarthur has expired. The honourable member for Chifley took a point of order which apparently has been regarded as a speech from this side of the House. I do not think it is proper to list an honourable member who has risen to take a point of order as having spoken in the debate. I think that that is an improper use of the forms of the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– In answer to the honourable member for Corio, it seemed to me that if someone wished to take a point of order that was somewhat lengthy in the last minute or two of a 5-minute speech -

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– What, half a minute? It was 30 seconds!

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. If that was to be the case I invited the honourable member for Chifley to take the next call because it seemed to me that this was a long and tenuous business. In fact, in justice to the honourable member for Chifley I must say that the statement of his point of order did not last for 5 minutes, which I regret. But I think it is perfectly proper under the circumstances that I should have given the call to the honourable member for Macarthur who was the only honourable member who I saw rise at the time. I did not take it that the honourable member for Chifley was doing other than talking on the adjournment. I made that pretty plain.

Mr Scholes:

– I rise to order. If your ruling is to become the practice of the House any honourable member who rises to order during the adjournment debate will automatically prevent a member from his side of the chamber from receiving the call. The Standing Orders of the Parliament clearly express that an honourable member may take a point of order. I think it is unfortunate that under the 5-minute rule- and this is one of the penalties- it is possible to use Standing Orders, quite improperly if I may say so, to take up another honourable member’s time. But I do not think the Standing Orders of the House may be extended to cover a situation where an honourable member taking a point of order - “

Mr Hodgman:

– You are wasting all the time that remains.

Mr Scholes:

– I am suggesting that a person taking a point of order should not be deemed to have spoken in the debate. The honourable member for Chifley may well wish to raise another matter. If, because he took a point of order he is deemed to have spoken he is seriously disadvantaged for seeking to uphold the forms of the House.

Mr Armitage:

– Speaking to the point of order raised by the honourable member for Corio, I point out that I resumed my seat at your request after having made my point of order. I could have wanted to bring up a dozen different things after that. You then immediately called a member from the other side of the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-In order to get out of this difficulty, I would say that I have the greatest respect for the honourable member for Corio, particularly in respect of the job he has done in this Chair. If he feels that it was not a frivolous point of order I will certainly -

Mr Scholes:

– That is not the point.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Well, I took the opposite view, and that is why I said -

Dr Klugman:

-There is time for 2 more speakers. If you call one from one side and one from the other, it makes no difference.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! Would the honourable member for Prospect kindly remember that when the Chair is talking it is not up to him to interrupt in any way? If he wishes to prolong the points of order he is going about it in a very good way. I was about to say in deference to the honourable member for Corio, for whom I have great respect, that if he takes the view that the point or order was not frivolous, I will certainly call the next speaker from the Opposition. I call the honourable member for Fraser.

Mr FRY:
Fraser

– I wish to speak briefly about the Australian Defence Force Academy- or Services university- the establishment of which was announced in this House by the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) on 20 October 1976. The new institution is to be built in Canberra in my electorate adjacent to the Royal Military College of Australia, which is generally referred to as Duntroon, at a cost of some $45m. As the Minister said, such an institution was first envisaged under a previous coalition government and the concept was endorsed by the Labor Government in 1974. 1 welcome this announcement for 2 reasons. Firstly the long delay in coming to a firm decision was causing a lot of concern in the armed Services especially to the cadets and staff of the 3 colleges concerned. Secondly we welcome the announcement because the building of this institution will provide a much needed boost to the building industry which has suffered very severe setbacks under this Government by way of restriction, of money for housing and the restriction of the budget for the National Capital Development Commission.

Mr Haslem:

– Hear, hear!

Mr FRY:

-I am very pleased to hear my colleague, the honourable member for Canberra, agreeing with me. Naturally some considerable time will elapse before this project will get underway and actual employment will be provided.

I do not wish to reiterate the main points of the Minister’s statement with which most members I am sure will concur, but I want to refer to certain unfortunate expressions or phrases in his statement which I believe were a little unfair to the students and the staff of the Royal Military College, Duntroon. The Minister, for instance, spoke of three small colleges now situated at Jervis Bay, Duntroon and Point Cook. While it is true to say that they are small compared with the proposed institution, it is also true that the RMC is larger than both the Naval College and the Royal Australian Air Force Academy combined. Furthermore, the Minister might have mentioned or spelt out that for the past 10 years RMC Duntroon has been the scene of a unique experiment in Service education. The academic teaching there has been carried out by the Faculty of Military Studies of the University of New South Wales in Sydney. Cadets on graduating have been granted degrees in arts, applied sciences and engineering. Honours degrees are also available in science and engineering. I understand that for the first time honours degrees in arts are expected to be awarded this year. The Faculty has numerous post-graduate students and an impressive array of research is carried out in the humanities as well as in the sciences.

The Minister also said that the new institution would offer more- attraction to academic staff of high quality and that it would aspire to academic excellence.

Mr Sullivan:

– Oh, marvellous!

Mr FRY:

– I thought the honourable member for Riverina would have been all in favour of this. While the Minister probably did not intend to cast aspersions on the staff of the- present college I think these remarks are rather unfair, particularly to RMC Duntroon. The Royal Military College, as anyone in the University community would know, has a distinguished academic staff of over eighty, some of whom have world wide reputations and who already aspire to academic excellence.

It would also be of interest to Canberra people to know whether the new Academy is to be a closed shop available only to educate Service personnel or whether in appropriate circumstances when places are available other people in the community may be accepted for enrolment. I refer particularly to the proposed engineering degree course which is not available in any other institution in Canberra. I hope that the Minister will give some consideration to this proposition. Finally, though the Minister did note that several universities were playing a useful role in helping to upgrade Service education, he might have paid a more fulsome tribute to the University of New South Wales which has done more to advance the cause of officer education than any other Australian university, and I say that despite the behaviour of the honourable member for Riverina.

Mr BAILLIEU:
La Trobe

-Tonight I would like to make some comments on the Regional Employment Development scheme. It should be noted that this scheme was based on the Canadian Local Initiative Program, or LIP. The Canadian program was never aimed at solving the problem of long term unemployment. Instead it was a local initiative to relieve the temporary unemployment which arises in Canada because of seasonal factors. Alternative work is therefore provided in areas where unemployed people live. In Canada it was found to be cheaper and more equitable to do this rather than to require unemployed people to shift to cities or other areas. However, it is incorrect to transfer such a localised program to Australia and then attempt to convert it into a response to the problem of solving long term unemployment as became apparent during 1974 and 1975.

Five points require examination when discussing the RED scheme in its 2 years of operation. The first is the aim. The RED scheme was to be a manpower measure to improve employment opportunities in areas of high local unemployment. In this sense, as I said, it partly resembled the Canadian LIP scheme. Labour intensive projects were selected so that at least 50 per cent of approved grants to individual projects had to go towards meeting the cost of employing people who were currently registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service as unemployed. The second point is the cost. The total cost of the scheme during 1974-75 and 1975-76 was $183m. In the financial year 1974-75 it was $60m. In the financial year 1975-76 the estimate of total expenditure was intially placed at $450m. However, this amount naturally came under attention when the Labor Government set about cutting back expenditure.

The RED scheme was therefore allocated $135m but only $123m was actually expended. In September- one month after the Budget was brought down- the former Minister responsible for the scheme decided that only those projects which were in progress would continue to be funded. This meant the virtual demise of the RED scheme, so that by June of this year it had virtually ended. The present Government continued to fund the remaining projects which had not been completed. The average cost of a project was just under $27,000 while average RED grants were $23,000. The cost of employing a person under RED projects was estimated at slightly over $200 a week. The third point is the magnitude of the scheme. By July 1975 there were nearly 32 000 persons directly employed on RED projects. However, the life of all these projects was coming to an end. In September those Ministers responsible for its administration had decided on terminating it altogether. Those 32 000 people represented 13 per cent of the level of unemployed as registered with the CES. The average number of persons employed per project was eight and the average duration of a project was 14 weeks. Over 81 000 people were employed on project funds under the RED scheme.

The fourth point is the expansion of the scheme. Although the RED scheme had originally been established to provide employment in areas of excessively high unemployment by encouraging local initiative, as in Canada, it expanded to cover all Australia and even State departments and instrumentalities. It therefore departed from its local character in 2 directions, and at the same time. Conditions of the scheme, such as the 50 per cent labour component, proved impossible to fulfil.

The fifth point is the general assessment. Organisations submitting applications for grant often did so without proper attention to accurate estimates of costs. This meant projects were often left partially completed, something which was further worsened when moves were made to cut back and finally to terminate the RED scheme. Many organisations did not have experience in project supervision. Funds were often not correctly or efficiently used. Some sponsors misunderstood the conditions under which grants were being provided. No built-in co-ordinating mechanism for administering the scheme existed at the local level with the result that relative importance of projects within the community could not be adequately expressed. Minor projects were often approved well ahead of more important ones.

The sixth point is the response to growing unemployment. Since unemployment grew in 1974 and 1 975 the RED scheme served temporarily to alleviate the stress. By the middle of the latter year some 32 000 people were provided with jobs. Over the RED scheme’s entire existence some 81 000 persons were employed under it. This was an important factor in relieving some of the distress caused by unemployment.

In conclusion, the RED scheme set out to become a localised initiative program like the . Canadian LIP scheme. It rapidly expanded to the extent of covering all Australia- not just areas of local high unemployment but even State government departments and instrumentalities. It therefore failed to stay within its original prescribed limits. This as well as other areas of expansion in spending meant that the Labor Government had to dismantle it in September 1975.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr BAUME:
Macarthur

-As I was saying earlier, the $6m provided by the Federal Government to New South Wales could be used in the Illawarra area to relieve the massive unemployment which regrettably exists there as a result of 3 years of the Australian Labor Party Government’s inflationary policies. The $6m could be provided to help unemployment.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! It being 1 1 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 2.15 p.m. tomorrow.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 2239

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Unemployment Benefits (Question No. 803)

Mr MacKenzie:

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Can he say which non-Communist countries require persons receiving unemployment benefits to work on public projects providing they are physically capable.
  2. Are any of these countries signatories to the International Labour Organisation agreements which apparently prevent Australia from instituting such a scheme.
  3. 3 ) What are the legal or other restrictions that prevent the enforced work of physically able persons receiving unemployment benefits in Austrafia
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The honourable member will appreciate that considerable difficulties and expenditure of resources and dme would be involved in attempting to ascertain the situation on this matter in all the countries of the non-communist world and even then the accuracy of some of the information obtained might be open to question. However, an examination of available material on practice in OECD member countries indicates that arrangements of the kind referred to by the honourable member do not apply. At the same time, it should be understood that in most of these countries unemployment compensation is administered and funded on a different basis from that which applies in Australia, where a fixed rate of unemployment benefit funded out of general revenue is paid to the unemployed person irrespective of previous income. Unemployment payments to unemployed persons in OECD member countries, the great majority of which have ratified ILO Conventions Nos 29 and 105 dealing with forced labour, are generally funded by means of an insurance system under which employees and/or employers contribute to an unemployment insurance fund, which is frequently supplemented by government contributions. Generally, the rate of benefit paid is related to the unemployed person’s previous earnings. Quite apart from any other consideration, this sort of arrangement, by its very nature, does not lend itself to schemes involving the payment of unemployment benefits as a result of work on public projects. The benefits paid are in compensation for loss of employment and have been at least pardy funded by continuing insurance payments made during periods of employment to cover the contingency that individuals may subsequently become unemployed. Governments may, of course, initiate or expand public projects as employment creating measures but payment for work on such projects is generally at a rate established for the job and not related to unemployment compensation.
  2. As a matter of policy, the Government would not propose to introduce any scheme of enforced work in Australia which would be contrary to ILO Conventions Nos 29 and 105, both of which Australia has ratified.

Australian Ship Owners (Question No. 928)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

What financial concessions and allowances are made available by the United Kingdom Government to Australian owners of ships registered in the United Kingdom or Hong Kong.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

I understand that no financial concessions or allowances are made available by the United Kingdom Government to Australian owners of ships registered in the United Kingdom and Hong Kong.

Overseas Air Travel (Question No. 1043)

Mr Jull:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many Australians travelled from all international airports to overseas destinations in 1 975- 1 976.
  2. How many of these passengers were carried by Qantas.
  3. ) How many Australians departed from the Brisbane International Terminal bound for Britain via Asia during that period.
  4. How many of the passengers referred to in Part (3) were carried by (a) Qantas and (b) British Airways.
  5. Is consideration being given to the introduction of Boeing 747 aircraft on the direct Brisbane-London service by Qantas.
  6. If so, which route and which stopover ports would be used by this service.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Statistics relating to the numbers of passengers travelling from all Australian international airports to overseas destinations are not yet available for the year to June 1976. In addition, statistics maintained by the Department of Transport do not differentiate between Australian residents and others.

However, statistics available from the Australian Bureau of Statistics for the year to December 1975 indicate that a total of 1 007 304 Australian residents departed by air to overseas destinations. The Australian Bureau of Statistics figures include revenue and non-revenue passengers on both scheduled and non-scheduled services, whereas the Department of Transport figures include revenue passengers on scheduled services only.

  1. Department of Transport statistics for the year to December 1975 indicate that Qantas carried a total of 551214 revenue passengers on scheduled services from Australia, or about 43.5 per cent of the total number of revenue passengers ( 1 267 398) who, according to Department of Transport statistics, left Australia on scheduled services during that year.
  2. Department of Transport statistics show that the total number of revenue passengers uplifted in Brisbane and disembarked in London on scheduled services was 12 784 in the year ended December 1975, and 12 904 in the year ended June 1976.
  3. (a and b)

For the year ended December 1975 Department of Transport statistics indicate that Qantas carried 5577 and

British Airways 7207 revenue passengers uplifted in Brisbane and disembarked in London on scheduled services, and for the year ended June 1976, Qantas carried 5052 and British Airways 7852 such passengers.

  1. and (6) Qantas is giving consideration to the introduction of direct Boeing 747 services between all Australian cities, including Brisbane, and London or other points in Europe on services operated via Asia. As this forward policy necessitates detailed assessments of many alternative operating plans, which have to have a regard to optimum fleet utilisation in addition to market sizes, no firm commencement date or specific routings for Boeing 747 services from Brisbane have yet been decided.

Sporting equipment and clothes (Question No. 1069)

Mr Stewart:

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice:

How many (a) males and (b) females are employed in the (i) manufacturing and (ii) retailing of sporting equipment and sporting clothes.

Mr Street:
LP

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

Employment statistics disaggregated to the extent he seeks are only collected in connection with quinquennial Censuses of Housing and Population. The most recent Census figures available are for 30 June 1971. These showed that:

1 ) 1692 males and 3946 females were employed in connection with the manufacture of sporting clothes;

1568 males and 718 females were employed in connection with the manufacture of sporting equipment;

2473 males and 4360 females were employed in connection with the retailing of sporting clothes; and

2806 males and 2075 females were employed in connection with the retailing of sporting equipment.

It should be noted that the retail figures, particularly, are likely to omit those persons employed in small mixed retail businesses.

Immigration Quota (Question No. 1080)

Mr Garrick:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has his recent move to increase the immigration quota by 20 000 persons provoked the comment in some sectors, that it is a deliberate attempt to increase the pool of unemployed.
  2. If so, is there any evidence that this is not the case.
  3. Will the increased quota mean that compassionate immigration for people from countries such as Lebanon will be made more accessible.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) In May this year the Government decided that Australia’s 1976-77 immigration program should be 70 000 persons. This compared with approximately 52 500 immigrants who arrived in 1975-76. That was by far the smallest intake in the post-war immigration program. The 1976-77 intake will be the second lowest intake. I have seen some reports of statements that this program increase was intended to add to the pool of unemployed. The Government’s intention was precisely the reverse. Selected workers in occupations in strong and continuing demand will help in bottleneck situations and by their skills and consumption help to produce increased employment opportunities.
  2. In estimating a program of 70 000 some consideration was given to refugee-type situations around the world and to the family reunion program. Although a number of the workers within the compassionate group will not have the same qualifications as those who have been selected in the worker program, the Government will provide maximum assistance commensurate with the needs of the refugee-type situations. At the same time it is not, of course, possible to ignore the economic and social absorptive capacity of the Australian community during the present unemployment situation. 1 announced special arrangements for Lebanese migrants on 23 September 1976. (See Hansard, 23 September 1976, pages 1416-1417.)

Passports (Question No. 1106)

Mr Neil:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many Australian citizens were refused, or had withdrawn, an Australian passport in each of the years since 1970.
  2. How many of these persons (a) were given reasons for the refusal or withdrawal and, (b) reside within the Electoral Division of St George.
  3. What were the countries of origin of these persons.
  4. According to what criteria were those persons not of Australian origin granted Australian citizenship.
  5. According to what criteria are passports refused to, or withdrawn from, Australian citizens.
Mr Peacock:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. 1970, 6; 1971, 4; 1972, 9; 1973, 6; 1974, 9; 1975, 9; 1976, 5.

Of the 48 persons refused passports, 8 were issued with Documents of Identity.

  1. It has been the practice of successive Ministers in successive Governments not to disclose the reason for refusal of individual passport applications. Three of the persons refused passports resided within the Electoral Division of St George.
  2. Australia, 23; Yugoslavia, 18; Hungary, 3; Greece, 1; Netherlands, 1; Stateless, 2.
  3. By satisfaction of the statutory requirements for the grant of Australian citizenship contained in the Australian Citizenship Act 1948.
  4. It has been the policy of successive governments not to grant passports or to withdraw passports from persons who are:

    1. attempting to escape justice
    2. b ) the subject of Court Orders restraining departure
    3. of unsound mind
    4. under the age of 1 7 years and unable to produce parental consent or the subject of custody or access orders of Australian Courts; and
    5. those for whom the Minister could not, in the context of Australia’s international relations request other countries to provide free passage, protection and assistance.

Refugees (Question No. 1114)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Were the same criteria applied to the entry into Australia of Vietnamese refugees as are being applied to the entry of people from Lebanon.
  2. Are families, who are seeking to have relatives at present in Lebanon enter Australia, being informed that they must meet normal entry criteria.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. For both Vietnamese refugees and people from the Lebanon, migrant entry criteria have been varied to permit entry of persons who normally would be ineligible. In the case of Vietnamese and other Indo-Chinese refugees, under the special project announcement in January this year, preference was given to close relatives of Australian residents but there was provision for some refugees who were not relatives of Australian residents. In the case of Lebanese, relatives not ordinarily eligible for migrant entry, brothers and sisters, have been eligible for migrant entry under the relaxed criteria.
  2. No, the criteria applying at the particular time are explained to potential sponsors. Normal health and character requirements apply although they have been relaxed, where necessary, to permit medical checks to be undertaken in Australia by Lebanese spouses, dependent children and parents of Australian residents. In view of the inclusion of a medical officer in the task force in Nicosia, medical checks can now be completed there quickly to enable issue of migrant entry visas.

Staff: Inquiry into Tasmanian Railway System (Question No. 1139)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. What are the names, classification and salaries of the Public Service engineer and senior economist who have been appointed to assist Dr Stewart Joy with the inquiry into the Tasmanian Railway system.
  2. Will the proceedings of the inquiry be public; if not, why not.
  3. Will he table the report of the inquiry in the Parliament.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1) Mr K. Kershaw, Engineer (Class 4), Commonwealth Department of Transport and Mr S. Hicks, Principal Investigations Officer. The present salary ranges for these positions are, Engineer (Class 4), $ 18,254 to $19,385, and Principal Investigations Officer, $16,580 to $ 17,2 17.
  2. and (3 ) The committee is preparing a report to advise the Government on the options available to it concerning the Tasmanian railway system. The decisions to be taken by the Government as a result of the inquiry will be announced together with any necessary facts. I do not believe it will be necessary to table the report.

Traffic Noise (Question No. 1177)

Mr Macphee:
LP

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. 1) Is his Department conducting inquiries concerning the effect of traffic noise upon the community.
  2. Is his Department considering the adoption of new design rules for motor vehicles to ensure that they are quieter than vehicles currently upon the road.
  3. Has his department gathered evidence regarding the detrimental effect which heavy vehicles have upon properties and people when these vehicles travel regularly through residential areas.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and ( 3 ) My Department itself is not conducting studies into the effects of traffic noise upon the community. Studies into traffic noise are being funded under the Transport ( Planning and Research) Act 1 974, which is administered by my Department. In addition, the Australian Road Research Board, of which the Secretary of my Department is a Director, is sponsoring investigations. The Department, of course, has access to these and other reports or investigations into traffic noise.
  2. At present new motor vehicles must comply with Australian Design Rule No. 28- Motor Vehicle Noise. An upgraded design rule Australian Design Rule No. 28A, which requires significantly reduced noise levels, was endorsed by Ministers at the February 1976 meeting of the Australian Transport Advisory Council. This Rule will apply to all passenger cars and derivatives and multi-purpose passenger cars manufactured on and after 1 January 1980 and to other motor vehicles, except specially constructed vehicles, manufactured on and after 1 July 1979. Work is progressing on a separate upgraded Design Rule for motorcycles.

Tertiary Education Assistance Schemes (Question No. 1186)

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. What is the total amount available for all tertiary education assistance schemes for 1976-77.
  2. What are the various schemes available for tertiary students.
  3. What (a) is the amount of assistance available to students from each of these schemes and (b) are the conditions under which it is made available.
Mr Viner:
LP

– The Minister for Education has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) Appropriation Bill (No. 1 ) provides a total amount of $121,405,000 in respect of schemes of student assistance for tertiary study administered by the Department of Education in the financial year 1976-77. The honourable member will be aware that the Minister announced substantial increases in student allowances for 1977. These increases are expected to add $19,821,000 to expenditure on tertiary assistance schemes in the 1976-77 financial year.
  2. The following schemes of assistance for tertiary students will be administered by the Department of Education in 1977:

Postgraduate Awards

Tertiary Education Assistance

Commonwealth Teaching Service Scholarships

Aboriginal Study Grants

  1. (a) The following rates of allowances will be payable from 1 January 1977:
  1. (b) Assistance under the Government’s schemes of student assistance is restricted to students who are either Australian citizens or permanent residents of Australia and who are studying in approved courses. Benefits are provided under the following conditions:

    1. Postgraduate Awards

Awards are competitive and free of any means test

  1. Tertiary Education Assistance

Assistance is non-competitive and subject to a means test

  1. Commonwealth Teaching Service Scholarships

Awards are competitive and free of any means test (iv) Aboriginal Study Grants

Assistance is non-competitive and free of any means test

Attendance at the5th Non-Aligned Summit (Question No. 1202)

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

am asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

Which countries attended the5th Conference of the Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries in Colombo in August 1976 as (a) full members, (b) observers and (c) guests.

Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. full members:

Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentine Republic Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Burma, Burundi, Camaroon (United Republic of), Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoron, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic Kampuchea, Egypt (Arab Republic of), Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Palestine Liberation Organisation, Panama, Peru, Qatar, Republic of Maldives, Rwanda, Democratic Republic of Sao Tome of Principe, Saudia Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, United Republic of Tanzania, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Upper Volta, Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, Yemen Arab Republic, Yemen, People’s Democratic Republic, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia;

  1. observers:

Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada, Mexico, Uruguay, Venezuela;

  1. guests:

Austria, Finland, Philippines, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Switzerland.

Safety in Vehicle Design (Question No. 1230)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

What action has he taken to implement the recommendation of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety that the Advisory Committee on Safety in Vehicle Design be asked to make a formal approach to individual vehicle companies requesting detailed cost information and other relevant information for the purposes of design rule formulation.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

The Advisory Committee on Safety in Vehicle Design is aware of the recommendation and has it under consideration.

Safety in Vehicle Design (Question No. 1231)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

What action has he taken to implement the recommendation of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety that the Advisory Committee on Safety in Vehicle Design be asked to undertake research with a view to designing vehicles, particularly family type vehicles, to enable the fitting of approved child restraints.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

See answer to 1230.

Minimum Standards of Vehicle Construction (Question No. 1233)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

What action has he taken to implement the recommendation of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety that there be a complete review and rationalisation of the relevance and adequacy of the Draft Regulations which detail minimum standards for most aspects of vehicle construction.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

The Advisory Committee on Vehicle Performance is aware of the recommendation and has it under consideration.

Co-ordination of Safety Authorities (Question No. 1234)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

What action has he taken to implement the recommendation of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety that the Bureau of Road Safety co-ordinate the functions of the Advisory Committee on Vehicle Performance, the Advisory Committee on Safety in Vehicle Design and the Standards Association of Australia to avoid duplication in the formulation of standards.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

A Bureau of Road Safety as recommended by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety has not been established. However, with the incorporation of the functions of the Road Safety and Standards Authority into the Department of Transport I undertook to retain those functions as a complete unit within the Department. A reorganisation of road safety activities in the Department is currently under review and I shall announce the new arrangements in the near future.

The co-ordination of the functions of the Advisory Committee on Vehicle Performance and the Advisory Committee on Safety in Vehicle Design is achieved through the Australian Transport Advisory Council (ATAC) which endorses the Australian Design Rules for Motor Vehicle Safety and Draft Regulations Defining Vehicle Construction, Equipment and Performance Standards for Road Vehicles formulated by the two committees.

This co-ordination is facilitated by the Department of Transport through its role in chairing these committees and the provision of technical and secretariat services. Officers from this secretariat also participate in the work of committees of the SAA dealing with vehicle standards so that its activities are taken into account.

Quality Control of Vehicle Plants (Question No. 1235)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

What action has he taken to implement the recommendation of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety that the Bureau of Road Safety be asked to establish formal access to vehicle company plants for quality control observation and develop a system of monitoring quality control standards.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

A Bureau of Road Safety as recommended by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety has not been established. However, with the incorporation of the functions of the Road Safety and Standards Authority into the Department of Transport I undertook to retain those functions as a complete unit within the Department. A reorganisation of road safety activities in the Department is currently under review and I shall announce the new arrangements in the near future.

The Australian Motor Vehicle Certification Board established by ATAC is responsible for the certification of compliance with Design Rules. Conditions governing the approval to affix a Compliance Plate include that the company shall permit the Board or its agent to have reasonable access to its plant for inspection of manufacture, assembly and test, and for examination of records including those relating to quality control.

Design Rule Proposals (Question No. 1236)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

What action has he taken to implement the recommendation of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety that design rule proposals be publicised and comment be invited during the 90 day period.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

The Advisory Committee on Safety in Vehicle Design ( ACSVD ) is aware of the recommendation, and has the matter under consideration. Any Advisory Committee on Safety in Vehicle Design recommendation on the subject will be placed before the Australian Transport Advisory Council for endorsement.

Bureau of Road Safety (Question No. 1237)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

What action has he taken to implement the recommendation of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety that the Design Rule Committee come within the Bureau of Road Safety’s jurisdiction and that the Bureau of Road Safety be developed as the principal body for formulating standards and recommending proposed Australian Design Rules to the Australian Transport Advisory Council for approval.

Mr Nixon:
LP

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

A Bureau of Road Safety as recommended by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety has not been established. However, with the incorporation of the functions of the Road Safety and Standards Authority into the Department of Transport I undertook to retain those functions as a complete unit within the Department A reorganisation of road safety activities in the Department is currently under review and I shall announce the new arrangements in the near future.

However, in this re-organisation I do not propose to change existing institutional arrangements established by the States and Commonwealth under ATAC in relation to development of Design Rules. One of the aims of the reorganisation review will be to strengthen the support provided for the formulation of standards under these arrangements.

Tarcoola- Alice Springs Railway (Question No. 1250)

Mr Wallis:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Are there any proposals by the Australian National Railways Commission to commence regular rail services on the completed sections of the new Tarcoola-Alice Springs railway.
  2. If so, what are those proposals, and when is it anticipated that regular services will commence.
  3. What effect will any proposals have on the present services on the existing Marree-Alice Springs narrow gauge line and the staff now operating that section.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The ANR will examine the economics of establishing a temporary road/rail transfer facility at a suitable location on the Tarcoola to Alice Springs line prior to completion of the line.
  2. In the event that such a facility is established, services on the existing Marree to Alice Springs narrow gauge line would be terminated. Suitable arrangements would then be made regarding the employees concerned.

National Anthem (Question No. 1316)

Mr Jull:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that bands attached to the Army, Royal Australian Navy and Royal Australian Air Force are not permitted to play God Save the Queen if requested to do so at an official public function.
  2. If so, who issued this order.
  3. Is he prepared to withdraw this directive so that God Save the Queen can be played if specifically requested by an organisation.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) It is assumed that the question relates to Service bands. Current Defence Force policy is that:

Defence Force military and brass bands are to play God Save the Queen as the National Anthem on all Service occasions and on civil occasions unless the organisers request in lieu of the National Anthem one of the three musical salutes.

Defence Force bands performing at civilian functions when requested by the organisers may play any one of the following as a musical salute:

Advance Australia Fair, or

Waltzing Matilda; or

Song of Australia

Defence Force pipes and drums are to play Scotland the

Brave in lieu of God Save the Queen.

  1. The Defence Force policy was issued by the Chief of Defence Force Staff.
  2. The Defence Force policy already caters for any such request.

Numbers registered for Unemployment (Question No. 1154)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice:

How many (a) males and (b) females (i) under the age of 21 years and (ii) over the age of 21 years were registered for employment as at (A) July 1975 and (B) July 1976 at the Commonwealth Employment Service officers at (I) Penrith,

Granville, (III) Fairfield, (IV) Liverpool and (V) Parramatta.

Mr Street:
LP

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

At end-July 1975 and end-July 1976 the number of males and females registered as unemployed at each of the above nominated offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service is set out in the table below:

Naturalisation Statistics (Question No. 1188)

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Are any records kept of the number of migrants who become Australian citizens.
  2. If so, how many of each ethnic group have been naturalised in each of the last 5 years.
  3. How many naturalised citizens in each of the ethnic groups are enrolled in the Electoral Division of Sydney.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. See table hereunder. The figures for the year ended 30 June 1976 will be laid before Parliament shortly in accordance with the requirements of Section 42 (d) of the Citizenship Act 1948.
  3. No records are kept by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs which would enable it to determine the numbers of persons granted citizenship in each of the ethnic groups who are enrolled in the various electoral divisions.

Electorate of La Trobe (Question No. 1099)

Mr Baillieu:

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice:

  1. How many persons in the Electoral Division of La Trobe were registered as unemployed on 1 July in each of the years 1972 to 1976.
  2. What proportion of the persons was (a) under 2 1 years of age, ( b) 2 1 to 45 years of age and (c) over 45 years of age.
  3. What proportion was (a) males and (b) females.
  4. ) How many dependants were claimed by these persons.
  5. What were the principal work categories stated as being those of the persons unemployed.
  6. How many of those persons (a) were engaged in apprenticeships or traineeships when retrenched and (b) had completed apprenticeships or traineeships.
  7. May I have answers to some or all of these questions by 18 September 1976.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. Statistics of unemployed persons registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service are normally compiled according to individual Employment Office areas. They are not usually available in respect of parliamentary electorates.

The Electoral Division of La Trobe, comprises part of the Employment Office areas of Ringwood and Boronia. Until 2.8.73 the Ringwood Employment Office covered the area which is now serviced by Boronia Employment Office.

At present, approximately 80 per cent of the geographic area covered by the Boronia Office of the CES and approximately 50 percent of the geographic area covered by the Ringwood Office is contained in the La Trobe Electoral Division. However, somewhat smaller proportions of each area ‘s population are, in fact, contained m the La Trobe electorate (the majority of each area’s population being located within the Casey electorate).

The numbers of persons registered as unemployed as at 1 July for the two Employment Office areas mentioned and for each of the years were:

  1. Information is not available on the proportion of unemployed persons aged between 2 1 and 45 years or the proportion over 45 years of age. The proportions of persons under 2 1 and 2 1 years of age and over were:
  1. The proportions of males and females as at 1 July were:
  1. Information is not available.
  2. The principal work categories of persons registered as unemployed as at 1 July were:
  1. The information necessary to answer this question is not available at present for any of the dates requested. The best that could be done is a special once-only count at endOctober 1976 which would involve some 3000-3500 applicant cards. Unfortunately, such an exercise would impose a considerable additional workload in the offices concerned which I do not consider to be justified at this stage.

Electorate of Balaclava (Question No. 1013)

Mr Macphee:
LP

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many persons in the Electoral Division of Balaclava were registered as unemployed as at (a) July 1972), (b) July 1973, (c) July 1974, (d) July 1975 and (e) July 1976.
  2. What proportion of those persons were (a) under 2 1 years of age,.(b) 2 1 to 45 years of age and (c) over 45 years of age.
  3. What proportion were (a) males and (b) females.
  4. How many dependants were claimed by these persons.
  5. What were the principal work categories stated as being those of the persons unemployed.
  6. How many of those persons (a) were engaged in apprenticeships or traineeships when retrenched and (b) had completed apprenticeships or traineeships.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. Statistics of unemployed persons registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service are normally compiled according to individual Employment Office areas. They are not usually available in respect of parliamentary electorates.

However, the Electoral Division of Balaclava comprises approximately 15 per cent of the Employment Office area of Moorabbin and approximately 85 per cent of the Employment Office area of St Kilda. The number of persons registered for employment at these two offices at end-July in the years requested were as follows:

  1. Information is not available on the proportion of unemployed persons aged between 2 1 and 45 years and the number over 45 years of age. The proportions of persons aged under 2 1 years and 2 1 years of age and over were:
  2. This information is not available.
  3. The principal work categories of persons registered as unemployed were:
  1. The information necessary to answer this question is not available at present for any of the dates requested. The best that could be done is a special once-only count at endOctober 1976 which would involve some 3000-3500 applicant cards. Understandably, such an exercise would impose a considerable additional workload in the offices concerned which I do not consider to be justified at this stage.

Freight Rates: Tasmanian Shipping (Question No. 932)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. What were the rates charged by the Australian National Line and other shipping companies on the various categories of freight, both bulk and non-bulk, between mainland ports and each of the ports in Tasmania (a) southbound and (b) Northbound as at (i) 30 June 1976 and (ii) 3 1 July 1976.
  2. What was the (a) amount and (b) percentage of the alteration of the freight rate in each category.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

Information has been obtained from the shipping companies serving Tasmania namely the Australian Snipping Commission, Tasmanian Transport Commission, W. M. Holyman and Sons Pty Ltd and the Union Steamship Company of New Zealand Ltd.

Schedules have been prepared for each route served by these companies showing the changes in freight rates for the dates requested and the percentage change.

The information that the honourable member requested has been collated and is too lengthy to be published in Hansard. Copies of the information sought are available at the Table Office of the House of Representatives.

Election of Officers in Employee Organisations (Question No. 867)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice:

What are the names of employee organisations registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1976 whose registered rules (a) permit the election of full-time executive officers by the ‘collegiate’ system of voting, (b) require that the election of full-time executive officers shall be by direct vote of the rank and file of the organisation and (c) were altered since 1 973 to comply with the requirements of section 133 of the Act

Mr Street:
LP

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

I am now advised that the Office of the Industrial Registrar does not maintain records in such a form as to enable the information sought by the honourable member to be readily provided. I am further advised that a research project involving experienced staff full-time for a considerable period of time would be required to obtain the information sought. It appears that, were the information extracted, it would be largely of academic interest. I previously announced the Government’s acceptance in principle of a form of collegiate voting and its intention to amend section 133 during the current session of Parliament. This legislation has now been introduced.

Cosmetic Surgery (Question No. 923)

Mr Garrick:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the claim of one Victorian specialist that there are between 3000 and 4000 people with artificial eyes in that State and that while most cosmetic surgery is claimable under Medibank, this particular group of sufferers cannot claim.
  2. If so, has the Government any plans to change this situation; if not, why not
Mr Hunt:
Minister for Health · GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

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

  1. and (2) Under the Medibank Standard medical benefits arrangements and private medical insurance arrangements, benefits are provided for medical treatment rendered by legally qualified medical practitioners, certain prescribed medical services rendered by approved dentists in the operating theatres of approved hospitals, and optometrical consultations by participating optometrists. These arrangements do not, however, extend to assistance towards the cost of medical aids or appliances, such as artificial eyes, purchased privately by patients. At this stage there is no proposal to extend the schedule of medical benefits to provide benefits for such items.

However, under the Medibank hospital arrangements with the States, a patient of a recognised (i.e. public) hospital is supplied with appliances free of charge by the hospital when it is considered necessary by the hospital in the ongoing treatment, care, rehabilitation etc., of the patient by the hospital. This benefit applies to both inpatients and outpatients.

The practice of supplying surgical aids and appliances differs from hospital to hospital. Generally, the appliances supplied are the same as those supplied pre-Medibank and under the same conditions. Should a hospital not specialise in a certain field and consequently not provide appliances associated with that speciality, then of course it cannot be expected to undertake such responsibilities. State hospital authorities generally determine the services available from recognised hospitals and the Commonwealth Government has no direct responsibility for the types of services provided nor does it wish to interfere in States’ decisions in this respect.

The position in Victoria in regard to the supply of artificial eyes is that patients (including registered outpatients) of recognised hospitals who require an artificial eye or who require a replacement artificial eye for medical reasons are supplied free of charge.

Cheese Imports (Question No. 961)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What steps are being taken by his Department to assist Australian cheese manufacturers to obtain protection from the allegedly unfair cheese imports from New Zealand and from a number of other countries.
  2. What role does his Department, or he as Minister, have in any decision on cheese imports (a) from New Zealand under NAFTA, (b) from other countries with the Temporary Assistance Authority or the Industries Assistance Commission or (c) from all countries with regard to dumping.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

– The answer to the honourable members question is as follows:

  1. 1) My Department, in consultation with other appropriate Departments, is always prepared to provide advice to the appropriate industry organisations on the course of action that needs to be taken in order to seek protection against imports of cheese from New Zealand or from other countries which they consider are damaging or threatening to damage the Australian industry. My Department has recently had discussions with certain cheese manufacturers to this end.
  2. In regard to cheese imports from New Zealand under NAFTA this is fundamentally the concern of the Department of Overseas Trade. Matters relating to alleged dumping are fundamentally the concern of the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs. In the case of import protection which involves a request for a reference by dairyfarmers to the Industries Assistance Commission or the Temporary Assistance Authority a prima facie case has to be submitted in the first instance to the Department of Primary Industry.

Cheese Imports (Question No. 962)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

Does he consider that there should be an industry panel or committee to monitor and advise on the importation of cheese from New Zealand or other countries: if so, what action is he taking; if not, why not.

Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

I do not consider there is a present need to establish a special industry panel to monitor the importation of cheese from New Zealand or other countries. I believe that the function can be performed at this time by the appropriate industry organisations in consultation with my Department and the Australian Dairy Corporation. Consultation with other appropriate Departments will be undertaken by my Department as necessary.

Foreign Aid (Question No. 1012)

Mr Macphee:
LP

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. With reference to his answer on 26 August 1976 to a question without notice by the honourable member for Riverina, will he consider, as a matter of urgency, whether it is practicable to grant the form of foreign aid advocated by the organisation known as ‘ For Those Who Have Less ‘.
  2. Will he make his views public as scon as possible.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 have very real sympathy for the aims of the Organisation ‘For Those Who Have Less’. I gave a comprehensive reply to a similar question by the honourable member in my capacity as Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs (Question No. l1014) in Hansard of 5 October 1976.

I would comment further on the proposal in the context of our own local dairy industry which, it has been suggested, would benefit from the utilisation of surplus dairy cattle as overseas aid.

Having undertaken a thorough study of Mr Reid’s proposal, I have come to the conclusion that the purchase of productive dairy cattle would contribute very little to the restoration of confidence in the dairy industry. My investigations indicate that only one-fifth of the proposed Government expenditure on the project would go to the dairy farmer; the remaining four-fifths would be needed to cover transport and other costs. This would not seem to be the most effective use of the money available to help the dairy industry.

There are more effective ways in which assistance can be provided. For example, the.Government is giving underwriting support in association with the States, it has provided $13.5m in this year’s Budget for adjustment assistance and it is currently in the course of examining the recommendations contained in the IAC Report on Dairy Industry Marketing Arrangements in consultation with State Governments and the industry.

  1. ) See answer to ( I ) above.

Trade Practices Act (Question No. 1064)

Mr Jacobi:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

Does the Government propose amending the Trade Practices Act to regulate harsh and unconscionable transactions.

Mr Howard:
LP

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

The subject of harsh and unconscionable transactions was covered in the report of the Trade Practices Act Review Committee which was published in August 1976. The Committee recommended that there be a civil prohibition on unconscionable conduct or practices in trade or commerce.

The question of legislation to regulate harsh and unconscionable conduct and practices is at present the subject of discussions between the Commonwealth and State Governments. The views of the States will be taken into account when the Government is considering the recommendation of the Trade Practices Art Review Committee.

Customs and Import Duties (Question No. 1067)

Mr Stewart:

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

What was the amount of customs and import duties collected on (a) sporting equipment and (b) sporting clothes in each of the last S years.

Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. The Australian Statistician has provided the following information on the value of import duty collected during each of the financial years 1971-72 to 1975-76 on sporting equipment:
  1. The Statistician advises that the Australian Bureau of Statistics is not able to provide a series of figures on a comparable basis over the period 197 1-72 to 1975-76 for import duty collected on sports clothing because the range of sports clothing which has been separately recorded in import statistics has varied over this period. For example, tracksuits which have been recorded separately since March 1975 were not previously identified separately but were included in a general category covering knitted or crocheted outer garments. Thus, import duty on tracksuits is not included in the figures for 1971-72 to 1973-74 and is only included for pan of the year 1974-75.

The following table shows value of import duty collected on those items of sports clothing which were separately identified during each of the last five yean. The figures for 1974-75 and 1975-76 are not comparable with each other or with figures for the previous years.

Mr Richard Cobden (Question No. 1075)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Can he say whether a Mr Richard Cobden travelled by TAA from Canberra to Sydney on 20 May 1 976.
  2. If so, was the charge for the ticket on which he travelled made out to the High Court of Australia.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. and (2) See reply to question 1078. (Hansard, 19 October 1976, page 2004).

Government Inquiries and Reviews (Question No. 1084)

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

am asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What inquiries, investigations or reviews have been or are being made on behalf of the Government by persons who are not members of the Australian Public Service or holders of public office.
  2. What inquiries have been or are being made on behalf of the Government into departments or statutory bodies by members of the Australian Public Service or holders of public offices who are not attached to those departments or statutory bodies.
  3. What are the names and positions of these persons, on which dates were they appointed, what were the terms of reference of their appointments, and on what dates did they report or are they due or expected to report.
  4. In which cases have there been or will there be public hearings, and have their reports been or will their reports be published.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. to (4) As inquiries and reviews are initiated by the Government it has been the practice generally to announce this to the Parliament or to make some public statement. Where reports are of the kind that are normally made public, they are tabled in the Parliament- for example Mr D. O. Hay’s report on the review of delivery of services financed by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs.

Information in respect of all the matters referred to in the honourable member s question is not readily available. To collect and assemble it would be a major task and it has not been the practice of successive Governments, including the honourable member’s administration, to authorise the expenditure of money and effort involved in assembling such information on a general basis. I intend to follow the usual practice which is that if the honourable member wishes to know the details of any particular inquiry I shall examine the matter to see if he can be provided with the necessary information, such as, for example, that which I gave in answer to his Question No. 1 149 on the Task Force on Co-ordination in Welfare and Health (Hansard, 12 October 1976, pages 1784-5).

Delegations to Ministers on Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill 1976 (Question No. 1142)

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

am asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) On what dates have the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Treasurers, Minister for Primary Industry and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, or any of them, received delegations presenting submissions on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill 1976.
  2. What were the names and occupations of the members of each of these delegations.
  3. What agreements were entered into or assurances given as a result of each of those meetings.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. (2) and (3) Following Mr Viner ‘s undertaking in his Second Reading Speech that the Government would take all representations into account in arriving at the final form of the Aboriginal land rights legislation individual Ministers did receive delegations presenting submissions on the draft legislation. (Hansard, 4 June 1976, page 3082). All submissions were referred to Mr David Hay who was asked by the Government to analyse all written representations on the Bill.

Urban and Regional Programs (Question No. 1143)

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

am asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Which departments belong to the inter-departmental committee which he announced on 20 May 1976 (Hansard, page 2333) that the Government had established to review all major urban and regional development programs.
  2. When was the committee appointed.
  3. 3 ) What are its terms of reference.
  4. When will it report.
  5. Have any other departments or authorities or persons been appointed to carry out the comprehensive review of all major urban and regional development programs, including growth centres and decentralisation, land commissions, sewerage and urban rehabilitation, which the Treasurer mentioned on 17 August 1976 (Hansard, page 17); if so, who are they, when were they appointed, what are their terms of reference and when will they report.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Treasury and the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development
  2. 9 May 1976.
  3. See the Treasurer’s statement of 20 May 1976 (Hansard, page 2333).
  4. The Committee’s report has been completed and is being considered by the Government.
  5. No.

Aboriginal Land Rights (Question No. 1152)

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

am asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. What organisations, companies or persons have presented submissions to the Government concerning the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill 1976.
  2. What are the terms of reference for Mr Hay’s review of these submissions and have they all been referred to him for investigation.
  3. ) When is Mr Hay ‘s report expected.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. A wide variety of organisations, companies and persons have presented submissions to the Government concerning the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill 1976.

Submissions were received from Aboriginal communities, organisations representing Aboriginals, Northern Territory interests, State Parliamentarians, mining companies, and individuals with an interest in the draft legislation.

  1. Mr Hay was asked to analyse all written representations received by the Government on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill 1976. Submissions were referred to Mr Hay as they were received.
  2. 3 ) Mr Hay was asked to complete his report by the end of September and he did so.

Poker Machines (Question No. 1158)

Mr Bryant:
WILLS, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

  1. Does he propose to take steps to strengthen the authority of the Poker Machines Licensing Board to control the purchase of poker machines.
  2. Will he refer to the Legislative Assembly an amendment to the Poker Machines Ordinance authorising the Poker Machines Licensing Board to own and lease machines.
Mr Staley:
Minister for the Capital Territory · CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The matter has been referred to the Legislative Assembly for advice.

Inquiry into Transport Undertakings (Question No. J 181)

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

am asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) When does he expect to receive the report of the committee he appointed on 13 June 1976 to investigate the Australian Government’s transport business undertakings.
  2. Is the committee authorised or required to investigate the greater efficiency which would result from the integration of (a) the operations of the Australian National Line and Australian National Railways in Tasmania and (b) the operations of the Australian National Railways and the connecting State railways.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. I would expect that the committee will give me its report in December 1976.
  2. The terms of reference of the committee are as follows:

To inquire into and report to the Minister for Transport upon the business activities and form of management of Qantas Airways Limited, The Australian National Airlines Commission, The Australian National Shipping Commission and The Australian Shipping Commission, and in particular-

  1. Whether the present manner in which those instrumentalities are organised to conduct their business activities is conducive to the attainment of their statutory or corporate objectives.
  2. Whether the financial and other arrangements under which the instrumentalities operate are conducive to the efficient conduct of their business and whether such arrangements confer advantages or disadvantages on the instrumentalities which are not noramlly available to the private business undertakings. and to make suggestions regarding any changes desirable in respect of these matters: and, without restricting the scope of the inquiry, to give particular attention to the following matters:

    1. The structure of the governing bodies and the conditions, other than remuneration, applicable to the members thereof:
    2. The manner in which the governing bodies discharge their functions:
    3. The relations between the instrumentalities and the Treasury, the Public Service Board and the Department of Transport:
    4. The scope of the operations of the instrumentalities:
    5. Such other specific issues as referred by the Minister for Transport

Committee on Care of the Aged and the Infirm (Question No. 1189)

Mr Hodges:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Will he outline the full terms of reference of the committee established to inquire into the care of the Aged and Infirm.
  2. Who are the members of the committee.
  3. When is it proposed that the committee will make a report on its investigations.
  4. Will the report be made public.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) As I announced in my press statement of 6 June when releasing details on the establishment, including the members, of the Committee on Care of the Aged and the Infirm, the Committee ‘s terms of reference are:
  2. The Committee shall examine and report on-

    1. the effectiveness and efficiency of existing Government programs and arrangements for the provision of care for the aged and the infirm, including those programs concerned with aged persons homes and hostels, nursing homes and domiciliary nursing care;
    2. the appropriate role of the Commonwealth Government bearing in mind the responsibility of State and Local Governments and the activities of voluntary agencies;
    3. the relationship between programs for the aged and the infirm and other health and welfare programs.
    1. Against the background of the Government’s objective of providing assistance to those most in need while encouraging self reliance and participation at the local level, the Committee shall have regard in particular to-

    2. the scope for greater coherence in planning new programs and for the rationalisation of existing arrangements, including the examination of possible new approaches;
    3. the scope for economies in Commonwealth Government expenditure without compromising desirable long term arrangements. (Hi) The Committee shall include in its consideration available analyses and recommendations in previous reports presented to Governments in this area.
    1. After consultation with the Minister for Social Security and the Minister for Health, the Committee shall report to the Prime Minister.
    2. The Committee is expected to report as soon as possible, preferably by 30 September 1976. An interim report should be presented by 9 July.
  3. The Committee comprises:

Mr Austin Holmes (Chairman), Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

Dr Sidney Sax, Hospitals and Health Services Commission

Mr Keith Medbury, Department of Social Security

Mr Neil Hyden, Department of the Treasury.

  1. Three of the Committee members previously formed the Medibank Review Committee and carryover commitments from that Committee delayed investigations and, as a result, the preliminary report deferred any recommendations until the final report stage.

Although the Committee’s terms of reference suggest a final report by 30 September the establishment of the Task Force on Co-ordination in Welfare and Health and the need to co-ordinate the activities of the two groups have extended the timetable for the Committee on Care of the Aged and the Infirm and a final report is not now expected before December 1976.

  1. A decision on whether or not the report of the Committee will be made public has not yet been made.

Assistance to Local Government (Question No. 1279)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. What section 96 grants, which directly or indirectly provide money for capital facilities or recurring expenditure items for or through local government are presently available to that tier of government.
  2. Which of them will end when the next stage of the Federalism POliCY is introduced.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. Assistance is provided to local government under a wide range of programs. Descriptions of the programs may be found in Chapter V of the 1976-77 Budget Paper No. 7 Payments to or for the States and Local Government’, and details of budget estimates for 1976-77 and actual payments in previous years are available particularly in Table 99, page 1 23 of that document.
  2. The Government’s Federalism policy has as an objective enabling the States and Local Government to make decisions on matters relating to their responsibilities. The Government is thus increasing untied general revenue assistance, most importantly by introducing personal income tax revenue sharing arrangements.

The whole range of specific purpose payments is presently under review by the Commonwealth Government in consultation with the States, in order to determine if priorities for the conduct of certain programs should not more appropriately be left to the States to determine. In cases where programs clearly deserve continuing Commonwealth support, but not Commonwealth involvement, some form of absorption of specific purpose funds into general purpose funds may be appropriate.

Butter (Question No. 1322)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. Which of the various methods of improving the spreadability of butter appears to be the closest to commercial application, and offers the best hope of improving butter’s image with the consumer.
  2. What evidence is there from overseas countries that any of these methods are practical, acceptable to the public and capable of reversing the declining per capita consumption of butter.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. and (2) There appear to be three broad methods of making a more spreadable product incorporating butterfat:
  2. by incorporating softer vegetable oil into the butter making process at a ratio of not more than 25 per cent of the total fat content of the product.
  3. ) by lowering the fat content of butter from 80 per cent to 40 per cent The 40 per cent may be butterfat or a mixture of butterfat/vegetable oil.
  4. by separating the milk fat in butter into high, medium and low melting point fractions and reconstituting the lower and higher melting point fractions into a more spreadable product

Research in Australia and overseas has led to an understanding of the technology involved in the manufacture of butterfat/vegetable oil products including ‘Bregott’ (Swedish) and ‘Dairy Blend’ (Australian) containing 60-68 per cent butterfat and ‘Latt and Lagom’, (Swedish), 27 per cent butterfat The degree of consumer acceptability of these products varies. ‘Bregott’ and “Latt and Lagom’ are being offered commercially in Sweden and finding markets. In Australia, work has mainly concentrated on the possibilities for blends. Investigations of market possibilities suggests that butter/vegetable oil spreads could gain acceptance from a segment of the market.

Commercial production of a product comprising 40 per cent butterfat was discontinued in Australia due to technical reasons. The product was sold under the label ‘Dairy Spread’.

The fractionation method has received considerable research attention in New Zealand. According to information from that country, if a reasonably economic product is to be manufactured, then an annual production volume of the order of 20 000 tonnes would be required. The product is known as ‘Superspread ‘.

Under existing Australian Food Laws none of the products mentioned can be labelled Butter. Commercial manufacture of these products could therefore not be expected to add to the ‘image’ of butter itself. However, development of such spreads could improve the competitive position of dairy products against rival spreads not containing butterfat, and thus could provide a much needed additional outlet for butterfat

Unemployment Benefits for Immigrants (Question No. 1384)

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

For what period does an immigrant aged between 16 and 21 years have to wait, after his arrival in Australia, before becoming eligible to apply for and be paid unemployment benefits.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

Section 107 of the Social Services Act provides that a person is residentially qualified to receive unemployment benefit if he is residing in Australia on the date on which he lodges his claim, has been continuously resident in Australia for the twelve months immediately preceding that date or satisfies the Director-General that he is likely to remain permanently in Australia.

Defence and Scientific Installations and Facilities (Question No. 852)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. What (a) defence and (b) scientific installations and facilities are operating in Australia and her overseas territories under the (i) joint control of Australia and another country and (ii) sole control of another country.
  2. What installations and facilities are (a) under construction and ( b ) projected.
  3. What is the purpose of each installation and facility.
  4. What is the name of the other country concerned in each instance.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (3) and (4).

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 2 November 1976, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1976/19761102_reps_30_hor101/>.