30th Parliament · 1st Session
Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon. B. M. Snedden, Q.C.) took the chair at 2.15 p.m., and read prayers.
page 1
- Mr Speaker, I rise to inform the House of the death of Mr Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, President of the Republic of India, who died on Friday, 1 1 February, and to pay tribute to his memory. Shortly after the news of his death was announced the Governor-General and I sent messages of condolence to the Acting President of India and to the Prime Minister of India. Our High Commissioner to India attended the President’s funeral in New Delhi on behalf of the Australian Government.
The late President had a long and distinguished career in Indian politics and government. He was the second Moslem of India ‘s 5 Presidents- a widely respected figure in India and leader of India’s Moslem community. He graduated from Cambridge in 1927 and was admitted to the London Bar in 1928, returning to India and practising law in the Punjab and Assam. In 1931 he joined the Indian National Congress which was then engaged in the quest for independence. He was arrested twice for political activities before Indian independence. In 1958 he became Finance and Law Minister in Assam where he remained until 1965 when he was made Irrigation and Power Minister in the Indian Government. In 1967, he became Minister for Industrial Development and Company Affairs and, 3 years later, Food Minister which he remained until elected President in August 1 974. He is survived by his wife, 2 sons and a daughter.
The late President brought the greatest distinction to his high office. His passing is deeply mourned. It is fitting that we in the Commonwealth Parliament should record our sorrow and convey our sympathy to the people of India.
– The Australian Labor Party joins in the tribute to the memory of the late President of India. Like his predecessor whose death we lamented in May 1969, he was a Moslem. Only Indonesia has more citizens who are adherents of Islam than India, but Islam is nevertheless the faith of a minority of the citizens of India, a country where religious beliefs and spiritual values are pervasive and intense. It is one of the paradoxes in a country of fascinating and perplexing diversity that 2 Presidents have been Moslems. It is an indication of the great flexibility, vision and tolerance that have made India so challenging and resilient a democracy.
The President of India has important and defined powers under the constitution. The Republic has been fortunate in the experience and calibre of its 5 Presidents. At the Bar, in the struggle for independence, in state and federal politics, the fifth President had given long and distinguished service to his countrymen. He was expected to be a constructive and consolidating force as Head of State, and this he proved to be at the apex of his memorable and honourable career.
-Mr Speaker, I ask you to convey to His Excellency the High Commissioner, for transmission to his Government, the remarks that have been made here today.
-I will make the appropriate arrangements.
page 2
– Honourable members will have been made aware of a mistake which occurred in the Department of the House of Representatives and which resulted in an incorrect Bill being presented to the Governor-General for his assent. Two Bills with precisely the same title, namely States Grants (Aboriginal Assistance) Bill 1976, were before the Parliament at the same time last year. One Bill was introduced into this House on 19 May 1976 and passed on 3 June 1976. The Senate received that Bill on 18 August 1976. Debate on the Bill was adjourned at the second reading stage. That Bill is still on the Senate notice paper. The second Bill was introduced into this House on 3 November and finally passed on 17 November. It was finally passed by the Senate on 9 December 1976.
Standing order 265 of this House requires that every Bill which originates in the House of Representatives and which has finally passed both Houses shall be presented by the Speaker to the Governor-General for royal assent after certification by the Clerk that the Bill originated in the House and had finally passed both Houses. An error, made in the Department, led to the Clerk’s certificate being placed on the wrong Bill, that is, the Bill which had not finally passed both Houses. That Bill, together with others, was presented by me to the Governor-General on 13 December. His Excellency gave his assent the same day by signing that Bill which was numbered Act No. 184 of 1976. The mistake came to notice about 3 weeks ago and action has been taken to correct the position. The GovernorGeneral has now cancelled his signature on the incorrect Bill and has given his assent to the Bill which was finally passed by both Houses and which is numbered Act No. 1 of 1 977.
The checking procedure in the House of Representatives Department has not failed before in all the years of its operation. Nevertheless, it has been reviewed by the Clerk and some additional safeguards have been incorporated. I am confident that these extra precautions will prevent any recurrence.
In relation to the Bill that was incorrectly given assent and the one now correctly given assent, I have received a message from the GovernorGeneral which I read to the House:
Proposed law entitled State Grants (Aboriginal Assistance) Act 1 976 as finally passed by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Commonwealth, having been presented to the Governor-General for the Royal Assent, His Excellency has, in the name of Her Majesty, assented to the said law.
Being acquainted by communication from the Speaker and the Clerk of the House of Representatives that contrary to previous advice a Bill with the same title that was assented to by the Governor-General, in the name of Her Majesty, on 13 December 1976, as Act No. 184 of 1976 had not been passed by both Houses and being acquainted by communication from the Attorney-General that the advice given by him dated 13 December 1976 in relation to a Bill entitled States Grants (Aboriginal Assistance) Act 1976’ was intended when signed by him to relate to the Bill of that title which had then m fact been passed by both Houses and being advised that the Governor-General’s assent given on 13 December 1976 to the Bill that had not been passed in both Houses was and is of no effect in law and that it is proper for the Governor-General so to do His Excellency has cancelled his signature by which he purported to assent to the same.
Government House, Canberra, 1 1 February 1977.
-Mr Speaker, I want to submit to you that the explanation given is not satisfactory to the House in the sense that you have omitted to advise the Parliament that it is the responsibility and duty of the Attorney-General to certify in each case where legislation of this nature is submitted to the Governor-General that he has carefully perused the enactment and that it is in accordance with the legislation that passed both Houses.
I submit to you, Mr Speaker, that it is appropriate for this Parliament to be put on notice that in this case the Attorney-General certified the wrong Bill as being a Bill that had in fact passed both Houses. This should not happen in any Parliament. For the very obvious reasons, no Bill should be deemed to have been passed unless in fact it has passed both Houses. The Bill that was certified by the Attorney-General is still listed on the Senate notice paper as Bill No. 29. Admittedly there may be negligence in the Senate in not discharging that piece of legislation, but the negligence in this case is sheeted home to the Attorney-General because he certified that the Bill was a Bill that had passed both Houses. Parliament should not make mistakes with legislation. It is expected to know what it has in fact passed. A law of Australia was deemed to have been passed when in fact it was not.
There are 3 duties for a Minister. They are a personal duty, a penal duty and a political duty. I refer only to the political duty of accountability. The political accountability of a Minister to Parliament is designed to ensure that no Minister makes a mistake on behalf of the Parliament. This accountability is for the betterment of the Parliament. It reflects the wisdom of the Parliament. Without it, it could well be deemed that whatever has transpired in Parliament may have been in fact a mistake and therefore of no validity. As strict as it may be deemed to be, a Minister cannot say: ‘I am entitled to be exempted from accountability’.
Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to what might be deemed to be the precedent and procedure in this case. If a Minister has not acted in accordance with his duty of political accountability, he faces the voice of disapproval of the Parliament. The one obligation the AttorneyGeneral has now is to resign, as tough as that may sound, because there is no excuse for what happened. It cannot be glossed over. It is clearly stated that political accountability implies, for all practical purposes, the obligation on the part of the Government to act constantly in accordance with the views of the majority. What gives this obligation force is the threat of loss of office should a Minister act contrary to that duty of accountability. Mr Speaker, I am disappointed that you did not advert to that matter in your explanation to the House.
-Order! I gave the honourable gentleman the right to speak because of the nature of the issue, but he knows that he has now gone beyond reasonable indulgence.
-Mr Speaker, I appreciate your generosity to me, but your explanation created the impression that there was some fault in the procedures of the Clerk of the House and that it has been rectified. Let us put it on record that in every case the GovernorGeneral writes to the Attorney-General for a certificate that in accordance with the Constitution the Bill submitted to him has been passed by the Parliament, and the Attorney-General says that he has carefully perused the document -
-Order! I ask the honourable gentleman to resume his seat.
-Mr Speaker, I am asking that the matter be dealt with in relation to the Attorney-General’s accountability.
-The honourable gentleman is entitled to raise the matter on a substantive motion.
-I seek leave to move a motion.
-The honourable gentleman is not entitled to seek leave to move a motion. The best thing he can do is to move the suspension of standing orders.
-I will move the suspension of standing orders to enable me to move a motion.
– Such a motion is required to be in writing and seconded.
-I will put it in writing.
Mr Lionel Bowen having submitted his motion in writing-
-I move:
That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith moving: That the Attorney-General’s action in certifying as correct for the Governor-General’s signature the States Grants (Aboriginal Assistance) Bill 1976 constituted a breach of ministerial responsibility.
I again draw the attention of the House to the fact that this is an action that should never have happened.
– On a point of procedure, Mr Speaker, the Government is prepared to allow the suspension of Standing Orders so that the substantive motion can be moved, the arguments presented and the matter resolved.
-I ask the Leader of the House in clarification of the matter of procedure that he has raised whether that means that the Government will support the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders or -
– It means that we will not oppose the suspension of Standing Orders so that the substantive motion may be debated by the House.
-It has been indicated to me by the Leader of the House that the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders will not be opposed, and that will make way for the moving of some form of substantive motion. I put it to the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith that the best procedure would be to put the question for the suspension of Standing Orders forthwith without debate. Is the motion seconded?
– Yes.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
– I move:
That the Attorney-General ‘s action in certifying as correct for the Governor-General’s signature the States Grants (Aboriginal Assistance) Bill 1976 constituted a breach of ministerial responsibility.
There has been a breach of ministerial responsibility in that the Attorney-General wrongly advised the Governor-General that the States Grants (Aboriginal Assistance) Bill had been passed by both Houses. I draw the attention of the House to the following facts. On 3 June 1 976 this House did pass legislation entitled the ‘States Grants Aboriginal Assistance Act 1976’. The legislation encompassed expenditure of over $60m- no small amount of money. That Bill, which is a 3 page document, was then transmitted to the Senate and it still remains there. It is on the Senate notice paper this day as order of the day No. 29.
As your have said, Mr Speaker, the Government subsequently introduced another Bill, in November last. The only similarity between the two Bills would be the title. All other clauses were virtually completely different from those in the Bill that was introduced in this House on 3 June 1 976. So at that stage there would be no chance of anybody assuming that the 2 Bills were in identical terms. The position was far from that. As I said, the first Bill clearly appropriated in a Schedule about $60m.
The second Bill which was introduced on 18 November makes no such provision. If we look at the second reading speeches of the appropriate ministers it will be seen that they in no way indicated that one Bill was in lieu of the other. They merely indicated that the Government was proposing to give financial assistance to aborigines. If the Attorney-General had looked as I submit an Attorney-General should look he would have had to look not only at the pieces of legislation but also he would have to look at the second reading speeches and he would see that the Bills were completely different.
This second Bill was passed by the Senate on 9 December. We can now see the applicability of the requirement which I referred to earlier of accountability to Parliament. The GovernorGeneral would then have written, as you would know, Mr Speaker, and as Parliament would know, as a matter of practice, to the AttorneyGeneral who bears a ministerial responsibility in this position that he must certify to the Governor-General that he has carefully perused legislation-I repeat ‘carefully perused the legislation ‘-and must certify that it is in accordance with the terms of a Bill that has passed both Houses of the Parliament. The error that the Attorney-General committed on this occasion was that he certified to the Governor-General as a Bill that had passed both Houses a Bill that had not passed the Senate. It was a Bill which in fact had been superseded by a subsequent Bill in this House and he submitted to the GovernorGeneral a piece of legislation which was invalid.
Nevertheless, on 13 December last, the Governor-General, acting as he must on the Attorney-General’s certificate and advice, signed that Bill, thereby appearing to give it the effect of law. The Parliament has not been advised as to what moneys might have been expended or utilised under that piece of invalid legislation. Nevertheless I have no doubt in my mind that substantial sums of money could well have been appropriated in accordance with the terms of the Bill which is still before the Senate. This is where the position of ministerial accountability arises. As I emphasised, no Minister can afford to make mistakes. It is quite clear that if he makes a mistake in criminal law he is liable to be called to account here as a penal matter. If he makes a mistake on a personal matter he is again liable to be called to account here.
The third head of accountability is political accountability. It is not personal; it is not penal; it is in accordance with his oath of office and his duties as a Minister of this Parliament. He has a responsibility to perform those duties without negligence and he must guarantee that whatever is done in the exercise of ministerial responsibility will not be the subject of any charge against him. He must not certify that anything has happened which could not have happened. No Parliament in the world can function on the basis that a minister wrongly certifies that a Bill has passed both Houses of Parliament when it has not. Such action brings the office of the Governor-General into ridicule because he himself has certified something as being a law which is in fact not a law.
It makes the Parliament itself look ridiculous if we go through the motions of tedious debate in this House and in the Senate and pass laws after which some other piece of paper is submitted by a Minister as being law when, in fact, it is not. The seriousness lies not so much in the personal conduct of a Minister as in the situation itself: The procedure was not followed in that a Minister could say: ‘I have carefully perused the Bill and it is in accordance with the enactment passed by both Houses of Parliament’ and then say: ‘I made a mistake’. Having said and certified that he had carefully perused the Bill a Minister puts his ministerial accountability up for judgment by this Parliament.
In the course of an explanation made to the Parliament this day it was indicated that perhaps the mistake could have been made in the Clerk’s office and that perhaps a mistake was made by the Speaker himself. Perhaps those 2 mistakes occurred. The question now is what the Attorney-General, a minister of the Government and a Minister accounting to the Parliament, in fact did. We, as an Opposition, have to raise this matter because of what happened to the Parliament itself and the fact that a piece of legislation was deemed to have the force of law when it had not in fact passed through the Senate and was still before the Senate. I adverted earlier to the fact that the Government itself might be deemed to be negligent in the sense that the manager of business in the Senate could well have discharged the piece of legislation. But the legislation is still before the Senate. There is no doubt that if the Government had taken action in the Senate to discharge that other piece of legislation there would have been no possibility of a mistake in the Clerk ‘s office or in your office, Mr Speaker.
We are emphasising the personal accountability of the Attorney-General to this Parliament for certifying to the Governor-General that he himself had carefully perused the legislation and that it was in accordance with the legislation that had been passed. In other words, he could not possibly send to the Governor-General a Bill which was still before the Senate. He was fully entitled to send to the Governor-General 2 Bills, one of them right and one wrong. He was fully entitled, of course, to send the correct Bill to the Governor-General, which he did not do. In fact he sent the incorrect Bill, a Bill that was not passed by the Parliament in the sense that it had not passed through the Senate. It would perhaps be excusable if the only thing that had happened was that the same Bill had been introduced at different times. The Bills were not the same. The Bill introduced in the first instance clearly was to appropriate a sum of money, some $60m, itemised in a schedule carefully showing how it was to be appropriated. It was introduced with a second reading speech indicating its purpose.
The second piece of legislation- I notice that the relevant second reading speech did not make any reference to the fact that it was in substitution for the first Bill- was completely different and had a completely different second reading speech. In other words, the Attorney-General has put himself in the position of certifying that something was correct without bothering to check and without worrying whether or not it was correct. It is for that reason that he is liable to account to this Parliament. He may have an explanation but it is very doubtful whether he could, having submitted on his own certificate that he had carefully perused the legislation and that it was in accord with the Bill that passed both Houses.
This could never happen again, nor should it ever happen again. If it did we would be in the nonsensical situation that something deemed to be a law passed by the Governor-General may never be a law. We have to put the onus on some Minister. Unfortunately for him it is the Attorney-General. From the point of view of democracy this means that when the Parliament appropriates monies, in this case many millions of dollars, there should be no doubt as to what it does. There must be no mistake as to what is to happen to the people’s money. There must be no misunderstanding as to whether or not it was wrongly appropriated. In this instance we have no advice to the Parliament as to what happened to the monies that could well have been appropriated under this wrong measure. I ask honourable members to bear in mind that the GovernorGeneral signed this measure on 13 December 1976. As I understand it, the correct measure was not endorsed by him until yesterday. So we are entitled to say that all monies appropriated until yesterday were appropriated under a piece of legislation that had no validity. That is the seriousness of this charge. That is the reason there has to be ministerial accountability. No parliament can function effectively if we accept this sort of nonsense that it does not matter, that a mistake was made in the Minister’s office, or that a mistake was made by the Clerk, or that a mistake was made in your office, Mr Speaker. There is no room for mistakes in matters of this nature. These things must be done in accordance with what the Parliament determines.
For those very reasons I say that there has to be accountability to the people as well. How ridiculous it would be if money were spent in areas which there was no legislative enactment. How would we possibly recover such sums of money? We have a very serious responsibility when dealing with these funds, particularly when they amount to substantial sums of money. There is a serious responsibility on a government to guarantee that never at any time are there 2 pieces of legislation on the notice paper, particularly on the Senate notice paper, which contradict each other. Ministers have a responsibility when introducing legislation to make it clear in their second reading speech that the new Bill is in substitution of the original Bill. None of that was done on this occasion.
So to some extent that might be deemed to be an excuse for the Attorney-General, particularly if we look at all the mistakes that have been made by his ministerial colleagues. Nevertheless, he is accountable in that he has to carefully peruse the legislation. One would think that in perusing this legislation he would have been alerted to the fact that there was a similar Bill in existence which had not passed through the Senate. He would be entitled to look at the Senate notice paper, and he would be entitled to look at the speeches made during the second reading debate. They would show clearly that the 2 Bills dealt with different matters. For that reason the Attorney-General has failed in his duty. We have moved the motion which is presently before the House in accordance with the obligation of Ministers and their accountability to Parliament, and in accordance with the principle that Parliament is entitled to expect only the very best conduct. There can be no mistakes. If mistakes are made, there has to be accountability and a penalty. In my submission, the Attorney-General failed in his duty. He alone failed in that duty. The Governor-General is embarrassed. The Government is embarrassed. But, most importantly, taxpayers’ money could have been placed in jeopardy from the point of view of appropriation and expenditure.
For those reasons the Opposition has moved the motion which is before the House. We would have thought that perhaps the Attorney-General might have been able to make some explanation at an earlier date. I read in the Press that he made an explanation to the effect that in fact the wrong Bill was submitted to him. The fact that the wrong Bill was submitted to the AttorneyGeneral is not a good enough explanation. He has to certify as to the position. I am putting it to you very clearly, Mr Speaker, that Parliament cannot function if in the future it is to be accepted that Attorneys-General can make mistakes, that pieces of legislation certified to by the AttorneyGeneral may not have been passed by the Parliament. In other words, we would become a laughing stock in Australia. It is for those reasons that I have moved this motion.
-The honourable gentleman should submit the motion signed. Is the motion seconded?
-I support the motion. Neither your statement, Mr Speaker, nor the
Governor-General’s message states when you presented the Bill, No. 184 of 1976, to him for the royal assent. Your statement makes it plain that the later Bill, now No. 1 of 1977, passed the Senate on 9 December. We know from your statement and the Governor-General’s message that the earlier Bill was assented to by him on 13 December, and we also note that the AttorneyGeneral (Mr Ellicott) advised the GovernorGeneral by his certificate also on 13 December. I repeat: We do not know what happened on the intervening days, the days between 9 December and 13 December. You, Sir, have stated that a mistake was made in the Office of the House of Representatives. The honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) has raised the question of the Attorney-General’s responsibility.
As you pointed out in your statement, Sir, the proper sequence is that under the Standing Orders you present to the Governor-General for his signature of assent a Bill which originates in the House of Representatives and has been passed by the Senate. The Standing Orders do not state- it is, however, the practice- that after you have presented a Bill to the GovernorGeneral for the royal assent he then seeks from the Attorney-General a certificate that it is in accordance with the Constitution and the law making powers of this Parliament. It may be presumed that in this case the Attorney-General’s certificate went to the Governor-General at the same time as the Bill was presented by you. We do not know; we have not been told by you. However, the Governor-General states in his message that he was acquainted by communication from the Attorney-General that the advice given by him dated 13 December 1976 in relation to a Bill entitled ‘States Grants (Aboriginal Assistance) Bill 1976’ was intended, when signed by him, to relate to the Bill of that title which had then in fact been passed by both Houses. I repeat, the proper procedure is that when the Governor-General has a Bill presented by you he then seeks the Attorney-General ‘s certificate. The Attorney-General would not have been asked by the Governor-General for his certificate in respect of two competing Bills.
It is understandable that the Office of the House of Representatives made a mistake; it was confused in the press of business by 2 Bills of the same long and short titles. For the first time it made a mistake. The Governor-General was given one Bill. He was given the AttorneyGeneral’s certificate in relation to that Bill. We are entitled to know whether the AttorneyGeneral also was confused between the 2 Bills.
The Governor-General received only one Bill. It was presented by you. He had the certificate of the Attorney-General in relation to it. Was the Bill presented to him by you and did he receive the certificate of the Attorney-General at the same time? Whatever mistakes may have been made in the Office of the House of Representativesas to those you have made a candid statement, Sir- there could have been no mistake by the Attorney-General. If the Attorney-General had 2 Bills before him, as the Clerks of the House had and as you may have had, he too might have made a mistake, as the Clerks did and as you may have done. But he should have had only one Bill before him. The Governor-General does not ask the Attorney-General to give a certificate in respect of competing Bills. The GovernorGeneral asks the Attorney-General to give a certificate in respect of a BUI which has been presented to him by the Speaker. Only one Bill should have been seen by the Attorney-General. It should have come to the Attorney-General from the Governor-General.
Did the Attorney-General follow the proper procedure? Did the Governor-General, after you ad presented the Bill, then send it to the Attorney-General for his certificate? Did the Attorney-General, seeing that one Bill which was received by the Governor-General from you, then certify in regard to that Bill?
You, Sir, and the office of the House had 2 Bills. A mistake was made. The GovernorGeneral received one Bill. The Attorney-General should have received only one Bill. The Governor-General had the Bill from you. The Attorney-General should have had the Bill from the Governor-General. That is the procedure. Was it followed?
I make no cavil at all at the statement that you made. It was correct as far as it went, but was the Bill signed, according to procedure, once you presented it to the Governor-General? We need to know that mistakes will not occur again. I doubt if they will ever occur again in the office of the House of Representatives. But that is not the only safeguard. The Standing Orders of the House of Representatives afford a safeguard. It failed in this case, but there is another safeguard. That safeguard also failed. The AttorneyGeneral is responsible at least for that other safeguard having failed. Perhaps the GovernorGeneral also is responsible for that other safeguard having failed.
The practice is that the Bill as presented to the Governor-General by the Speaker is then sent by the Governor-General to the Attorney-General.
The Attorney-General then provides his certificate. The Governor-General then, and only then, gives his signature and thereby the Royal Assent. We are entitled to an explanation. The second safeguard failed. It is a safeguard which is in the hands of the Governor-General and the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General is answerable to the House. The honourable member for Kingsford-Smith has properly moved that on the face of the facts as they are known at this stage the Attorney-General failed in his responsibility.
– If there were an inverted responsibility, that is by shadow Ministers, I would be moving a censure motion. This motion has been based on an incorrect statement of the facts. Before a motion such as this was moved against a Minister I should have hoped that those who proposed it, particularly the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen), would have taken the trouble to find out the facts. One thing I am very gratified about is that the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith has now learnt that a Bill has to pass both Houses of Parliament before it can become law.
Let me turn to the matter that has been the subject of censure against me. Let me first talk about the procedure which on my understanding has been followed for more than 40 years. Let me say at the outset that in doing what I did I did nothing different from what Attorneys-General Latham, Evatt, Spicer, O’sullivan, Barwick, Snedden, Bowen, Greenwood, Murphy and Enderby did. I mention one other person who was an acting Attorney-General; his name is James McClelland.
– Did they all make mistakes?
– They all followed exactly the same prodecure as I followed.
– What about the mistake?
– The honourable member has a smile on his face now. That is a little better. He is beginning to realise that the matter is not quite as serious as he has made out. Section 58 of the Constitution provides:
When a proposed law passed by both Houses of the Parliament is presented to the Governor-General for the Queen’s assent, he shall declare, according to his descretion, but subject to this Constitution, that he assents in the Queen’s name, or that he withholds assent, or that he reserves the law for the Queen ‘s pleasure.
Not the words ‘or that he reserves the law for the Queen’s pleasure’. Section 58 also provides:
The Governor-General may return to the House in which it originated any proposed law so presented to him, and may transmit therewith any amendments which he may recommend, and the Houses may deal with the recommendation.
There are 2 questions. The first is: Does the Bill have to be reserved for the Queen’s pleasure? The second is: Should there be some amendments to the Bill? It would be most unusual- the Opposition would readily agree- for the Governor-General to suggest any substantive amendments. I understand that on odd occasions a Governor-General may have pointed out the need for some typographical amendment. Section 58 of the Constitution requires him to look at 2 matters.
The sole function of the Attorney-General is to give advice to the Governor-General as to whether a Bill should be reserved for the Queen’s pleasure and whether there are any amendments which the Governor-General should propose in relation to it. It never was and never could be the function of the AttorneyGeneral to certify that a law has passed both Houses of the Parliament. That is the function of the Houses. That is why a procedure is laid down for Bills to be certified by the Clerk of the Senate when they have passed that House and have come back to the House of Representatives, and why a very detailed procedure is then followed to ensure that the Bill which has passed both Houses is the one a copy of which is being sent to His Excellency.
What happens when a Bill comes back from the Senate- if we take a case such as this, where the Bill has not been amended- is that an assent copy is printed by the Government Printer of what is thought to be going to the GovernorGeneral. Then certain procedures are followed. I have checked those procedures. If they had been followed precisely this error could not have occurred. As Mr Speaker indicated, there was a human error in the Department of the House of Representatives. As a result, a Bill other than the Bill that had passed both Houses of the Parliament went to His Excellency, under a letter from Mr Speaker which indicated that the Bill had been passed by both Houses of Parliament. It is that document which indicates to His Excellency the fact that a particular measure has passed both Houses of Parliament.
What happens in relation to the AttorneyGeneral? He has the function of giving advice to His Excellency, not as to whether the Bill has passed both Houses but as to whether any amendments should be made or whether it should be reserved for the Queen’s pleasure. In this case an error occurred, in the sense that the
Bill which His Excellency received from Mr Speaker’s office was not the Bill which had been passed by both Houses. The Attorney-General, as honourable members will understand, is a member of the Legislation Committee. He cannot and does not-I do not know of any Attorney-General who ever did- check every Bill, every comma, every ‘and’ or ‘but’. He cannot give consideration to the expressions in every clause of a Bill. It would be an impossible task for an Attorney-General to perform. That is why he has an Office of Parliamentary Counsel to assist him. That Office prepares Bills and drafts them. They are put through the Legislation Committee and then come into this Parliament. In the Legislation Committee Bills such as the two which we have been discussing this afternoon are brought forward.
There was never any doubt in my mind which Bill would pass both Houses of the Parliament. The first one, which passed this House in June and which remained on the table of the Senate, was followed by another Bill later in the year- I think in October or November. That second Bill was always intended to replace the first one. Once it was introduced it was never intended that the first Bill would go through because it was intended to supplant it. So, in my mind, being a person who was involved through the office of Parliamentary Counsel in relation to the preparation of Bills, as a person who attended the legislation committee, I never had any doubt in my mind as to what Bill was to go through the Parliament. That is the one that in fact went through- the short Bill, if I can call it that, as distinct from the longer Bill.
May I indicate the part played by the Attorney-General in relation to the procedure that has been followed for 40 years. The procedure that is followed is for a person taking legislation to Government House to have with him a letter from the Attorney-General which does in fact give the advice in relation to a Bill. In the ordinary course of events, if advice is given to a Bill and there is no mistake, the letter obviously will refer to that Bill and there is no question of any problem arising. The practice that has been followed, however, is that the Attorney-General always has given his certificate- I have checked this- according to Parliamentary Counsel over a period of 40 years in advance of the Bill going from the Speaker’s office to Government House.
When I signed the document in question, in my mind I had no doubt whatsoever to what Bill I was referring. I was referring to a Bill- the short Bill, if I can call it that- that in fact went through both Houses. I was never referring to a Bill that had passed only the House of Representatives. I always had in mind that that Bill would never go forward because the other one was to replace it. I understand that the letter intending to refer to the Bill which had passed both Houses went out to Government House on 13 December, the Bill that I was talking about in my letter having passed the Senate on 9 December. What happened, of course, is obvious. The letter was exchanged with a letter from the Private Secretary of the Governor-General in the ordinary course of events which referred to a Bill of the same name. But my letter was never intended to be used in respect of that Bill. Obviously the letter was exchanged because it was referring to a Bill of the same title whereas I always intended it to refer to a Bill that had passed both Houses.
As I have said, in doing what I did I followed a practice of over 40 years of giving the AttorneyGeneral ‘s certificate in advance, not having responsibility to certify that a Bill had passed both Houses of the Parliament but having responsibility to give advice that a particular Bill, one that I understood and contemplated, needed no amendments and need not be reserved for Her Majesty’s pleasure.
In those circumstances I do not, with very great respect to honourable members opposite, admit any negligence in the matter. I have followed a practice of over 40 years. Honourable members opposite may ask: ‘Why has that practice been followed?’ I imagine that it has been followed by successive governments in order to save time. If the Attorney-General was not able to send in advance a letter carrying his certification additional time would be spent in this procedure.
The other aspect of the matter, of course, is that the advice that is given is based partly on the Attorney-General’s own knowledge and expertise, for instance advice on whether a Bill ought to be reserved for Her Majesty’s pleasure, but also on the assistance that he gets from the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. Acts Nos 94 to 103 in respect of which I understand Senator James McClelland gave a certificate in September 1975 related to such things as the independence of Papua New Guinea. One Act relating to the defence forces had many sections. As I explained earlier, no Attorney-General could ever hope to read every section and to advise whether any specific amendments ought to be made. He has to rely on his officers in the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. So in that respect I do not accept from the Opposition any charge of negligence. So, Mr Speaker, I say with very great respect that the Opposition’s charge is unfounded. The procedures followed in this matter have been laid down for many years. In those circumstances I move:
That the question be now put.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Original question put:
That the motion (Mr Lionel Bowen’s) be agreed to.
The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Rt Hon. B. M. Snedden, Q.C.)
AYES: 35
NOES: 88
Majority……. 53
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
page 10
-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers:
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we are deeply concerned at the threat to the continuation of symphony orchestras throughout Australia posed by the LAC and Green reports.
We believe that the Government should not allow the symphony orchestras of Australia to be reduced in any way at all.
Your petitioners humbly pray that your honourable House will take steps to ensure the continuation and growth of our symphony orchestras, thereby ensuring that the quality of life of the people of this country shall be maintained.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Uren, Mr William McMahon, Mr Brown, Mr Bourchier, Mr Cadman, Mr Connor, Mr Dobie, Mr Graham, Mr Hayden, Mr Hodges, Mr King, Mr Ruddock, Mr Scholes, Mr Simon, Mr Stewart and Mr Wentworth.
Petitions received.
To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned on behalf of concerned citizens in the shire respectfully showeth:
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should ensure:
That the Commonwealth Government’s long-term policy should be to provide SO per cent of all funding for Australia’ s roads.
That at a minimum the Commonwealth Government adopts the recommendations by the Australian Council of Local Government Associations for the allocation of $5, 903m of Commonwealth, State and Local Government funds to roads over the five years ending 1980-81, of which the Commonwealth share would be 41 per cent as recommended by the Bureau of Roads.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Corbett, Mr Hyde, Mr Kelly, Mr McVeigh, Mr Millar, Mr Porter and Mr Wallis.
Petitions received.
To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned concerned citizens respectfully showeth:
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should ensure:
That the Commonwealth Government adopts the recommendations of the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads for the funding of rural local roads and urban local road in New South Wales for the triennium 1 977- 1 980.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Les McMahon, Mr Morris, Mr Stewart and Mr Antony Whitlam.
Petitions received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth:
That the public library services of New South Wales are inadequate both in quality and quantity and that the burden of provision is placed too heavily upon local government. ‘
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will ensure the implementation of the recommendation of the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Public Libraries as a matter of urgency.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lucock, Mr Baume and Mr O’Keefe.
Petitions received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we are deeply concerned at the threat to the continuation of the independence of the ABC posed by the Green Report.
We believe that the Government should desist from further financial cuts to the organisation and other pressures.
Your petitioners humbly pray that your honourable House will take steps to ensure the continuation of all present services provided by an Independent ABC.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fry and Mr Hurford.
Petitions received.
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:
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Molonglo Arterial and Western Distributor be deferred until a full public inquiry has been carried out, investigating Canberra’s total transport needs.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fry and Mr Haslem.
Petitions received.
To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we are deeply concerned by your lack of support for the nomination of Elizabeth Reid to the United Nations Secretariat for the Social and Economic Development Council.
We believe that during Ms Reid’s tenure as Women’s Advisor she gained world wide support and recognition for Australia’s efforts to represent the needs and interests of all women. Her direction and drive at the United Nations Convention for International Women’s Year in Mexico City helped to unite a divided assembly and lay the groundwork for continued international co-operation towards a goal of full equality for all peoples of the world. Her international reputation is secure.
Your petitioners humbly pray that your honourable House will decide in favour of wholehearted support of Ms Reid ‘s nomination, thereby ensuring that the high quality of Australian representatives to the United Nations shall be maintained and augmented.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Wilson and Mr Young,
Petitions received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That grave concern is expressed about the Government’s intention to dismantle the Australian Legal Aid Office which is providing efficient, readily available legal aid to all communities in Australia.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will undertake a full national enquiry as proposed in 1975 by the present Attorney-General, as a matter of urgency.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beazley.
Petition received.
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 delays between announcements of each quarterly movement in the Consumer Price Index and their application as a percentage increase in age and invalid pensions is excessive, unnecessary, discriminatory and a cause of economic distress to pensioners.
That proposals to amend the Consumer Price Index by eliminating particular items from the Index could adversely affect the value of future increases in age and invalid pensions and thus be a cause of additional economic hardship to pensioners.
The foregoing facts impel your petitioners to ask the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to-
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lionel Bowen.
Petition received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned members of the Bushwalkers Federation of N.S.W. and citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that:
There is a growing interest and concern in all sections of Australia society for the conservation of the environment, natural and man-made.
That there are also rapidly growing pressures by powerful forces tending towards the destruction of the Australian heritage.
That it is therefore urgent to appoint the Australian Heritage Commission, which was approved by both sides of this Parliament and to give the Commission sufficient independent staff, resources and funds.
That Technical Assistance Grants and Administrative Support Grants to community organisations are needed to partially redress the gross imbalance in technical expertise and resources suffered by community groups in pressing the community’s case against the exploiter.
That a proper balance between the Government’s program of public austerity and the need for action in conservation would be a modest increase in the budget allocations in these areas over that of 1 975-76.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lionel Bowen.
Petition received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned members of:
The Clarence Valley Field Naturalists Club (P.O. Box 1 99, Grafton, 2460) respectfully showeth that:
There is a growing interest and concern in all sections of Australian society for the conservation of the environment, natural and man-made.
That there are also rapidly growing pressures by powerful forces tending towards the destruction of the Australian heritage.
That it is therefore urgent to appoint the Australian Heritage Commission, which was approved by both sides of this Parliament and to give the Commission sufficient independent staff, resources and funds.
That Technical Assistance Grants and Administrative Support Grants to community organisations are needed to partially redress the gross imbalance in technical expertise and resources suffered by community groups in pressing the community’s case against the exploiter.
That a proper balance between the Governments programme of public austerity and the need for action in conservation would be a modest increase in the budget allocations in these areas over that of 1 975-76
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ian Robinson.
Petition received.
To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows:
That the Aboriginal Lands Right Bill 1976 (N.T.) does not satisfy the Aboriginal needs for land in the Northern Territory.
Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should: (1) Extend the freeze on European claims for unalienated Crown Lands in the Northern Territory until 12 months after the passage of the Bill; and to provide speedy lodging and hearing of Aboriginal Claims. The hearing of Aboriginal Claims have been postponed as a result of Government decisions; Aboriginals should not be penalised. (2) Amend the Bill to ensure:
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Brown.
Petition received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that:
Television is the single most influential medium for the dissemination of information and for the recording and development of our national identity and culture;
Children are the most important section of the viewing public in that they are most likely to be affected by the impact of television;
Australian children, on average, spend more time watching television than in school;
And believing that:
The basic problem behind the lack of programmes designed for children is the fundamental divergence of aims between those primarily interested in the welfare of children and the commercial interests of television licensees and their shareholders.
We request:
The creation of an Establishment to initiate, research, promote, co-ordinate, fund and produce material for children’s consumption through the medium of television, as recommended by Australian Children’s Television Action Committee in its submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and The Arts 1973; The Australian Broadcasting Control Boards Advisory Committee Report 1974 and the Television Industry Co-ordinating Committee 1975, as a positive step toward providing better quality television for Australian children.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron.
Petition received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth.
That residents of the suburb of Fraser, in the Australian Capital Territory are deeply concerned at the lack of adequate educational facilities to be made available to our primary school aged children.
That plans to remove children daily to other suburbs will cause overcrowding, will force parents to private transport or pay bus levies, and will make a mockery of the frequently quoted A.C.T. Schools Authority policy that primary school students should have access to a school within reasonable walking distance of their homes.
That population trends in Fraser and adjoining suburbs more than adequately prove the need for a separate primary school in each of these suburbs.
That a primary school in the suburb would provide an important focus for an area which currently lacks any identity as a community.
That plans to distribute Fraser students between two to four different schools in adjoining areas may well frustrate the social development of many of these young persons, forcing them into a situation where they must relate to two different sets of peers.
Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take urgent steps to revise current plans for the education of our children with a view to the provision of a government primary school in Fraser.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. byMrHaslem.
Petition received.
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate, and 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 distress is being caused to social security recipients by the delay in adjusting pensions to the Consumer Prices Index months after prices of goods and services have risen, and that medications which were formerly pharmaceutical benefits must now be paid for.
Additionally, that State housing authorities’ waiting lists for low rental dwellings for pensioners grow ever longer, and the cost of funerals increase ever greater.
Your petitioners call on the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to:
Adjust social security payments instantly and automatically when the quarterly Consumer Prices Index is announced.
Restore pharmaceutical benefits deleted from the free list.
Update the State Grants (Dwellings for Pensioners) Act of 1 974, eroded by inflation, to increase grants to overcome the backlog.
Update funeral benefit to 60 per cent of reasonable cost of funeral. (This benefit was 200 shillings, 20 dollars, when introduced in 1943. It was seven times the 1943 pension of 27 shillings a week.)
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Porter.
Petition received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the humble petition of the undersigned on behalf of Cambodian refugees resident in Victoria respectfully showeth:
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House urge the Government to expedite the new intake of IndoChinese refugees and give serious consideration to increasing the intake of refugees from camps in Thailand.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Shipton.
Petition received.
To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Eyre Peninsula in South Australia respectfully showeth:
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. byMrWallis.
Petition received.
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Eyre Peninsula in South Australia respectfully showeth:
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government, through its appropriate authorities controlling the establishment of television services, provide these services to the Eyre Peninsula region of South Australia as a matter of urgency.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. byMrWallis.
Petition received.
To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That there is urgent need for the introduction of Legislation to recognise Citizen Band Radio and to make provision for its proper use.
Your petitioners also believe that it is essential that a formal emergency radio communication network be established so that the citizen will have the same facility of reporting an emergency by radio as if he had immediately accessible to him the facility of dialling ‘000’ on the Telecommunications telephone network.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government will introduce the necessary Legislation at the earliest opportunity.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Wentworth.
Petition received.
To The Honourable The Speaker and Members of The House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectifully showeth:
That, although we accept the verdict of the Australian people in the 1975 election, we do not accept the right of a Governor-General to dismiss a Prime Minister who maintains the confidence of the House of Representatives.
We believe that the continued presence of Sir John Kerr as Governor-General is a cause of division among the Australian people.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will call on Sir John Kerr to resign as Australian Governor-General.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Young.
Petition received.
To The Honourable The Speaker and Members of The House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That we are concerned about the future of the Australian Assistance Plan.
That we request that the Commonwealth Government support the Australian Assistance Plan by providing for legislation and finance for the Plan on a national basis.
That we feel this way, because the Australian Assistance Plan is making it possible for citizens to help themselves, especially those who need help the most, such as invalid, the inarticulate, and others, as evidenced by the work of the Western Adelaide Regional Council for Social Development over the last two years.
That we believe that this represents the best possible use of limited government resources.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament take immediate steps to continue the Australian Assistance Plan as recommended in the report tabled by the Honourable, the Minister for Social Security, Senator Margaret Guilfoyle, in Parliament on 4 March, 1 976.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Young.
Petition received.
page 14
– I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:
That this House expresses its want of confidence in the Fraser Government because of its failure to reduce unemployment and inflation.
– I move:
– I require the honourable gentleman to put the motion in writing.
The Leader of the Opposition having submitted the motion in writing-
-Mr Speaker -
– I move:
The matter can be dealt with after the statement by the Treasurer (Mr Lynch).
Question put:
That the Leader of the Opposition be not further heard.
The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Rt Hon. B. M. Snedden, Q.C.)
AYES: 88
NOES: 35
Majority……. 53
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
-The question is that this Government does not want to discuss this matter with record inflation, record unemployment -
Motion ( by Mr Sinclair) put:
That the Deputy Leader of the Opposition be not further heard.
The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Rt Hon. B. M. Snedden, Q.C.)
AYES: 88
NOES: 35
Majority……. 53
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving forthwith the motion of which he has just given notice.
-The Treasurer (Mr Lynch) is unable -
Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:
That the question be now put.
A division being called for and the bells being
-Mr Speaker -
-The honourable gentleman will resume his seat and cover his head.
-I ask for leave to call off this division and have the division on the matter of substance, namely, the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders.
-Is leave granted?
– Leave is granted.
– Leave is granted. The question will therefore be resolved in the affirmative. The question now before the Chair is the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders moved by the Leader of the Opposition.
Question put.
The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Rt Hon. B. M. Snedden, Q.C.)
AYES: 35
NOES: 87
Majority……. 52
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
page 16
– Are there any questions?
Mr MALCOLM FRASER (Wannon-Prime Minister)- I ask that questions be placed on the notice paper.
page 16
– Pursuant to section 34 of the Service Trust Fund Act 1947, I present the annual reports of the Royal Australian Air Force Welfare Trust Fund, the Australian Military Forces Relief Trust Fund and the Royal Australian Navy Relief Trust Fund for the calendar year 1975.
page 16
– Pursuant to section 41 of the Meat Industry Act 1964, I present the annual report of the Australian Meat Board for the year ended 30 June 1976.
page 16
– Pursuant to section 58 of the Stevedoring Industry Act 1956, 1 present the annual report of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority for the year ended 30 June 1 976.
page 17
Mr ELLICOTT (WentworthAttorneyGeneral) Pursuant to section 13 of the Law Reform Commission Ordinance 1971,1 present a report by the Law Reform Commission of the Australian Capital Territory on the law relating to conveyancing.
page 17
– For the information of honourable members I present a report by the Industries Assistance Commission entitled ‘Multi-lateral Trade NegotiationsGeneral Rates of Duty- First Report’; a report by the Industries Assistance Commission on agricultural tractors; an interim report of the Industries Assistance Commission on fabrics for use as bed sheeting, pillow casing or bolster casing; and a report by the Textiles Authority on sheets, curtains, etc.
page 17
Pursuant to section 8 of the Urban and Regional Development (Financial Assistance) Act 1974, 1 present three agreements between the Commonwealth and the States of New South Wales and Victoria made under the provisions of that Act.
page 17
– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Fire Brigade for the year ended 30 June 1 976.
page 17
-! claim to have been misrepresented. May I make a personal explanation?
-The honourable gentleman may proceed.
-Under a heading in this morning’s Press, ‘Government MP Suggests Inflation-proof Bonds’, an article states that I suggested that purchases would be limited to a maximum, say, of $50,000 in any one bond. The correct text is $50,000 in any one hand, which is different in meaning. It is not the newspaper’s fault; it was a typographical error.
-I wish to make a personal explanation.
-Does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented?
-Yes. On Monday 7 February in the Sydney Daily Mirror a front page article appeared titled: ‘$46,000 MPs Want More’. The article claimed:
Federal MPs will move into the equivalent of a $50,000 a year bracket if they succeed in their demands for a $3,000 rise.
The front page article was followed up by a column by a Mr Jack Darmody on page 4 that listed all expenses and salaries paid to MPs including electoral allowance, postage, staff salaries, air travel and telephone expenses and claimed that this added up to a salary of $46,000. I was extremely incensed at the pack of lies and distortions and said so in a telegram to the editor of the Daily Mirror requesting that I or one of my parliamentary colleagues from either side of the House be given the right to reply. Shortly afterwards I received a call from Mr Darmody suggesting that rather than my replying by article and his replying to me and so on why did I not go to his office and we could have an interview so that I could put the record straight and state the case on behalf of MPs. While it never occurred to me that Mr Darmody would write any abject apology I was naive enough to believe that he would at least correct the specific untruths in the article. On the contrary he totally ignored these matters and chose to further distort the truth by writing another article on Monday 14 February again on the front page- an article titled ‘Your Tax Pays For MPs Homes’.
The snide and smart-alec remarks made about me do not concern me greatly. One has to expect this sort of thing in public life. What should concern this House is the grotesque distortions by a journalist that enables him to claim that members of Parliament are receiving a salary of $46,000. Specifically the most outrageous claim, which I pointed out to him was untrue, made by Mr Darmody was to add the cost of research assistants and electorate secretaries, at a salary of about $8,000 each, to our own salaries. He claimed the right to do this on the ground that an MP could employ members of his own family in these positions if he so wished. Apart from the absurdity of the claim that a wife’s salary should be added to a member’s salary I am unaware of any MP who does employ a member of his family. I certainly do not. He then added the electoral allowance of $5,000 which is provided for members for the myriad of expenses that are incurred by MPs-cars, donations, books, magazines, etc. To this he added the living away from home allowance of $37 paid when an MP is in Canberra or on parliamentary business. I explained to Mr Darmody that most MPs stayed in modest hotels costing approximately $20 a night and that the balance would go to pay for meals, laundry and so on. When he asked whether MPs could use this $37 a day to buy a flat I said that they could and that some did. This then appeared as the basis for the second article Your Tax Pays for MPs Homes’. To all this Mr Darmody had the gall to add the cost of air travel when an MP is travelling on parliamentary business. I will try to be brief and I thank the House for its indulgence. I pointed out that the $1,000 postage was not money but the use of a franking machine to that value- used solely for the purpose of writing to constituents. I pointed out the absurdity of bis claim that this would enable MPs to send thousands of free Christmas cards.
Mr Darmody in his follow up article chose to ignore the untruths and distortions that I pointed out to him. He deliberately deceived me by giving the impression that he would give me the opportunity to present the truth. I was open and frank with him. He was deceitful and dishonest with me. The article created the impression that I had gone in to reveal all about MPs. All of us know that these salaries and allowances are public matters. There is nothing new or secretive about them. They are provided for in the Remuneration Tribunal’s findings that are tabled in Parliament each year and are the subject of much public discussion. I do not know what can be done about this type of misreporting. I hope that some other sections of the media will take up the matter in the interests of fair and honest journalism.
page 18
-by leave- The year 1976 was one -
– The Opposition does not want to restrict the Treasurer in making an important economic statement but I think it important to point out that it will take between 45 minutes and an hour to deliver this statement. The final portions of it were not handed to Opposition until 2.30 this afternoon. It came in dribs and drabs. It is wrong to expect us to reply to such a statement at this short notice. I think that when the Treasurer wishes to make a statement -
-I think the honourable member has made his point.
– I want only one second. When Ministers wish to make a statement I think they should show the Opposition the courtesy of giving the Opposition spokesman appropriate time to study this statement so that he can adequately reply. I think it is impossible in these circumstances to do so.
-The year 1976 was a year of considerable progress towards the 3-year goals we have set ourselves in bringing Australia’s economic problems under control.
That progress was all the more notable when viewed against the background of the mess that we inherited. I do not however propose today to go over the record of our predecessors. My purpose rather is to review the economic developments of 1976 and to spell out the Government’s continuing economic strategy for 1 977.
The House will recall that the strategy on which we embarked at the end of 1975 began from the fundamental recognition that renewed economic growth could occur only if the long campaign of business-bashing stopped and the private sector began to expand again. Control of inflation was a pre-requisite for an environment in which the private sector would slowly emerge from its state of shock. The strategy for recovery required measures aimed directly at boosting the private sector and cutting back on big government.
We have carried through that strategy and we have already begun to see its fruits. Above all, the rate of inflation has moderated substantially.
In the first 3 quarters of 1976 the Consumer Price Index rose by 3 per cent, 2.5 per cent and 2.2 per cent respectively compared with average quarterly increases of about 4 per cent in 1974 and 1975. Understandably, considerable emphasis is placed on movements in the CPI as the measure of inflation.
In fart, of course, that index merely records price movements for a specifically confined set of services. The flattening trend in the CPI is present, often even more markedly, in other price indicators. In the first 3 quarters of 1 976 the deflator for the major components of gross national expenditure- the sum of all domestic final expenditure, private and government- rose by 4 per cent, 2.7 per cent and 2.2 per cent respectively compared with an average quarterly rise of over 4 per cent in the two preceding years.
The price indexes for materials used in and articles produced by manufacturing industry corroborate this downward trend. So do the price indexes for materials used in building, both dwellings and non-dwellings. We know, of course, that the effects of our changed arrangements for health insurance will produce a higher December quarter CPI increase than in any quarter since the 5.6 per cent increase of the December quarter of 1975. However, that ‘once for all’ statistical effect should not be allowed to obscure the steady and considerable underlying improvement in the rate of inflation. We can see this point more clearly if we recognise that the broadly-based deflators will not be affected by the changes made to Medibank last year, just as they were not affected by the introduction of Medibank in 1975. This is because inherent in their construction is the proposition that the community has always paid in any way or another for its health care. Health insurance did not suddenly become free on 1 July 1975, nor did it suddenly become more costly on account of our changes effective on 1 October 1976. In other words, the underlying rate of inflation in the latter part of 1975 was not diminished by the previous Government’s decision to fund the costs of health care out of taxation; and the underlying rate of inflation in the December quarter 1976 has not been increased by the change in that arrangement.
Our steady progress in the fight against inflation has been slowly re-establishing the preconditions for sustainable growth. In particular, the disastrous distortions to key economic relationships during 1 974-75 began to be corrected during 1976. For example, the recovery in business profitability is evidenced by the increase in the profit share as measured in the national accounts- from 12.4 per cent in the final quarter of 1975 to 14.4 per cent in the September quarter of 1 976. But apart from such dry technicalities as that, every reader of the daily Press is aware of the stream of improved company profits emerging in all sectors of the economy. In the September quarter of 1976 company profits were up 39.4 per cent on a year earlier. This partial climb back from the extremely depressed level to which profits were driven in 1974 and 1975 is central to the revival of business confidence, business investment and, of course, the creation of new job opportunities. However, although the profit share is still below its longer run norm, during 1976 a basis was laid for corporate expansion during 1977.
As to activity, aggregate expenditures and national production began to grow again in 1976. Most striking has been the 7y2 per cent rise in real gross non-farm product between the December quarter of 1975 and the September quarter of 1976. Even if there were to be no further growth in non-farm GDP during the remainder of 1976-77 from the level provisionally estimated to have been attained in the September quarter, the financial year as a whole would show a growth of over 5 per cent in real non-farm GDP compared with 1975-76.
Industrial production has been expanding overall in recent months, following a short period of little change around mid 1976. In December the ANZ Bank’s index was 9 per cent above its low point in mid 1 975.
I am certainly not suggesting that at every turn one finds economic activity booming. The rise in activity has been uneven- as usual in the early stages of economic recovery. As expected, exports, private expenditure on dwellings and stock-building have all made strong and consistent contributions to that growth. An increase in private consumption- 4.2 per cent as an annual rate- was also recorded over the first threequarters of 1976. This occurred even though there was actually a slight fall in real household disposable income in the 3 quarters to June 1976. Indicators currently available for the December quarter suggest continuing moderate growth in private domestic final demand. Retail sales statistics, and motor vehicle registrations also, for November and December indicate that private consumption ended 1976 on a more buoyant note. However, I am not suggesting continued buoyancy but rather, as I said, continuing moderate growth in the economy taken as a whole.
Businesses have indicated that they expect new capital expenditure in the December quarter to be well above its September quarter level. With the exception of New South Wales, conditions in the dwelling industry remain generally strong, and, happily, even in New South Wales signs of improvement in that sector have been emerging.
A most heartening and impressive, but little appreciated, feature of the growth recorded in 1976 is that it occurred despite a reduced level of real government spending. The momentum for growth lay entirely in the private sector. Regrettably, but hardly surprisingly, this lift in demand and production has yet to be translated into a decline in unemployment. In the early stages of past recoveries also employers have begun by making fuller use of their existing work force. At today’s much higher levels of wage and salary costs, there is an even stronger incentive than before for employers to seek out every alternative means of increasing output before hiring additional full time workers. We all recall that dictum of a former Labor Treasurer that in conditions of high inflation, ‘one man’s wage increase is another man’s job ‘.
-Who said that?
-That was said by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) whom I see in the House.
-Well said.
– It was well said. Yet this process whereby trade union leaders have been energentically pricing their members out of jobs is still continuing.
One reason for any failure to recognise the clear progress that has been made in 1976 in getting the Australian economy back onto a path of sustainable growth lies, I believe, in the widespread tendency to see that process only in terms of the statistics of those registered for employment. Clearly, the provision of jobs for all those who wish to work is central to this Government’s objectives. But, as is well known, unemployment data are never among the leading indicators of economic recovery. In this as in other areas of the economic debate there are those who think they stand to benefit from ‘talking down’ the progress that has been made. The Opposition, in this as in other respects, does not wish to be confused by the facts. Those, however, who pursue this course pay little heed to the effects their actions have on confidence in the community and, particularly, on those who would most benefit from increased confidence- I refer to the unemployed. Those who, following last August’s Budget and more recently, have been peddling their alarmist forecasts of 500 000 unemployed in January are now demonstrably in that category.
Much progress has also been made in dealing with the bloated public sector that this Government inherited. Much more remains to be done. Our objectives in this area have been two-fold. We, as a Government, want to see a smaller public sector. We also want to make room, by reducing public spending, to move forward with our proposed initiatives for reducing the level of taxation. We have already made a solid start in both respects. The 1976-77 Budget provided for outlays to grow by 11.3 per cent compared with 1975-76. This was in stark contrast with rates of increase of 22.5 percent in 1975-76 and 45.9 per cent in 1974-75. In the first 7 months of this financial year budget outlays have been held to 1 1.2 per cent above the corresponding period of
1975- 76.
As to tax reduction, this Government has already made solid progress. Prospective tax reductions in 1 977-78 already amount to over $2 billion- or over $3 billion compared with the situation as we found it when we came to office. Personal income tax reductions in excess of $1 billion will automatically come into effect as from 1 July next. This will be a direct consequence of the indexation of personal income tax, introduced last year at an estimated cost to the Budget of $ 1,050m in 1976-77. The Government has also eased the distribution requirements for private companies under Division 7 of the Income Tax Assessment Act and taken a number of steps to reduce taxation in the mining area. The estate duty provisions were substantially eased and the new system of income equalisation deposits now gives farmers the opportunity to protect themselves from the effects of fluctuating income on their tax liabilities. Productive investment of all industries is now eligible for a generous investment allowance- which, I see, the official spokesman for the Opposition on Treasury matters now asserts should be abolished.
-Which one?
– One never knows whether it is Bib or Bub, but it is the one behind the shadow Treasurer.
– That is getting a bit stale. The Treasurer did not put his heart into that one.
-The honourable member’s letter in today’s Canberra Times is not very stale and I might refer to that later or tomorrow. More generally, the Government is committed to a scheme, to be introduced from 1 July this year, of trading stock valuation adjustments to relieve 1976- 77 business incomes of some of the burden of taxation resulting from inflation.
This Government has not merely talked about taxation reform and taxation reduction. In accordance with its commitment to ongoing reform of the taxation system, it has acted. This record, achieved within the space of a mere 12 months, contrasts with the massive tax increases imposed by the former Government. Within the ambit of fiscal responsibility open to it up to this time, this Government has acted decisively to lighten the community’s taxation burdens. But, as any thoughtful person knows, worthwhile tax reforms must inevitably forgo revenue. In a public statement issued by me on 19 January while the House was in recess I canvassed the 4 possible ways of financing revenue reductions:
Firstly, increasing other forms of taxation; secondly, sharply increasing interest rates in order to step up government borrowings from the nonbank public; thirdly, cutting back hard on government expenditures; and finally printing money. The Government has ruled out the first two alternatives. We have said before, and I say again, that we will not finance tax reform via the fourth alternative- printing money. In current circumstances tax cuts can therefore only be implemented responsibly if they are accompanied by corresponding cut-backs in the growth of expenditure, so that their resultant impact on a deficit is offset and our whole antiinflation strategy is not jeopardised.
In summary, then, the economic strategy put into effect and coherently applied through 1976 has been demonstrably successful. Some have claimed that the decision to devalue in late 1976 connotes an abandonment of this strategy- an admission that it was not achieving results. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the circumstances of that time devaluation was inevitable and no responsible government could have acted otherwise. The immediate background to that decision was the persistent speculation fed by the Opposition in this House against the Australian dollar over previous months and prospectively. This was not, of course, a new development; it was one of the first problems we encountered upon coming into office.
Speculation both then and later was based on the fact that under the previous Government, Australian costs and prices had been allowedindeed encouraged- to run wild. As a result, as I said earlier, confidence in our currency at that time was steadily declining both at home and abroad. Against that background I note the cynicism of the Opposition’s criticism of devaluation last November. Of course, the genesis of that decision lay in the profligacy of 1 974 and 1 975.
What this Government did succeed in doing was to stave off for almost 12 months the consequences for our currency of that profligacy. We recognised that there were costs in maintaining the exchange rate in such circumstances. Nevertheless, we decided to do so throughout most of 1976 to allow time for our basic anti-inflationary policies to begin slowly to clean up the economic shambles we had inherited.
Against the background of inevitability to which I have referred, our decision at the end of November to vary the exchange rate also reflected a judgment that, valuable though an unchanged exchange rate had been throughout 1976 in cementing the totality of our antiinflationary measures, the costs of retaining it in that role for any longer were becoming too high to be endured by those sectors of the economy on whom the brunt of those costs was falling. I cannot emphasise too strongly here that this change does not mean that our objective of braking inflation is in any way altered- still less that it has been abandoned.
The task now before us is to ensure that the solid progress already made in reducing inflation is not unduly interrupted by the inflationary consequences of devaluation. The direct impact of devaluation is likely to show up principally in our major price indexes in the March and June quarters of this year. The key need is to ensure that the various forms of indexation operating within the Australian economy today do not result in those direct price effects flowing on into further second round effects. Only if this can be achieved will the potential benefits of devaluation materialise into providing new job opportunities and reducing unemployment. Those benefits are considerable.
The competitive positions of our export and import-competing sectors have been restored and investor confidence in those areas renewed. With a view to preserving those real and important gains, we have taken a number of steps directed at limiting the second round effects of devaluation and ensuring the maintenance of our basic strategy. In doing so we have, as always, had to strike a balance between actions in the different areas of policy. For example, the Government could have sought to deal with the impact of devaluation on domestic liquidity by placing a total embargo on the entry of funds from overseas- but this would have choked off investment and damaged recovery. Again, it clearly was not possible to cut budgetary expenditures overnight in the amounts that would have been required. As I have said, we chose a more balanced approach.
In the exchange rate field itself, we had first to achieve the desired initial impact on short-term capital flows by the large depreciation of 17.5 per cent. We did achieve that desired result and ended the speculation. Subsequently, under the new arrangements for management of the rate which now obtain, we have made a series of upward adjustments to the rate which have now reduced the effective devaluation from the 26 November level to 12.45 per cent. While maintaining the fundamental purpose of our original decision, those adjustments have had the effect of minimising the extent of a tightening needed in the other arms of policy. We have nonetheless also moved to tighten up those other policy instruments.
After devaluation, with prospects for easier domestic financial conditions flowing from the unwinding of the previous build-up in ‘leads and lags’ and the renewed inflow of other forms of capital, there has been a continuing need to carefully re-attune the monetary instruments. The objectives of the Government’s monetary policy remain- namely, to ensure that adequate finance is available to underwrite the recovery while, at the same time, financial conditions bear down on inflation. Since the devaluation we have moved, in a measured way, to maintain that appropriate degree of monetary restraint without which overabundant liquidity would both stimulate expectations of accelerating inflation and provide the wherewithal to validate those expectations. A number of steps have been taken to limit the inflow of funds from abroad which, unrestrained, would have added excessively to domestic monetary expansion. The appreciation of the exchange rate of the Australian dollar in a number of small adjustments in December was itself in accord with that.
On 14 January I announced new and strengthened restrictions on overseas borrowings, designed to permit the continuation of borrowings for high priority capital purposes and to bear less heavily on longer-term borrowings for other purposes but essentially directed to choke off excessive additions to private sector liquidity. These measures are designed to bear less heavily on some sectors than on others. A key element in preventing the development of too easy financial conditions is to attract more funds from the nonbank private sector into Commonwealth Government securities. Accordingly, government securities were made relatively more attractive. Initially, yields on treasury notes were increased as a further nudge in the direction of preparing for the seasonal liquidity contraction which will commence a month or so from now. Subsequently, in the light >f the strong demand for treasury notes, three small technical downward revisions in yields were effected.
It is a universal objective to reduce the level of interest rates at the earliest opportunity. But no government can achieve that until it can make sustained progress in bringing inflation under effective long-term control. Measures have also been taken to prevent excess secondary credit creation. To this end, overall domestic financial conditions will continue to be closely monitored by the authorities. Some discussions have been held with, and guidance given to, major financial institutions with regard to their levels of new lending.
In addition, there have been three increases of one percentage point each in the statutory reserve deposit ratio since devaluation and another is to be effected on 2 1 February.
These have helped to contain the growth in the margins of free liquidity of the major trading banks- that is, beyond the minimum liquid assets and government securities ratio which they are currently required to observe. In order to aid the effectiveness of monetary management by reducing within-year swings in liquidity, it has been decided to bring back into operation in 1977-78, and fully to restore in 1978-79, the system under which company tax is collected by instalments. The improvement in company profitability, to which I referred earlier, has in any case diminished the need for this kind of interim assistance. These necessary adjustments to the monetary instruments have been executed with care and with close regard to the needs of the community for access to credit.
There is of course no substance in the tired old claim that these actions will lead to a credit squeeze in the June quarter. On the contrary, the financial system is probably better prepared today for the impending large seasonal drain of funds than it has been for many years. The monetary authorities have been explaining the prospective situation in detail to financial institutions which will be handling the large flows of funds involved. The very substantial non-official holdings of treasury notes- over $2.6 billionwill serve to smooth the liquidity rundown. The minimum LGS ratio of the trading banks, which in January of last year was temporarily raised from 18 per cent to 23 per cent, will revert to 18 per cent at the end of March as planned. In other words, just as the liquidity downswing is getting under way an amount in the order of $850m which the banking system is now required to maintain in the form of LGS assets will become available to assist the banks in meeting the seasonal drain on their funds.
In short, unlike 1974, there is no reason to doubt that the June quarter will be traversed satisfactorily. For the longer term, the task of policy in containing the growth of the monetary aggregates remains. In the Budget Speech it was suggested that growth in the money supply broadly defined on the M3 base in the order of 10 to 12 per cent during 1 976-77 could be appropriate in the circumstances as they were then envisaged. The change in circumstances resulting from devaluation has made it necessary to review that estimate in the course of the policy adjustments I have just been describing. There will be timing lags before the effects of those adjustments are reflected in the statistics.
In the light of the somewhat higher real growth rate now in prospect for 1 976-77, and the turn-around in Australia’s external account flowing from devaluation, the original 10 to 12 per cent range may, depending on how circumstances unfold, in due course have to be revised marginally upwards. What will be importantand what we propose to ensure- is that the rate of growth of the money supply should continue to come under firm but steady moderation as 1977 wears on.
I turn next to the area of fiscal policy. Although for obvious reasons attention since the devaluation has been chiefly concentrated upon the domestic liquidity effects of the turnaround in the external capital account, the main continuing source of liquidity growth is still the Budget deficit. Monetary management problems in the post-devaluation period thus underline the need for continued and indeed enhanced expenditure restraint. Expenditures are therefore being monitored closely and the Government remains determined to hold the increase in total outlays within the 1 1.3 per cent provided for in the Budget. On 16 December I announced that, following a further review of the 1976-77 Estimates, the Government had decided upon savings of $250m. These savings are to be achieved mainly by deferring expenditures and by ensuring that expected shortfalls of expenditure on a variety of items are in fact realised and not utilised for other purposes.
The Government is seeking to achieve further savings over the remainder of 1976-77 wherever it is possible to do so. Because of the success of management in the staff ceilings area, the Public Service Board recently advised the Government that total staff in the Public Service Act area of Commonwealth employment is expected to be up to 700 lower than the ceiling earlier determined by the Government. As I announced on 14 January, this lower figure has now been taken as the new ceiling objective for the end of June 1977. This more disciplined and responsible approach to Government expenditures will be continued in our deliberations over the months leading up to the 1977-78 Budget.
We shall bring the same responsible approach to the timing and magnitudes of further reductions in taxation. In this connection I note that the Opposition has recently lent its support to calls for immediate tax cuts as well as, in its case, an increase in public expenditures. This is remarkable. The Opposition appears to have forgotten that there is no automatic nexus between economic activity on the one hand and tax cuts and increased government spending on the other. As Britain’s Prime Minister, Mr Callaghan, said in his speech to the British Labour Party conference on 28 September lastand I commend the quote to the House:
We used to think that you could just spend your way out of a recession and increase employment by cutting taxes and boosting government spending. I tell you in all candour that that option no longer exists and that insofar as it ever did exist, it worked by injecting inflation into the economy.
We might bear in mind that the problems which now confront Australia are the product of those very same quack remedies now advanced by the Opposition Party. They are the ‘remedies’ which it applied in 1 974 when, in the words of its leader in his most recent Current Affair interview, the then Cabinet panicked and so did most members of the Caucus. I assure the Opposition that we have no intention of following that example. Against that historical background, however, calls by the Opposition for a new package of stimulatory measures at this time can be best dismissed as a lurch back into the policy errors of the past. In the terms of the caption to the recent Pickering cartoon, what the Opposition is saying to the Austraiian people is: ‘We got you into this mess and, by George, we ‘11 get you out ‘.
Since devaluation we have thus moved, in a measured and pragmatic way, to adjust both monetary and fiscal policies. But, as I have stressed in this House previously, the best settings of monetary and fiscal policies can be thrown off course if developments in the field of wages policy are out of kilter with the antiinflation objective.
Since coming to office the Government has, firmly and consistently, pointed to the crucial importance of wage restraint for the speedy winding down of inflation; for the restoration of consumer and business confidence; for the restoration of the profit share; for the safeguarding of our international competitive position; and above all for the provision of jobs for the growing work force.
Devaluation has, for the time being, strengthened our international competitive position, to the benefit of our export and importcompeting industries. But with external policy now shouldering less of the burden in the fight to get on top of inflation, wages policy, as well as fiscal and monetary policies, must play a greater role than previously in shouldering that burden. Without tightening up on the wages front, as has been done in the other arms of policy, the inflationary problem will worsen. In that event the very real gains which devaluation has bestowed on our export and import-competing industries will be quickly dissipated and the enhanced job opportunities which that, in turn, would have provided will not materialise.
Indeed, if the initial direct price consequences of devaluation are allowed to flow through into higher wages and then back into higher prices and so on, it is not only our export and importcompeting industries that would suffer; the whole economy would feel the effects. The very real progress over the past year to get on top of inflation would be placed in jeopardy. As the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development survey on Australia recently published said:
It is also essential that the adjustment of wages to increases in the cost of living should be only partial.
The upward thrust to the inflation rate which, for example, fully indexed wage increases now would inevitably involve would again begin to distort the consumer saving ratio and the wageprofit share which we have gone a long way to correcting. Economic recovery would be held back and more people would find themselves out of work- and out of work for longer periods. This is not an attractive prospect.
We shall be stating our position on this matter fully in the national wage case which is expected to commence within a few weeks and I do not propose to foreshadow our submission in detail here. I make it clear however, that in the forthcoming national wage case, in subsequent national wage cases, in individual industry cases, in the area of Commonwealth employment and in every other way open to it the Government intends in the period ahead to press very strongly indeed for a maximum measure of wage restraint.
In these remarks today I have set out clearly the real progress made during 1976 in moving Australia back from the precipice with which, little more than a year ago, it was confronted. I have spoken also of the recent process of policy adjustment in the post-devaluation situation. What then of the period ahead? The substantial progress we have made during 1 976 in correcting the economy’s course has hinged on the success we have had in combating inflation. The correctness of this strategy has become increasingly apparent. Again, as the OECD survey on Australia said:
The strategy followed by the authorities was virtually the only possible one in the conditions applying.
Our policy overall- of continuing the fight against inflation-remains unchanged. The future course of wages will be critical in this regard. Success in preventing the unavoidable direct price effects of devaluation from snowballing into a renewed inflationary cycle would ensure that the growth we have been experiencing would continue to strengthen and consolidate. In that case, the outlook will be for continued growth in demand and employment over the course of 1977. Consumption, private investment, exports and inventory changes should all contribute to that growth. The need for continued restraint over government expenditure will mean that growth in total public sector spending will remain low.
As already announced, the Government has decided that in 1977-78 Budget outlays will be kept within zero ‘real’ growth and that the deficit will be reduced. In addition, actual aggregate staff numbers at end-June 1977 will be the ceiling objective for Public Service Act employment in 1977-78. So far as 1976-77 is concerned, the overall rise in non-farm products seems likely to exceed that foreseen at the time of the Budget. Further ahead there is every prospect for continued healthy growth provided inflation is controlled. Australia is on the path to restored prosperity and our policies have been central to achieving that. There is still a long way to go. Not merely as a government but as a nation, what is required for the period ahead is steadiness and resolution as we give our policies time to work. In 1977 we shall build further upon the real progress already recorded in 1 976.
I present the following paper:
Australian Economy- Ministerial Statement, IS February 1977.
Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:
That the House take note of the paper.
Motion (by Mr Sinclair)- by leave- agreed to:
That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Adelaide speaking for a period not exceeding 43 minutes and the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition each speaking for a period not exceeding 30 minutes on the ministerial statement of the Treasurer.
-Never in our nation’s history have so many economic statements been made to so little purpose than have been made during the 14 months of this Fraser Government. What we do not want are statements; what we want is action for economic improvement. This statement by the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) is the most futile of all. It has told us nothing new. Its theme is complacency. It is a litany of all the announcements we have heard already during the parliamentary recess- a litany of many more mistakes which have been inflicted on the Australian community. I am not now moving an amendment setting out the Opposition’s views. That should wait until the Opposition’s no confidence motion, of which notice has been given, is moved. The Government did not have the guts to debate the no confidence motion at the time when all precedents demanded that it should be debated, namely, at the time notice of it was given.
We know that the Treasurer is incompetent at debating economic matters and that is why for the second time now we have seen the Government chickening out of answering a no confidence motion. But that is no reason at all why the Government should not debate such a no confidence motion at the time when precedent demanded it. It is a good case for having a change of Treasurer. Yesterday the Government called a meeting of its full Ministry to seek to putty over the cracks in its facade. It wants to put pressure on its back benchers at its party meeting tomorrow. I hope that at that party meeting a better fist will be made of an economic statement than has been made of the one we have just heard, otherwise we will have looks coming out of that meeting very similar to the ones that are on the faces of the 75 or so honourable members opposite who had the misfortune to listen to this economic statement.
As evidence of the haste in which the statement was drawn up let me tell the House that I received the first 1 1 pages at 1.30 p.m., the next 6 pages as they arrived hot from the Treasury at 2.05 p.m., the next 4 pages at 2.15 p.m., and the final 3 pages at 2.30 p.m. today. We know that the Treasurer reads Treasury statements well but we would rather hear him debate in the House and defend his Government’s policies, as at this time he should be responding to an Opposition no confidence motion. Perhaps the most worrying aspect of this statement and the Government’s handling of the economy is that through its Treasurer, its acting Treasurer and its Minister assisting the Treasurer (Mr Eric Robinson), the Fraser Government continues to assert that things are not as bad as everyone else is making out. Today’s statement was no exception to that assertion. In his opening paragraph the Treasurer said:
The year 1976 was a year of considerable progress towards the 3-year goals we have set ourselves in bringing Australia’s economic problems under control.
Who on earth does the Government think it is kidding? Who on earth does it think does not look at the statistics and the indicators that are coming out now and compare them with those of a year ago?
– They are not game to look at the consumer price index.
-As the honourable member for Prospect reminds me, one indicator that should have come out 3 weeks ago is the consumer price index increase. The Government is not game to publish it because it knows that it will be a scandalous amount, caused by increases in Medibank and hospital insurance charges for which the Government itself is responsible. But it is not just today’s statement which shows that complacency. In a letter to the Australian on 7 February the Treasurer rejected calls for stimulus to the economy on the grounds that ‘the moderate but steady recovery in economic activity now proceeding is likely to outstrip- not fall short of- the course which we laid out in that respect in the 1976-77 Budget documents’. Do honourable members recall that Budget Speech of the Treasurer when he said confidence had returned? That was the theme of that Speech. Is there anybody in Australia at the moment who thinks that that was a truthful statement- that indeed the economy is on the course that has been designed for it? For instance, was devaluation designed in the Treasurer’s documents at budget time? Of course it was not. It was forced on by incompetent economic management earlier which led to overseas people having a lack of confidence which meant the withdrawal of funds. That is not the only statement that the Treasurer has made along these lines. His optimism is reminiscent of the chap who thought the Titanic was simply converting to a submarine as it disappeared beneath the waves. To use one of the Prime Minister’s favourite analogies, if this Government were managing a business the shareholders would be justified in accusing it of criminal neglect.
The Treasurer has said that this Government yields to no one in its concern for the unemployed. He did not have the gall to repeat that in this statement today. But to this date the only concern this Government has shown for this group is an uncanny ability to increase its numbers. In its 15 months in office the Government has taken few decisions which have had a beneficial effect on economic activity. Perhaps at the start of a new parliamentary year it is worth cataloguing a few of the blunders in economic management made during 1976. I do this in contradistinction to the whole theme of that dreary statement to which this House has just had to listen.
If I may start my litany, this conservative Government started early with the abolition of quarterly tax payments for companies and the introduction of the overpriced Australian saving bonds. The tax deferral decision proved to be a sleeper in terms of economic management with the full impact of its foolishness felt not until November. However, the effect of the Lynch bonds was immediate and devastating. Millions of dollars were taken from building societies and invested in the bonds. Funds for housing from this source declined dramatically. Levels of activity in the housing industry fell sharply. The domestic money supply was contracted so sharply and quickly that in the June quarter only unprecedented action by the Reserve Bank of Australia saved the country from a massive credit squeeze. This is the start of this litany of disastrous decisions taken by this Government. Then came the changes to Medibank. This was a decision based mainly on ideological grounds but, which prior to devaluation, had the economic implication of giving inflation its biggest boost for some considerable time.
The honourable member for Prospect reminded me earlier about the consumer price index. No fancy words in this statement alter the fact that the Medibank levy and indeed the hospital insurance increases are blunders of great magnitude. If this statement has any message it is that the Government intends to welsh on its promise to the trade union movement that the consumer price index increases due to Medibank and hospital insurance increases will pass through to the national wage without any opposition from the Government. The trade union movement believes that that is a Government promise and I remind the Government of that promise. Incidentally, I make the point that the consumer price index for the December quarter was due out at least by 21 January. I repeat that point. It is based on a new basket of goods and services, I know. But I believe- and I make this charge- that it was Government inaction on decisions in relation to that basket which was responsible for holding up that consumer price index increase announcement. I make the charge again and in addition to that I believe that the staff ceiling in the Australian Bureau of Statistics is adding to the problem. The Bureau requires adequate staff in order to get further information on which vital economic decisions will be based. I believe that the Government is delaying the announcement on the consumer price index until after the Western Australian elections to be held next Saturday.
Returning to the litany of errors, in August last year the Budget was notable for the extent to which it cut back Government expenditure. Contrary to what the Treasurer has said, his Budget was one of the very few budgets amongst the member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development which in a time of recession attempted to lower the real level of Government outlays. Apart from the disastrous social impacts of many of these cuts in Government spending in areas like Aboriginal affairs and health, the heavy economic impact was also felt I have said time and time again that these cuts not only have a direct impact in that fewer people are employed in the Government sector of the economy but they also have an impact on the private sector which misses out on contracts with the public sector. This cutting of Government spending has an enormous effect on consumer confidence which above all is what is required to get the economy moving. Cut backs in State capital works projects meant many deferred projects hence lay-offs and unemployment in the building and construction industry.
In November last year the Government devalued the currency by 17Vi per cent. That was another of its litany of errors. Its economic policies had been judged and found wanting by those interests powerful enough to move large sums of money out of the country and its decision to defer company tax payments had given these people the dollars with which to speculate. Even at this stage speculation against the dollar could have been stopped by a strong and resolute Government. After all, many European countries I listed them earlier- had borrowed extensively and are borrowing extensively outside their own boundaries to ward off such a speculation induced devaluation. But the Prime Minister was weak. His hysterical and ill informed criticism of Labor’s attempts at borrowing abroad had meant that to do the right thing by our nation he would now have to admit earlier mistakes. This he would not do and the Treasurer and the Treasury were overruled. But this massive about-face was not to end there. Within days the currency was up-valued. Further revaluations followed. I think the latest tally is that 8 revaluations upwards have been introduced. There may have been one more today. I apologise if I am not up to date. Any businessman vaguely concerned about the exchange rate was, and still is, very confused. The new system of setting the exchange rate is arbitrary and secret. There is only one way of describing it: It is a random peg. The Government has left itself with the worst of all possible worlds by its decisions in this exchange rate area.
That sad and sorry sojourn brings us to the present time. I would be the first to admit that recriminations over the past will do little to help us in the future, but as long as the Government continues to cry that all is well- and that is the message of this dreary statement we have just listened to- and refuses to admit its errors which is another message of the dreary statement then it is my duty to remind the Government of these facts. The facts of the present situation are as follows: Inflation over the last 6 months of 1976 was, and will be shown to be when we have the consumer price index results, much higher than it was in the last 6 months of 1975- the last 6 months of the Labor Government, need I say? The Treasurer’s statement on this subject is totally misleading. This, coupled with the devaluation decision, means that Australia must face 1977 expecting an accelerating rate of inflation. This circumstance has virtually been brought on solely by conscious Government decisions. I will repeat them: They are those concerning Medibank, other health insurance increases and devaluation. In other words, in its 14 months in office the Government has acted consciously to advance, not retard, the rate of inflation.
The outlook on the employment and production front is, if anything, worse than that on the inflation front. Registered unemployed persons in Australia at the end of January stood at 354 589. That is a rather bland statistic that conceals a mountain of distress and misery. It also conceals the fact that there are thousands of married women, older people and school leavers who have not registered because they have no hope of a job. Unfortunately, things below the surface are even worse than those which are indicated by the record post- War level of unemployment which I have just given to the House. In the 12 months to November 1976 the labour force grew by approximately 10 000, some 100 000 fewer than in previous years. This means that 100 000 productive persons whom we could have expected to start work during the last year were unable to start work because of this Government’s actions. The tragic and irrevocable loss to Australia of this continuing high level of unemployment is immense. The Associated Chambers of Manufactures has put the loss in consumer spending at around $2,200m a year. The business world itself shows no optimism for the future. It will receive with a hollow laugh the sentence in the Treasurer’s statement which states that the Government is creating an environment in which the private sector will slowly come out from its state of shock. What a ridiculous sentence that is.
Although profits in the last quarters of 1976 were high, not many company reports indicate that such a circumstance is expected to continue into 1977. Overtime per worker worked in large factories declined to 2.2 hours per week in December. It was as high as 2.6 hours earlier last year. The Prime Minister himself then pointed to rises in hours of overtime worked as an early indicator of an improving economy. Perhaps he now accepts that a decline in overtime represents an early indicator of a further slump in the economy. It is generally accepted that the level of overtime will have to reach 3 hours per week before factories substitute more staff rather than pay higher overtime rates. This appears to be a long way off under this Government. The one true sentence in the Treasurer’s statement is this:
I am certainly not suggesting that at every turn one finds economic activity booming.
That is an understatement if ever there was one.
I could go on and on with depressing statistics, for example, statistics that show that people are losing jobs at nearly 3 times the rate at which new jobs are becoming available. There appears no point in continuing with this litany. Everyone knows, with the exception of the leaders of the Government, that the economy is in crisis. The Melbourne Age of 7 February called it ‘A tragedy that nears disgrace’. Even the Government’s own backbenchers know that something must be done. A lot of them are confused as to what options the Government has open to it but most of them have heard from their electorates. The Prime Minister may isolate himself as the gentleman farmer in his comfortable seclusion but I remind his backbenchers that it is they who will have to carry the brunt of the electorate’s displeasure with their Government’s inaction. I ask them to act accordingly. Inaction it is; complacency and neglect it is also.
The Treasurer holds stoically to his belief in the aggregates, the national accounts, described by many writers as being little better than random numbers, and even described by the Prime Minister as not being accurate. The Treasurer ignores all calls for action. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street), having just released the worst unemployment figures since the Depression, regaled the growing numbers of unemployed with the following remark:
Excluding New South Wales, the labour market situation remained relatively stable or even improved slightly in some States.
This sort of quotation epitomises the problem from which Australia is suffering: a Government which totally fails to recognise the gravity of the present economic situation. What can the Government do? To listen to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer one would think that they were following a path of divine enlightenment and that deviation from it would be akin to heresy. Granted the Government’s decisions on Medibank and devaluation, its antagonistic attitudes towards the unions and, indeed, the way it usurped power itself 14 months ago, have made economic management in 1977 a very difficult proposition, but there is a way out. The twin problems of inflation and unemployment must be fought together. I have said that many times in the past 12 months, notably in my reply to the Budget but it is gratifying to find now, for example, that the Age on 7 February stated the same proposition.
The outlook on the inflation front is much worse at the beginning of 1 977 than it could have been or should have been. Consequently, the stimulus that must be given to an ailing economy must be directed in areas where it will have maximum impact. Because of the high rate of inflation the stimulus can be only modest but it must be given. It appears that the man in the street endorses such an approach. A recent survey by a group at Monash University found that a large majority disagreed with the Government’s policy of increasing unemployment as a means of controlling inflation. I am indebted to the monthly summary of the National Bank of Australia for January for this information. The Australian Labor Party has an alternative economic strategy. It recognises that the present high level of unemployment is more than just a cyclical recession. We believe that a general shift in fiscal stance by the Government could substantially lower the present rate. To return to historic levels of lower unemployment will require new manpower retraining and adjustment programs. The Fraser Government refuses to recognise this.
Taking in mind the need for a modest stimulus which can increase unemployment without worsening inflation, the Australian Labor Party has put forward a proposal of which the first arm is a selective stimulatory government spending program divided between special grants to the States for spending on urgent civil works programs where plans are already in hand and where the spending can be put to greatest effect, particularly where the building and construction industry is depressed as it is in New South Wales, and grants to local authorities for local initiative spending. The Regional Employment Development scheme requires updating in its administrative arrangements but we believe, just as President Carter of the United States believes and Mr Fukuda, the new Prime Minister of Japan, recognises, that there is great need for such local initiative job creation programs. The third area where this stimulatory spending should be made is on manpower programs such as youth employment subsidies, apprenticeships, vocational and technical education schemes. The schemes that have been announced by the present Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations in no way meet the sort of programs that we have in mind. I am indebted to the work of the Australian Council of Social Service built on information given to it by the Labor Party and collected from Sweden for a very worthwhile document on this very subject of manpower programming which has recently been published.
The second arm of our alternative strategy is that indirect taxes should be cut and, in substitution, grants should be made to the States to reduce public sector charges. This would be a far more effective stimulus to our economy at this time than cuts in direct taxes as are being advocated by some. It would be easy for the Opposition to climb on the band wagon of suggesting cuts in direct taxes. What we are putting forward as our alternative strategy is being done in a responsible way. It is something which we believe will reduce unemployment, stimulate the economy and, at the same time, will not worsen the inflation situation. Cuts in indirect taxes would also mean that real incomes would be increased directly and would provide a greater boost to consumer spending than would direct income tax reductions.
No matter how the Government and its media allies attempt to distort this strategy that I have outlined, this package, as some have called it, is not irresponsible nor is it a recipe for unbridled inflation. I have repeated that assertion in a letter which is published in today’s Canberra Times, namely that we recognise that there are inflationary impacts in what I have suggested, but we believe that those inflationary impacts will not just be reduced but will no longer exist. It is a careful but modest policy for a slow return to higher levels of economic activity. It is reasonable to note that bodies such as the Institute of Labour Studies at the Flinders University in South Australia and also the Institute of Applied Economics and Social Research at the University of Melbourne have endorsed programs along these lines. In the last week the Australian Council of Social Service, as I mentioned earlier in an aside, has released a paper outlining policies in keeping with those policies which I have announced to the House tonight. Unlike the Government, it recognises the long term damage being done to the economy by prolonged unemployment.
New governments in the United States and Japan are using their public sectors as active agents in the fight against unemployment. In Australia unions and business leaders- this is reported in the Australian Financial Review of 14 January- have reached ‘an astonishing degree of consensus’ on the fact that the Government is mismanaging the economy. Mr George Polites, Executive Director of the Australian Council of Employer Federations, appears to have agreed that indirect tax cuts could be financed through higher loan raisings without raising interest rates. There is the potential there for a consensus approach to our problems and for a basis for restraint from all earners of income. But the Government cannot achieve that consensus. It is intent on reducing the living standards of wage and salary earners. We hear no entreaties to other income earners to limit and restrain their incomes. We hear no calls for price restraint. All we see is confrontation with the trade union movement, both white and blue collar unions, in order to reduce living standards of the workers in 1977 in the same way as they were reduced in 1976 by the Fraser Government. The Government is intent on reducing living standards. This group alone will bear the brunt of the battle with inflation. That is the Government’s aim.
Seeing that the profit share of the gross domestic product has returned to historic levels, as we said it would, there can be no justification, if ever there was any justification, for this assault on the wage and salary earners of this country continuing. Profits and investment will increase as the economy gets going. The economy will get going only as a response to government stimulus. Implied in the Labor Opposition’s alternative program is a small but significant rise in the money supply growth rate. We call on the Government strictly to limit further capital inflow and, in the short term, to concentrate on increasing the supply of money from domestic sources. We are persuaded by warnings from the Government’s traditional allies- for example, the Bank of New South Wales and the Company Directors Association- that there is very real danger of a drastic credit squeeze ahead. Nothing that the Treasurer has said in his statement can possibly contradict those dire warnings.
To argue in the way that we have in no way abandons concern for the money supply, but it does recognise the fact that money supply control is a weapon of economic policy, not a goal in itself, and it must be used accordingly. The backbenchers who so avidly follow the Government’s restrictive money supply targets must be made aware of a number of things. Control of the money supply is no magic panacea for controlling inflation. The two things are not the same, just as cutting government expenditure does not necessarily cut inflation. In Australia, with rigid labour markets, a money supply growth rate substantially lower than the rate of inflation, plus a margin for growth, is likely to have a far greater effect on raising the level of unemployment than it is on lowering the rate of inflation. Even Milton Friedman, one of the gurus of the present Government, has admitted to that.
So there we have it- an economy in crisis, a crisis of this Government’s making. It is a Government which refuses to admit the problems and hence refuses to take action. We in the Opposition have outlined an alternative approach which I call on honourable members opposite to force upon their leaders before it is too late. Let us see who are the informed people; let us see who are the courageous people when we get our leaks from the Liberal and Country Party Caucus meeting tomorrow. Australia has a Labor Opposition which is not opposing for the sake of opposing. We are being constructive in our criticism, putting forward an alternative, workable, modest program. We are aware of the inflationary dangers. We have met those dangers in our constructive proposals.
All of the huffing and puffing in this economic statement which we are at present debating does not reduce by one iota the need for a change in government and for a new economic strategy. What it does is merely highlight the fact that the Government has not seen the error of its ways. It shows that the Government is not aware that the economic problem that we have is one of great structural unemployment. This is no normal cyclical recession; this is a problem which requires new attitudes and new policies, just as the great depression of the 1930s required new policies and new attitudes. We believe that only if we get away from the ideology of the Government, which suggests that there must be a cut in public sector spending, which suggests that if there is a cut in the public sector the private sector will fall in the hole, will we have a return to something like the unemployment levels that we had in the 1950s and the 1960s.
The world has changed. There is no doubt that the needs of the people in relation to consumer durables, such as washing machines and so on, will not be as great in the late 1970s and early 1980s as they were in the 1950s and the 1960s. It is also quite clear that the labour force is not as docile as it was when this country was implementing massive immigration programs. It is also quite clear that we will never again have available to us commodities such as oil at the low prices at which they were available previously. The developed nations will be living even more off the under-developed nations than they are at the present time. The world has changed. It requires new attitudes. The attitude that life was not meant to be easy; the attitude that we must cut public sector spending are exactly the wrong attitudes for this era. Only when we change back to a government which recognises that we must have the institution for medium and long term planning; that we must have national objectives worked out by consensus; that we must have a government which knows how to work with the institutional labour movement and with the private sector by consensus will we have a return to economic health. We will have these things only when we have a return to a Labor Government.
– The shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford), ended his speech in an extraordinary way. He said that this country needed a government that could get on with the institutional labour movement. One only has to look at the record of industrial disputation and strikes, often it would seem incited by the then Government, that occurred during the years that Labor was in office. The industrial relations record during those years was worse than Australia had seen for a very long while and worse than the record of last year. Of course, it was the Labor Government that made life hard for so many people right around Australia; made life hard for the unemployed; made life hard for the retired; made life hard for small business which was finding that because of the rate of inflation and the massive extravagances of the Government it was very difficult to survive. It made life very hard indeed for the farmers, whose position was destroyed by inflation and by the mismanagement of commodity markets by the then Labor Government.
One of the sad things about the shadow Treasurer is that whilst he said that things are different and that we have to have new policies and attitudes, as I shall show the policies he is now enunciating would bring about a return to the situation which existed during those 3 tragic Labor years and to those policies that did so much damage to Australia. The similarity between what was done then and what the shadow Treasurer is proposing now is very great indeed. If one makes some short sharp comparisons between what happened during the Labor years and what has happened over the past 12 months one begins to see the nature of the turnaround that has occurred. Growth in gross non-farm product declined continuously during the three Labor years. At the start, as a result of our earlier policies, there was a 7.2 per cent increase, which fell in 1974 to a 2.2 per cent increase. In 1975 there was an actual reduction in gross non-farm product. But at the end of the September quarter of 1976 the level was 6.9 per cent above that of the year before. This represented a significant turnaround.
The consumer price index rose by 9.5 per cent in 1973, by 15.1 per cent in 1974 and by 16.1 per cent in 1975. This is a significant record which got worse year by year. But in 1976 in the 6 months to September the consumer price index rose by an annual rate of 9.8 per cent. In building approvals one can see the same tragic record of the Labor years. In 1973 there was a very high figure of 1 83 000 approvals, but could that be sustained? No. It fell to 123 000 in 1974 and to 1 1 7 000, a lower level still, in 1 975. In 1 976 there were about 138 000 approvals- again, a significant turnaround by anyone’s standards. One could go through statistic after statistic to demonstrate the same story.
One thing ought to be put right because it involves the reputation of a very significant and independent public servant: It concerns the timing of the release of the consumer price index figures. I should like to read from a statement which was released by the Commonwealth Statistician on 15 February.
– Who wrote it for him?
-That is an offensive statement about an independent statutory office holder. The honourable gentleman should know better than to make such a statement. The statement by the Commonwealth Statistician reads as follows:
This expected release dme is later than was previously indicated, because of an underestimate of the work involved, particularly in the full-scale recasting of the index announced in the September quarter 1 976 bulletin.
For an honourable member to attack a senior public servant in such a way is typical of what one might expect from members of this Opposition, but it is unworthy even of them.
In recent times we have had the Wran plan, the Hawke plan and the Whitlam plan. Now we have the Hurford plan, last but not least in a long line of Labor plans to revive the economy, an economy which the Opposition did its best to destroy. Never has the Labor Party more justly earned its label as the Party of planning. One after another it puts forward silly, futile, foolish plans. It would be hard not to have some admiration for the Opposition for through the multiplicity of plans there is a consistency and a strength of purpose. The Opposition ‘s solution to every problem is to spend up big. It is obvious that the Labor Party has once again panicked, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) has now admitted it panicked in the last 3 months of 1974. ‘Of course we panicked’, Mr Whitlam said on 8 February. He said: ‘The Cabinet panicked. The Caucus did. They did in the last 3 months of 1974’. Why did they panic? It was because the effects of their 1974-75 Budget were tragic, as they realised so soon after the Budget was announced.
Alan Reid has discussed the Labor Government’s Budget making process very aptly. No wonder he is not the favourite journalist of the Leader of the Opposition. Reid described the 1974-75 Budget as follows: not the product of considered, overall policy. It was more like starving men -
But ones who feed themselves well- surrounding a cook pot and, under the eyes of an approving and participating overlord, trying each to spoon out as large a share as possible before the pot was completely emptied.
That Budget, which contributed so greatly to the present inflation and unemployment, was a high point in the application of Labor’s consistent philosophy. In 1974-75 outlays rose by 46 per cent in a single year. The deficit rose from $293m in 1973-74 to $2,600m-a nine-fold increase in one year. What happened to employment? Unemployment more than trebled, increasing to nearly 200 000 in that year as a result of the tragedy of those expenditure policies and of other policies of the then government. Average earnings rose for those earning by 22 per cent but the gross domestic product did not increase at all. The consumer price index rose by 17 per cent. In the last quarter for which Labor was responsible it rose by 5.6 per cent. That was its legacy for inflation. At the same time business was squeezed and business and consumer confidence was undermined in ways we recall only too well.
In the face of this situation- the situation that Labor had created- even the shortsighted Labor Cabinet was caused to panic. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Whitlam, of course with becoming modesty, omits to note that he had had the great foresight to panic as early as July, leading the other members of Cabinet and Caucus by a full 2 months-great leadership! Another of the chroniclers of the Whitlam years, Paul Kelly, described that situation after July 1974 as follows:
Whitlam became incredibly introverted . . . some people said he was sulking, others said he did not want to intervene in the economic debate until he had a policy to espouse. Whatever the reason, Whitlam retreated to the Lodge for many weeks and his Government was left without strong leadership, in a rudderless condition, shining from crisis to crisis, being discredited each day.
What was the then Prime Minister doing at the end of 1974 when Caucus and Cabinet had joined him in a mutual and, for themselves, beneficial panic? He was dismissing the honourable member for Melbourne Ports, Frank Crean, as Treasurer because he opposed attempts to raise money through Arab moneylenders overseas. The Stone note printed in Reid’s book and the date of that note are truly significant in that respect. He was ignoring the questions asked by the Treasury about raising money through unnamed intermediaries. He was touring foreign ruins to get away from the ruins he had created in Australia. On his December 1974 holiday, in the middle of the period during which his colleagues were all panicking, he toured overseas for 35 days at a cost of $500,000 for his personal party alone. He was panicking, one might say, in comfort.
The manifest failure of the Labor Party’s economic policies when in government have not stopped it from continuing, lemming-like, on its incompetent economic path. Large numbers of the members of the Labor Party went over the cliff at the last election. The remainder of the Opposition is determined to follow them, and we will help them. We thought that the best had come when the Leader of the Opposition trumpeted the Whitlam 5-point plan some little while ago. For once it did not involve the raising of money from Arabs and Iraqis, but it had everything else. It had cuts in sales tax, cuts in company tax, increased tax rebates and no Medibank levy- everything would come free from heaven. The Leader of the Opposition advocated more government spending, more artificial employment schemes, full indexation and whatever else one would expect Father Christmas to bring. In total, these would have added $ 1,000m to the deficit.
This plan was soon forgotten; everyone realised that it made no contribution to solving economic problems. This was not surprising. The Leader of the Opposition has told us that he is not really interested in economics. But not to be daunted, the shadow Treasurer, hunted and haunted by the shadow Minister for Defence, put forward the Hurford plan. In the great tradition of Labor Treasurers and shadow Treasurers the honourable member for Adelaide announced that he would launch a further big spending campaign accompanied by tax cuts. Under this scheme Australia could look forward to another large and growing deficit, and an outsized expansion of the money supply to further fuel inflation. The shadow Treasurer proposed to allow the money supply to increase to the rate of inflation, plus growth’. He was thereby proposing an expansion almost identical to the one which so significantly fueled inflation in the Labor years.
From 1973 to 1975 real gross domestic product grew at an average of 2 per cent a year and inflation at 16 per cent a year. The volume of money grew at 17 per cent. It is obvious that the shadow Treasurer has gone back to the policies that caused domestic chaos, which caused inflation, which caused unemployment. He is advocating the complete irresponsibility of the Labor years. The Hurford plan advocates the resurrection of the artificial employment scheme that the Labor Government itself made the decision to abandon. The Hurford plan suggests that investment and depreciation allowances be abolished.
It is clear that the Labor Party is in effect not only advocating policies which will fuel inflation but which also will stop economic growth. Of course that is what one would expect; that is exactly what the Labor Party did when in government. The tax increase that the plan involves would end the significant upturn in business investment in 1976. It would be a return to the position which existed under Labor- a situation in which growth stopped and investment in plant and equipment declined two years out of three. Oh, a great achievement! The plan advocated that there be a cut in indirect taxes. Here I am afraid even the shadow Treasurer’s otherwise iron-clad credibility is stretched rather thin.
The Labor Party, now the champion of reducing indirect taxes, in its 3 years increased its receipts from indirect taxes from $2.6 billion to $4.7 billion. Its last Budget, the much vaunted Hayden Budget, greatly increased the average
Australian’s indirect taxes. This affected the average guy. Duty on beer and cigarettes was increased. Cuts in indirect taxes would compromise the fight against inflation at this point for very little positive return. There is, however, one element of the Hurford plan that I must admit I am attracted to, if only it were possible. We are all waiting for him to tell us. I refer to the proposal that, while allowing an unrestrained increase in the money supply, a more aggressive approach could be adopted to selling government bonds without increasing interest rates. If the shadow Treasurer can expand on how this could be done, he will dwarf all other economists past and present, and not only Australia but the rest of the world would be in his debt- and we would not be slow to acknowledge his achievement and his greatness. He could then rest on his laurels and do something easy- like inventing a perpetual motion machine.
The Hurford plan is as interesting for the things that it omits as for the things it includes. The subject that is not mentioned is wages policy. This leaves the disinterested observer with a number of possible conclusions to draw: Labor has no wages policy; Labor does not regard wages as relevant to a statement on the economy. Or are we to assume that the shadow Treasurer disagrees with this aspect of the Whitiam plan? The Leader of the Opposition, as honourable members will recall, in his plan called for full wage indexation- a policy that would further fuel inflation. In a television interview towards the end of last year, however, the honourable member for Adelaide did not think full wage indexation was appropriate. It may be that in their usual gentlemanly kindly way the members of the Opposition have agreed by ignoring wages policy not to inflame conflict within their own ranks. The minor problem of wages policy aside, the approach the shadow Treasurer is advocating is the same approach the ALP adopted when it was in government. This approach brought with it inflation and unemployment. The policy brought with it in increases in inflation, excessive increases in wages and increases in unemployment. One thing must, however, be conceded to the honourable member for Adelaide- his almost disarming candour. In this morning’s Canberra Times he conceded:
The danger in Labor’s approach is the possibility … of further prolonging of inflation.
He continued:
The Labor Party parliamentary executive was well aware of this when preparing the proposal.
It is nice of members of the Opposition to tell us that, as was the case in their years in government, their policy is still to prolong and further the cause of inflation. What makes the Hurford plan even more absurd than it appears to be on its face is that it is made at a time when the indicators of economic recovery are firming.
Let us take inflation first. In the final year of Labor’s administration calendar year 1975, the rate- based on aggregate expenditure deflatorswas 17.2 per cent. In the half year ending September 1976 inflation was running at an annual rate of about 10.5 per cent. Let us consider growth. In its last year of office Labor presided over the physical decline of most of the productive output of the economy. In the calendar year 1975 gross non-farm product fell. By September 1976 that disastrous position had been reversed. In the September quarter real gross non-farm product was, as shown in the national accounts, 7.6 per cent above the level of the previous December quarter.
Private investment subject to the Government’s investment allowance, which would be abolished under Labor’s great plan, rose in real terms by 4.3 per cent in the September half year of 1976 compared with the previous half year. This is the allowance which Labor says was ‘only marginally useful’. Since September there is evidence of further firming in production. In the December quarter production of 23 of the 3 1 items for which statistics are available increased on a seasonally adjusted basis compared with the previous quarter. In the December quarter the value of approvals for factories, shops, warehouses and other business premises went up by 36 per cent compared with the same period a year earlier. In December the value of retail sales was 13.5 per cent above the figure for the corresponding month in 1975.
This recovery has seen the beginning of a reversal of the distortion of the profit-wage share which took place under Labor, which was significant in causing inflation and causing unemployment. When we took office the ratio of gross operating surplus of trading companies to gross non-farm product at factor cost was 12.4 per cent. In the September quarter 1976 the ratio was 14.4 per cent, still below the long run norm, but nevertheless in the process of recovering. There is, inevitably, a delay before these recovery trends are reflected in greater employment. To begin with, companies shed less staff, then provide more overtime working for existing staff. But the decline in employment opportunities which was proceeding under Labor at a great rate has been arrested. Finally, we have laid the foundation for continuing sound expansion of production, investment and employment.
We have removed the arbitrary taxation bias introduced by Labor against the minerals industry, and the benefits in terms of heightened exploration discovery and development are now being seen, especially in Western Australia. Next they will be seen especially in Queensland. Labor killed off the search for oil in Australia at the very time when further discoveries were vital to our future. I am glad to report that, with the abolition of the $2 a barrel levy on oil from new discoveries and the tax incentives announced in the last Budget, oil exploration has revived. Last year, 21 exploration wells were drilled throughout Australia. This year, the number is expected to be up to forty-four. A significant increase- I think a 3-fold increase- in exploration wells will occur in Western Australia.
In the private sector, we have encouraged investment, not damned it and not penalised it as our predecessors did. Under the new exchange rate, mining companies will enjoy better opportunities to maintain and increase their share of world trade in minerals. Manufacturing companies will similarly be in a stronger position to compete both on the domestic market and in international markets. Investment opportunities will continue to grow, leading to higher employment. The policies underlying this improvement included a very deliberate reduction in the rate of government spending, the holding of the rate of increase in money supply to levels consistent with a progressive reduction in the rate of inflation, and a major reform in the personal income tax system based on indexation and cost-sales valuation adjustment.
The tax reforms which we have already made amount to over $3,000m by the end of the second year of operation. Over $ 1,000m has been provided through taxation reform this year and a further $2,000m will be made available next year. These will result from decisions already made by this Government. Against that record, nobody can sustain the charge that these Parties and this Government are not Parties and a Government of taxation reform. But we have said with complete and absolute firmness that further moves in this direction at this point are inappropriate and would only add to inflation unless the matters could be responsibly financed. As the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) has demonstrated, that possibility is not there at this point.
Those who look to overseas experience and believe that other nations, particularly the United States of America and Japan, are moving ahead faster than we in the field of tax reform should look at the facts. No major tax reductions have been foreshadowed in Japan. The proposed but not yet implemented tax cuts in the United States, excluding the ‘once only’ rebate, are equal to less than $200m if transposed to Australia. Compare that with the $990m saving to the taxpayers we brought about with tax indexation this year and the $1 ,050m saving anticipated under indexation for 1977-78. One might even suggest that others have something to do to catch up to Australia in these ways. We have always been and still are the first to point out that the inflationary momentum built into our economy through the Labor years must be removed before the expansion to which I have referred can be regarded as having taken firm roots. The policy of the Opposition would destroy those roots.
The Government is using the arms of economic policy to continue the fight against inflation and to continue progress towards sustained economic recovery. Policy action has been taken in all major areas- monetary, budgetary and wages. The policy of monetary restraint which we are pursuing has led to adjustments to government security yields and to the raising of the statutory reserve deposit ratio. Prevention of over rapid expansion m credit will curtail inflation. Selective controls on capital inflow are now preventing an inflationary surge of capital for non-essential purposes. Fiscal restraint required further cuts in government spending and a commitment to zero real growth in the next financial year’s expenditure by the Commonwealth. That decision by this Government will be supported to the hilt by those people who want tax cuts in a real sense, because the full implementation of that kind of decision is the action that will make real, meaningful tax relief possible in the Australian community over a period. The wage restraint necessary to facilitate a reduction in the rate of inflation and to provide jobs for all those who want to work will be pursued in the next national wage case. The honourable member for Melbourne Ports understands the reality of this situation, as the Leader of the Opposition did on one or two fleeting occasions when he had speeches written for him not by his personal advisers but by the Treasury.
Good progress was made through 1976. We will build on that achievement in 1977. The Treasurer’s statement has laid out the guidelines and has laid out the policy lines which this Government is following and to which this Government is committed. I have indicated, I hope with a degree of moderation, how the policies of the Opposition continue to be disastrous. The people of Australia, I am certain, are most thankful that the Opposition has no opportunity to put those policies into action.
– The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has the same vice as Mr Alan Reid, the only journalist whom he will find any comfort in quoting. They are masters of the half truth. The Prime Minister quoted me, but he omitted 2 sentences in the telecast a week ago. I said :
The Fraser Government in the last 3 months has been panicking as we panicked in the last 3 months of 1 974.
He omitted 2 sentences which followed that quotation. I said:
There is no doubt that with Hayden as Treasurer and Jim McClelland as Minister for Labour, we were thoroughly in control of the situation by June 1 975.
Now I don’t believe that in the Fraser Government there are any Jim Mcclellands or Bill Haydens to whom they can turn.
The newspapers quoted the telecast in full. Every person reading Hansard or listening to this debate will know that the Prime Minister quoted half the truth, as the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) quotes half the statistics. The Prime Minister had disclosed his failing as a leader in this respect. In 1 975 he painted himself into a corner by extreme rhetoric on a whole range of subjects. One of the things with which he belaboured me was the fact that I had had to change some of my Ministers. He thought that this was a weakness in my conduct. Therefore he will not change his Ministers when they should be changed. He is stuck with Lynch, and he is stuck with Street. None of those behind him has any confidence in either Lynch or Street.
The Prime Minister also referred to my Government’s being willing to borrow a couple of billion dollars overseas in 1975. That is another very clear example of where the Prime Minister has painted himself into a corner. He expressed extreme criticisms at that time. Last year his Government borrowed $1 billion overseas. In November 1976 the Treasury said: ‘Hold fast. Do not devalue. You will not have to devalue. No one can continue to profiteer in the Australian currency if you borrow another $1 billion overseas’. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer caught in their rhetoric of 12 months before, dared not borrow another $1 billionthey dared not borrow $2 billion in one calendar year- because they would then have been caught by the criticism which they levelled against us. The Treasury advised it. They disagreed with the Treasury advice, and devalued. Thereby they committed the most inflationary act possible on the part of any national government.
When the Parliament reassembled 2 days after the Government had devalued I gave notice, in accordance with the Standing Orders, of a motion of censure- no confidence- of the Fraser Government, just as I did this afternoon. The Government adopted then the same technique as it adopted this afternoon: It would not allow me to speak. It would not allow the seconder of the motion to speak. The Government gagged debate on the subject. It rejected the motion to bring on the debate immediately. The Government then got the Treasurer to come out with a statement which he was busy preparing over the course of 2 hours and whose leaves he was giving us as they came from the typewriters. The Government wanted to guide the debate and to condition its followers for tomorrow’s panic meeting.
What did the Treasurer tell us? Do not forget that on 30 November last, which is when the Government last adopted this technique, he was explaining the devaluation- the largest devaluation for 40 years. On the next 8 bank days there was a revaluation. Nobody who listened to the Treasurer on 30 November would have any confidence in what he had to tell us today, because the matters upon which he was so resolute and so dogmatic on 30 November of last year crumbled in the remaining days of that year; and what he was so dogmatic and resolute in putting today also will crumble in the next few days and weeks. The Government will be under immeasurable pressure from its back bench members and it will crumble. Nobody at home or abroad respects it any more. The Government can no longer blame us. With devaluation, the book was ruled off. Everything that happens in the Australian economy now is the fault of the Prime Minister and those Ministers whom he appoints to the key portfolios.
The Prime Minister said that if only my shadow Treasurer- the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford)- could show some method of raising loans at lower interest rates he would respect rum. Other countries have done it. In the last 6 months the government bond rates have fallen in all the principal countries in our league- the industrial and trading countries which have our pattern. The interest rate which the Australian Government has to pay in Australia to raise bond money has gone up from 10.2 per cent to 10.5 per cent in the last 6 months. The rate has declined in the United States, West Germany and Japan. It is now 7.46 per cent, 7.4 per cent and 8.55 per cent respectively. The treasury bill rate has gone up in Australia in the last 6 months from 6.98 per cent to 8.6 per cent. It has gone down in the United States, West Germany and Japan. The Eurodollar rates have dropped in the last 6 months. In other words, all of the countries on which we would like to model ourselves have reduced interest rates in the last 6 months, and Australia has increased them. Those countries have no difficulty raising loans. We do, unless we pay a higher interest rate for them.
On this occasion the Treasurer was at his old game of trimming the statistics. To anyone listening to his long speech- one had to be patient to do it- 2 things emerged. One was that no longer does unemployment matter. I quote his exact words:
That is a new discovery. One always used to regard them as leading indicators. Again, this Treasurer who has always asserted that inflation as measured by the consumer price index must be brought down as a matter of first priority, has today asserted that the CPI no longer matters. I quote again his precise words:
Precisely, I point out, that set of goods and services needed and consumed daily by every household in the country. It is for this reason that the CPI figures for this quarter have already been delayed 3 weeks and they will be delayed another week until after the Western Australian election. There has never been a government that has cooked the books, distorted the statistics or deferred the statistics so blatantly. Today the Prime Minister, the master as I say of half truths, quotes only part of the quotations. He asserts something about interest rates which is manifestly wrong. The Treasurer now says that unemployment statistics are not relevant and that the CPI figures are not a relevant indicator either. Nobody is going to take them seriously ever again.
Last November, the last time we had a debate on this matter, some people might have thought it was a temporary aberration on the pan of the Government. Nobody any longer will believe that. The next few meetings of the Government Parties- they have never ventured to have them during the recess- will be intensely panicky and once again Mr Fraser will stick to his Treasurer and his Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street). I hope at least he sticks to them. Whatever policies he may change, whatever statistics he may suppress or distort, I do trust that he sticks to those people he appointed.
The Parliament has resumed today with the national economy in disarray, the people confused, the business community demoralised, the Government discredited and with no coherent or credible strategy to deal with the nation’s problems. This Government - desperate, demoralised, divided-has failed. Fifteen months of Liberal administration have stunted economic recovery, deepened the recession, reduced our living standards and inflicted growing hardship on the Austraiian people. The Government has no idea where its recent decisions are likely to lead. It has no idea what its present policies are.
Let me be clear on the burden of the Opposition’s charge. It is not merely that the Government’s policies have misfired; it is not merely that its policies are mistaken or misjudged. The mess we are in is not the result of honest miscalculation, bad luck, or even bad management. We have had all these things in some degree but they are not the heart of the problem. At the heart of the problem is a conscious and planned assault on living standards, a wilful contempt for the welfare of the people and those most in need. Entrenched in this Government’s whole philosophy is a deep-dyed negativism, a complacency, a cynicism about the needs of ordinary people and an unreasoning dislike amounting almost to hatred of anything that aims to raise their standards and aspirations.
At the heart of our malaise is a record of monumental deception, a disregard for truth and fair dealing by a Government with neither charity nor conscience. We know its record of broken promises. No government with such a record can win the people’s confidence in the struggle to restore our economic welfare. But that is only one aspect of the Government’s deceit. Throughout our economic crisis the Government’s chief weapon has been the lie.
-Mr Speaker, I rise to order. I direct your attention, with respect, to standing order 59 which the Leader of the Opposition has persistently breached.
-I call the Leader of the Opposition.
-Mr Speaker, lies about its motives, lies about its intentions, lies about the figures- no one any longer believes what the Government says. No one can have confidence in its ability to manage the economy or manage the country.
Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.
-Mr Deputy Speaker, the best measure of the Government’s economic failures can be found in the Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) 6 months ago. Let us judge his Government’s economic performance by his own words, his own forecast, his own promises, his own empty boasts. We are entitled, surely, 6 months after his Budget to assess its impact on the economy and the nation. In his Budget Speech the Treasurer said:
Recovery is now getting underway.
Six months later recovery is stalled and further off than ever. In his Budget Speech he said:
The private sector is growing again and confidence is gradually returning. This Budget will add to that recovery and rebuild confidence further.
Six months later confidence has further declined. In his Budget Speech the Treasurer said:
This Budget is therefore an essential element in our antiinflationary strategy.
Six months later inflation is getting worse and the next figures for the consumer price index are expected to reveal a further spiral in the cost of living for the December quarter. In his Budget Speech the Treasurer said:
The substantial reduction in the magnitude of the deficit since we came to office, and of which this Budget constitutes a further step, will help to moderate the flow of liquidity into the economy.
In fact the Budget deficit is higher under this Government and is still growing. Of the size of the deficit the Treasurer said:
When allowance is made for overseas transactions the domestic deficit in 1976-77 is estimated at $ 1,000m less than the domestic deficit last year.
In fact the deficit already is about $800m greater than it was a year ago. In his Budget Speech the Treasurer said:
This Government yields to none in its concern for the genuinely unemployed . . . Inflation- and therefore unemployment . . . will be steadily reduced by the budgetary policies to which this Government is adhering.
In fact, not only is inflation getting worse but unemployment has risen to its highest levels since the Great Depression and is far worse than the Government admits. In his Budget Speech the Treasurer said:
Those who, in the name of reducing unemployment call for . . . devaluation of the Australian dollar, are calling for higher- not lower- unemployment in this country.
Within 3 months of those words being uttered we had the greatest devaluation of the Australian currency for more than 40 years. So on every indicator the Treasurer has been proved wrong over the last 6 months. On every indicator he is damned by his own words. On every indicator the Government is discredited- on inflation, unemployment, the deficit, the value of the currency, the level of confidence, the pace of recovery.
The Fraser Government has persistently withheld facts and distorted them. Even now it is engaged in a shameful concealment of the full extent of unemployment. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has made 2 fatuous and dishonest statements about the most recent sets of unemployment figures. Of the December figures, which showed an increase of 55 000 in the number of unemployed, he said they revealed an ‘underlying stability’ in the labour market. He said of the January figures, which showed that unemployment has soared to its highest level since the Depression, that the labour market was still relatively stable. What do words mean when record unemployment can be described as evidence of stability? What are the people to think of a government that will not even admit that a problem exists? What are they to think of a government that ignores the evidence in the Statistician’s report for November which showed that more than 100 000 Australians had left the work force since this Government came to office? What are they to think of a government that justifies its appalling record on unemployment by asking us to ignore the number of jobless in New South Wales, the largest State? Whatever glosses and distortions the Government places on the January figures, they offer no comfort whatever. Seasonally adjusted unfilled vacancies have declined, overtime is down, and the work force as a whole is shrinking.
It is not the Government’s performance alone that deserves condemnation; it is the record of evasion, deceit, lies and half truths it uses to disguise its failures. Six months ago the Government scrapped the seasonally adjusted unemployment figures to avoid harsh comparisons with the previous year. In November it embarked on its now notorious campaign to keep the unemployment figures for school leavers at rock bottom. It is not enough that the Government should deny young people unemployment benefits to which all unemployed persons are entitled by law. It is not enough that the Minister and the Department should try to set aside a law passed by Parliament. The Government has put deliberate pressure on the Commonwealth Employment Service to keep people off the register and to present the unemployment figures in the most favourable light. It has done it similarly with the unemployed among Aborigines.
As with unemployment, so with inflation, so with government spending- the same pattern of cover-up and concealment. We are still waiting for the December quarter CPI figures. Why are they being withheld? Why the delay? Neither the Treasurer nor the Prime Minister has explained today why the basis of the index is being changed or how it is being changed. Let the Government come clean on that question. Let it come clean on the mysterious cuts in government spending which it determines in secret and refuses to disclose. There could hardly be a worse abuse of the traditions of responsible economic management than a government refusing to say how it is spending or not spending the public’s money. There could hardly be a better illustration of the Government’s mania for secrecy. Twice in the past 2 months the Government has decided on spending cuts without saying where the cuts will be made. Last month cuts totalling $250m were announced, but no details were given of where the axe would fall. The Treasurer made it clear that the public, the taxpayers, were not entitled to know what was being done with their own money. A week ago, with the deficit still climbing, Cabinet is again reported to have reviewed government spending and authorised cuts, but this time not even the overall total was made public. The Melbourne Sun on Saturday stated:
In a number of cases, even public servants administering programs and projects affected by the latest cuts have not been told.
In any other government this sort of behaviour would be considered merely ludicrous. In the Fraser Government it typifies everything this miserable Administration stands for- secrecy, cowardice, a misguided obsession with the deficit. I challenge the Treasurer and Prime Minister to tell the House what cuts in spending the Government has made. It is outrageous that such basic information should be withheld from the Parliament. Is the Government frightened to come clean because it fears to reveal another broken promise, another breach of its undertakings at the last election? Is it fearful of offending powerful sectional interests, its own supporters, or the States? Its drastic and ill-balanced cuts last year rightly incurred the anger of those sections of the community affected by them. Instead of avoiding public odium by withholding the facts, the Government is now inviting it from everyone and anyone whose interests may be threatened. It is wantonly adding to confusion and lack of confidence. No one who depends on government spending or assistance can any longer be sure of getting it. No industry relying on government subsidies or orders, no local council, no State
Government authority, no individual or community group can plan for the future. Is this the way the Government builds confidence in the economy- not just by cuts in government expenditure but by secret, perhaps arbitrary cuts? I repeat: Let the Government be honest. Let it come clean.
Why can the Treasurer not be as honest with the Australian people as with the Japanese Government? In Japan last month he spelt out the real consequences of the Government’s economic blundering. Like everything else, the Government prefers to conceal his message. It was leaked to the Press. It was in Tokyo, not in Canberra, that the Treasurer ruled out tax cuts. It was in Tokyo, not in Canberra, that the Treasurer revealed that inflation would increase in 3 successive quarters this year. At a time when the economy needs a modest stimulus by increased expenditure in selected areas the Government is cutting back further. The Fraser Government is the only federal government among the world’s major industrial nations which is sharply reducing federal expenditures and cutting back on federal programs to deal with economic problems. In all other countries the trend is the opposite. Australia is the only major industrial nation- certainly the only one among our principal trading partners- where the recession has got worse instead of better since the beginning of last year, where unemployment has risen, where confidence has declined, where inflation shows no sign of abating and where interest rates are rising. In all other Western economies interest rates are going down; in Australia alone they are still going up. In the United States, in Japan, and in West Germany real government expenditure and public consumption increased in 1975 and 1976; in Australia they are being cut.
The approach of our major trading partners has been to increase real government expenditure, not cut it back; to free credit; not restrict it; to give primacy in their strategy to stimulating consumption and productivity. The Fraser Government alone is dragging this country along a different course. Devaluation was the undoing of this Government. It was the final abdication of any believable economic strategy, the final defeat of the credibility of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. Many things can be said about that decision, but the main lesson of November and December is the lesson of all this Government’s economic management. The Government cannot be trusted. It cannot be believed on anything. The value of the dollar was the cornerstone of the Government’s anti-inflationary policy. The attack on inflation was the key to recovery. That was the theory; that was the policy. It was scrapped in November because the Prime Minister panicked and caved in . Nothing has been put in its place. Inflation is still rising.
The consumer price index for the September quarter was 13.9 per cent above the level of a year earlier.. The December increase will be larger. What is the Government doing about the situation? All we have had is a series of contradictory statements and cosmetic reshuffles in the Public Service. We have new departments and new bureaucracies. We have the new Department of Productivity which is to cost an additional $ 10.8m for its first half-year of operation. There is a new portfolio of finance for an already incompetent Treasurer and a new industrial police force is on the way. We have a Government which slashes spending on health, social security, housing, urban and regional development, transport and even assistance to industry, yet it still manages to increase the deficit by $800m between January last year and January this year. Why is the deficit increasing? It is because the Government has forgone hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue through handouts and incentives to mining companies, businesses and multi-nationals.
In Perth on 2 February the Prime Minister gave details of the lost revenues estimated for next financial year. The 40 per cent investment allowance, which has singularly failed to stimulate investment, is estimated to cost $550m. Incentives for the mining industry are estimated at $40m; easing of distribution requirements for private companies, $25m; new arrangements for estate duty, $10m; the new system of income equalisation deposits which is the latest lurk for Pitt and Collins Street farmers, $4m; and trading stock valuations and investment, $400m. No wonder the Government is desperately looking for cuts in public expenditure. No wonder it is forced to make cuts in essential areas. No wonder it is doing this secretly. No wonder it is considering an increase of 70c a week in the cost of the health tax, and a new Medibank levy. The Leader of the Queensland Liberal Party and Deputy Premier on 4 February stated:
More than anything else what is needed at this time is a glimmer of evidence that the national economic managers know where they are going and are prepared to take the people into their confidence on the way.
The Queensland Treasurer spoke for all decent Liberals when he pointed to the folly and blindness of the Fraser Government. He is not alone.
The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) in a confidential letter to his parliamentary colleagues, which he also thoughtfully forwarded to one of my colleagues, confidently forecast that the Government would lose its Senate majority unless a radical improvement in the economy could be miraculously achieved. In the same week in January it was revealed that the Liberal Premier of Western Australia regarded Federal Ministers as incompetent and Federal public servants as disloyal. The honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr Brown), who is ever wary of his second departure, spoke out publicly against the Government economic policies, and some of his precarious Tasmanian colleagues squeaked in the chorus. Finally we had the honourable member for Phillip (Mr Birney) exhorting his fellow Liberals not to squabble inpublic. His exhortation, like most of what the Government parties want to keep secret, duly appeared in the Press. The Liberal Party is a perfect mirror of the state of the Government and the Cabinet- confused, disorganised, panicky, divided, desperate.
It is 6 months since the last Budget. The country cannot wait 6 months for the next. But quite apart from the specific measures which the economy demands, what the country needs is a change of direction, a return to policies of collaboration, co-operation and consensus; an end to secrecy, an end to squabbling and division. The Fraser Government has divided the Australian people as never before. All its policies have fostered confrontation- between employees and employers, the disadvantaged and the privileged, the Federal and the State governments, rural producers and manufacturers, the private and public sectors. The Labor Party puts its faith in a healthy mixed economy, not for economic reasons alone, but because the mixed economy symbolises the true social consensus on which genuine recovery depends. Undermine the mixed economy, undermine the traditional balance between public and private spending, and we undermine recovery. Destroy the mixed economy and we destroy the basis of national unity. It is that unity which Labor’s policies will restoreby respecting the needs of Australians wherever they live, by redressing inequalities, by uplifting the underprivileged, by making this Parliament once again the great instrument for national progress and reform. During the great constitutional crisis in October and November 1975, a crisis -
– The coup d’etat.
– The putsch. During the crisis instigated and orchestrated by the present Prime Minister- a crisis that did untold harm to our institutions and our national unity, a crisis for which the Liberal Party bears a permanent responsibility and an ineradicable shame- the present Prime Minister declared:
The Prime Minister fears to face the people of Australia. He said it is going to be a long, hard road. How long and how hard for the Prime Minister and his family? What concern does he have for the average people who have been betrayed by this Government from the inception of this Government . . . The charges against this Government for which it stands condemned are two- the gross mismanagement of the economy and the impropriety of the Prime Minister and his Ministers’ actions. We know there is record unemployment and record inflation … If honourable members opposite . . . want another judgment, let them go to the people in the streets, the people in the factories, the people in their own electorates and see what they say of this Prime Minister.
Those were the words the present Prime Minister used. Let him now heed his own counsel. I move as an amendment:
That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
That this House expresses its want of confidence in the Fraser Government because of its failure to reduce unemployment and inflation.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. Is the amendment seconded?
– I second it and reserve my right to speak.
– Having listened to the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) all one can say is that their contribution has been a performance. It has been a sham. It is phoney and hollow for honourable members opposite, who in government virtually ruined the Australian economy, to come forward and criticise this Government and to vilify the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) and the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) for the way in which they are trying to get this country back onto the rails again. It is nothing more than wicked deception for them to talk today in this way. They talk glibly of cutting taxes and spending more money, as though it does not matter at all. It is a virtual confidence trick which they are trying to play once again on the Australian people. The Opposition even after its disastrous experience in office, still does not understand how the economy works. When in office Labor tried to offset its gross mismanagement by stimulating the economy with massive spending. This generated an unprecedented Budget deficit, giving us one of the highest rates of inflation in the world.
I find it incomprehensible that Labor is still pushing forward the same policies, irrespective of the damage it did with them. Fundamentally, what the Opposition is saying to us now is this: Why don’t you move faster in trying to clean up the mess we left behind ‘. And what a mess it was. When the Whitiam Government was elected in December 1972 there were 139,000 people out of work. While the Whitlam Government was in office the number of unemployed rose by a further 192,000 people. So by the time the Labor Administration was dismissed by the Australian people, 328 000 people were out of work and the unemployment level had risen from 2.4 per cent to 5.6 per cent. Under the present Government the level has risen by a further 0.2 per cent. While we have been in office, battling to undo the damage caused by Labor’s policies and to get the economy headed in the right direction again, the number of people out of work- not the rate of unemployment but the actual number of people out of work- has risen by 7.8 per cent, and that takes into account the large number of school leavers who are registered at present. While Labor was in office the number of people out of work rose not by 7.8 per cent but by 140 per cent. So let us be clear where the problem of employment came from in the first place.
The only criticism that can reasonably be levelled at the present Government is that so far it has been unable to clean up the mess left behind by the Whitlam Administration. The answer to that criticism is that the Government is not as omnipotent nor the economy as flexible as Labor thinks. In this regard too I find it pathetic that the present Opposition has failed to learn in any way from its mistakes in office. The economic mess left by Labor has to be cleaned up; but drastic jolts, abrupt reverses, panic-inspired measures will only make the situation worse. Looking back almost 30 years, the inflation which started accelerating in 1949 under the previous Labor Administration took 5 years until 1 954 to be controlled. The economy has to be nurtured carefully back to health. The difficulty we have faced is that not only have we tried to reverse the Labor Government’s policies but we have also had to cope with the continuing effects of those policies. The damaging effect of Labor’s policies did not come to an abrupt end when Labor was put out of office. The effect of an illness does not come to a sudden end when the basic cause of the illness is cured, and I can speak with feeling about that subject. In the same way, the nation continues to suffer the consequences of disastrous policies pursued in such a wanton way by the Whitiam Administration. Nevertheless, a great deal of real progress has been made in cleaning up the mess. Most fundamentally, we have reduced the Budget deficit from an initial figure of $4,800m to $3,600m in 1975-76 and our present estimate for this year is $2,600m. In the first 3 quarters of 1976 the inflation rate showed successive falls. The rate in the 3 quarters was, in turn, 3 per cent, 2 te per cent and 2.2 per cent. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development survey published a few days ago gave the clearest confirmation of the real progress being made in bringing inflation under control in this country. We aif know that because we were forced to devalue last year progress will suffer temporarily. Let us not forget that devaluation itself was a consequence of Labor’s irresponsible attitude towards inflation.
There has been a tremendous amount of time wasted by people arguing the pros and cons and the effects of devaluation, but they have all ignored the fact that we could not avoid it if we were to act responsibly in the best interests of Australia. The need to devalue flowed from the increasing lack of competitiveness as excessive inflation forced up our cost structure. Financiers, investors, speculators and others who registered our economic situation caused a run on our overseas reserves to such an extent that the Government had to act. Devaluation, while of course helpful to exporters, should serve as yet another warning to us of the dangers of inflation.
I listened to the Leader of the Opposition talking so glibly about devaluation and criticising us so strenuously. The honourable gentleman said that the decision to devalue was absolutely wrong and that it should never have been taken. Do honourable members recall that the Labor Administration arbitrarily revalued the currency on 3 successive occasions and because it got so far out of kilter it has to devalue the currency after it had been in office for 18 months. What did the Leader of the Opposition have to say on that occasion? I quote from the Melbourne Age of 26 September 1974.
The depreciation will give a filip to many domestic industries.
Export industries, such as the rural and mining industries and manufacturing exporters, will benefit particularly, as will those sectors of industry experiencing undue pressure from import competition.
In these ways, the devaluation will have beneficial effects on the climate in which business operates. It will thereby assist in restoring the general level of business activity and in the maintenance of employment opportunities.
Today the Leader of the Opposition ridiculed this Government for taking action yet he is on record as defending devaluation which his
Government introduced in 1974. Let us have a look at the record on inflation.
When the Whitlam Government came to office in 1972 the annual rate of inflation was running at 4.6 per cent. When Labor left office in 1975 the rate was over 14 per cent. We have been able by taking action that was not always popular but which was absolutely necessary, to get the inflation situation moving in the right direction. We now have a temporary holding action forced upon us but our commitment to the anti-inflation fight must remain our first and most crucial priority. No one would see this as something that could be done easily or quickly. It is a job that demands a cool head and calm resolution. The worst thing we could do would be to lose our cool or to allow ourselves to be panicked by people shouting all sorts of conflicting advice.
The Government’s approach and its policies are sound. They are the correct policies for Australia and we will follow them with resolution and determination. They must be followed if we are to attack not just the symptoms of our problems but also their basic causes, and inflation is one fundamental cause we must attack with all our might. I have spent the whole of my political life, from the first speech I made in this ouse almost 20 years ago, urging people and governments to recognise the menace of inflation.
If the Whitlam Government performed any service to Australia it was that it demonstrated with great clarity the damage that can be caused by inflation. Inflation has made Australian industry less competitive, so jobs have gone. Inflation inhibits new investment, so new jobs are not created. Inflation makes labour too expensive, so employers cannot affort to give people jobs. Inflation undermines business confidence, so commerce and industry do not expand and new jobs do not become available. Inflation drives Australian manufacturers out of the country, so jobs which Australians need are filled by workers overseas. Inflation discourages or makes impossible the development of new mining projects, so there are no new jobs in mines, railways, towns, ports and in all the other areas that go with such development. So inflation causes unemployment along with all the other evils that can be laid at the door of this malignant disease here and in any other country, and for that reason the Government is utterly committed to fighting inflation. We will stick to that job no matter how hard it might be or how unpalatable are the things we have to do.
Let us look at the proposals put forward by the Opposition. I am sure that honourable members opposite will never learn, but what a tragedy it is when the alternative government can come up with only the same kind of ideas that got it into such a mess in the first place. The Opposition’s proposals cover 4 points. One of them calls for various kinds of initiatives in youth support schemes, apprenticeship, retraining and so on. The Opposition does not seem to realise that the Government already has acted on these things. The Government has completely reorganised the National Employment and Training scheme with great success. The number employed under the scheme has doubled from 6 500 to 13 000. We have brought forward a youth employment training program and a completely new apprenticeship scheme. The community youth support scheme is beginning to prove of great value in giving unemployed young people a sense of purpose and self esteem, as well has having real practical value. The relocation assistance scheme is available and we are providing increased funds for technical and further education. (Extension of time granted.)
These employment schemes can have only a limited impact on unemployment, but that is all they are intended to do. Some of them do directly help people overcome their unemployment difficulties by adapting their skills to areas where they are most required. Others offer opportunities to tide people over until they can find jobs. But the point is this: The only way to solve the unemployment problem on a long term basis is to get inflation under control. There is no other way. People suggest all sorts of things that we should do to solve unemployment but things that cost a lot of money and add to the Budget deficit will only make the unemployment problem worse and, in the long term, no better. That is why I am staggered to hear the Opposition suggesting, for instance, that we should bring back a scheme like Labor’s Regional Employment Development scheme which the Whitlam Government abolished because it was too ex- pensive. Schemes like the RED scheme might ave some short term benefits but they mask the real extent of unemployment. They divert attention from its causes and they do nothing to solve it. In fact, they tend to make unemployment worse because their effects in increasing the deficit have inflationary consequences.
Opposition members are calling for increased government spending. One wonders whether they have learnt anything at all from the disasters they brought to this country through their own big spending. It is the legacy of Labor’s spending that we are now trying to clean up, yet they want us to start doing the same things as they did all over again. There are those within the Opposition who claim that selective tax cuts will directly reduce the consumer price index and so lower inflation. Nothing could be further from the truth and this has been amply demonstrated here and in other countries. Although such tax cuts will lower the CPI in the short term, very soon the increased deficit that follows will lead to higher prices. Tax cuts now, while the deficit remains high, would be asking for trouble. People seem to forget that we have already made very large reductions in tax collections. Income tax indexation represents the most important reform in the history of our taxation scheme. During the present financial year it will return $ 1 ,000m to taxpayers.
Let me quote an example. This year tax scales were adjusted at the rate of 13 per cent. This was the estimated rate of inflation during 1975-76. What it means is that a person earning, say, $10,000 in 1975-76 and getting an increase of 13 per cent in 1976-77 would not be penalised by having to pay tax at a higher rate. In concrete terms, a man on $ 10,000 who had a 13 per cent increase would under the old system have had to pay tax at 45 per cent on his additional $1,300. Previously, his marginal tax rate was 35 per cent. Under the new scheme the tax bands are shifted upwards and he is continuing to be taxed at a lower marginal rate. In fact, the person is $200 better off under the tax reform. The Government is committed to a continuation of this reform, so once again in July 1977 the tax bands will be shifted upwards by the amount of inflation in 1976-77 estimated by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Income tax indexation injects responsibility into government finances. No longer can a government commit itself to all sorts of extravagances and rely on inflation to bring in automatically additional revenue. It is no wonder that when Labor was in office it ducked bringing in this sort of measure.
We have been able to introduce tax indexation, investment allowances and inflation accounting because we have cut government spending, but to suggest further large cuts in taxes now would mean a higher deficit unless, of course, we further reduced government spending which already has been heavily cut. If the deficit goes up, there are 2 ways to finance it- by printing money, with the same disastrous results as Labor produced when it did that, or by the Government competing with everyone else to borrow money, thus pushing up interest rates which are already very high. Lower interest rates are what we want. Lower interest rates would be of tremendous benefit to the economy and the community. High interest rates do a lot of harm. But there is no way we can sensibly bring interest rates down until we get inflation down.
I heard the Leader of the Opposition talking lightly about low interest rates in the United States of America, Japan and West Germany; but he did not tell us that all of those countries have single figure inflation. The Government is determined to follow through with the sensible economic measures which it has been applying. It will not be diverted from its task by these cheap, frivolous ideas put forward by the Opposition, ideas which proved disastrous to Australia and the results of which we have to correct.
-No government in the history of this nation has been as disastrous as this Government. The Leader of the National Country Party of Australia (Mr Anthony ) talked about deception. How deceptive, how snide, how treacherous is this Government of which the Leader of the National Country Party is a member. How treacherous is a government which attained office in the way this Government did. The Deputy Prime Minister talked about reducing interest rates recently, when he was Acting Prime Minister. What happened? What was the true action of the Government during that period of time? During the period of time he was Acting Prime Minister the Reserve Bank was acting on the money market and forcing interest rates up. At the same time the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) had written to all the Premiers advising them to fill their State loans on the money market at the higher interest rates. This will mean a flow on and higher interest rates will be charged across the country. The Deputy Prime Minister talks about the record of this Government Let us consider the agricultural areas which he represents. On the Bureau of Agricultural Economics estimates, farm incomes will drop by 8 per cent this year after devaluation. That is the action of this Government. That is the action which it represents.
Since this Parliament last met, early in December, there has been a disastrous decline in the national economy. The dimensions of the malaise which is afflicting our work force and the domestic economy show up with the clarity of all the indicators. The Fraser Government s only response to the terrible situation which it created is to blame the trade union movement, to blame the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, to lecture the Australian businessmen and to criticise the Australian consumers for not spending. It will not do anything to promote a recovery, although this could be done without causing inflationary pressures. It marks time in the hope that the massive unemployment will bring down inflation-a hope that is founded on an illusion. The last shreds of last year’s strategy were destroyed by devaluation.
We have been given no economic strategy for 1977 and it is likely that we will not get one. At the same time we can predict the strategy for 1978 will be a belated bid to reflate the economy with an eye on the elections of 1 978. This panic reaction will come much too late and will sow the seeds of further inflation and economic stagnation. In the meantime, unemployment will be forced up even further and the services and facilities which only the public sector can provide will be run down below the present dangerous levels. I stress the phrase ‘below the present dangerous levels’. Yet this is the Government which grabbed power in the most brutal way because it claimed: ‘We are better economic managers’. That is the only thing that the Fraser Government ever had going for it. The media created in the minds of the electorate the impression that the Fraser Government could manage the economy better than could Labor. That has been proved to be a myth. Quite clearly this Government is the worst economic manager in the history of our nation. It has taken an economy which was showing signs of recovery after a difficult period and plunged it into the depths of depression and economic malaise.
That picture emerges in all of the economic indicators. Unemployment is up from 265 000 in the last month that Labor was in office to 354 000 in January this year. The total number of workers in employment has actually fallen. When Labor was sacked in November 1975 inflation was running at an annual rate of 12.1 per cent and was falling. Now the situation is so bad that the Government is deliberately delaying the release of the December consumer price index figures until after the Western Australian election next Saturday. There is no doubt that we are looking now at an annual rate of inflation of at least 16 per cent. Gross domestic production is almost at a standstill. In real terms there has been almost no growth over the past year. Interest rates are moving upwards, despite the efforts of the Deputy Prime Minister to talk them down. If we look at the deficit, which is the indicator the Government dwelt on most heavily when in Opposition, we see that it is running well in excess of what was envisaged in the Hayden Budget.
In most areas production is down. To take some of the more important sectors, the production figures for coal, iron ore, lead, electricity, gas, raw steel and cement are down. So depressed is the manufacturing sector that energy consumption in Australia has fallen. This continuing decline in energy production is perhaps the most drastic aspect of the present economic situation. The figures reveal that the rural sector is also in a depressed state with no sign of recovery. The only indicator which has shown a constant upward trend is the level of savings bank deposits. That is an indication of the lack of faith of the community in the economic policies of the Government. Yet in these difficult circumstances there is no response from the Government. It takes no action to evolve any sort of package to induce economic recovery. Treasury is still shattered by the impact of the devaluation which destroyed its old strategy.
The tragedy of this criminal inertia on the part of the Government and its advisers is that there is scope in the economy for a stimulus. There is no reason why an economic revival, induced by selective government action, would be inflationary. Unused capacity exists in all of the productive sectors of the economy. A selected package of government measures could be introduced to take up excess capacity and get crucial sections of industry on the move. The Treasurer admitted in December last year that excess capacity exists. I refer to an answer he gave to a question asked in the House of Representatives on 6 December by the honourable member for Perth (Mr McLean). According to the Treasurer, at a time of excess capacity stimulatory measures need not be inflationary. That shows that the Government accepts that unused capacity exists and could be utilised. Yet it refuses to work out the selective measures which could revive activity and bring employment back to many areas.
I cite as one example the building and construction industry where there has been unused capacity since early in 1 975, particularly in New South Wales. The Labor Government recognised that slack existed in that area and that the whole industry was urgently in need of stimulus. We devised a system whereby the private sector would build new office blocks at strategic locations in metropolitan areas and growth centres on the guarantee that the Australian Government would use those buildings to house its public servants. In that way up to $80m could have been pumped into the vital construction sector. It would not have been inflationary because the commitment of Commonwealth funds would have been deferred and no payment would have been made by the Australian Government for at least 2 years. Yet these investment and employment creating programs were scrapped as soon as the Fraser Government came to office. They should have been included as a part of the package of measures undertaken by the Government to stimulate the manufacturing industries and other sectors of the economy where unused capacity exists. The Government has failed to produce this stimulus.
In fact, the only stimulus it has applied is to the mining sector. By overgenerous tax concessions, by a massive devaluation and by its permissive approach to foreign capital inflow, it has sought to stimulate the mining sector. The tragedy of this sort of investment is that it is highly capital intensive and creates very little employment. Furthermore, the bulk of the mining investment is in remote areas away from the industrial areas in which the masses of the people are unemployed and are concentrated. The mining investment cannot solve the recession which now confronts us, nor can it make inroads into the numbers of unemployed. This Government must create employment and stimulate the regional economies where the unemployment exists and where it is growing. That is in our capital cities and our regional centres.
Speculators have ripped off immense amounts of Australia’s national wealth over the past 2 months. Now we see the surge of overseas speculative capital back into Australia with an inflow of more than $1 billion since the beginning of December. Even for the speculators who back the Fraser Government, life was not meant to be that easy. We have seen speculators taking profits on a scale unsurpassed in our history. At least in one sense it can be said that the Fraser Government has created a Utopia- a Utopia for the wealthy speculators. This has been the end result of a year of deliberately conceived and applied economic policy, a policy which subsided into chaos on 17 November. The Treasurer, in his Budget Speech last year, summed up his economic strategy in these terms:
The way in which the various elements of the Budget slot into the anti-inflationary strategy highlights the importance of looking at all our policies- fiscal policy, monetary policy, wages policy and external policy as a unified and coherent whole. No single component of this strategy can fail without putting the basic objective under threat.
There is no doubt that devaluation has destroyed what the Treasurer described as the Government’s external policy. The devaluation and the uncertainties it produced in setting a stable exchange rate provide unshakable evidence of the failure of the Government’s external policy.
The Government has conceded it. If we apply this failure to the Treasurer’s statement we find that he has accepted the destruction of the Government’s total economic strategy. External policy has failed and according to the economic Logic of the Treasurer, so also have the other 3 components of the Government’s economic policy- fiscal policy, monetary policy and wage policy. The unified and coherent strategy which the Treasurer stressed so strongly has been reduced to rubble. Yet no efforts have been made to replace it. The Government has panicked and has lost its economic nerve, perhaps beyond redemption.
I want to look at the grave imbalance which has been developed between the Government’s commitment to the private sector, or at least to the privileged part of the private sector, and its neglect of the public sector. On 18 January this year I had the sad experience of spending several days at the train disaster in the Sydney suburb of Granville which is in my electorate. I do not want to dwell on this, nor do I want there to be any suggestion of political criticisms in what I say. It may well be that this is an area in which all governments could have done better. The point I want to make is that the Granville tragedy provided a very valuable lesson for us all. There has been a very serious erosion of our urban infrastructure for many years. Granville is evidence of this running down of basic services and facilities in the vital area of urban public transport. People outside the high income areas of our cities are more reliant upon public services than those within those areas. It may justly be said that if these services are not provided by the public sector of the economy many people are denied these services. In Sydney the people who bear the brunt of the general neglect of urban services are the people living in the western and southwestern suburbs. In Melbourne it is the people of the western, the northern and the north-western suburbs, and there are many deficiencies in the eastern corridor as well. The same pattern prevails to a lesser degree in our other major cities.
Urban services such as the railways are part of the public sector of the economy. They are necessary both for the quality of life of people and, in many cases, for the survival of those who live in many of our urban areas. In many ways these services are sub-standard and in some cases dangerous, as the Granville disaster revealed. These services will never be improved in the present climate of scaling down the public sector of the economy. (Extension of time granted) This is why I find the present mentality of public sector bashing that this Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and this Government have encouraged to be so odious- so odious that they in fact consider that it is all right to spend money in the private sector of the economy but that it is a crime to spend money in the public sector. Therefore, we want at least to try to lift the standard of living of those people who have to rely upon the public sector. For far too long there has been private affluence and public squallor. One must realise that if there is to be any real stimulus in the private sector of the economy, the only way it can come about is through the public sector, because it is only when the people have confidence, that the Government has confidence in the economy that there will be a real revival in the economy. Put in the simplest terms. State services such as the railways cannot be raised to acceptable standards while State governments lack federal funds.
The same arguments can be applied across the board to the whole range of urban services. This is where we see exposed the fallacy that somehow the economy can be restored by shifting resources from the public sector to the private sector. The economy cannot recover only by the stripping down of funds provided by Government for basic services such as transport, sewerage and welfare housing. There is no way that the private sector can fill the gap. It is self evident that the profit motive will not give basic services to lower income earners. The whole structure of public capital investment which has been built up to supply these services cannot be described as adequate. This approach, an approach per- petuated by this Government is not the answer because it forces people back onto the roads, from inadequate public transport to the private motor car. It only increases the problems of clogged urban roads and, with it, ever increasing deaths and injuries. If we accept that these urban services are vital there needs to be a marked change in the attitudes of this Government. This and all future governments must accept that the public sector has a crucial place in the economy. A stimulus now to the public sector would assist to take up the unused capacity in the private sector. Again, it would assist to give confidence to the private sector and begin a reduction in the level of unemployment.
I support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) expressing a want of confidence in this Government. It is a government which by deliberate choice has created a generation of young people without hope. This is the situation with thousands of school leavers. It is a government whose gross economic failures have earned it distrust and have created disquiet at home and have earned it contempt abroad. Above all, it is a government which has shown beyond all doubt that it is the worst manager of the national economy ever seen in the history of this country.
-I rise to support the economic statement of the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) and to reject the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam). The speeches we have heard from members of the Opposition in this debate have been, first, wrong in the gloomy picture they have painted of the state of the economy. They have been scurrilous in the accusations that have been made that statistics, for example, the December quarter price index figure, have somehow been delayed or influenced by the Government. It is a statistic which is the responsibility of the Australian Bureau of Statistics whose capacity and integrity are above question. They have been wrong headed in the proposals they have made for changes in policy. They have urged on us the same old policies that wreaked such havoc and brought the economy to its knees in the Whitlam years.
– Saboteurs.
-Yes, they are saboteurs. Further they have been misleading in a critical area, namely, the true alternatives facing the Arbitration Commission and the Australian people in the crucial area of the indexation of incomes.
As to the state of the economy, the economy is on the move. The recovery is uneven but there can be no doubt that the recovery we are now experiencing will spread and will be consolidated. I repeat that the statistic cited by the Treasurer and the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) as to the latest figures for the total Australian national production in the September quarter shows a very significant increase. That figure needs to be compared with those of previous years. I have done so in a table which I have shown to the shadow Treasurer. I seek leave to have the table incorporated in Hansard.
-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.
The table clearly sets out the total of Australian national production as measured by the gross domestic product. In December 1975 when the previous Government lost office the figure was less than it was in December 1974 and in December 1974 it was less than it was in December 1973. There was a total stagnation of production. I shall come back to that figure in a different context in a moment. But now it is growing again. Apart from the national income figures there were strong retail sales in December which carried on into January. The production figures for the December just past compared with December 1975 show that some 22 items out of the total of 33 items for which figures are available registered increases, many of which were substantial. The boost from devaluation, which was made all but inevitable by the cost explosion that took place under the previous Government and so undermined our international competitive position, will contribute importantly to the speed of the recovery. In that context I wish to refer to a report in the Australian Financial Review.
– A very responsible journal.
-As my colleague, the honourable member for Wakefield, says, it is a very responsible journal. Under the heading Steel Moves out of Recession’, it states quite matter of factly that the Federal Government averted a major crisis in the Australian steel industry through devaluation’. I stress the benefits of devaluation because there has been no lack of voices pointing out the other side that devaluation means that inflation will not come down as quickly as it would otherwise. We recognise that. Nevertheless, given that, our resolve to beat inflation is as firm as ever.
To that end, as the Treasurer pointed out, we are maintaining and we will continue to maintain the taut fiscal and monetary policy we adopted immediately on attaining office; that is, restraining the growth of government expenditure, getting the deficit down, and containing the growth of the money supply. It is dishonest and absurd for the Leader of the Opposition to suggest that our policies in this area are other than well understood, cohesive and resolute. In addition we are intensifying our efforts in the area of incomes policy to which I will return in a moment. In respect of monetary and fiscal policy, that is, the context of restraining the growth of spending, getting the deficit under control and containing the growth of the money supply, I make two brief points. First I know of no instance in any country where inflation has been reduced from the high rate reached in Australia without such a taut monetary and fiscal policy, and that is virtually unanimous economic opinion.
I make only this second point: The Government is greatly concerned to reform the tax system and reduce the tax burden and notwithstanding all the difficulties of the budgetary situation it has done much of that. Existing measures which have been taken are costing over $ 1 ,000m in 1976-77 in terms of revenue forgone. That is, in effect, tax reduction. The indexing of taxes, which means of course an adjustment of tax scales so that the burden of tax paid is reduced in the context of inflation, was implemented on 1 July last year. During this financial year, as I say, it is costing $ 1,000m; that is $ 1,000m tax that would otherwise have had to have been paid. That is on the statute book and there will automatically be another instalment, so to speak, as from 1 July this year.
– The Labor Party opposed it.
– The Labor Government opposed it. The committee of inquiry it set up recommended tax indexation, but the Labor Government rejected it. There are other measures. As against this taut but tax reforming fiscal and monetary policy we find of course the Labor Party proposing increased spending and a larger deficit, a looser money supply, tax cutsand I come to this in a moment- a relaxed attitude to income increases. All this together is a recipe for disaster- a recipe the Labor Party imposed when it was in office.
– This is what Jim Cairns was at.
-That was what Jim Cairns was at- printing money. The truth in this connection is that while it is easy to print money it is not easy to print permanent jobs. In fact only those policies that this Government is espousing will lead to the lasting expansion of employment opportunities and to sustained full employment.
As I said, the second main thrust of our antiinflationary policy is incomes policy, that is, the more direct- than monetary and fiscal policyrestraint of prices and incomes. Of course this is an area where it is important to be even-handed. We have retained the Prices Justification Tribunal. In the post-devaluation context that Tribunal has been directed to exercise a general surveillance on prices and as at 20 January the Tribunal was investigating some 46 specific complaints in that connection. But still the central problem is the containment of the increase in wages and salaries. At this time the Government stresses the absolute economic necessity for a limitation in the indexation adjustment of wages and salaries to the increase in the consumer price index. The shadow Treasurer and other Opposition speakers upbraid the Government and say that this is an attack on employees, that it is a proposal to cut real wages, that it is an exercise in immorality, as the head of the Labor Party, the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Bob Hawke, said recently.
Let me say this: Of course there is an apparent basic justice in a full and prompt adjustment of wages and salaries as against a limited adjustment. But the choice is not as simple as that. The matter must be looked at more deeply. I have news for the Opposition. According to the results of a recent Morgan Gallup Poll, the majority of Australians have looked at this matter more deeply and more thoughtfully than members of the Opposition, and they were opposed to a full flow-on of the September quarter consumer price increase. Of those surveyed, 46 per cent supported that view as compared with 43 per cent in favour.
-They knew that it would be bad for them.
-As my colleague from Wakefield says, they perceived this basic truth, namely the futility of the continuous priceswages adjustment merry-go-round. They perceived that a full adjustment could be sought but that the effect of granting such a full adjustment would be to stunt recovery, to postpone the achievement of a more normal economic situation in which that regular increase in real incomes and living standards to which we had become accustomed could be gained, and with the result that those who were unemployed would remain unemployed. I ask Bob Hawke: Where is the morality in that situation?
On the other side is the proposal and indeed the absolute economic necessity, for a less than full adjustment. In that respect, as we have done in the past, we ask only those who can alford it- not those in the low income groups- to accept a less than full cost of living adjustment, which would have the effect of quickly restoring a normal situation where real wages and living standards grow regularly, soon making up for any temporary restraint now- and achieving that position for all Australians, not just those presently in employment but for the unemployed as well.
In a word, in urging the necessity for a limitation in the adjustment of wages and salaries to the increase in the consumer price index, we are not asking the Australian people to accept that proposal in return for nothing. On the contrary, such a limitation is the surest and quickest- if not the only- way to a resumption of the normal growth in real wages and living standards to which Australians are accustomed- and for all Australians, not just those in employment.
If you ask what is the fundamental reason for the present difficulties, it is the already high Australian cost structure. A full CPI adjustment will quickly make that structure higher still. Why is it so high? It is so high basically as a result of the fact that in the period 1974-75, when, as I said earlier, there was no increase at all in the total national product- that is demonstrated by the figures in the earlier table- those in employment achieved an increase of some 46 per cent in their money wages. Inter-related to this was a massive increase in prices of approximately 34 per cent. So, there was an increase of 12 per cent in the real wages of Australians in employment. As Bob Hawke himself said- to quote him again- three or four years normal growth were rolled into one year. What was the cost?
– The poor beggars who were not employed.
– As my colleague said, in that period unemployment rose from 100000 to 300 000. That was the cost. What I am saying is that that wage explosion imposed a burden of cost on Australian industry. The devaluation action will contribute significantly to offsetting that cost. That benefit will be lost if our antiinflation policy does not succeed.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.
-Mr Deputy Speaker, the Fraser-Lynch economic policies are disastrous for the nation. The so-called ‘businessman’s’ Government has been responsible for the most unremitting assault against business. The prophets of economic recovery in 1975 are the architects of the most sustained and severe economic disorder in the country’s post-war history. Their policies have necessarily worsened and prolonged unemployment, aggravated inflation and set back business activity. On 27 November 1975 the present Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) said:
Let us all as Australians determine to restore prosperity, defeat inflation and provide jobs for all.
Twelve months later unemployment stands at 5.8 per cent, a post-war record. The Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research at the Melbourne University this month reports that consumer confidence has again declined substantially and that there is long term pessimism in the community about the Australian economy. The Austraiian Chamber of Commerce in a survey released this month says that businessmen are more pessimistic than they were 3 months ago and are more concerned about the coming months. The Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd, in common with several private banks, reported in January a gloomy outlook for the Australian economy. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics predicts cautiously inflation of 15 per cent by June this year. A government department, the Department of Industry and Commerce in its quarterly survey of manufacturing activity for December, states that respondents of the survey reported that sales increased by less than usual in that quarter and that exports, overtime and orders fell. It says also:
Capacity utilisation rose by one per cent during the quarter, less than usual for the time of year . . .
Overtime worked fell by 3 per cent during the quarter, a greater movement than usual. A further fall of 15 per cent was expected during the period to Match. The level of overtime worked would then be 3 1 per cent below that considered normal.
Orders held by respondents at the end of the quarter had fallen by 3 per cent, when usually a 2 per cent increase occurs.
On any score, the Government must be regarded as failing. The Government now says that its program for economic recovery will take 3 years. It is modest. This country will still be reeling under the body blows delivered by this Government’s policies well beyond 1978. This country is now in the grips of a prolonged bout of economic stagflation. The classic symptoms are there- high unemployment, high inflation and deepening stagnation. They will stay with us for as long as the affairs of this country are controlled by 2 such bemused and confused political adventurers as the Prime Minister and his Treasurer (Mr Lynch). The hard fact is that the administration of the Australian economy is in the hands of an economic illiterate. The Treasurer’s training in economics, like his style of rhetoric, reflecting the distinctive influence of his association with a suburban branch of the Junior Chamber of Commerce, is well rounded and quite empty. The Prime Minister’s disarmingly simplified theories would be entertaining if he were not in a position to impose them on the nation with such unfortunate consequences. Balance budgets and Herbert Hoover’s thoughts of the 1930s are his inspiration for handling the complex economic problems of this country nearly half a century later.
The support of Fraser-Lynch economic policies is as helpful as trying to swim with fins of lead. It is clear that while many countries today are succeeding in the battle against stagflation some are failing. We are one of the failures. The latest tabulation of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development on consumer price movements shows that we are in the bottom third of those countries with inflationthat is, we are among that third of the nations with the highest rates of inflation. Other countries have been successful. The countries with which we are associated in this regard are the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Turkey, Ireland, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Iceland. Our major trading partners are surging ahead of us in controlling inflation. The Government has failed. The simple, undeniable fact is that the Government has failed. There is no hard evidence of an economic pickup having developed in the last 12 months. It is patently clear that the unwise policies of the Government have pushed the nation over the threshold towards even higher unemployment, far worse inflation and an economy that is sinking deeper into recession as business founders. In short, the massive social and economic cost that the Government has imposed on the country through unnecessary sustained high unemployment, tough money policies, difficult business conditions and the enormous amount of production that has been lost forever through its unwise policies has gone for naught. It has gone for naught because the Government has jettisoned completely its policies of 1976, unwise as they were, for even more unwise policies that will have this country locked in economic stagnation into the 1 980s.
Let us review the record. Certainly let us review it in the light of the rather extravagant claims that were made by the Treasurer this afternoon. Let us contrast like with like- not as the Treasurer did this afternoon when he compared the first 9 months of government by the present Government with the last 2 years of government by the outgoing Labor Government. Let us compare the 3 quarters to the September quarter of 1976 with the same quarters of 1975. In that comparison one will find that inflation over the 3 quarters to the September quarter of 1976 increased by 7.9 per cent and that in 1 975 it increased by 8 per cent. There has been a marginal improvement over the comparable period, with the present Government’s administration, in spite of the enormous cost in lost production, high unemployment and business disruption which has been consciously caused by the Government’s policies.
The community may well ask itself whether the additional very high cost justifies the very small improvement that has been made. More importantly, the community may well meditate upon the fact that the exceptionally high rate of inflation coming through in December will mean that for the 12 calendar months in 1 976 there has been virtually no improvement in combating inflation over the previous 12 months of the Labor administration. Furthermore, we have it on the authority of the Treasurer this afternoon that the 2 quarters in the remainder of this financial year- the March and June quarters- will be ones in which particularly high readings will be recorded for inflation as a result of the unwise economic policies pursued by the Government. The community must ask itself sober questions. Why has it been asked to bear the exceptionally high cost of record high unemployment that is increasing, of inflation that is worsening and of general business stagnation with a serious problem arising as to the capacity of a very large section of business to continue for the rest of this calendar year, when so little gain has been made in any direction?
It has been noticeable today that the Treasurer, the Prime Minister and other speakers from the Government side of the chamber have skirted around completely any discussion of the subject of unemployment. If one examines the figures for unemployment for each month from and including September of last year one will find that, in comparison with the figures for the same months in 1975, the achievements have been much less significant, with one exception; that is December 1976, which is when the unemployment rate was marginally better- 0.03 per cent better-than for the same month in 1975 under a Labor administration. But the difference is this: Then there was no falsification of the unemployment records to try to bring the figure down, as there was in December of last year.
One could view the figures from the Bureau of Statistics on civilian employment and note that in November 1976- the latest month for which figures are available- civilian employment fell by 1 1 500, or one could cogitate on the fact that the work force would have increased by something like 2 per cent in the 1976 calendar year. This suggests that there are something like 100 000 people who should have gone into the work force and who are not showing up in the official statistics. If one makes allowance for those people one is talking about an unemployment rate not of 5.8 per cent but of considerably more than 7 per cent in the community at the present time. I suggest that the time is overdue for a proper statistical survey to be carried out each month, as happens in Canada, to establish what the real unemployment rate is in this country.
We are now confronted with a deep-seated unemployment problem. According to the National Times key indicators of last weekend more than one person in every ten unemployed has been unemployed continuously for 12 months or longer. Nearly one person in every four unemployed has been unemployed continuously for 6 months or longer. Figures of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations show that for every vacancy 12 people are unemployed. It is nonsense to be talking about people who do not want to work, about false unemployment figures which overstate the unemployment level. On the evidence that I have produced tonight it is quite clear that the official statistics are under-reading the level of unemployment in our community. It is equally clear that there is a deep seated structural unemployment problem in this country, that there is little opportunity for people to obtain work and the approach of the Government is most undesirable in the conditions with which we are presently confronted.
We were assured by the Treasurer in about May last year that there would be a recovery. We were assured that the recovery would be brought about by capital investment being stimulated as a result of the introduction by the Government of an investment allowance at a cost of $470m in a full year. According to the latest figures available on a September to September quarter basis- that is to September 1975- the increase in capital investment has been 5.6 per cent. Inflation in the same period has been 16.2 per cent. Effectively there has been a negative rate of capital investment in this country and that has especially disturbing implications for this nation. It means that our capital equipment is being used well beyond the period when it should be retired and as a result it is less efficient and more costly to operate. It means that capital equipment is not being installed at a rate sufficient to guarantee that if there is any recovery in the future industry will have the capacity to absorb people into the work force.
In these circumstances the Government is responsible for imposing long term stagnation on the economy because it is clear that any rapid recovery would run into bottlenecks as a result of the limitation of capital equipment. The Treasurer assured us of the Government’s objective when he introduced the capital investment allowance. He said:
Whatever is said by our opponents in this House it is the Government’s objective to bring forward a recovery in investment as quickly as possible. It is precisely for this reason that the tax incentives contained in this Bill are unprecedented in their coverage and extent.
Given the fact that the official statistics show that the rate of capital investment in real terms is negative, that statement by the Treasurer is as credible as his jog around the Imperial Palace in Tokyo.
Tonight the Prime Minister quoted the level of increase in retail sales in the economy in the past 12 months. That is a vitally important statistic. It shows the rate at which consumer activity is progressing. It shows business the sort of response it ought to gear itself towards for future investment and production programs. On a December to December basis retail sales increased by 13.5 per cent. We all know that the delayed consumer price index figure measuring inflation for December will be in excess of 5 per cent. On that basis it is clear that inflation for the calendar year 1976 will be of the order of 14 per cent or even greater than the level of increase in retail sales. So there has been no movement in that area.
The fact is that the Government has been quite inadequate in its responses. It has been castigated by State Premiers; it has been castigated quite properly by Mr Knox, the Queensland Treasurer. The Government must realise that if it does not spend at a time like this, our economy will be wrenched downwards suddenly and savagely and there will be most undesirable consequences for private business. Government is the major prop for economic activity at the moment. It is the major hope for private business. I am not suggesting irresponsible or extravagant expenditure. I am commending and endorsing the views that have been put by the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) on behalf of the Opposition. Unless that is done we will have a far more serious recession in this country than we have seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
-We have heard yet again in this debate the weary, sterile and negative approach of the Opposition to the economic problems confronting this nation. When its approach has deviated it has been in the direction of the same old medicine that led Australia to near ruin in the period from 1973 to 1975. The Opposition also stands indicted for its continual attempts to talk down the economy. Opposition spokesmen are Jeremiahs and prophets of doom. They do not want the economy to recover under the Fraser Government. They are doing their level best to ensure that it does not. Quite deliberately they are generating fear amongst businessmen, employees and consumers as to the future of our nation. They are playing politics with economic recovery. They know it and they stand condemned for it.
Tonight I would like briefly and simply to describe the present state of the economy as I see it and as I believe many thinking people in the community see it. I will not tire the House with too many statistics; the key statistics have been well set out already in this debate by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) and the Treasurer (Mr Lynch). The first point that must be emphasised is that inflation has receded significantly since this Government took office from a near fourfold increase under Labor to a level that priced Australia out of world markets and priced Australians out of jobs. It is still far too high; but it is being tackled, and successfully tackled. The Opposition can argue to the contrary all it likes but such argument flies in the face of the facts.
The second point is that the economy is growing again and, with the exception of the rural sector, is growing relatively strongly, although it is patchy from one industry to another. As the Treasurer pointed out, real gross non-farm product rose by 7½ per cent between the December quarter of 1975 and the September quarter of 1976. Indications are that growth has continued since then. I remind the House that in the last 18 months of the Whitlam Government real output actually fell. There was a negative rate of growth. The rural sector- or sections of it- continues to experience crisis conditions. These conditions had their genesis in the inflationary chaos of the years of the Whitlam Government. I believe that the present Government has done a great deal to assist in the recovery of the rural sector but I also believe that more will need to be done. The malaise affecting rural industry in Australia is of the first order of magnitude and all Australians, both country and city dwellers, will have to come to grips with this issue.
My third point is that the rampage of illconceived and wasteful government expenditures which occurred under Labor has been halted. Many people forget that in the end it is the taxpayer who meets government expenditure. I am not suggesting for one moment that all Labor’s expenditure programs were bad. On the contrary, many of them were desirable and necessary. But a great many were not. No government, of whatever political persuasion, can rush like a bull at a gate in the way that the Whitlam Government did and avoid major wasteful and inefficient mistakes. It is all very well to speak, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) is said to do, of crashing through or crashing. When the crash comes, as was inevitable under the Whitlam style of government, it is the man in the street, the pensioner, the young, the sick, the low income earner along with the higher income earner, the selfemployed, the small businessman, the worker, who suffer. Labor did not recognise this and it appears that it still does not do so.
My fourth point is that the Fraser Government, whilst reining in government expenditure, at the same time has introduced more major economic and social reforms than perhaps any other previous government in its first year of office. The introduction of the system of family allowances did more to assist the low income earner with a family than any other measure in a generation. The introduction of full personal income tax indexation will save taxpayers $990m in income taxes that they otherwise would have paid in this year alone and next year there will be a further saving to taxpayers of $ 1,050m. The introduction of trading stock valuation adjustment will save companies some $400m in the year beginning 1 July 1977, the date of its implementation. The increase in the retention allowance under Division 7 of the Income Tax Assessment Act will be of considerable assistance to many small businesses which have been badly savaged by inflation. The substantial easing of estate duty provisions on spouse-to-spouse transfers will be of great benefit particularly to surviving spouses who do not have very high levels of assets. In my view, more needs to be done in this area, but it is a very welcome and significant start that has been made.
The return of stability in the financing of education as a result of the restoration of triennial funding has been another major achievement of this Government. So too has been the greatly expanded program of financial assistance in the area of aged persons accommodation. Pensioners have derived great benefit from the Fraser Government’s decision to tie pension increases automatically to increases in the consumer price index- something that Labor, for all its brave words, never had the courage to do.
These achievements, and there are many more I could point to, are major achievements. More importantly, they are lasting achievements. They will benefit taxpayers and recipients of benefits in all future years and not just in this year. All the more remarkable is that they have been introduced in the short period of 12 months, despite the fact that the Liberal and National Country Parties in their 1975 election platform said that the implementation of these programs would take 3 years.
I turn to the unemployment situation. No one would suggest that it is satisfactory. Of course it is not. Unemployment is too high, particularly amongst young people; but what our opponents conveniently and wilfully neglect to mention is that this Government has at least arrested the skyrocketing increase in unemployment which occurred while Labor was in office and which showed no signs of abating at the time which the electorate said enough was enough in December 1975. Labor omits to mention that during its period of office total unemployment rose by more than 150 per cent and youth unemployment almost doubled. That trend has now been arrested. Admittedly, employment in the last 12 months rose only modestly, but that is always the case in the early stages of recovery from economic recession- and what a recession we had under Labor. There is no doubt that employment opportunities are now increasing more rapidly and that, provided we can achieve through the co-operation of government, employers, employees and the trade union movement a reasonable measure of wage restraint in the months ahead, we will see a sharp rise in employment and a reduction in unemployment during 1 977.
In the interim, the Government has done a great deal to assist the unemployed, particularly the young unemployed. It has also done much to improve employment opportunities by increasing the scope for training of skilled workers, for example, through the recent complete overhaul of the apprenticeship training scheme- an overhaul that has met with very wide acceptance by all involved. These are positive measures; they are constructive; and they are imaginative. How different in these respects are they from the negative and repressive measures that Labor adopted- measures that simply aggravated the situation which Labor had created through its gross mismanagement of the economy. However, I agree with the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) that we need a careful study of the structure of unemployment and a very careful examination of whether we do in fact have a long term problem on our hands in this regard.
Labor economic spokesmen are arguing for immediate tax reduction and for increased government spending. What a recipe for disaster. The Opposition is vague on which taxes it would cut and which spending it would increase. It ignores past experience which shows quite conclusively that such measures do not work in the type of economic situation we face today. They are in fact counter-productive. Labor ignores the view of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development that the present policies of the Federal Government are virtually the only ones possible in the conditions applying. Labor ignores the effect of its proposals on the money supply and therefore on inflation. Labor wants to do 1972 to 1975 all over again, conveniently forgetting that rather than leading to lower taxes its proposals inevitably lead in the end to higher and higher taxes to feed higher and higher government expenditure and to induce higher and higher unemployment. In short, Labor has not learnt from its past blunders which cost each and every Australian very dearly. The honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) in his remarks today attempted to stir unease within the Government’s back benches. I assure the honourable member that that corny tactic will not work because the back bench knows- its electorate is telling it- that the Government’s policies are the right ones.
Above all, what the Fraser Government has done through its restoration of sanity to economic management has been to give each and every taxpayer in the community more opportunity to keep more of what he earns and to spend his income in the way he wishes to rather than to have big brother government take it away from him in ever increasing taxes and decide, without his involvement, how his income will be spent. I cannot stress enough to the House the vast gulf which exists between the Government and Opposition parties in this respect. The
Labor Party is unashamably a party of big brother government. It genuinely believes that it knows better than the man in the street what the man in the street wants. It genuinely believes that the man in the street is better off if he is taxed blind to enable government to pay for programs which government feels are in his interests.
Down that road lies totalitarianism and the progressive restriction of the freedom of the individual, the basic right of the individual to exercise the maximum freedom of choice, compatible with the rights of his fellow citizens. That is the real question at issue here. It is not just a matter of economics. It is as well a matter of basic political philosophy. The Whitlam Government deliberately set out to ruin the private sector of this nation between 1972 and 1975 because through this it could see the way to increase its influence and its dominance over the lives of each and every Australian. Fortunately, the voters of Australia saw the light in December 1975 before it was too late. As a result, the voters elected a Government which is dedicated to increasing the freedom of the individual and the respect of his basic rights as an individual, while at the same time exercising its responsibility as a Government to protect and to assist those in our community who cannot care adequately for themselves. Opposition speakers in the debate know fully that this is the case. That is the reason for their opposition to the economic policies of this Government. That is the reason- apart altogether from the crazy economics implied in the Opposition’s amendment- why I utterly reject the amendments and heartily endorse the basic economic policy thrust of the Government.
-Mr Speaker-
Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:
That the question be now put.
-The question is that the question be now put. Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no. I think the ayes have it.
– Wait. No.
-Is a division required?
– I would like an explanation from the Leader of the House. There is an agreement between the Leader of the House and the leader on our side that there will be 5 speakers from each side.
-The Opposition has had 5 speakers.
– In those circumstances, I beg your pardon. I was under the impression that 5 honourable members opposite had spoken. I seek the leave of the House to withdraw the motion. I was under a mistaken impression. There is an intention that there should be 5 speakers from each side.
-Is leave granted for the motion to be withdrawn?
-Leave is granted. The Chair also has difficulty if it does not know the program.
Motion- by leave- withdrawn.
-It is symbolic that while the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) during this debate was telling the country what good shape the economy was in the lights in the chamber blinked off. I think that would have reminded everyone in the chamber of the election slogan of the Liberal-National Country parties at the last election, namely, to turn the lights on. It is abundantly clear to everyone in the country that the lights have not been turned on. In fact, the nation is stumbling around in the dark while the Government keeps hollering how bright the economy really is. The fact is that the Prime Minister and, in particular, the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) during their contributions to the debate indulged in an exercise in selfdelusion. This retreat from reality is indicative of a government in disarray. An example of this is the way in which statistics are used, the way in which statistics are distorted, the way in which they are not presented, the way in which they are suppressed or the way in which they are dismissed.
For instance, the unemployment figures have been distorted. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) reports the highest unemployment figures in our recorded history as showing stability in employment. The consumer price index figures have been delayed, as has been mentioned. The seasonally adjusted unemployment figures have been suppressed. We have the seasonally adjusted employment figures but do not have the seasonally adjusted unemployment figures any more because the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has seen fit not to produce them. The Government’s latest exercise has been the dismissal of the consumer price index. In this debate the Treasurer dismissed the consumer price index as not really being a relevant guide to inflation. This one indicator which has been generally accepted by all people in this country as an indicator of inflation is now taken by the Treasurer to be merely an incidental item which records price movements for a specifically confined set of goods and services and therefore not to be taken notice of. This action is indicative of a government which is desperate to suppress the real situation.
Perhaps the Government is trying to convince itself that things are not so bad, but I am sure that many honourable members on the Government back benches are fully aware of just how bad the situation is. Indeed those who are pressing for tax cuts are clearly aware of the problems that we have in this country. The facts are that the Government has failed abjectly in achieving its economic goals, particularly in relation to inflation since this is the one on which the Government has placed the most emphasis. We have been told that the achievement of a lower rate of inflation is basic to the Government’s economic policy, but in the first 3 quarters of 1976 the movement in the consumer price index was only 0. 1 per cent less than in the same period in 1975 when the Australian Labor Party was in office. So effectively there is no change. The Treasurer’s claim of a steady and considerable underlying improvement in the rate of inflation is a sheer exercise in self delusion, particularly as he admitted in Tokyo that in the future we will see a much increased rate of inflation. As he said, in the next 3 quarters there will be a substantial rise in the rate of inflation. So in no way can one possibly argue that there has been a steady or considerable underlying improvement in the rate of inflation. To do so would be an exercise in self delusion.
Furthermore, the Bureau or Agricultural Economics, a government agency, has thrown a spotlight on to the real situation. Recently it estimated that inflation in 1976-77 will be 12 per cent to 15 per cent. That compares with 12.3 per cent in the previous financial year. So there is no improvement. In fact it is likely that there is a substantial deterioration. We have had only a 2.2 per cent increase so far this financial year. That means therefore that there is 10 per cent to 13 per cent to come.
– You are juggling the figures.
-What the Government back benchers and in particular the honourable member for Bendigo ought to realise is that all this will happen in the next 5 months. We will have a recorded increase in inflation of 10 per cent to 13 per cent in the next 5 months. The December quarter figures will be available soon, the March quarter figures will be available 2 months later, and 3 months later we will have the June figures. I ask honourable members opposite to realise that that is the situation. It is ridiculous for them to delude themselves into thinking that the Government is on top of the inflation situation.
The same applies to unemployment. The highest recorded figures for unemployment in our history have been shown by the Commonwealth Employment Service, despite the disincentives to register, which I do not have time to mention. Also we have had hidden unemployment. The honourable member for Ballaarat (Mr Short) said that at least the Government had achieved stability in the employment market. The fact is that there has been a massive drop in the participation rate in the labour force. If he looks at the work force figures he will see that the work force participation rate dropped by a very substantial 1 . 1 per cent in the last year. If it had been maintained at the November 1975 rate there would be another 100 000 people in the work force. What that means is that there has been a substantial dropout of people from the work force because they cannot get jobs. The facts are not shown in the unemployment figures. People have dropped right out of the employment market.
The same is true for the employment figures for wage and salary earners. The total number went up by 4700 from November 1975 to November 1976. In private employment they are 2000 down; so there is no improvement there either. If one looks at overall economic recovery, despite some growth shown in the national accounts one sees widespread pessimism in business and consumer circles. Recent surveys by the Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research and Morgan Research showed that the pessimism of businesses and consumers had increased and is now long term. In other words, it is deep seated and it will take a long time to get over it, and that is very important to what is going to happen to this economy in the future. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and the National Bank found in a recent survey that business was pessimistic about the coming months and was more pessimistic than 3 months earlier. So there is no optimism in business or consumer circles. The only optimism lies in the statements of the Treasurer (Mr Lynch), the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and other Government spokesmen in this exercise of selfdelusion. The facts relating to the basic economic indicators do not support the optimism of Government spokesmen, nor indeed are they supported by the Government’s back bench, which is clamouring for tax cuts.
Apart from its abysmal failure to achieve its policy objectives, there are other bases for criticism of the Government’s performance. Chief among these is the sheer inconsistency of the Government’s policy. While asserting continually that a reduction in the rate of inflation is its basic objective, the Government has taken action which will substantially increase the rate of inflation. For instance, the Medibank changes will add 2 per cent to the rate of inflation- a Government induced increase. Devaluation has been estimated by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics to add 4 per cent to the rate of inflation. So there we have direct Government actions -actions by a Government that says its basic objective is to reduce the rate of inflation- which have added 6 per cent to the rate of inflation. What will this do to inflationary expectations? What will it do to the income expectations of people who see their real incomes being slashed? What will it do to the expectations of consumers faced with a dramatic increase in inflation? We all know that in the past a big increase in inflation has been one factor which has inhibited people from spending. It is totally irresponsible and absolutely unforgiveable for the Government to take these actions, which are so inconsistent with its announced policy.
The Government’s devaluation-revaluation exercise was another exercise in inconsistency. A massive devaluation was followed by 8 revaluations which made us a laughing stock in international monetary circles. The Treasurer said that this was just the exercise of the European managed float. What a nonsense that was. That must have had them really rolling in the aisles in other countries. The fact is that those revaluations constituted action by the Reserve Bank to try to undo some of the damage that had been done by the absurd action of this Government in bringing in a massive 17 per cent devaluation. The Reserve Bank tried to undo it by the process of the float. Then we had the suspension of quarterly company tax payments. The quarterly company tax payments were introduced by the Labor Government and suspended by this Government. It then reintroduced them, when it was too late, because they were a substantial factor in the very considerable outflow of funds which preceded devaluation. I suppose that Government members are aware of the fact that many companies, which were very liquid because the Government suspended quarterly tax payments, got their money out of the country when devaluation was in the air and thereby added to the likelihood of devaluation occurring.
So the Government produced a devaluation by its own absurd policy anyway.
The Government has said that a reduction in inflation is basic to economic recovery, but then it took action which it claimed was intended to reduce inflation but which accentuated the recession. That again is contradictory. For instance, it has slashed Government expenditure in real terms by at least 4 per cent this financial year, and that is a recessionary factor. A substantial cut in demand like that must have recessionary effects on the economy. The same is true of the slashing of real wages. Demand must be reduced if that is done. The same is true of credit restrictions. Now because of devaluation the Government is locked into an economic policy which means it has to accentuate those 3 areas of policy. It has to accentuate the cuts in Government expenditure, it has to pursue a policy of cutting real wages even further, and it is tightening credit restrictions because of the massive inflow of capital following the devaluation. The whole policy is a contradictory absurdity.
This Government is also deserving of condemnation for its callous indifference to the plight of the unemployed. As the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) said, no speaker on the Government side expressed any great interest in the fact of unemployment or in the plight of the unemployed. Certainly the Treasurer and the Prime Minister said practically nothing about it. They treated it as though it was no problem at all. I do not suppose it is a problem if one is on their salary, but it certainly is if one is unemployed. There was not one hint of concern or compassion from those speakers in this debate and I think that that in itself is condemnation. Their lack of concern and compassion for the unemployed is shown up by the Government’s refusal to introduce job creation programs. Government supporters have spurned those programs despite the fact that they promised them in their employment policy before the last general election. They specifically promised to introduce relief work projects in periods of high unemployment. Government supporters specifically promised that but the Government has not brought them in. It could well be that the Government thinks that unemployment is not high- that 6 per cent is not a high unemployment figure. Maybe that is the reason, but I would think that anyone else who looks at the Government’s policy would think that its supporters were breaking their election promises by not introducing job creation programs. The Prime Minister castigated them as artificial work programs but previous Liberal-Country Party governments have had such policies. They had them in 1961, in 1967 and in 1971. Why does this Government not have them now when there is the worst unemployment in the post-war period of this country? Other manpower programs, which are fairly token, have been introduced. I do not have time to describe them but they have certainly not by any means covered the array of effective manpower policies that could and should be introduced in this country.
Then we have the blatant inequity of this Government’s policies. It sought to reduce real wages so as to increase profit share and reduce inflation. It succeeded in reducing real wages. They fell in 1976 and profits rose strongly because they took part of the wage earners share and they also took all of the productivity increase. Profits rose by 39 per cent in the September quarter so profits are strongly up at the expense of the wage and salary earners in this country. But this Government says that that is not enough. It wants to restore the company share of profits to its normal historical level despite the fact that the economy is now in a most abnormal state. This Government wants the normal level for profits at a time when the economy is very abnormally recessed. That is an economic absurdity. If the Government does get this it is going to maintain a recession for a very long time because by cutting real wages so much it will dampen demand.
The fact is that the company share of profits is close to its normal level even now as indicated by the Department of Industry and Commerce in its recent quarterly survey of manufacturing industry. In after tax terms companies are doing very well. On income being earned this financial year they will save $ 1,000m in tax concessions. Company tax has been effectively cut by one-third. In after tax terms, companies are being treated very well indeed. The recession is being made very comfortable for business, but one must contrast that with the position of the wage and salary earners. Further cuts in real wages are now basic to the Government’s policy especially for its antiinflationary purposes. This is because of Medibank and devaluation in particular. The Government’s own actions in accentuating inflation have made it imperative for it now to slash real wages to pay for its own stupidity.
Having refused a tax trade-off as a means of reducing the inflationary effect of wage increases whilst maintaining the living standards of the wage and salary earners the Government is now headed for a confrontation situation as it seeks to slash real wages even further. As part of that policy the Government is now arming itself with a far more extensive array of powers to suppress the incomes and the rights of the wage and salary earners and their trade unions than any Government has ever contemplated in the history of this country. The proposal to establish an industrial relations bureau and the legislation now before the House in relation to the Trade Practices Act, which in fact would cover about 95 per cent of trade union activity, are the most extensive powers that any government has ever sought to control unions and employees in this country or restrict their rights to organise. Having chopped off or rejected all the other policy options this fumbling, inept, inconsistent callous government is embarked on a path to reduce the living standards of a vast majority of Australians in 1977 and to risk massive industrial confrontation in the process and it surely deserves the loss of the support of this House.
Question put:
That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr E. G. Whitlam’s amendment) stand part of the question.
The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Rt Hon. B. M. Snedden, Q.C.)
AYES: 82
NOES: 32
Majority……. 50
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Original question resolved in the affirmative.
page 56
The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests:
Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Amendment Bill 1976.
Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976.
Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1976.
Television Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976.
Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Bill 1976.
Public Service Amendment Bill 1976. Public Service Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976. Apple and Pear Levy Bill 1 976. Apple and Pear Levy Collection Bill 1 976. Apple and Pear Export Charge Bill 1976. Apple and Pear Export Charge Collection Bill 1 976. Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Amendment Bill 1976.
States Grants (Rural Adjustment) Bill 1976.
Foreign Proceedings (Prohibition of Certain Evidence) Amendment Bill 1 976.
Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976.
Customs Tariff Validation Bill (No. 2) 1976.
Income Tax (Companies and Superannuation Funds) Bill 1976.
Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 3 ) 1 976. Loan (Income Equalisation Deposits) Bill 1976.
Loan (Drought Bonds) Amendment Bill 1 976.
Marriage Amendment Bill 1976.
Australian Capital Territory Electricity Supply Amendment Bill 1976.
Insurance (Deposits) Amendment Bill 1976.
Crimes (Aircraft) Amendment Bill 1976.
Crimes ( Internationally Protected Persons) Bill 1 976.
Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Amendment Bill 1976.
Extradition (Foreign States) Amendment Bill 1976.
page 57
Message received from the Senate acquainting the House that it had agreed to the amendments made by the House of Representatives to this Bill.
page 57
Assent to the following Bills reported:
Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Amendment Bill 1976.
United States Naval Communication Station (Civilian Employees) Amendment Bill 1976.
Seamen ‘s Compensation Amendment Bill 1 976.
Estate Duty Assessment Amendment Bill 1 976.
Remuneration and Allowances Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976.
States Grants (Water Resources Assessment) Bill 1976. Pay-roll Tax (Territories) Assessment Amendment Bill 1976.
Roads Acts Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976. Customs Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976. Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill 1976.
Narcotic Drugs Amendment Bill 1976.
National Health Amendment Bill ( No. 4) 1 976.
Stevedoring Industry Amendment Bill 1 976.
Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1 976.
Stevedoring Industry Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976.
Defence Service Homes Amendment Bill 1976. Ombudsman Bill 1976. Prices Justification Amendment Bill 1976. Homes Savings Grant Bill 1 976. States Grants (Aboriginal Assistance) Bill 1976. Aboriginal Councils and Associations Bill 1 976. Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976.
Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1976.
Television Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976.
Historic Shipwrecks Bill 1976. Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill 1976. Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Bill 1976.
Public Service Amendment Bill 1976. Public Service Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976. Apple and Pear Levy Bill 1976. Apple and Pear Levy Collection Bill 1976. Apple and Pear Export Charge Bill 1976. Apple and Pear Export Charge Collection Bill 1 976. Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Amendment Bill 1976.
Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Amendment Bill 1976.
States Grants (Rural Ad justment ) Bill 1 976.
Foreign Proceedings (Prohibition of Certain Evidence) Amendment Bill 1976.
Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976. Customs Tariff Validation Bill (No. 2) 1976. Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 3 ) 1 976. Loan ( Income Equalization Deposits ) Bill 1 976. Loan (Drought Bonds) Amendment Bill 1 976. Income Tax (Companies and Superannuation Funds) Bill 1976.
Marriage Amendment Bill 1976.
Customs Tariff(,Coal Export Duty) Amendment Bill 1976.
Asian Development Fund Bill 1 976.
Asian Development Bank (Special Funds Contributions) Amendment Bill 1976.
Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976.
States Grants (Fruit-growing Reconstruction) Bill 1976.
States Grants (Beef Industry) Amendment Bill 1976.
Nauru ( High Court Appeals) Bill 1 976.
Nitrogenous Fertilizers Subsidy Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976.
Queensland Grant (Special Assistance) Bill 1976. States Grants (Nature Conservation) Amendment Bill 1976.
Softwood Forestry Agreements Bill 1976.
page 57
-Intimation has been received from the Leader of the Opposition withdrawing the notice of motion that he gave this afternoon expressing want of confidence in the Government.
page 57
-I wish to inform the House of the following nominations of senators and members of the House of Representatives to be members of the Joint Select Committee on Aboriginal Land Rights in the Northern Territory: Senator Bonner, Chaney and Kilgariff have been nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and Senators Coleman, Robertson and Cavanagh have been nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in that chamber. Mr Calder, Mr Drummond, Mr McLean, Mr Ruddock and Mr Wentworth have been nominated by the Prime Minister and Mr Bryant, Mr Les Johnson and Mr Wallis have been nominated by the Leader of the Opposition.
page 57
-Mr Speaker, I ask you to take into consideration an article which appears in tonight’s Sydney Mirror and which charges several members of this Parliament with fraudulently registering Canberra as their home base for the purpose of falsely claiming travelling and incidental allowances. My understanding is that the article is totally false. I ask you, Mr Speaker, as the protector of this House, to take the article into consideration.
-Is the honourable gentlemen raising this as a matter of privilege or bringing it to my attention?
-I bring it to your attention as the Presiding Officer of the House and ask you to take it into consideration. It is a very serious allegation and it is made against all members of the Parliament. I understand that it is totally false.
-I shall take the matter into consideration and, when appropriate, report to the House.
page 58
-I move:
That, in lieu of the final proviso to the sessional order of 1 8 February 1 976 relating to the adjournment of sittings, the following proviso be substituted:
Provided further that, if at 1 1 p.m. the question before the House is- That the House do now adjourn- the Speaker shall interrupt the debate, at which time-
a Minister may require that the debate be extended until 1 1.10 p.m. to enable Ministers to speak in reply to matters raised in the preceding adjournment debate; at 1 1.10 p.m., or upon the earlier cessation of the debate, the Speaker shall forthwith adjourn the House until the time of its next meeting,
if no action is taken by a Minister under paragraph (f)> the Speaker shall forthwith adjourn the House until the time of its next meeting. ‘.
This motion is a repeat of a sessional order which has now been passed by this House for 2 successive sessions. It is the intention of the Government in the next session of the Parliament to consider recommendations for changes to the Standing Orders. The last meeting of the Standing Orders Committee, as you will recall, Mr Speaker, dealt with a number of proposals, including the probable incorporation of this motion and the one which is to follow, being notice No. 2 in my name, as part of the Standing Orders of the House. I believe that the practice has worked well. I therefore commend the motion in its present form to honourable members and suggest that the practice has enhanced significantly the normal adjournment debates in the chamber. Therefore, I suggest that the motion be accepted by the members of this House.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
page 58
– I move:
That, in lieu of the time limit specified in standing order 9 1 for speeches on the ‘Motion for adjournment of House to terminate the sitting- ‘, the following time limit shall operate:
Each Member . . . 5 minutes (no extention of time tobe granted):
Provided that, if no other Member rises to address the House, a Member who has already spoken to the motion may speak a second time for a period not exceeding 5 minutes’.
This motion provides for a 5-minute time limit for speeches by members of this House in the adjournment debate. For the same reasons as I just mentioned, I suggest that this measure be a sessional order. I commend its acceptance by the members of the chamber.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
page 58
Parliamentary Staffs- The ParliamentNewspaper Article-Aboriginal AffairsBushfires War Veterans’ Village, Narrabeen
Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:
That the House do now adjourn.
-Mr Speaker, I want to raise a matter which I think is of some consequence and in which I am sure you will concur. There has been some publicity in relation to errors being made in the presentation of legislation. There was some debate on the role of the Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott) in that but I do not intend to refer to it. The matter to which I wish to refer is the pressure under which the staff of the House of Representatives, and I presume the staff of the Senate, work and the general approach to that pressure of other sections of the Public Service, and notably, the Public Service Board. You will be aware, Mr Speaker, as I am, that for some time moves have been under way for a reorganisation of the staff of the House of Representatives and for a reclassification of positions. During the period I occupied the office which you now occupy, Mr Speaker, we had some considerable trouble with the Public Service Board which refused to advise the House of new arrangements to streamline the procedures in the House on the grounds that, as staff ceilings were involved, the Board did not consider it to be its responsibility to give such advice.
The point I wish to make is that the House of Representatives conducts something like three times the amount of legislative business that is conducted by the House of Commons with something like one-quarter or less of the senior clerical staff employed there. That does not take into account considerable other senior staff. The Public Service Board refused to take into consideration the detail and the accuracy of the work which has to be undertaken by senior officers in this Parliament. In fact, at least one officer who I think ought to have been sacked for incompetence indicated that the general level of efficiency of around 70 per cent which was acceptable in the Public Service should be acceptable to the Parliament. It certainly is not acceptable. The level of efficiency which is expected and almost always obtained is 100 per cent. The point which I think ought to be made, and made most strongly, is that the Parliament is the poor relation of the Public Service. We read in the Press today, for instance, the ease with which the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) expands the policy areas of his Department. A similar situation exists in other departments. Irrespective of which party is in government, Ministers are able with relative ease to expand the senior staff in their policy making and administrative areas.
The number of staff in the Parliament is almost rigidly fixed. During a particular period, especially the period towards the end of a session, the senior officers of the Parliament have to spend the majority of their time in the House. They are under considerable pressure from Ministers who want Bills ready to be presented for royal assent an hour before they are passed through the Parliament and certainly not later than 3 minutes after coming back from the Senate. There are only 4 senior officers, Second Division or higher, in the Parliament to carry out those duties. I know that currently a private survey of efficiency within the Parliament is being conducted because the Chairman of the Public Service Board, on receiving a report sometime last year, refused to pass on that report in the manner in which he received it. Without having actually participated in the considerations, he decided that no increase in staff should take place and that no recommendation to upgrade the staff ought to be accepted. I believe it is time that the Parliament looked at its own position and made sure that it is adequately staffed with senior officers who can carry out the functions which the Government of the day and the members of the Parliament demand of them. I know that the recently retired Clerk had to forgo many months of accumulated leave because the pressure of work in the Parliament would not allow him to take that leave. That is a totally wrong principle which no employer should apply to its employees. It damages the employees’ health and must at some stage affect their efficiency. I believe that the approach which has been taken in this matter, especially by the Public Service Board, is quite irresponsible. I hope that you, Mr Speaker, will be able to resolve it satisfactorily in the near future.
-I take this opportunity to mention a matter that was raised this morning by the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen). I do not in any way participate in the debate. But I would like to say that I am satisfied that there was no error made in the office of the Clerk of the Senate. The honourable gentleman may recall that he said this morning that there could have been an error there. I am satisfied there was no error in the office of the Clerk of the Senate and I think it appropriate that I should say so.
Mr LIONEL BOWEN (KingsfordSmith) by leave- If I gave that impression this morning, I would like to explain that I had no intention of doing so. I did say that there was negligence of the Government Minister in the Senate in not discharging the Bill from the notice paper. I made no reference to the Clerk.
-I may have misunderstood what the honourable gentleman said. But I did not want this House to reflect upon the Clerk ‘s office.
-Mr Speaker, I agree with what you say.
-I call the honourable member for Holt.
-For a few moments this evening I would like to follow on with what the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) has said. My remarks involve very much, without any reflection on the Chair, how the House manages to conduct its business and particularly your position, Mr Speaker, and the problems that you have to face as our representative and as our protector of the back benches with our traditions and all we stand for. It worries me when I think of the pressure of work that falls upon the Clerk of the House and I sometimes wonder whether you and the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) would during the course of this session of Parliament examine with some interest whether the interests of the backbenchers are, in fact, being protected as against the interests of the Executive. It has been a standing tradition of the backbench members of the Parliament to protect their powers from being eroded by the Executive. The members of the Executive have all the facilities possible. We backbenchers do not have those facilities. Unless you, Mr Speaker, and the Leader of the House are prepared to protect our interests we shall not be able to do our duty to protect the interests of our own electors in many fields.
As you well know, Mr Speaker, there have been occasions upon which question time, which is ours by tradition and during which we can question members of the Executive and, of course, as can the Opposition, has been eroded totally by long statements from the Treasury bench. Ministers could be asked quite easily to make these statements after the question time. Then, perhaps with your leave, Mr Speaker, the Minister concerned could be questioned on the statement that he has made. Of course, there would be no debate arising from such a statement. I am disturbed that it has not been possible for me and for many other honourable members to put questions of urgent public importance to you because of the limitation placed upon question time. I believe that question time is the one way in which we can protect the rights of the people whom we are here to represent.
Mr Speaker, the Standing Orders are your prerogative and it is your Committee- the Standing Orders Committee- that discusses them. I am not clear when that Committee last met during the last session of the Parliament or what matters were brought to its attention. I feel that perhaps it would be suitable if at some time we could hear from you the changes that have been proposed by that Standing Orders Committee and the attitude of the House towards them. I am sympathetic with the Leader of the House, who obviously wants to get his business through. That is quite understandable. But the Leader of the House must understand also that we are here for one purpose after support of the Government and that is to care for those and for the interests of those who sent us here. I want to say tonight on my second year in this House that in the course of the past session of Parliament I had some doubts whether I had been able to exercise the normal duties which I think a backbencher should be able to exercise in relation to question time and debate. I hope, Mr Speaker, that your Committee will re-examine the Standing Orders this session.
– I want to say a few words about the relationship of the Parliament to the Executive and to the judiciary. The Constitution of this country, like the practice and customs of every other parliamentary democracy in the world, treats the Parliament as absolutely supreme. In relation to the judiciary the Parliament is still the highest court in the land. As a parliament we still have the right to exercise the final prerogative in jurisdiction over people who contravene our privileges and so on. I am not recommending that we should exercise that prerogative in anything but extreme circumstances, but the fact remains that legally and constitutionally we are the highest court in the land. We are the most important assemblage of people in the country yet we are being treated as mere rubber stamps of the Executive Government. It is not good enough.
What ought to happen in this Parliament when the Budget comes down is for us to be given a Budget line by Mr Speaker- not a Budget fine by the Treasury endorsed by Cabinet or by the Prime Minister. Mr Speaker is the only person who should have any authority to tell this Parliament what it should have by way of budgetary provisions for any year’s expenditure. The Executive Government has no right and certainly should not have any power to tell the Par.liament, the supreme body in any democracy, how much money it can have and how much it cannot have. I believe that it is absolutely obnoxious that members of the Parliament should have to go cap in hand to the Minister for Administrative Services to try to obtain the necessary assistance by way of research staff, electoral secretaries and so on in order better to serve their constituents. You, Mr Speaker, are the one who ought to determine what are the rights of the Parliament and of its members in carrying out their various responsibilities. I now hear the absurd proposition being put that members of the National Parliament are required to sign chits every time they use a Commonwealth car but that members of the judiciary need not do so.
– That is true.
-The honourable member says that is true. If it is true it is an extraordinary situation. Mr Speaker, you who are our spokesman and the defender of our rights ought to assert yourself very strongly against the executive decision that chose to make this an order of the day. I should like to know who made this decision. I do not know whether the Parliament has enough officers. I sometimes think it has too many officers and that we ought to have fewer and better officers. That is my personal opinion; I do not know. But it should not be for the Government to decide whether the number is enough or not enough. It certainly should not be a matter of the Public Service Board telling Mr Speaker how many officers Mr Speaker should have to carry out his duties as the custodian of our privileges. That is all I want to say. I hope that this matter which has arisen tonight will not be forgotten and that the back benchers on the Government side as well as the honourable members on this side of the House will continue to press for a better deal for the Parliament. If they do not get it, they ought to demand it by taking action against the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser).
-In last Friday’s edition of the Sydney Sun there appears a scurrilous piece of journalism which has reduced that otherwise respectable newspaper to the level of a comic book. At the commencement of the column there is a photograph of a smiling person. The column is written by a gentleman called the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition. It makes 3 allegations against the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) or the Government which appear to be basically untrue. They are certainly extravagant to say the least. In the first allegation there is a claim that the Prime Minister through his well-known statement that life wasn’t meant to be easy’, which he has acknowledged, implies that hardship and struggle are all we have a right to expect and are somehow predestined and inevitable in life.
– That is right.
– Labor members opposite are saying that that is true. Apparently they have that same impression. The Leader of the Opposition then goes on to say that the Labor Party rejects this principle and that we need hard work and do a number of other things. What the Leader of the Opposition has done is to try to make a play on words. He said that if Mr Fraser had merely said life is not easy’, most of us would agree with him. Then he made a snide attack on the socalled privilege and position of the Prime Minister and tried to make out that the Prime Minister was implying to the Australian people that hardship is their sole lot and all to which they will be entitled in life. Either the Leader of the Opposition is grossly misleading the Austraiian public or he is totally ignorant. On 27 January 1 977, in a well publicised interview with Mike Willesee on Channel 7, the Prime Minister explained at great length that particular statement. In particular he said that if Australians wished to have benefits there is a need to work hard. He also said that ‘if people want the things that they would like to provide for their own families, it generally requires effort’. The Prime Minister was not saying that life should be harder. When asked: Would you like to see less affluence to mould the society that you want? ‘, the Prime Minister said:
Affluence in a society is I think basically a good thing, because it enables that society to do the things that are required for disadvantaged groups, for education, to make sure that there is an equality of opportunity for all people no matter what their backgrounds might be. Australia, although it is one of the most equal nations on earth, still has a good way logo before it reaches perfection in that particular area . . .
Then the Prime Minister dealt with the problems that affluence can sometimes create in a society, such as a test of character to ensure that we do not become idle. The words of the Prime Minister have been made public. If they were not known to the Leader of the Opposition they ought to have been known to him. His column is a complete perversion of the reality of the Prime Minister’s position. The Leader of the Opposition should either apologise for misleading the Austraiian public or apologise for being totally wrong. A reading of his column leaves no implication other than one totally contrary to the Prime Minister’s position. Then the Leader of the Opposition went on to give his version of the unemployment figures. We can lay this matter to rest very easily. As we have heard already, when Labor came to office 2.4 per cent of the workforce was unemployed. When Labor went out of office the figure was 5.4 per cent. When Labor came to office, the number of youth unemployed, that is, those under 21 years of age, was 80 000-odd; when it went out of office the number was 152 000-odd. We all know that the figure would have been heading for 400 000 or more had this Government not come into office. Of course the inflation rate rose from 4.6 per cent to 14.1 percent.
This snide attack on the Prime Minister continued. There was an attack on the Prime Minister for attending a dinner in Sydney last week. It was claimed that no doubt he drank champagne that was bottled in Marie Antoinette’s day. The dinner that the Prime Minister attended was held for charity and the substantial sum paid for a ticket went to a very worthy charity. We hear this sick joke about the Prime Minister drinking champagne, yet when the Labor Government was dismissed by the Australian people the Lodge was opened up. There were hoards and stacks of French champagne- the very best one could get- showing the absolute decadence that had been going on in the Lodge before these people were dismissed. Yet we have this joke here by the Leader of the Opposition.
-Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.
Mr FitzPATRICK (Darling) ( 10.35)-In September last year the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) visited Wilcannia in my electorate to open a partly completed home built by the Barkandji Aboriginal Building Society. Although I was not invited to the party I was grateful for the visit. The Aborigines in that town need all the encouragement they can get and no doubt they appreciated the visit. I raise this topic tonight because I want the Prime Minister and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to take the same interest in another matter concerned with Aboriginal advancement in my electorate. I refer to the work carried out by the New South Wales Save the Children Fund. I believe it is doing a praiseworthy job in Aboriginal advancement. Since 1972 the Save the Children Fund has operated 13 centres for Aboriginal pre-school children aged from three to five years. Three of these pre-schools are in my electorate at Brewarrina, Walgett and Goodooga. The Save the Children Fund not only runs the pre-schools but also provides free transport to the pre-schools and a well diet balanced lunch. For many of the children this is the only proper meal they receive throughout the whole of the day. I emphasise that the scheme was introduced after the Save the Children Fund people had realised that one cannot teach hungry children.
I know that many people even in my electorate say that the Aboriginals themselves should provide their own transport and food for their children. No doubt some of them could do so, especially those living closer to the schools. However, a good many could not provide such things. Many of the shacks and tents- some are proper homes- in which these people live are situated four to eight miles away from the schools. Whether we like it or not much of the funds allocated for Aboriginal advancement is not used for that purpose; it merely makes alcoholics out of some of the Aborigines. I emphasise that this is not always the Aborigines’ fault. Maybe we should be more careful how this money in spent. In any case we all know that it is not the fault of the children. I believe that the children are entitled to a decent start in life. I assure the House that many of them will get a bad start if transport to pre-schools and a balanced meal are not provided. I say this because a report from all centres carried out by the Save the Children Fund shows that the free lunch introduced children to sitting at tables and using utensils which they often do not have at home. Many centres reported that the main diet of most of the children was fish and chips. My observation, particularly where the children had drinking parents, is that most of their diet is chips and bread.
The Save the Children Fund also discovered that a balanced meal reduced the incidence of disease and susceptibility to worms and influenza. In addition it assisted the children to communicate with each other. I bring this matter before the Parliament because when 40 of the Save the Children Fund assistants attended a seminar in Sydney the Aboriginal Affairs Director in New South Wales, Mr Martin, questioned the transport and feeding policies of the Save the Children Fund. Many people in these areas feel that there may be a move to cut out the transport and the meals. I ask the Prime Minister and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to continue their interest in the Aborigines in my electorate and not to allow any interference to the transport and feeding policies which are doing so much for the advancement of Aboriginal children.
-Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to take tie time of the House briefly tonight to refer to the tragedy which occurred in western Victoria last Saturday in the form of the most disastrous bush fires that the State has seen for almost 10 years. I raise the matter because the fires were concentrated in several electorates including my own. The others were the electorate of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), Wannon, and the electorate of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street), Corangamite.
The loss of lives, homes, livestock, grazing and fencing which occurred in western Victoria last Saturday really had to be seen to be believed. The tragedy, both personal and financial, is an enormous one. I take this opportunity to express to all those involved my deep sympathy and the sympathy of all the more fortunate members of my electorate in the tragedy that has befallen so many people in rural areas who, in any event, were experiencing very difficult conditions.
I take this opportunity also to congratulate the Government on the measures which were announced today to provide assistance to the victims of the fires and on the speed with which those measures have been implemented. For the purposes of the record, I congratulate the people who were involved in fighting the fires and in providing assistance to the fire fighters in a whole host of ways. The co-operation of all concerned was quite magnificent.
The area that was most affected in my electorate was the Shire of Creswick, based on the town of Creswick. That was where the centre of the fire fighting operations was based. Shopkeepers at Creswick kept their stores open almost all night. They provided food and other needs for the fire fighters free of charge. The Salvation Army and the Red Cross did a superb job in attending to those who had suffered in various ways from the fires. The example of selflessness, team work and co-operation exhibited in that area last weekend- I know that it was repeated in all other fire devastated areas- was something that did great credit to all concerned. I was left wondering, after having spent some hours in the area, just why it is that we need something like a disaster of that nature to bring us together and to cause us to exhibit those qualities that we know Australians have but which all too often we seem to lose sight of in other than emergency situations. I think the example of courage and cooperation exhibited by many hundreds of people last weekend in the face of very great adversity was something of which we as Australians can all be very proud and I hope we may all be able to draw some lessons for the future from it.
– I rise at this stage because the honourable member for St George (Mr Neil) was good enough to direct attention to the latest of the fortnightly articles that I write for the Sydney Sun. As not only honourable members but also tens of thousands of readers- hundreds of thousands I am told- are well aware, these articles appear on alternate Fridays. I must say the articles did not appear quite as attractive as they were read by the honourable member. If he is going to be worried by articles that current politicians write for the daily papers, he will find very little solace for his point of view. Four authors immediately come to mind. There are the honourable member for Lowe (Mr McMahon) and myself in this House, and there are Senators Rae and James McClelland. All 4 authors are critical of the present Prime Minister. I am distressed at some of the references that Senator Rae, for instance, makes to his Leader. For instance, I refer honourable members to the senator’s article in the Australian of 13 January:
The only argument in favour of a leader who has inherited his million or two is that he is unlikely to be influenced by such unworthy thoughts as motivate the unionist who supports the strike for higher wages or the manufacturer or seller who puts up his prices.
Blind Freddie could see whom the honourable senator had in his sights in that paragraph. Again, I draw the attention of the House to the senator’s article in the Australian of 27 January. Referring to President Carter, he wrote:
Carter’s appointment of his Cabinet has been criticised by some but it does appear to be a significant attempt to draw together the full coalition of interests within the Democratic Party. It is a combination of old and new and, unlike the Australian Government, it represents the liberals, moderates and conservatives within the governing party. This is surely an essential feature if cohesion is to be restored.
It also makes the executive government more representative of the community, which should improve its prospects of success.
There again, blind Freddie can very readily understand and appreciate the purport of the senator’s remarks. I do not propose to direct the attention of the honourable member for St George to the comments that the right honourable member for Lowe and Senator James McClelland make about the present Prime Minister. The honourable member for St George took particular unbrage at what I said. He said that I had asserted that the Prime Minister had quaffed 200-year-old French champagne. Sir, I do not believe that even French champagne keeps that long and I do not believe that even the Prime Minister in his most morose moments would resort to imbiding it. What I said was this:
Perhaps Mr Fraser remembered the unemployed when he sat down to his $200 a plate dinner in Sydney the other day.
It made me recall the words of another insensitive aristocrat who, when told there was no bread for the starving unemployed of Paris, remarked: ‘Let them eat cake. ‘
I don’t suppose there was any cake at Mr Fraser’s dinner, but at least some of the wines he was drinking were bottled in Marie Antoinette ‘s day.
If one can believe the papers, the wines were bottled in Marie Antoinette’s day. It is also true that the leader of the current reaction drank some of them. I did not say champagne. The honourable member for St George also referred to French champagne at the Lodge. While I do not deny that in our day there was some French champagne at the Lodge, the wines were secured on the advice of the Australian Wine Board. Not even the Prime Minister, in his most miserable comments on the condition of the Lodge, has ever suggested that it was French champagne that was hoarded there. I welcomed the opportunity to put on record these pointed remarks from both sides of politics about the current Prime Minister.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock) Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.
– I think that attention ought to be paid to the remarks made earlier this evening by the honourable member for Holt (Mr Yates) and the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron). The honourable member for Holt spoke of the unsatisfactory nature of question time in this House. I think that he spoke with reason and justice. What I would like to say in addition to what he said, which I support, is that Mr Speaker or Mr Deputy Speaker might pay more attention to standing order 151, which reads:
Questions may be asked without notice. At the discretion of the Speaker supplementary questions may be asked to elucidate an answer.
As you would well know, Sir, in the House of Commons the Speaker does exercise a certain amount of discretion in that when he thinks that an answer is not sufficient to give the questioner the information that has been sought he will allow a supplementary question to be asked. The supplementary question may come from the same side of the House or it may come from the other side of the House, but a supplementary question is taken out of order so that the information that is sought may be properly given. I think that the Speaker of this House, in conformity with standing order 151, which is never employed in this House, might take a leaf out of the book of the Speaker of the House of Commons in this regard. I support entirely what the honourable member for Holt said on this matter.
The honourable member for Hindmarsh drew attention- I think very rightly- to the fact that the members of this House should not be beholden to any Minister in regard to the affairs, routine and running of this House. They as a House are superior to any Minister and Mr Speaker, on their behalf, carries in this House an authority that no Minister, even the Prime Minister, should carry. I speak of this solely in regard to the routine and running of this House. I believe that a lot of the trouble has come about through a bad constitutional practice whereby the adviser to the Governor-General in terms of section 56 of the Constitution when Estimates are being put forward in regard to the Parliament is a Minister. I think that this is entirely wrong. The proper advisers to the GovernorGeneral in respect of the Estimates of this Parliament are Mr Speaker and Mr President. A Minister should not be allowed to intervene. What has been happening over past years in this regard is entirely unconstitutional and entirely improper. It is for that reason, Sir, that I have placed on the notice paper a motion which I will read and which I hope will be debated in this House before long. The motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the proper adviser of the Governor-General in relation to his discharge of his duties under section 56 of the Constitution, insofar as they relate to appropriation of revenue or moneys for the services of this House, is not a Minister, but Mr Speaker.
I have further suggested that Mr Speaker should wait upon the Governor-General to acquaint him with the terms of that motion. It is not our business, of course, to say what should happen in the Senate; but in my view- it is something that is a matter for a senator, not for me- it would seem that Mr President and not a Minister is the proper adviser to the Governor-General in relation to section 56 of the Constitution and the recommendation of expenditure for the purposes of the Senate.
-I have noted the remarks of the honourable member for Mackellar. I point out, of course, that one of the joys of the Speaker or his Deputy is that when he gives the call to an honourable member that honourable member thinks that he is the greatest Speaker or Deputy Speaker who has ever been in the chamber and the 39 others who are seeking the call think that he is the worst. I call the honourable member for Prospect.
-Mr Deputy Speaker, you are one of the best.
– Maybe that is because I gave the honourable member the call.
– It is appropriate that I should follow the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) because I want to raise an issue which affects at least 800 of his constituents who are at the war veteran’s village at Narrabeen. The December issue of the Australian General Practitioner, the journal of the General Practitioners Society of Australia which most honourable members will have heard is a rather conservative organisation which considers the Australian Medical Association to be a socialist organisation, contained an article written by Dr Kerry Burrow. The article, ‘Rent a Digger for Two Bucks’, is a strong attack on the War Veterans’ Home at Narrabeen. I will not go into the detail of the attack. Basically Dr Burrow is objecting that the executive of the war veteran’s home has decided to charge doctors for the use of the surgery in the home. I arranged with a Minister who was at the table previously to have incorporated in Hansard a statement issued by Mr J. H. Brooks, M.B.E., Chairman of the War Veterans’ Home (Incorporated). I seek leave to have that statement incorporated in Hansard.
-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.
The document read as follows-
The article in the AGP Journal, contributed by Dr Kerry Burrow headed ‘Rent a Digger for Two Bucks’ is false, untrue, publicly mischievous, misleading, unprofessional, in bad taste and capable of damaging the reputation and future financial welfare of the Home.
We are renting premises available to all War Veterans’ Home panel doctors. The premises are new and were only opened in July 1976 and cost us approximately $50,000.00. They consist of a large waiting room, reception office, two Doctors consulting rooms and examination rooms, medicine room and a modern, fully equipped Dental surgery. Total area approximately 2 1 squares.
We are charging for services provided. Namely, a fully trained Clinic sister, a clerk receptionist, telephone, stationery, linen, lighting, cleaning and general administration. We keep all clime records and handle scripts for patients. In addition we provide transport to and from the Residents homes to the Clinic.
All the above premises and services have previously been available free to Doctors. It is pointed out that their own surgeries and staff have to be paid for by them, just as we have to pay for ours. It is expected that the rental charge made at this date will only recoup half of the actual costs.
As costs are now so high it is felt that the Doctors should make a contribution from their guaranteed income to the costs of the Clinic.
Guaranteed income because only Doctors appointed to the War Veterans’ Home panel can use the Clinic. Past Boards have decreed that all residents shall be medically examined once a month and Nursing Home patients once a week or more if necessary. There are 800 Residents over 65 years of age and over 300 of them are over 80 years of age.
The present WVH Board was concerned that during some Clinic sessions, some doctors saw 40 to 45 patients per three to five hour session. The Repatriation payment fee for Clinic visits is $7 per patient. (Approx. $300). Other Doctors saw only twelve patients per session.
The Board knows that the AMA policy for billing patients is on a ‘Fee for Service ‘ basis (i.e. a charge for each patient) and not a ‘Sessional Fee ‘ (i.e. a charge per hour or session).
In making a rental charge, the Board felt it would follow the AMA policy and charge a rental for the premises and services provided, on a patient number basis. It is felt that this was more equitable to the Doctors as some saw 40 to 45 patients and other only 12.
Regrettably the AMA point of view reverses when Doctors pay rent and they won’t accept the ‘Rent for Service’ theory. Their policy is that rent should be on an hourly or Sessional ‘basis.
However, they are not prepared to see patients on an hourly or ‘Sessional’ basis at the Repatriation rate of $2 1.50 per hour, because their income would be much less than the per patient ‘ Fee for Service ‘ rate.
It appears some Doctors want the best of both worlds.
Dr Burrow’s assertions that the Home is unpopular, and that there is a large turnover of Residents is also untrue, as is the 66 vacancies. We are in the process of opening 98 new units and many of these units are being paid for, although empty, whilst the new Residents wind up their affairs in other places.
It is untrue the position of VMO is being offered to any medical practitioner who will pay $2.
The old panel of four was increased to six Doctors last August, and will be increased again in the new year to nine or ten Doctors.
The $2 ‘ Rent for Premises and Services ‘ was not instituted until October 1st. Two Doctors subsequently resigned and were immediately replaced by two other Doctors. In fact only one Clinic was missed, despite the lack of notice of resignation by the Doctors concerned.
Prior to last August the Residents only had the pick of four LMOs Today they have six (50 per cent increase) and in the new year will have the choice of nine or ten LMOs. Residents have gained the right to pick their own LMOs.
By resolution of the Board no person is allowed to direct Residents to any particular Doctor as they did in the days of Dr Burrow. Even if the Doctors are unknown to the Residents they can only pick their new Doctor with a pin.
There has never been any auction of Residents to the Doctor that bids the highest rent, and it would never, ever, even be considered. Dr Burrow’s inference is a reflection on his fellow medicos and he brands them as dishonourable. It is the pot calling the kettle black.
There is no problem with the patients as suggested, because they are not financially involved in anyway whatsoever.
The fact that we are still running six weekly clinics indicates that the majority of Doctors have not taken the same stand as Dr Burrow.
Residents are still free to visit their own Doctor at their surgery, at their own expenses if they don’t wish to use the Clinic.
At the same time as the rental charge for premises and services was fixed, the Board decided to allow non-W.V.H. panel Doctors to visit their patients in our new 120-bed Nursing Home. This was previously not allowed.
The changes caused by the two resignations have caused some worry to some old people, who don’t understand what a ‘Fee for Service ‘ or a ‘Sessional Fee ‘ is all about.
The Chairman of the Board-Mr Jim Brooks M.B.E. has discussed the renting fee with Dr N. R. Van Dugteren, Assistant Medical Secretary for the AMA and discussions are continuing. Mr Brooks is confident that a favourable decision will be made to Si it both parties in the early new year.
The WVH Board can assure the public that despite the bad ‘publicity caused by Dr Burrow’s unprofessional article in the A.G.P. Journal, the Health of the Residents at the WVH has never been in better hands than it is today.
Old Soldiers’ are NOT ‘for sale’ and it is ‘detestable’ to suggest they are.
The only ‘mockery’ is the one that Dr Burrow’s article makes of the factual situation at present existing.
We invite and welcome relatives and friends of our Residents, the Press and the TV. and any interested members of the public to visit Narrabeen and see the conditions for themselves.
– Thank you. Very quickly I would like to emphasise some of the points made in the statement. The people from the War Veterans’ Home view the statement made by Dr Burrow in this way: . . false, untrue, publicly mischievous, misleading, unprofessional, in bad taste and capable of damaging the reputation and future financial welfare of the Home.
They claim that the premises that they have built to accommodate the surgery have cost $50,000 and that they have to be paid for. As a result, they are charging doctors for what is really a captive audience. I quote further from the statement:
As costs are now so high it is felt that the Doctors should make a contribution from their guaranteed income to the costs of the Clinic
Guaranteed income because only Doctors appointed to the War Veterans’ Home panel can use the Clinic. Past Boards have decreed that all residents shall be medically examined once a month and Nursing Home patients once a week or more if necessary. There are 800 Residents over 65 years of age and over 300 of them are over 80 years of age.
The present WVH Board was concerned that during some Clinic sessions, some doctors saw 40 to 45 patients per three to five hour session. The Repatriation payment fee for Clinic visits is $7 per patient.
Therefore the doctors were collecting $300 for seeing that number of patients while other doctors saw only 12 patients per session. The statement continued:
The Board knows that the AMA policy for billing patients is on a ‘Fee for Service’ basis (i.e. a charge for each patient) and not a ‘Sessional Fee ‘ (i.e. a charge per hour or session).
In making a rental charge, the Board felt it would follow the AMA policy and charge a rental for the premises and services provided, on a patient number basis. It is felt that this was more equitable to Doctors as some saw 40 to 45 patients and others only 12.
Regrettably the AMA point of view reverses when Doctors pay rent and they won’t accept the ‘Rent for Service’ theory. Their policy is that rent should be on an hourly or Sessional’ basis.
However, they are not prepared to see patients on an hourly or ‘Sessional’ basis at the Repatriation-
This is now the Department of Veterans’ Affairs- rate of $2 1 .50 per hour, because their income would be much less than the per patient 4 Fee for Service * rate.
The statement continued:
Prior to last August the Residents only had the pick of four LMO’s. Today they have six . . . and in the next year will have the choice of nine or ten LMO’s. Residents have gained the right to pick their own LMO’s
It is important to emphasise that Dr Burrow apparently represents only himself and possibly other doctors who criticise the arrangement because they have really lost access to captive patients and because they are now being asked to pay for the services provided to them. The statement continued:
Residents are still free to visit their own Doctor at their surgery, at their own expense if they don’t wish to use the Clinic.
At the same time as the rental charge for premises and services was fixed, the Board decided to allow non-WVH panel Doctors to visit their patients in our new 120-bed Nursing Home. This was previously not allowed.
I think this is an important statement from the people who run the War Veterans’ Home. I think basically it is the Returned Services League in New South Wales. I commend the statement to the House.
-Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. It being
I I p.m., the House stands adjourned to 2. 1 5 p.m. tomorrow.
House adjourned at 11 p.m.
page 67
The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:
am asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice:
On what dates, in what form and with what result have Australian Ministers or officials consulted with all or any of their New South Wales, Queensland, South Australian and Western Australian counterparts on the implications of the Industrial Court’s judgment in Moore v. Doyle delivered on 25 February 1969 since Mr Justice J. B. Sweeney’s report tabled on 1 August 1974 (Hansard, 25 February 1976, page 260 and 9 September 1976, page 858).
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
I am informed that between August 1974 and August 1975 there were discussions and correspondence between the Commonwealth and the States at Prime Ministerial, Ministerial and official levels concerning the implications of the Commonwealth Industrial Court’s judgment in Moore v. Doyle, and the matter of complementary Commonwealth and State legislation recommended in the Report of the Committee of Inquiry on Co-ordinated Industrial Organisations by Mr Justice Sweeney.
No State Government has enacted legislation to complement the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration (Organisations) Act 1974 which was enacted to implement Mr Justice Sweeney’s recommendations.
In December 1974 the South Australian Parliament passed amending legislation to provide for a moratorium relating to actions based on invalidities of the Moore v. Doyle type. The South Australian Government also announced that it intended to prepare complementary legislation as recommended by Mr Justice Sweeney.
Since coming to office the present Government has further pursued this matter.
In January 1976, at the invitation of the South Australian Minister for Labour and Industry, I sent him my comments on draft South Australian legislation designed to complement the Conciliation and Arbitration (Organisations) Act 1974.
At the April 1976 meeting of the Departments of Labour Advisory Committee further discussion of this matter was initiated by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations.
Subsequently, the matter was raised at a special meeting of the Conference of Ministers of Labour which I convened on 12 November 1976, and the current position concerning the question of possible complementary legislation was surveyed. It was agreed that the matter be considered at the meeting of the Conference next February.
Governor-General: VIP Flights (Question No. 1349)
asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Productivity, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable gentleman’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:
-The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:
asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows.
The Parliament House Post Office is open during Parliamentary sessions from 9 am until half an hour after the last House to rise has adjourned. When Parliament is in recess, normal post office hours are observed.
The nearest post office providing full postal facilities is located less than 400 metres from Parliament House in Government Offices, East Block, Queen Victoria Terrace, Barton.
asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:
– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:
asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Sydney- 12 midnight-6 a.m.1; 6 a.m.- 7 a.m. 3.
Melbourne- 12 midnight- 1 a.m. 2; 1 a.m.-6 a.m. 1; 6 a.m.- 7 a.m. 2.
Brisbane- 12 midnight-6 a.m. 1; 6 a.m.-7a.m. 2.
Adelaide- 12 midnight-5.30 a.m. 1; 5.30 a.m.-7 a.m. 2.
Perth- 12 midnight-6 a.m. 1; 6 a.m.-6.30 a.m. 2; 6.30 a.m.- 7 a.m. 4.
Hobart- 12 midnight-7 a.m. None.
In Sydney and Melbourne the staffs shown are rostered solely for phonogram duties. Those in Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth also perform other telegraph duties. Except at the Hobart Chief Telegraph Office where only one officer is on duty during the period concerned, officers normally rostered for other telegraph duties are available to provide additional phonogram assistance, if required.
asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:
– The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Section 56 of the Police and Police Offences Ordinance 1926 (N.T.) was amended in 1974 and the relevant part now reads: 56.- ( 1 .) Any person who-
asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for National Resources, upon notice:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
ASIO Surveillance (Question No. 1666)
asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Treasurer, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
1 ) (a) 5 RAN patrol boats were permanently engaged in patrolling the north-west coast of Australia during 1975-76 and
During May 1976 it was discovered that the crew of the Indonesian vessel ‘Sinar Kashih’ had established a processing camp on Middle Island, in the Ashmore Islands.
A landing party from HMAS ‘Attack’ dismantled the camp and directed the vessel out of the area.
A further 3 Indonesian vessels sighted north of Wyndham inside the declared fishing zone (DFZ) were stopped by HMAS ‘Advance’, warned and directed to depart from the area.
Reports of intrusions into the DFZ are investigated wherever possible. In all, 6 Taiwanese vessels were apprehended in the area during 1975-76 and escorted to port for legal proceedings.
asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:
What facilities are available to Australian and allied military aeroplanes in the western pan of the Indian Ocean.
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Landing rights in any country are subject to the sovereignty of the country concerned. In general, however, providing proper diplomatic clearance nas been obtained for each military flight, all suitable airfield facilities in the western pan of the Indian Ocean should be available to Australian or allied military aeroplanes. In recent years, Defence Force aircraft have visited only Bahrain, the Seychelles and Diego Garcia.
Diplomatic clearance is granted at the discretion of individual host governments, and would be influenced by their perception of the purpose of the visit and of the circumstances of the time.
asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:
What naval facilities are available to Australian and Allied warships in the western pan of the Indian Ocean.
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Strictly speaking there are very few ports with naval facilities in the western pan of the Indian Ocean. In general, however, providing proper diplomatic clearance is obtained in advance, all suitable ports and their facilities should be available for use by Australian or allied warships. RAN ships have visited the following West Indian Ocean ports in recent years:
Mombasa, Kenya;
Port Victoria, Seychelles;
Mauritius;
Bandar Abbas, Iran;
Djibouti, Afars and Issas;
Massawa, Ethiopia; and
Diego Garcia.
Diplomatic clearance for the use of facilities by Australian or allied warships is granted at the discretion of individual host governments.
asked the Minister for National Resources, upon notice:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Treasurer, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The Statistician has pointed out that the various Australian and State Payroll Tax Acts define wages as ‘any wages, salary, commission, bonuses or allowances paid or payable … to an employee’, and they specifically include a payment made by a company by way of remuneration to a director. These items are therefore included in the calculation of average weekly earnings. Bonuses may take many forms, may be paid at frequent intervals, even weekly, and may often be in the nature of overaward payments. In certain occupations commission may form an important part of the earnings of employees. Consequently, these items should not be excluded. They are included in the statistics of earnings obtained in other ABS collections.
The proportion of average weekly earnings attributable to these items is not known but is estimated to be very small, and as it is unlikely to change substantially over time the movements in the series are not distorted. For many purposes these movements are at least as important as the actual levels
asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Treasurer, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
One of the four has been deported and two others were allowed to depart voluntarily. The fourth man has been permitted to remain in Australia for 6 months.
It is known that another two of the 30 Chileans have left Australia under their own arrangements.
asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Children of God: Raid on Communes (Question No. 1870)
asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for National Resources, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) Information held by the Commonwealth on such matters is obtained primarily from public sources and is therefore not necessarily comprehensive or up to date.
The information held indicates that Timor Oil Limited, a company registered in N.S.W., held a petroleum concession in East Timor during this period. The Government is not aware of the current status of this concession.
asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
In accordance with Section 23 of the Health Insurance Act, I have requested all medical practitioners engaged in rendering professional services to persons in Australia to accept assignment of benefits as full payment for services to eligible pensioners and their dependants.
I have offered the Minister for Health in New South Wales any help that I can give to try to resolve the situation.
I have also sought thesupport of the Australian Medical Association, as representative of the organised medical profession, in making it plain to its members that the AMA does not condone the discriminatory practice being adopted by a small minority of doctors in a few isolated areas.
asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice:
Is particular attention paid to imports of a product once notice has been given of an anti-dumping or Temporary Assistance Authority action; if not, why not; if so, what are the import figures for (a) easycheese, (b) gouda and edam cheese and (c) pack apple since the announcement that they were being investigated for possible dumping action.
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Particular attention is paid to imports of products which are under anti-dumping inquiry by the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs. Shipments of such products are continually and closely monitored by the Department and, where appropriate, investigations are undertaken both locally and overseas to determine whether or not the goods are being dumped on the Australian market.
Under the temporary assistance provisions of the Industries Assistance Commission Act, before the Government can take action to restrain imports a report must be received from the Temporary Assistance Authority that such action is required. The Temporary Assistance Authority must report within thirty days of the receipt of a reference from the Minister and, other than monitoring imports, no action can be taken by the Government until the report is received.
The Australian Statistician has advised that he cannot supply particulars of imports of either easycheese or pack apple as these commodities are not separately recorded in Australian import statistics. The Statistician has also advised that import statistics for parts of months are not available. He has, however, supplied the following information on imports of edam and gouda cheese recorded during November 1 976:
asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Commonwealth legislation relating to nursing homes does not contain any specific provisions concerning the attendance on nursing home patients by private medical practitioners.
asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Amaroo Lodge- 35 beds
Newcastle Dudley Unit- 81 beds
Bryan Nursing Home- 24 beds
Lakeside Nursing Home- 32 beds
CA Brown Anglican Village- 40 beds.
asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice:
– The Industries Assistance Commission has provided me with the following information in answer to the honourable member’s question:
asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) I have not seen a transcript of the interview but my attention has been drawn to the report in the Courier Mail of 23 November 1976 of a statement by the Queensland Premier. I am not aware that the Queensland Minister for Justice had any discussions with British officials during his visit.
asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Bridge Hospital (William Booth House) cnr Albion and Commonwealth Streets, Darlinghurst.
Campbell House, Denham Street, Surry Hills.
Polding Villa, 2 Avenue Road, Glebe Point.
Glebe Annexe- Balmain Hospital, Balmain.
Missionholme, cnr Redfern and Walker Streets, Redfern.
Bridge Hospital- Salvation Army (Territorial Headquarters), 140 Elizabeth Street, Sydney.
Campbell House, Missionholme-Sydney City Mission, 103 Bathurst Street, Sydney.
Polding Villa- Trustees Sisters of Good Samaritan, 2 Arcadia Road, Glebe.
Glebe Annexe, Balmain Hospital- The Board, Balmain Hospital, Booth Street, Balmain.
The names and addresses of medical practitioners who regularly attend each home are not available to my department.
asked the Minister for Overseas Trade, on 8 December 1976 the following question, upon notice:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Australian statistics do not record the intended usage of meat exported from this country. Similarly, Australian meat exported to an overseas country, and which is subsequently re-exported, is not statistically identifiable.
asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:
-The answer to the honourable ; member ‘s question is as follows: 1
asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:
What has been the (a) number and (b) cost of prescriptions for milk substitutes issued under the schedules of the National Health Act in each year since milk substitutes were included as an item.
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Details of annual prescriptions and cost of milk substitutes (goats milk, nutramigen and soya formula) supplied under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme since 1967-68 are as set out below. It should be noted that there are no statistics available for years prior 1967-68 when the computerised system for payment of chemists’ claims was fully implemented.
asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice:
What is the present import duty position of the Visualtek and Opticon devices to assist the partially blind.
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:
Do figures provided by the Minister for Administrative Services (Senate Hansard, 6 December 1976, page 2673) and by the former Prime Minister 3 years earlier (Hansard, 6 December 1 973, page 4467) show that in the first 1 1 months and 1 9 days of the Fraser Government overtime payments to the two senior journalists in the Prime Minister’s press office totalled $43,046 compared with $12,816 to the two equivalent officers during the first 1 1 months and 9 days of the Whitlam Government.
– The answer to the honourable members ‘ question is as follows:
The two equivalent officers referred to in the honourable member’s question were not both eligible for hourly rates of overtime, and therefore a comparison cannot be made.
Incentives for the Arts (Question No. 1848)
am asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:
-The answer to the honourable members ‘ question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) Medical services are rendered to nursing home patients on much the same basis as any other members of the community and do not come within the Commonwealth nursing home benefit arrangements. Consequently the types of details requested are not known to my Department.
asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
A copy of the submission received by my Department from the Aboriginal Black Theatre Arts and Culture Centre has been passed to the Australia Council for its consideration.
asked the Minister for Construction, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Treasurer, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The Commonwealth is liable to meet its share of properly assessed cost increases on approved projects. To date the following approvals have been given:
The increased Commonwealth liability resulting from these approvals is reflected in the above table.
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Construction, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Environment Report on Land Use in Australia (Question No. 1700)
asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The following actions relevant to the Committee’s recommendations have or are taking place (numbers in parenthesis refer to Committee recommendation numbers in the Report):
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Investigate and make recommendations to the Minister for Transport on the economic, environmental and safety regulation of air transport, and the provision and operation of air transport facilities and services.
In particular, the committee should consider the following aspects and should consult, as appropriate, with all relevant sectors of the industry.
The composition and the allocation to users of the costs and revenues attributable to the operation and maintenance of the air transport infrastructure paying due regard to the specialist advice available from the Bureau of Transport Economics as to the approach which is adopted elsewhere in the transport industry.
The steps which might be taken to minimise future expenditure having regard to the needs of the various sectors of the industry and the necessity to maintain or, where necessary, improve the facilities available to and required by the industry to meet the demands of the community. This review might also include the identification of possible areas of over investment in capital works in the past or the holding of assets for future use which are not immediately required. To examine and make comment upon forward plans and projects.
The steps which might be taken consistent with the preservation of proper safety standards and the requirements of the Public Service Act to minimise the day to day running costs of those sections of the Department which are responsible for the regulation of the industry and for the provision, maintenance and operation of airports and airways facilities. This review would include the identification of initiatives which might also be taken by the industry to reduce the level of services which the Department has to provide. Particular regard should also be paid to the role of the Department’s Central Office and its regional organisation.
To identify possible changes in the way in which revenue is ‘raised from the various sectors of the industry with a view to maximising such revenue in a manner compatible with the ability of each sector of the industry to pay its allocated costs.
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:
Will he table in Parliament the reports of the Aviation Industry Review Committee; if so, when; if not, why not.
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
No, because I do not consider it appropriate.
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
am asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Publication of Progress Reports on Transport Projects (Question No. 1744)
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:
When will he be able to say when an announcement will be made concerning the extension of the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme to southbound cargoes.
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The Prime Minister, on 26 November 1976, announced the measures being taken to introduce the Southbound Freight Equalisation Scheme early in 1977.
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:
) Did he say on 2 November 1976, that he would be holding discussions with the Treasurer about aspects of payment made under the southbound freight equalisation scheme.
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
North-west Coast: Navigational Installations (Question No. 1766)
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
A foreign ship collided with Port Hedland C2 Buoy causing minor damage.
Vandals twice caused minor damage to the Browse Island radio beacon installation.
asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:
Has he received a request from the Australian Capital Territory Rugby Union for financial assistance to enable fielding of a representative team in the National Rugby Championship in 1977; if so, what decision has been made on the request, and what are the reasons for the decision.
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
On 20 September 1 976 Mr John Hunter the then President of the ACT. Rugby Union wrote to me requesting a grant to enable the A.C.T. Rugby Union to participate in the National Rugby Championship in 1977.I replied indicating that under present budgetary constraints the Department of the Capital Territory was not able to make funds available to assist sporting organisations with touring costs.
asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:
Will he table in the Parliament the report of the Perth Railway Feasibility Study; if not, why not
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
As the ‘Perth City Railway Feasibility Study’ was commissioned by the Western Australian Government it would not be appropriate for me to table it in the Commonwealth Parliament. However a copy has been made available to the Parliamentary Library for the information of honourable members and senators.
Report on Urban Route Transport Operations (Question No. 1808)
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice
-The answer to the honourable member ‘s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:
Will he consider publishing the report of the Parramatta Railway Study; if not, why not.
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The report on the study has been presented to both the New South Wales Government and the Commonwealth Government and a copy has been made available to the Parliamentary Library for the information of honourable members and senators.
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
As I have already indicated there have been no recent surveys carried out on the existing narrow gauge Central Australia Railway but surveys have been made for the new standard gauge line currently being constructed between Tarcoola and Alice Springs. In particular, the Australian National Railways Commission as well as myself, are concerned at the possibility that, prior to completing the new line, severe flooding in the Lake Eyre Basin might disrupt services on the existing line for an indefinite period. For this reason the Australian National Railways have looked at the possibility of establishing a road/rail transfer facility at places where the new line crosses or comes close to the Stuart Highway.
The development of such contingency planning seems to me to be in the best interest of the Territory. If preliminary examination shows that such a temporary facility might be feasible, then a thorough study will be undertaken to examine in detail the social and economic issues involved and of course the views of the Northern Territory people will be sought. However no changes will be made to existing arrangements without my authorisation and I will need to be completely satisfied that any proposed arrangements will adequately cater for the needs of the areas serviced.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice:
– The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question.
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Treasurer, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
am asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The functions of the Strategic Planning and Resource Allocation Division range from the co-ordination of policy and planning advice on matters affecting a number of modes or the total transport portfolio to the development of medium and longer-term transport budgets and programs. Advice to the Minister and to the Secretary on reports and proposals on individual modes or functional aspects is provided by the Division responsible for the specific area concerned. The Strategic Planning and Resource Allocation Division is involved where the reports or proposals have also significant implications for other modes of transport or for overall resource allocation.
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:
Will he give an assurance that the expanded Bureau of Transport Economics will be able to examine and publicly report on current Government policies in respect of transport without prior vetting by the Department of Transport; if not, why not.
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
I stated when announcing the amalgamation of the Bureau of Transport Economics with the Bureau of Roads that its functions would include the collection, analysis and presentation of factual information and assessments which would assist in the orderly development of a balanced transport system in Australia. It is the Government’s intention that the results of the Bureau’s work will be made widely available as has been the case for reports prepared by the CBR and BTE to date.
The considerable professional autonomy provided to the Director allows the Government to receive completely independent and unbiased advice based on the technical skills and professional integrity of the officers concerned.
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:
Will he give an assurance that the new Bureau of Transport Economics will be able to actively seek, from the public, individuals, community groups, State Government agencies and local governments, facts and opinions, that may be opposed to Government policies, and that the results of these investigations will be publicly reported; if not, why not.
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
When announcing the formation of the New Bureau of Transport Economics I stated that the functions of the new body would include the functions of the two existing organisations which involve the collection, analysis and presentation of factual information and assessments that would assist in the orderly development of a balanced transport system in Australia. I further stated that the Government’s intention was that the results of the Bureau’s works would be made widely available as was the case for reports prepared by BTE and CBR and that the professional autonomy provided would allow the Government to continue to receive completely independent and unbiased advice based on the technical skills and professional integrity of the officers concerned. In the preparation of its advice it is anticipated that the Bureau will seek information from appropriate organisations or persons when necessary.
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The statement in the Department’s Explanatory Notes presented to the Senate Estimates Committee was misleading and any inconvenience is sincerely regretted.
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice:
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Ban on Unapproved Child Restraints (Question No. 1866)
asked the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice:
With reference to the answer provided to question No. 1239, by whom are restrictions being considered and when will the restrictions be made public.
-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
My reply to question No. 1239 made no mention of such restrictions being considered at present although my colleague, the Minister for the Capital Territory, did state this in answer to a similar question relating to the Australian Capital Territory. (Question No. 1241, Hansard, page 2426 dated 4 November 1976).
My Department in Darwin will be giving early consideration to restrictive legislation alone the lines recommended in the Standing Committee’s Report. If it is decided to differentiate between child restraints and seat belts by legislation, ample publicity will be given through the media.
As far as fitment of child restraints to motor vehicles is concerned I would reiterate what I said in my reply to question No. 1239 that all passengers, including children, riding in a motor vehicle must wear seat belts when provided. These belts are to be of prescribed standard. The standard that has been prescribed is ASA E35. Any restraint which does not comply with this standard is unacceptable.
Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 15 February 1977, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1977/19770215_reps_30_hor103_c1/>.