House of Representatives
2 November 1977

30th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 30th Parliament
  3. 1977

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

page 2661

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Estate Duty

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

That where whole or part of a deceased estate passes to the surviving spouse it should be free from federal estate duty.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Sir William McMahon, Mr Lionel Bowen, Mr Connolly, Dr Edwards, Mr Ellicott, Mr Gillard and Mr Wentworth.

Petitions received.

Non-State Business Colleges

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

That the report of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations on Employment Prospects by Industry and Occupation, July 1977, page 197, states that, in respect of Stenographers-Secretaries:

With the exception of new business college graduates the demand for less experienced and less skilled people in Sydney is in balance with the supply. ‘

Business college graduates are exactly what the market wants and employers demand.

In one of the few fields of employment shown by the report to be undersupplied, the Government is effectively reducing the ability of business colleges to train enough secretaries and stenographers for the positions which are available.

The sixteen technical colleges in the metropolian area of Sydney which accommodate 3,220 students in day secretarial studies do not have the capacity to acommodate more than 6 per cent of the 2,435 students at non-State business colleges in the same area who will be disadvantaged by the Government’s recent decision to withdraw fees subsidies and living allowances from the end of 1 977. 1977 school leavers who wish to undertake a course in secretarial studies and thus ensure they obtain a worthwhile position of employment on graduation are being forced to pay fees of the order of $1,400 for the year and also to forgo TEAS living allowances.

The Government’s decision is unfair, unjust, discriminatory, unreasonable and capricious.

Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government will act immediately to undertake a thorough review of the position of non-State business colleges, guarantee interim funding forthwith and reverse its decision.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Anthony, Mr Birney, Mr Lionel Bowen, Mr Connolly, Mr Hunt and Mr Keating.

Petitions received.

Metric System

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

Objection to the metric system and request the Government to restore the imperial system.

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

Petitions received.

Broadcasting and Television Programs

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 because television and radio:

  1. affect our social and moral environment,
  2. are family media watched and heard by many children at all times, and
  3. present too much explicit violence and sex, they therefore need stronger control than other media and the existing standards need stricter enforcement in both national ABC, and commercial sectors.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That the Australian Government will amend the Broadcasting and Television Act, in relation to both national and commercial broadcasters, to legislate:

  1. for adequate and comprehensive programs in the best interests of the general public,
  2. for a ‘Dual System of Regulation’ enforced by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal by internal regulation and external control.
  3. for an independent consumer body to represent the best interests of the general public, and
  4. for immediate and effective penalties to be imposed for breaches of program and advertising standards.

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

Petitions received.

Taxation: Volunteer Firemen

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned Volunteer Firemen attached to the New South Wales Fire Brigade Service respectfully showeth:

That the Volunteer Firemen of the New South Wales Fire Brigades are performing an essential community service in suburban and country towns by providing low cost fire protection and in sacrificing their leisure and rest hours to perform this essential service, are being subjected to severe financial loss by having to pay income tax on two incomes which under the present taxation system discourages most individuals from having two jobs.

That the present situation has resulted in the resignation of a large number of volunteer firemen because of the effects of taxation, leaving a number of fire brigades under strength and a reluctance of potential recruits to pay excessive taxation.

That this growing problem could be effectively dealt with by granting taxation concessions to volunteer firemen in the State of New South Wales similar to those being received by members of the Citizens Military Forces.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives will urge the Government to review the Taxation Act to exempt the earnings of volunteer firemen in the State of New South Wales from income tax, or give consideration to separate assessment of earnings and so protect the future of the volunteer fire service in New South Wales.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Sinclair and Mr West.

Petitions received.

Private Nursing Homes: Pensioner Patients

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

That many pensioners who are holders of the Pensioners Health Benefit Card, have suffered undue hardship as inmates of Private Nursing Homes, because the Federal Government subsidy was insufficient to meet the charges as laid down.

Many pensioners whose spouse was an inmate of the Private Nursing Homes suffered poverty in an endeavour to sustain their partner while in the nursing home.

Only in rare cases was the statutory minimum patient contribution as laid down adhered to.

That the telephone was a matter of life and death to many pensioners, but because of the cost of installation of the telephone many are unable to afford the installation.

That those pensioners who have only their pension and very little else to live on and are forced to pay high rents, are in many cases living in extreme poverty.

The foregoing facts impel your petitioners to ask the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to-

  1. Make sure that subsidies paid to Private Nursing Homes are such that each pensioner holding a Pensioners Health Benefit Card will pay the Private Nursing Home no more than the statutory minimum patient contribution, which will allow six dollars per week to be retained by the pensioner patient for their personal use.
  2. That a pensioner holding a Pensioner Health Benefit Card shall have a telephone installed free of charge, or at a very nominal charge.
  3. That those pensioners who have only their pension and very little else to live on, shall receive a subsidy to assist them. The subsidy to be governed by a Means Test.

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

Petition received.

Pensions: Lone Fathers

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

That we, citizens of the Commonwealth, earnestly request our government:

  1. . To extend the Commonwealth Pension for lone mothers to include lone fathers.
  2. Under the same conditions.

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

Petition received.

Medical Benefits: Pregnancy Help Services

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

That the weakest members of our society, the unborn, should have the same protection as all other citizens of Australia.

That abortion is a denial of the civil rights of the unborn, involving as it does the destruction of innocent human life.

That on 10 May 1973 the House of Representatives rejected the Medical Practices Clarification Bill which sought to legalise abortion on demand, in the Territories controlled by the Federal Government.

That women and girls with serious problems during pregnancy need special care and help to overcome their difficulties rather than encouragement to terminate their pregnancies.

That termination of pregnancy can never be justified on sociological or personal grounds and can be a dangerous treatment when the mother realises that her child has been killed.

That over 46,000 abortions were paid for in 1976 under the existing Medical Benefits Schedule which stipulates the benefit payable for Medical Services under both Medibank and the Private Health Insurance Funds.

That approximately $5m was spent on abortions in 1976 under Item No. 6469- ‘The evacuation of the contents of a gravid ( pregnant) uterus by curettage and suction curettage ‘.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government takes action

  1. to assist financially those pregnancy help services which provide help and support to both mother and their unborn children;
  2. to stop the funding and operation of services or clinics specialising in elective abortions;
  3. to stop payment of abortion claims under Item No. 6469 of the Medical Benefits Schedule.

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

Petition received.

Uranium: Mining and Export

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

That we believe that none of the safety problems associated with uranium and plutonium has been solved.

The mining and export of uranium will help to expand the nuclear power industry thus contributing to the health hazards of the world. Mining uranium will damage the environment and the health of the Aboriginal people.

Our beliefs on this matter are shared by a majority of physicists and scientists including 75 per cent of all specialists in nuclear medicine.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will not allow the mining, selling and export of uranium ore.

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

Petition received.

Taxation: Sullage Removal Expenses

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

  1. Recognise that the practice of disallowing taxation claims for sullage removal is discriminatory as tax payers owning property in sewered areas are entitled to a concessional allowance of up to $300 for sewerage services rendered.
  2. Take steps to remove the provisions of the Income Tax Law which prevents approval being given for taxation claims for sullage removal unless the charges are annually assessed.

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

Petition received.

English Classes for Migrants

To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens and/or taxpayers of Australia, speaking for ourselves and on behalf of the many who cannot become citizens because of their inability to speak English, request the House of Representatives to give immediate attention to the totally inadequate provision of English classes for migrants by the Australian Government.

Our intention is to impress upon the House that inability to speak English means discrimination-discrimination in the field of employment, in education and in social and political life.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Sir William McMahon.

Petition received.

Citizen Band Radio

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned Citizen Band radio operators respectfully showeth:

We strongly disapprove of the Citizen Radio Service being short distance UHF only and advocate that 27 Mhz should be allowed to continue as an ongoing service allowing communication within the geographic limits of Australia (RB14 1.1).

We point out that we have paid our licence fee under duress and demand a written explanation for its existence.

We strongly disapprove of the $25 licence fee being based on a per transceiver formula and consider any licence issued should be based on the more realistic formula of one licence per household including all transceivers and operators comprising that household.

We strongly disapprove of the distance limitations specified for fixed stations (RB1 4 2.1a). Communication on 27 Mhz should be allowed within the geographical limits of Australia for fixed and mobile stations. UHF communication should have repeaters set up and paid for by the Government outside metropolitan areas.

We strongly disapprove with the limitations on aerial heights and acceptable types (RB14.21b, 2.1c) and believe these should be abolished. We consider that the clause (RB1 4.43) ‘where the reception of sound or vision of broadcasting programs in being affected by the operation of a Citizens Radio Service station, the licencee shall refrain from further transmission on each of the frequencies which cause interference during the operating hours of the broadcasting or television stations affected adequately covers this situation.

We strongly insist that 27.065 Mhz be formally specified as the official emergency channel in the regulations (RB1 4).

We strongly disapprove with the technical tariff being forced on us by having to buy an 18 channel modified transceiver from 1 January 1978. We advocate the continuance of 23 channel equipment and 40 channel equipment to be introduced.

We advocate that the present channel 1 1, 27.085 Mhz be officially named as the AM call channel. We further advocate that, that AM stations be only allowed to operate below and including the present channel 14, 27.125 Mhz with sideband stations being restricted to the present channels above and including15, 27.135 Mhz, with present channel 16, 27. 1 45 Mhz being the official SSB call channel.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the regulations governing the operation of Citizen Band radio be relaxed.

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

Petition received.

Business of the House of Representatives

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

  1. . That there are divers matters of great importance awaiting determination by your honourable House.
  2. That it has been intimated that your honourable House will shortly be dissolved.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that, before any such dissolution, your honourable House would make every effort to see that all such matters of importance are properly determined by it.

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

Petition received.

page 2663

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-Mr Speaker, I refer to the petition I presented concerning the business of the House of Representatives, and I move:

That the petition lodged by the honourable member for Mackellar relating to the notice of motion given by him on 6 May 1976 be printed.

This is a petition asking that the House give proper consideration before its dissolution to the important matters before it. The action I propose to take in respect of that is to move in these terms:

  1. That, in the opinion the House, it would be undesirable for legislation to be put through in such a flood that members cannot understand it, evaluate it or know what they are voting on, or for the Committee stages of Bills to be scamped or scanted in an effort to save time;
  2. That, in the opinion of this House, it is undesirable that important papers presented by Ministers should be left for months undefeated and finally evaporate by prorogation or dissolution of the House.
  3. That, in the opinion of this House, certain matters on today’s Business Paper, particularly General Business matters Nos. 1, 3, 23, 31 and 38 and the first matter scheduled for General Business Thursday No. 5, are deserving of proper debate before the House is dissolved.
  4. That this House, realising the short life before it, should not be reluctant to sit and should not embrace the principles of a ban on overtime.
  5. That the House-
Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman is breaching the standards which have been set by the House, that is, that a notice should put a proposition to the House for debate and should not canvass the arguments which would be used to support it

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Yes, sir. My final point is exactly that proposition:

  1. That the House, at its rising on Friday, 4 November, adjourn until 10 a.m., on Saturday,5 November.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2664

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Mr PETER LEAKE

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

-I ask the Treasurer. Will he confirm that Grosvenor Nominees Pty Ltd is a company which is owned and/or controlled by him and/or his family, as was stated in evidence given a week ago before the commission inquiring into Victorian Housing Commission land purchases? If so, will he also confirm that this family company financed the purchase by Mr Peter Leake of about 60 allotments at Balnarring from Stumpy Gully Estates? In that case, does he agree with the evidence given before the commission by Mr Leake that the transactions took place around 1973 or late 1972 when, he will remember, Mr Leake was chairman of his electorate committee?

Mr LYNCH:
Treasurer · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

-I can see the tactic which the honourable gentleman is seeking to employ. As I have said on an earlier occasion, I certainly will not join him in relation to that There is a several part question by the honourable gentleman on the Notice Paper which invites me to respond to him as to whether I have had pecuniary interest in land purchased by the Victorian Housing Commission. The answer to that question is no and I will be responding formally to the honourable gentleman’ s question on notice before the House rises. As to the questions which are now asked, they can also be placed on the Notice Paper and they will be answered for the honourable gentleman in the same time.

page 2664

QUESTION

AUSTRALIA’S RECORD ON INFLATION AND UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr JULL:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Bearing in mind the conflicting reports in the Press, this House and elsewhere, will the Prime Minister clear up once and for all just how Australia’s record on inflation and unemployment compares with that of the major countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development?

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

– I think a number of utterly misleading statements have been made on this particular subject, especially during two interviews on the program This Day Tonight and on the Willesee show, during the course of last week. Those interviews tried to suggest that basically in the Labor years matters had been better controlled in Australia than in other countries and in the last two years they had been worse controlled. If one examines the facts, one of course will find that the reverse is the truth. I should like to make the position quite plain so that honourable gentlemen can know the charges that were made, by whom they were made and how false they were. On inflation and unemployment when Labor was in office, the Leader of the Opposition said:

It did not hit Australia worse than other countries.

When it went bad under us it went bad in every Western country without exception.

The first comment was made on the program This Day Tonight and the second, repeating the allegation, was made on the Willesee show. Firstly, Labor’s inflation was worse than in many other countries. The percentage increase in consumer prices for 1975 was6 per cent in Germany; 11.8 per cent in Japan; 10.8 per cent in Canada; and 11.7 per cent in France. The average for OECD countries was 1 1.4 per cent and in Whitlam ‘s Australia it was 1 5. 1 per cent.

Government members- Oh!

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– Honourable gentlemen should wait, because this is only the first leg in the false trail. It goes quite a way yet.

On this basis, inflation under Labor rose to over four times the 1962-72 average. In Japan and Germany, for example, inflation increased at half that rate.

I turn now to the second point. The increase in unemployment under Labor was worse than in many other countries. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition said that it did not hit Australia worse. Let us look at the facts. In 1975 unemployment was nearly three times the 1962-72 average. In the United States it was 1.8 times, in Japan 1.6 times, in Canada 1.4 times and in the United Kingdom 1.7 times the average for that period. The increase was much worse in Australia than in the other countries I have mentioned. In fact, under Labor unemployment rose by 157 per cent in one year alone. What other country can match that notorious and irresponsible record?

Now let us look at inflation during this Government’s term of office. On the Willesee show the Leader of the Opposition said:

Japan, Western Europe, North America … in all those countries it has improved in 1976 and 1977 and in Australia it has not.

On This Day Tonight he also said:

In 1976 and 1977 inflation has gone down in other countries, it hasn’t ‘t in Australia

The allegation was repeated. But, liking the sound of the rhetoric, he went further and said:

Inflation has gone down in all the other Western countries; scarcely at all in Australia.

That was said on Willesee at Seven on 27 October 1977. First of all, let us look at the facts. In 1976 and 1977 inflation has not gone down in all other Western countries. Ever since the second half of 1975 the average inflation rate for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development area has remained fairly static, in the 8 per cent to 10 per cent range. On the latest available statistics, six Western countries, including Sweden and Denmark, have higher inflation rates now than they had in the year to August 1975. So the first leg of this particular untruth is nailed. Secondly, Australia’s inflation has come down in 1976 and 1977. Over the last three quarters the increase in the consumer price index has been 2.3 per cent, 2.4 per cent and 2 per cent, giving an annual rate for the first nine months of this year of a fraction over 9 per cent. This is clearly down from the underlying rate of around 17 per cent under Labor in 1975.

Let us now look at unemployment under this Government. The Leader of the Opposition said on This Day Tonight:

Canada, the United States and West Germany . . . they don’t have as much unemployment

He then went on further, on Willesee at Seven, to say:

Unemployment has certainly gone down in every other Western country without exception.

Carried away again by bis rhetoric and by his own music, he went further still, and said:

You can’t quote another country in the world where it has gone up anywhere near that or at all.

Unemployment has become worse in some other countries. In Canada, from August 1975 to August 1977 unemployment has gone from 7.3 per cent to 8.2 per cent. In Japan it has gone from 1.9 per cent to 2.1 per cent. In the United Kingdom it has gone from 4.3 per cent to 6 per cent. In France it has gone from 860,000 to 1,220,000. So, again the untruth is nailed so that everyone can see it.

These assertions are only some of the multitude of untruths and deliberate distortions that one would expect. I suppose that I could say that the honourable gentleman is unaware of the facts. Perhaps he would prefer me to say that. On This Day Tonight he flatly denied that two years ago he had signed a statement that would lead to the continuation of uranium mining. Of course, he had signed the Memorandum of Understanding that was tabled in this Parliament and, I think, incorporated in Hansard. He said that no government had ever settled an industrial dispute. Under the guidance of my colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, this Government has settled a number of industrial disputes and, if it has to, it will do so again.

The Leader of the Opposition’ talked of his Government’s contemplating borrowing $2,000m. Of course we all know that it was a $4,000m loan, not a $2,000m loan. He said that the. Hayden Medibank scheme would cost no more than the present Medibank scheme. That is an outrageous assertion because it would cost nearly $700m more in this financial year.

Honourable gentlemen opposite do not like seeing their leader exposed. They do not like seeing the untruths of their leader nailed in this Parliament, untruths which he has repeated time and time again. The Leader of the Opposition has no credibility at all. His last hurrah will be his last election after 10 December, when presumably he will be beaten by somebody else for the leadership.

page 2666

QUESTION

POSTAGE OF NEWSPAPERS

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– My question is directed to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications.

Opposition members interjecting-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I apologise. I will call two members from the Opposition side after the right honourable member has asked his question.

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-Is it a fact that newspapers available for free distribution in the outer metropolitan areas of the various States are precluded from the bulk posting concession rates which apply to country and metropolitan newspapers? If so, why should the free suburban papers continue to be subject to this discrimination? Does the Minister recognise that this is not only important economically but also vastly important politically?

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The arrangement with regard to publications registered with Australia Post is that they must meet certain conditions and criteria. One of the main conditions is that those publications must be carried exclusively by Australia Post My understanding is that in the case of a number of suburban and outer city newspapers, many are distributed free. They thrown over the fence or distributed in other ways. Australia Post has been asked on occasions to service only 5 per cent. The S per cent it has been asked to service has been that portion which is the most expensive to distribute. By-law 1 18 of Australia Post states that it will give registered publication status only where Australia Post carries those publications exclusively. I am aware of the significance and the importance of these sorts of newspapers in the community. I assure the right honourable gentleman that I will take up a review of that by-law with the Chairman of the Postal Commission.

page 2666

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS

Mr WEST:
CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES

-My question is directed to the Treasurer. He will recall that in response to a question without notice from the Government back bench yesterday about unemployment he stated:

The figure . . . that is, the number of persons registered as unemployed with the Commonwealth Employment Service … for September of this year was 328,200 or 8 per cent more than for the same month of 1 975.

When will the Treasurer cease misleading the House? I ask the Treasurer On reflection does he wish to amend this assertion as in September 1975 246,094 were registered as unemployed and in September this year 328,200 persons were registered, an increase of some 82,106 or 33 per cent? Is it a fact also that the Australia and New Zealand Bank’s latest index of industrial production revealed that production was currently at its lowest point for five years and has declined in every month of this year?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– With regard to unemployment, I took the opportunity yesterday on the basis of information provided to me to give the lie once and for all to the assertions which had been made by the Leader of the Opposition in a recent television program. I think it was the Willesee show. I repeat the words that the Leader of the Opposition used. He said:

Certainly unemployment has gone down in every other Western country without exception and in Australia it has gone up by 32 per cent.

The fact, according to my information- I will check the figures cited by the honourable gentleman- is that unemployment has increased in all but six of the member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The rate of unemployment in Australia has certainly not increased by 32 per cent during that period. The figures I cited- I will repeat them- were that the actual number of individuals registered as unemployed in December 1975 was 328,700 or 500 more than in September this year. The figure for September of this year was 328,200 which is eight per cent more than for the same month in 1975. I will check the figures that the honourable gentleman queries but there is no magic about them because the fact is that if honourable members look at the unemployment figures for the year 1974-75, they will see that it was the wage explosion of that time which put some 200,000 Australians out of work. I believe it is a matter of hypocrisy for honourable gentlemen on the other side of this House to raise the spectre of unemployment when they know full well that it was their Party’s policies which directly led to 200,000 people being put out of work, which caused a wage explosion at that time and which this Government is now curing.

page 2666

QUESTION

FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF THE TREASURER

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Has the Treasurer informed him the full nature of his financial interests and responsibilities? In particular, has the Treasurer or any of his family companies ever held land in conjunction with Mr Colin Cooke, Mr Paul Day or Mr Peter Leake at

Summerville or Mornington or in the Westernport region or on the Mornington Peninsula in Victoria? Has the Treasurer informed the Prime Minister whether the Treasurer personally or any of his family companies has any joint interest in land with Mrs R. Hamer?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I know of nothing that would detract from the very high regard that I have for the Treasurer as a man and as a treasurer.

page 2667

QUESTION

OIL AND MINERAL EXPLORATION

Mr KING:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for National Resources. Can the Minister say whether there are any signs of increased oil exploration in Australia in recent times? Are there any indications of a stronger movement in investment in mineral development?

Mr ANTHONY:
Deputy Prime Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

– There are very encouraging signs of increased investment in oil exploration and in mining ventures. Recently 14 new offshore permits were granted. This is the greatest number of exploration permits to be issued since the late 1960s. It shows the renewed confidence and interest that is now developing in looking for oil in Australia after the very dismal years the industry went through under the Whitlam Government. In the area of mineral development, I am very pleased to say that there is a long list of projects under way and I will just mention a few of them. There is the Hamersley expansion project worth $375m; the Robe River project worth $65m; the Weipa project worth 80m; the Alcan project at Kurri Kurri worth $45m; the south Blackwater coal project worth $72m; the New South Wales south coast coal project worth $80m; the Woodlawn base metals project worth $75m; the Agnew nickel project worth $120m; and the Western Mining Corporation nickel project worth $ 1 20m. Those projects have already started. There is on the verge of commencement other very substantial projects, such as the Norwich Park project which at the moment of course is held up by industrial trouble; there is the Gregory coal mine project which is a $200m project and the Oakey Creek project worth $120m. All these projects indicate the renewed confidence that people have in investing in Australia. On the drawing board there are projects on which no doubt decisions will be made next year. They include the Alcoa refinery project in Western Australia worth $650m; the Comalco smelter at Gladstone project worth $300m; further Bass Strait exploration which is worth about $200m; the Ranger uranium development which is worth $250m, and of course there is the North West Shelf development which is worth $2, 500m.

During the two years this Government has been in office we have tried to demonstrate to the world at large that we have policies which will encourage people to invest and to develop our resources in this country. It is by the development of these resources that we have a chance of taking up some of the unemployment and bringing about business recovery, something which is much needed in this country. I venture to say that should a shadow be cast over the scene, should there be any suspicion of the doctrinaire approach that we saw during the 1972-75 period, not many of these projects will come to fruition.

page 2667

QUESTION

FRASER MINISTRY: PECUNIARY INTERESTS

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

– I ask the Prime Minister a question. On the first day of the present sessional period I asked him without notice whether the Minister for Primary Industry had informed him of the full nature of his financial interests and responsibilities, matters which have now been discussed in the media.

Mr Katter:

-It is gutter day.

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

-You are not hard up if you misappropriate a quarter of a million dollars, as the Minister for Primary Industry did.

Mr Katter:

– A point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

- Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The House will come to order.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– On a point of order, Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Before the right honourable gentleman takes a point of order I ask him to resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition will withdraw that remark.

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

-And he does.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

- Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The right honourable gentleman will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition will withdraw the remark in appropriate terms by using the words ‘I withdraw .

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

– I withdraw.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

- Mr Speaker, I am not sure that you heard the totality of the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition because his back was turned to you during the concluding part. May I take it that there is a categorical assurance that everything that the honourable gentleman said, which is obviously completely scurrilous and befitting only his own character, has, in fact, been withdrawn?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I believe I heard what the Leader of the Opposition said. I do not want such a statement to be repeated. Therefore I will not repeat what I believe I heard. I called for a withdrawal of what I heard. The Leader of the Opposition has withdrawn the remarks in their totality.

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

– I call the Leader of the Opposition.

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

-The Prime Minister, in answer to that earlier question, said:

In view of the circumstances of the past day or two I have spoken to the Minister concerning these particular matters.

I now ask the Prime Minister whether in the circumstances of the last week he has spoken to the Treasurer about his pecuniary interests.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-A day would not pass when I do not speak with the Treasurer about a great variety of matters of high importance. The Treasurer also brought this matter to my attention.

page 2668

QUESTION

OVERSEAS BORROWINGS

Mr MARTYR:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Can the Treasurer inform the House whether it is a fact that the Australian Government has been extremely successful in its recent overseas borrowing? Are the interest rates and conditions very competitive when compared with overseas sources?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

-I am happy to inform the House that Australia has been able to raise loans on the most competitive conditions in international capital markets. In particular I refer to the recent package of deutschemark borrowings which was the largest and perhaps most successful single borrowing operation ever undertaken by the Commonwealth. That borrowing demonstrates, in a quite clear fashion, the Government’s capacity to raise very substantial amounts in the world capital markets to finance any temporary deficit in the balance of payments. The conditions on which each of the borrowings was arranged were very favourable to the Commonwealth and continue to reflect the outstanding reputation which the Commonwealth of Australia enjoys in overseas capital markets.

I mention to the House that it is worth recording that the 5.7S per cent coupon paid by the Commonwealth on the 250 million deutschemark 12 year public bond issue just completed was in fact the lowest interest rate paid in the foreign deutschemark bond market for issues with maturity of 10 years or more since 1965. The rate paid by the Commonwealth is in fact about 0.2 per cent lower than the rate which the West German Government itself would have to pay on the German domestic capital market at the present time. Furthermore, the terms offered to the Commonwealth by the Deutsche Bank compare favourable with those obtained by the World Bank on the deutschemark market earlier this month. I stress, of course, in response to interjections made by honourable gentlemen when I started answering this question, that these loan raisings have taken place through official channels. They have been negotiated, of course, by Treasury officers within conditions and guidelines clearly established as a matter of public record by the Government. This, of course, stands in the sharpest contrast with the blundering and covert way in which the former Government sought to raise loans through the back door prior to its departure from office.

page 2668

QUESTION

NUCLEAR SAFEGUARDS

Mr UREN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I refer the Prime Minister to discussions on the question of nuclear safeguards that the Government is having with the British Government. I ask the Prime Minister whether the Government is aware that the British Government and other Western European governments secretly supplied uranium for the nuclear weapons program of Israel. I further ask whether the Government is satisfied that international nuclear weapons proliferation controls are adequate.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– It is the objective of the present Australian Government to work in international forums to make sure that proliferation control is strengthened to the greatest possible extent. Our safeguards are as strict as or stricter than any others in the world. It would be our objective to make sure that all other supplier or potential supplier countries adopt similar safeguards and similar approaches, and thus reinforce each other. We believe that we will make the world a safer place by being involved and arguing in that way. I have no doubt that the overwhelming majority of Australians would sooner have a government that was actively involved in this arena, arguing not only for the safety of Australia but for the safety of the world, than a government that pretended that these activities did not exist- that nuclear power for peaceful purposes did not exist- and pretended that it could just live a life on an island continent and ignore the rest of the world. The people of Australia will see how unreal that situation is.

I indicated yesterday that the honourable gentleman seemed to expect the distinguished

Labour Minister from the United Kingdom to place some affinity- although I am not too sure what affinity there is- with the Australian Labor Parry above the British national interest and above the national interest of the working people of the United Kingdom. Quite obviously, the distinguished visitor from Great Britain would not be prepared to do that. So, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition attacked him, tried to denigrate the safeguards policy of the United Kingdom and tried to denigrate the safety of the long and proven nuclear power for peaceful purposes program in the United Kingdom. The suggestion that the British Government would secretly supply nuclear material to Israel to build a nuclear weapon is scurrilous in the extreme. If there ever was a fraternal relationship between the honourable gentleman and his comrades in the United Kingdom, I would think that he has just about blown it.

page 2669

QUESTION

NUCLEAR SAFEGUARDS

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, concerns recent reports in relation to Australia’s nuclear safeguards policy. Have any bilateral negotiations concerning safeguards been held with Japan? Has Japan refused to accept this country’s safeguards policy? Is it correct, therefore, that new sales contracts with Japan cannot be completed due to the non-acceptance of our policy?

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

– I say by way of introduction, in answering this question briefly, that I have noticed references to the fact that such negotiations have been occurring with Japan. I will divide my answer in tow. I will answer on matters relating to future contracts and then I will turn to the question of existing contracts. The Government’s policy, of course, is that export of uranium under any future contracts should be subject to bilateral agreements as described in detail in the Prime Minister’s statement of 24 May. General discussions on the policy have, of course, been held with Japan, particularly in June of this year. But to date no negotiations have been entered into on a bilateral agreement with Japan on the possibility of amending the existing nuclear co-operation agreement of 1 972.

I am advised that it is not correct that Japan has refused to accept Australia’s safeguards requirements. That could not possibly be known; there have been no bilateral discussions on the matter to date. Nor is it correct, I understand, that new contracts cannot be concluded until the necessary safeguards agreements have been completed. I have said before, and the Government has said, that it is the safeguards agreements that must be enforced by the time deliveries fall due under any new contracts. In regard to existing contracts, the Government’s permission for shipments to proceed continues to be on the basis of the factors, including the safeguards, which I recall were spelt out by the Minister for the Environment, Housing and Community Development in November of last year and, I think, reiterated by him in June of this year.

page 2669

QUESTION

INTEREST RATES

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Does the Treasurer recall his frequent statements in this House and elsewhere to the effect that a prime cause of high interest rates in Australia was the need to finance what he calls his ‘Budget deficit’ but what is really only a capital works program? Now that he has arranged to borrow from overseas amounts of money almost as great as what he calls his ‘Budget deficit’ so that he has no need to borrow locally for that purpose- and the excuse he has been -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will ask his question.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Yes, sir. The excuse he has been using for the maintenance of high local interest rates has thus been removed, will he now tell us what prevents a rapid reduction in Australia of interest rates to levels comparable with those current in the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Europe? I do not mean token interest rate reductions of just a few points.

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– The honourable gentleman knows the answer with which I have consistently provided him on past occasions. The response in act has not been subject to any change, because the rather tired old economic argument which he puts has been dismissed before. In fact, I dismiss the argument again. I think I can recall the honourable gentleman having received a number of papers which have been prepared at official level, as well as letters which I have sent to him. He knows full well what the response of this Treasurer, and I would hope other Treasurers, would be to the question which he is posing. I do not need to weary the House in relation to that.

The honourable gentleman ought to understand that a Budget deficit puts a pressure on the level of interest rates. Of course, the Government must, in order to minimise the inflationary pressures which result from a government deficit, sell government paper in the market place. That, of course, is the pressure point which relates to the interest rates question. I said to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition yesterday that he should bear in mind what is said both in the Budget Speech itself and also in Statement No. 2. He should recognise that with’ a 2 per cent inflation rate for the September quarter consumer price index and with a very firm expectation of a most significant winding down of inflation throughout the year, as well as the lesser need by the corporate sector for funds from the capital markets of Australia to finance their own programs, we are looking towards a fall in the level of interest rates. But no Treasurer can be subject to any definition in relation to that.

Finally, I would have thought that the honourable gentleman would be the first to applaud what has taken place, because it represents the most significant reduction in interest rates over, I think, a four year period, if one includes the reductions which have taken place at both the short and the long end. If the honourable gentleman wants any further information on this matter I will be very happy to send to him again all the papers. But it is a tired old economic argument and I find the question a little tedious.

page 2670

QUESTION

HONOURABLE MEMBER FOR TANGNEY

Mr BOURCHIER:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to you, Mr Speaker. It relates to the honourable member for Tangney. I ask: Did Dr Peter Richardson, the member for Tangney, notify you that he had resigned from the Liberal Party? How many days has he been absent from the House this year? How many speeches has he made? How many questions has he asked? How many divisions did he fail to attend? Is it a fact that he attended the House for only a few minutes -

Opposition members interjecting-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! This question is directed to me. Therefore it has a special character; I need to hear it. I will be glad if honourable gentlemen on my left will remain silent. I call upon the honourable member for Bendigo to recommence his question.

Mr BOURCHIER:

– Thank you, Mr Speaker. Did Dr Peter Richardson, the honourable member for Tangney, notify you that he had resigned from the Liberal Party? For how many days has he been absent from the House this year? How many speeches has he made? How many questions has he asked? How many divisions did he fail to attend? Is it a fact that he attended the House for only a few minutes last Thursday week? Did he make any speeches or attend any of the eight divisions held that day? Does that visit prevent his seat being declared vacant for non-attendance at Parliament by virtue of the provisions of the Constitution? Are you aware of statements by Dr Richardson expressing disagreement with a number of policies? Are you aware of any opportunities that Dr Richardson has taken in Parliament to express his views? Is it not the primary duty of members of parliament to attend sittings of the House?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have not received any information from the honourable member for Tangney that he has resigned from the Liberal Party of Australia. In fact, I would not expect to receive such information. It is not a responsibility of any honourable member to inform me of his party affiliations although it is customary for a member to do so in order that the Sergeant-at-Arms can inform me about seating arrangements in the House. As to the absence of the honourable member or his participation in debates, questions or divisions, the records are available to all members of the House and to the public generally. The records will speak for themselves. Section 38 of the Constitution is the section which deals with the question of a vacancy caused by non-attendance, and I draw the attention of the honourable member for Bendigo to that section. This House is one in which all honourable members ought to have the opportunity to put their views, I think, as frankly and as fearlessly as they can. That is the purpose of the national Parliament and of parliamentary democracy.

page 2670

QUESTION

TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY INCAPACITATED PENSIONS

Dr JENKINS:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. Is it a fact that the waiting time for hearing of claims of exservice personnel for totally and permanently incapacitated pensions is 12 months? Is he aware of the suffering caused to such persons by this delay? Is it a fact that stringent restrictions on the granting of sustenance allowance to eligible exmembers, thus forcing them to exhaust normal sick leave for their accepted disabilities, is causing hardship?

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs · CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– There are of course a number of procedures which must be followed when applications are made for a totally and permanently incapacitated pension and indeed for other disability pensions. The honourable member would be aware, I think, of the medical examinations that are necessary, the appraisal by officers of the Repatriation Commission and the rights of appeal that people have to the Boards and other Tribunals. The latter will soon be taken over by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. There are many steps- I would be pleased to provide the honourable member with a full list of those steps- which are time consuming. If he has in mind a particular case, I hope he will draw it to my attention and I will certainly have the matter examined. As to the matter of sustenance allowance to which he referred the honourable member would be aware, I think, of decisions announced at Budget time. The Government proposes, and is having effected by regulation, that the sustenance allowance be replaced by a loss of earnings allowance so that where there is loss by qualified persons there will be compensation, but not in other cases.

page 2671

QUESTION

BEEF EXPORT INDUSTRY: POSITION IN QUEENSLAND

Mr CORBETT:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

-My question is addressed to the Minister for Overseas Trade. He will be well aware of the fact that Queensland, along with other parts of Australia, is already suffering the effects of drought, with all the signs pointing to an even worse situation. Against this background of worsening drought, can the Minister advise the House the beef export situation as far as Queensland is concerned?

Mr ANTHONY:
NCP/NP

– I share the concern of the honourable member for Maranoa about the worsening drought situation across Australia, particularly in Queensland where it is becoming widespread and is a little reminiscent of the very serious circumstances that Queensland experienced in the late 1960s. However, relief measures have been agreed to by the Commonwealth and Queensland governments and these can be brought into action immediately requests are made. Queensland is required to provide a base amount of $2m and after that the Commonwealth will meet obligations. Regarding the export of beef from Queensland, as in other States of Australia, there has been a very creditable performance over the last year by all parties concerned in exploring new markets, particularly in the Soviet Union, the East European countries and the Middle East. Of course, it is pleasing that we now have an additional 10,000 tonnes of beef going into the Japanese market. All of these facts mean that we are making record sales and the potential for the next six months looks very encouraging indeed.

However, one of the things that are reacting against the industry, particularly in Queensland, is industrial trouble. It has not been possible to slaughter something like 250,000 head of cattle because of this trouble. It means that there are more cattle eating their heads off. The trouble has placed a burden on the market, which has tended to dampen down prices. The other day at the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council conference Sir Samuel Burston estimated that industrial trouble had cost the Australian cattle industry some $45m. With this on top of the difficulties the industry has at the moment, it is little wonder that the cattlemen are very concerned about the industrial troubles. I certainly hope that moderation and reason will be shown by the meat industry workers, to see that this sort of trouble does not continue.

page 2671

QUESTION

EAST TIMOR

Mr FRY:

– Will the Minister for Foreign Affairs indicate what action, if any, the Government has taken to confirm reports that the Indonesian invaders of East Timor have used napalm and chemical defoliants against the civilian population in East Timor and that there have been shipments of live Australian beef cattle from Darwin to Timor for use by Indonesian armed forces who are systematically wiping out the village people? Will the Minister also indicate whether the Australian Government intends to support the United Nations resolution condemning the Indonesian aggression in East Timor?

Mr PEACOCK:
LP

-I have no information regarding the allegation about -

Mr Uren:

– All things to all men.

Mr PEACOCK:

-Here we go again. I will have a go at you again. I do not mind. Yesterday was quite successful. If we want to start -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister cannot proceed to answer the question if the Deputy Leader of the Opposition interjects. It necessarily provokes a response from the Minister. I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to remain silent, and I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs to answer the question and to take no notice of the interjection.

Mr PEACOCK:

-The short answer to the question is that I have not received any information regarding allegations that are made consistently by a clique in this country concerning genocide and the use of napalm in Timor. The information that has been forwarded previously does not substantiate the extravagant claims that have been made. Secondly, the advice that has been tendered to me is that the allegations about the export of meat and cattle are unfounded and incorrect. Thirdly, I am advised that the resolution before the United Nations is not yet in final form. Therefore, the

Australian Government has not taken a final decision on it.

Mr Bryant:

– Oh, no! You will run for cover.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Wills will withdraw his remark.

Mr Bryant:

– I withdraw the remark.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will now resume his seat.

Mr PEACOCK:

-The honourable member for Wills would be the expert on withdrawal.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will not make any comment about an interjection which I have required to be withdrawn.

Mr Hayden:

– He thinks it is a joke.

Mr PEACOCK:

-I do not think it is a joke. The only joke is the honourable member’s gyrations in foreign policy for 36 hours and look what happened to him. I will not refer to the remark by the honourable member for Wills but I will say that he has to be the expert on withdrawals. I recall his remarks on Cambodia. Within days of getting back to Australia and being censured by the endorsement body, the State executive of the Labor Party, he ducked for cover rapidly. It was the question of endorsement over principle that dictated his attitude to foreign policy. So if the honourable member wants to lift his head and duck into the area of foreign policy, we will welcome it any time of the week.

In regard to the resolution that is being drafted, I have already indicated that it has not yet been finalised

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

-What are gyrations?

Mr Hayden:

– Ask him what they are.

Mr PEACOCK:

-The honourable member can play with whirling dervishes if he likes instead of gyrations.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will resume his seat. It so happens that Question Time is drawing to a conclusion. We are very close to an election and everybody has behaved himself ever so nicely recently. I ask honourable members to continue to do so. I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs to complete his answer and I will protect him against interjections.

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

-And put it in English.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the Opposition will not interject. I call the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Mr Hayden:

– Try to pronounce the words properly.

Mr PEACOCK:

-If we want to play around with soft ‘g’ and hard ‘g’, imagine what it will do to his name.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the honourable member for Oxley to give example to his party by not interjecting.

Mr PEACOCK:

-The drafting of the resolution has not yet been completed. Consequently, taking the appropriate and proper approach to resolutions in the United Nations so that we do not do as a previous government did on resolutions of this nature- vote in one way and speak in a different manner back in Canberra and in the Parliament- we will wait for the resolution to be drafted and we will vote according to the determinations we make on the resolution when it is finally brought down.

page 2672

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH BONDS

Mr BRADFIELD:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– -Will the Treasurer inform the House whether or not the Government intends to proceed with a November cash loan?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– There have been some rumours running in relation to the question of a November loan in the markets. I welcome the opportunity to dispel those rumours and indicate quite firmly that there will be no cash loan in November. I briefly say to the House that of course the next maturity of Commonwealth bonds is on IS February next. Therefore there is no compelling need to hold a loan in November. A substantial contribution has already been achieved to the 1977-78 borrowing program for the Commonwealth and States. There is, of course, the quarterly instalment of company tax which is due on 15 November. Therefore it would be very unhelpful for the Commonwealth to be moving into the loan market at this time. Beyond the question of November, the availability of funds in financial markets will also be influenced by the outflow of currency notes from the banking system to finance normal Christmas and holiday spending. I do welcome the opportunity of dispelling the rumours because I have noted from some Press sources that such rumours have been running.

page 2672

QUESTION

NAPALM

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

– I direct a question to the Foreign Minister. Is it still the Government’s policy, as he told me at the time of the Conference of Government Experts at Lugano early last year, to adhere to the Whitlam Government’s declaration in September 1973 that Australia does not possess aerial or mechanised napalm type weapons and does not intend to acquire them? If so, why did Australia not give support at this year’s session of the Geneva Diplomatic Conference on Humanitarian Law to the Swedish proposal to prohibit the use of incendiary weapons, such as flame-throwers, napalm bombs and white phosphorous grenades?

Mr PEACOCK:
LP

-That policy does remain. I remember stressing it particularly because endeavours were made- let us be quite frank about it- by some officials in drafting matters and the Prime Minister and I overrode the drafts of the officials at the time. It is the consistent policy of the Australian Government to oppose the use of napalm, et cetera. I recall both the briefing documents and minutes that were sent to me throughout and at the end of the diplomatic conference. I would like to treat this question with the utmost precision because there was more than one resolution there. If the honourable member will permit me to do so, I will reply to him as soon as I have refreshed my memory on the particular resolution to which he has referred.

page 2673

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Mr Peter Johnson:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · LP

-My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister plan to reorganise the Department of the Treasury?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-This Government has no plan to reorganise the Department of the Treasury. Some considerable time ago the Department of the Treasury was split into two separate departments- the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Finance- to enable the most effective administration and advising in relation to policy to be undertaken and at the same time to enable the most effective control of government finance throughout all departments to be undertaken. I believe that that division has worked with a great degree of success. But I think it is worth noting what some proposals would do to the Treasury. For example, it has been suggested that the honourable member for Oxley and some new organisation would take over the policy divisions of Treasury. Treasury now has five divisions. It seems clear that the honourable gentleman intends to take over at least four of them. It is indicated that an Australian Labor Party government would strip Treasury of the policy sections. That presumably means that Treasury would lose its General Financial and Economic Policy Division. It would also seem to mean that Treasury would lose its Revenue, Loans and Investment Division, which has policy implications.

According to the honourable member for Oxley, Labor would give a new department of economic development the role of looking after balance of payments questions and Australia’s relations with other countries. That would therefore mean that Treasury would lose its two divisions concerned with foreign investment and overseas economic relations. In short, Treasury would be left with one division concerned with financial institutions, and to this role would apparently be added some aspects of the role of the Department of Finance. In other words, Labor proposes the rape of Treasury. It is quite fitting that a party of such fiscal irresponsibility as Labor should propose such a course.

It might also be indicated that the way in which this particular appointment was encompassed is characteristic of Labor’s approach to administrative responsibility. In the second Whitlam Ministry we saw ministerial change after ministerial change. It was like being on a merry-go-round with people falling off or being pushed off every now and again. On Tuesday last week the honourable member for Oxley was shadow Minister for defence and economic development Last Wednesday he had lost the economic development portfolio and was shadow Minister for foreign affairs and defence. It would be an utter impossibility for him to undertake both portfolios and certainly one of them would not have been properly attended to. Last Saturday he had both portfolios taken from him and was shadow Minister for economic development. Really, such changes are to be expected in the Whitlam tradition. The Leader of the Opposition said on a recent television interview, when he was challenged with being not quite so active, vigorous and thrusting as he had been seven years ago: ‘Well, I am still active-more active than any other politician’. He always speaks with such great modesty. Then he went on -

Mr Keating:

– I take a point of order. Mr Speaker, why do we have to listen to this boring diatribe every day?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order.

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

– Because Mr Speaker likes to see him making a fool of himself.

Mr Keating:

– Hear me out, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister was asked a specific question about something -

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

- Mr Speaker is going to be Leader of the Opposition after 1 0 December.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition will not be gracing this House if he continues his interjections. The honourable member for Blaxland is taking a point of order.

Mr Keating:

– The Prime Minister was asked a question about what the Government would do with the Department of the Treasury. It seems that all the Prime Minister is doing now is crudely electioneering, and I do not think that you should tolerate it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order. The Prime Minister’s answer is relevant to the question.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I am making it perfectly plain that we have confidence in the Treasury as it is. I would just like to finish the point I was making. On that television interview the Leader of the Opposition said: ‘Well, I am still active- more active than any other politician.’ He is right in one particular respect. In one respect his claim to have a record is unsurpassed. His record in dismissing and reshuffling Ministers and shadow Ministers is unsurpassed. As the honourable member for Adelaide indicated quite plainly on television and radio, it is all rather messy.

page 2674

COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION: REPORT

Mr LYNCH:
Treasurer · LP

-Pursuant to section 14 of the Income Tax Assessment Act, section 140 of the Taxation Administration Act and the corresponding provisions of the Assessment Acts relating to sales tax, payroll tax, estate duty, gift duty, the stevedoring industry charge and the Export Incentive Grants Act, I present the fiftysixth report of the Commissioner of Taxation dated 27 October 1977.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr LYNCH:

-Copies of the report will be circulated immediately.

page 2674

AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS: REPORT

Mr LYNCH:
Treasurer · LP

– Pursuant to section 24 ( 1 ) of the Australian Bureau of Statistics Act 1975 I present the annual report of the Australian Bureau of Statistics for the year ended 30 June 1977.

page 2674

AUSTRALIAN STATISTICS ADVISORY COUNCIL: REPORT

Mr LYNCH:
Treasurer · LP

-Pursuant to section 24 (2) of the Australian Bureau of Statistics Act 1 975 I present the first annual report of the Australian Statistics Advisory Council for the year ended 30 June 1977.

page 2674

FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW BOARD: REPORT

Mr LYNCH:
Treasurer · LP

-For the information of honourable members I present the Foreign Investment Review Board report 1977.

page 2674

DEFENCE REPORT

Mr KILLEN:
Minister for Defence · Minister for Defence · LP

-For the information of honourable members I present the Defence Report 1977.

page 2674

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO STATES: REPORT

Mr VINER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)Pursuant to section 10 of the States Grants (Schools) Act 1972 1 present the report on financial assistance granted to each State under the terms of that Act during the financial year 1975-76.

page 2674

SOLAR OBSERVATORY: WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister Assisting the Minister for National Resources · Minister for the Northern Territory · NCP/NP

– For the information of honourable members I present a copy of an exchange of notes between the Australian Government and the Government of the United States of America constituting an agreement regarding the establishment, maintenance and operation of a solar observatory at Learmonth, Western Australia, together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Science relating to this agreement.

page 2674

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL COMMISSION: REPORT

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Pursuant to section 102 of the Postal Services Act 1975 I present the annual report of the Australian Postal Commission 1977.

page 2674

TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION

Mr FIFE:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · LP

– Pursuant to section 171 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 I present the annual report of the Trade Practices Commission for the year ended 30 June 1977. Copies of the report will be sent to all members as soon as bulk supplies become available. In the meantime, copies of the report have been placed in the Parliamentary Library and the Table Office.

page 2674

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Deputy Prime Minister has indicated that he has been misrepresented. Does the honourable gentleman wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr ANTHONY:
Deputy Prime Minister · Richmond · NCP/NP

-Yes, Mr Speaker. In today’s Melbourne Age there is a report of a statement by Senator Button to the effect that I hold substantial media interests. That statement is not true. I hold no media interests. My wife holds 800 shares in Northern Rivers Television Limited which she has held virtually since the station started operating some years ago. I understand there are two million shares in that company. My wife’s dividend last year was the princely sum of S50. Some of my wife’s family hold shares in media companies. I do not know the extent of those interests and I accept no responsibility for them. I am making this personal explanation so that anyone who might be tempted to rely on Senator Button’s statement will know that it is not true.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-Mr Speaker, during the course of question time the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) made a statement that upon my return from Cambodia in 1970 I ran away from statements which I had made while I was there. That is totally false. In 1970 I was a member of a parliamentary delegation that visited Cambodia, now the Khmer mer Republic. I made an appeal while I was there for help for the Cambodians because they were under invasion from North Vietnam. I held to that position when I came home. I attended many meetings at which there were great and angry audiences which had things to say about me. I stood my ground. I was right then on Cambodia, now the Khmer Republic, and I am right now on Timor.

page 2675

DAYS AND HOURS OF MEETING

Motion (by Mr Howard)- by leaveproposed:

That, unless otherwise ordered, the House shall meet on the following days and at the times specified:

Thursday, 3 November- 11 a.m., or such time thereafter as Mr Speaker may take the chair.

Friday, 4 November 10am

Monday, 7 November- 1 1 a.m.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I want to speak to that motion, Mr Speaker. I think it reflects great discredit upon the management of this Parliament that we should be changing the arrangements in such a way as we are doing. It causes great inconvenience throughout the whole continent when we change the standard meeting times of this Parliament. Just consider the situation with the Australian Broadcasting Commission as the first victim. When the House sits beyond 1 1 o’clock at night it means a change in programming; it places the Commission’s position in jeopardy with regard to planning and all such operations. Every member of this House is totally and completely disadvantaged and inconvenienced by being unable to plan what we are going to do next Thursday, Friday and Monday. It is no way to run an institution such as this. It creates a lack of faith in the organisation behind it. It creates instability in the attitudes towards government, and we ought not to do it. The Parliament ought to resist it with whatever strength it has. I suppose there is not much point in Opposition supporters voting against this motion or doing anything of that sort. Government supporters will front up no matter what. The Government will lead them to the slaughter, as it will do in the next few weeks, and they will all follow like sheep.

This is no way to run a Parliament. I lodge my protest. I have no objection to the Parliament meeting continuously at great length as long as it does not meet late at night and observes reasonable hours. After all, Parliament is a debating chamber and its business is to meet. Unless we can organise meetings of the Parliament over which we have absolute control- we all have become the victims of the criticism of it- how can we claim to run the nation? The Parliament of this country is becoming increasingly irrelevant in people’s minds because of the haphazard, reckless, careless and irresponsible way in which we run its affairs.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2675

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION

Mr HODGES:
Petrie

-I present a report, together with minutes of proceedings, from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, being a report that the Committee has been unable to complete its inquiries.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 2675

UNEMPLOYMENT: NEED FOR NEW ECONOMIC POLICIES

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have received letters from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam), the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) and the honourable member for St George (Mr Neil) proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by Standing Order 107, 1 have selected one matter; that is, that proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, namely:

The urgent need for new economic policies to reverse the present Government’s deliberate creation of record unemployment.

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

More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their placesMr E. G. WHITLAM (Werriwa-Leader of the Opposition) (3.25)- ‘Only under a LiberalNational Country Party Government will there be jobs for all who want to work.’ Those wordsthe pledge of the present Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in his 1975 election policy speech- will be the epitaph of the Fraser Government after 10 December. The Prime Minister and the Government for which that pledge was made have created Australia’s worst unemployment since the Great Depression. It will not be forgotten by the people to whom that pledge was made. Every fresh indicator points to a worsening unemployment situation. The clearest of all indicators is the fact of the election itself.

The official figures, the predictions of the experts, including the Government’s own economic adviser, Professor Warren Hogan, the surveys of business activity, the collapse in housing- a further decline of 16 per cent in building approvals in a single year, September to September- all point to further massive unemployment next year. Only yesterday the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd index of economic activity showed that industrial production was at its lowest point for five years. Yet all these indicators do not speak as powerfully and reveal as much as the decision to rush to an election before the consequences of this Government’s economic policies make their impact next year. There is one reason, and one reason only, for this election- to have it before unemployment tops half a million, as it will early next year. The Prime Minister knows it, the Government knows it; but, most important of all, the people of Australia know it.

The real significance of unemployment, Fraser style, is not just the level of unemployment, bad as that is. This Government has created unemployment that is not only different in degree from anything in modern experience but also different in its nature from anything that has gone before. These three things have to be emphasised: Firstly, the new unemployment cuts across classes and regions. Next year there will be thousands of highly qualified, well educated young men and women who will not be able to get jobs or who will have to settle for a job far below their level of competence. Secondly, unemployment is rising in Australia far above the rate of our trading partners and comparable member nations of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. No longer is unemployment in Australia part of a world-wide pattern as it was in 1974 and 1975. This is an Australian phenomenon; the genuine article made in Australia; the Fraser disease; the Mai Fraser. Thirdly, and most importantly, this unemployment has been deliberately created as an express, explicit matter of Government policy. Never before in Australia’s history has this happened.

In the Depression, Labor and Nationalist governments were the victims of the world crash and, mistaken as policies may have been, those governments at least did not set out deliberately to create unemployment. The recession of 1961 resulted from the mistaken severity of the credit squeeze of which severe unemployment was the inevitable, but certainly not the intended, result. The world-wide recession sparked off by the oil crisis of 1973 produced higher unemployment in almost all the OECD countries, including Australia. The unemployment of 1977 and the even worse unemployment of February 1978 are not by-products of economic policies; they are the intentional, deliberate results of those policies.

When the Prime Minister says ‘Our policies are working’, he means it. They are working- to put more and more Australians out of work deliberately, calculatedly cruelly. There can be no better proof of this than the present Prime Minister’s reaction to the consumer price index figures for the September quarter. It was reported in Monday’s Australian Financial Review that on hearing the figures he had scrapped a proposal for a $ 100m job creation scheme which he had intended to put to the State Premiers last Friday week. Could there be a greater cynicism? Could there be better proof that unemployment is a deliberate part of Government policy? The Prime Minister has three aims: To make the unemployed bear the real burden of the fight against inflation; to intimidate employers and their associations; and to drive real wages and salaries down.

There has to be a change of policy. There have to be new policies to get Australia working again. But, because the policies which have produced this record unemployment are intrinsic to the very nature and purpose of this Government itself, the only way the policies can be changed is by changing the Government. The most spectacular proof of the damage done by the blinkered ideology of the Prime Minister is what has happened to employment in the private sector. In pursuit of the dogma that squeezing the public sector would enable the private sector to grow, he has in fact produced a decline in private sector employment. This Government and this Prime Minister have refused to recognise how much the private sector depends on a healthy public sector for jobs, for contracts for production. The two are not hostile; they are interdependent. The health of one depends upon the health of the other.

By crippling the public sector this Government has crippled the private sector. As a result, total private employment has declined by 47,000 in the last 12 months alone. Employment in manufacturing industry has declined by 53,000 in the last two years; employment in the construction industry has declined by 41,000 in the last two years. Under the Labor Government- from December 1972 to November 1975-the total number of people in wage and salary employment increased by 197,000. There are now 6,000 fewer employees in Australia than there were in November 1975. There was an increase of nearly 200,000 under Labor. There has been a fall of 6,000 in less than two years of Fraser.

The first actions of the incoming Labor Government will be to aid the private sector by reinstating new capital works, the abandonment of which has destroyed thousands of jobs in private industry. These are works already on the drawing board. In some cases projects had been commenced and materials ordered and paid for, but they are now abandoned, incomplete, idle, useless. I give some examples: As to aged persons accommodation, at the end of June there were 199 projects under the Aged Persons Hostels Act and 754 projects under the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act awaiting funding. The plans are there; the land is there; part of the finance has already been made available. There is no wild spending spree involved in allowing some of these projects to proceed. At the end of 1975 the Labor Government had negotiated plans for major construction companies to build government accommodation in several regional centres at a cost of $80m at their own expense, simply for the guarantee that the Government itself subsequently would lease some of the space. The capital cost to the Government of this employment creating program is nil. The scheme will be reactivated immediately by the Labor Government. The scheme involves commitments of the order of $ 100m by and from the resources of private companies.

As to the national sewerage program, 65 local and semi-government authorities were participating in the national sewerage program when it was cancelled in this year’s Budget. They were employing thousands of men. They were using millions of dollars of cement and steel produced by the private sector. The national sewerage program will be restored as pan of the capital works program of Labor’s $500m plan to restore economic growth. As to water resources, completion of water projects commenced but not completed under Labor’s national water resources program would stimulate the production of construction materials and reduce unemployment in northern Queensland and central Queensland. The projects include the Monduran Dam, the second stage of the Ross River Dam, the Kinchant Dam and the Clare weir. As to hospital development, a commitment to restoring the 60 per cent reduction in this year’s Budget in the real expenditure on hospitals and community health centres for which the priorities had been jointly agreed with all six State governments would also aid the flagging construction industry, reduce unemployment and, incidentally, ensure equality of access to health services.

The Labor, program for immediate job creation provides for a net spending of $500m in a full financial year. This nation is already paying $800m a year in unemployment benefits. This nation is paying a further $500m a year for this Government’s investment allowances scheme which has utterly failed to provide any economic recovery. Far from creating jobs, the scheme has reduced them. It is a scheme for subsidising the displacement of labour.

The latest Australian Chamber of Commerce and National Bank survey, published on 24 October, states, as reported in the Australian Financial Review on Tuesday last week:

The Chamber of Commerce was convinced a major program of capital works and infra-structure projects was needed to increase the level of employment and thereby stimulate business activity.

We announced our program before the Budget. Our program is supported by the business community, and the same community rejects the Budget as a recipe for economic recovery. The business community of Australia clearly discerns the damage the Fraser Government has done to the private sector through its obsessive hostility to the public sector. The immediate task for the Labor Government will be creating jobs through selected, deliberate, carefully controlled spending- spending in the areas where the most jobs can be. created most quickly, particularly in private industry.

Beyond the immediate crisis, though part of its solution, there must be a continuing long term job creation program. Our program includes these initiatives: A local employment advancement program to provide funds for local authorities and non-private organisations, particularly in regions of the highest unemployment, to enable them to undertake worthwhile projects of lasting value to the community; a project bank to establish priorities and to assess the employment potential of nationally advantageous projects planned by Federal, State and local governments; special group employment incentives to encourage and assist private employers to employ persons, especially disadvantaged sections of the community, including school leavers; and urgent upgrading of the apprenticeship system. Australia faces serious shortages of skilled tradesmen. The annual loss is estimated at 30,000. In some regions of Australia applicants for apprenticeships outnumber the available places by 100 to one. According to the Australian Apprenticeships Advisory Committee we are training only half the number of apprentices we need to maintain the present level of skilled tradesmen. The Government is currently conducting a $lm campaign advertising jobs and apprenticeships which just do not exist.

In answer to a question from the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson) last Thursday, the Minister for Construction (Mr McLeay) stated that his own Department had reduced the intake of apprentices from 257 in 1974 to 121 this year. Could there be a better illustration of the damage- long term damage, short term damage- which this Government is doing to Australia in its obsessive prejudice against the public sector? At a time when Australia urgently needs more skilled tradesmen, at a time when we are experiencing a 30,000 annual loss in our skilled work force, at a time when the building and construction industry has been brought to its knees and at a time when $ 1 m of the taxpayers ‘ money is being splurged to advertise non-existent jobs, the Fraser Government has halved its apprenticeship intake.

A survey by the Australian Bureau of Statistics last week has designated a new category of the unemployed- discouraged persons. The Statistician asserts that at least 65,000 people have stopped seeking jobs and no longer register as unemployed because of continued disappointment, rejection, frustration and humiliation. The despair of the unemployed is a very real and troubling thing. This morning’s Sydney Morning

Herald quotes the Clinical Supervisor of Parramatta Psychiatric Hospital, Dr Andrew Robertson, as having said:

Unemployment is a major stress factor which has set the stage for a large number of attempted suicides- 350 this year in the Blacktown Municipality alone.

Those are some of the human factors behind the statistics. The present Prime Minister said last Thursday that he wanted a mandate to continue existing policies. The mandate he seeks is a mandate for even higher unemployment, for even deeper despair amongst hundreds of thousands of our fellow Australians.

The most important thing for the Australian people to understand is that there are alternative policies available to restore full employment. The choice before us is not between worse unemployment or worse inflation. Proper policies, properly applied, will provide economic recovery without fuelling inflation. There is no need for despair; the need is to change the poh.cies and to change the Government which has deliberately set out to create the worst unemployment in Australia since the Great Depression.

Mr SAINSBURY:
Monaro · Eden

-It is tedious to have to keep reminding the public of the Labor Party’s record when in office. We have a positive government at present and we do not want to have to keep doing that. We are continually asked during debates on matters of pub- Uc importance to remind the people exactly what happened under Labor. Today the picture was made even better. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) insisted on telling us that during Labor’s period in office unemployment increased by 200,000 and that in the two years since it has decreased by 6,000. He is hoist with his own petard. I really do not know what political advantage the Leader of the Opposition thinks he is getting out of reinforcing what the Australian working man already knows if he is out of a job- that he is out of a job because of the Whitlam era.

Honourable members will recall the 1974 election when the Leader of the Opposition was walking around the country saying: ‘Only Whitlam can reduce unemployment by one third’. Between the June quarter m 1974 and the December quarter in the same year the unemployment rate in this country increased from 1.35 per cent to 4.46 per cent. I will admit that at the time of the 1974 election unemployment had been reduced. The Labor Party had the advantage along the way of the flow-through from the McMahon Budget of 1972 in assisting to lower unemployment. The Whitlam policies which had been so rapidly introduced in 1973 came into play around about mid 1974, and that is when we saw plenty of good, honest, Australian working people thrown out of work. The logic of the Opposition escapes me. The logic of the Opposition coming into this place and repeating to the Australian public the disaster of its years escapes me. The Australian people do remember. They do not need to be reminded. The Australian working man knows who got rid of his job.

In the subject matter of this debate emphasis is placed on ‘new economic policies’. I note the word ‘policies’. Of course, the Opposition is well known for shifting and changing around. It never has one policy; it has a multiplicity of policies. It is always talking about something new, about some sort of change in order to apply a band-aid to a disaster which has just occurred. The chopping and changing to something new, the grasping to find something new that will work has not worked for the Opposition. Even in the matter of Labor Party appointments it is still chopping and changing. As we were reminded during Question Time, and since, the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) must be wondering which seat he will sit in, if not two or three seats.

The Treasurers in the Labor Party Administration seemed to be chopped and changed after every Budget. A scapegoat had to be found. There were new schemes such as the Regional Employment Development scheme. It was accepted by some local government areas as being a panacea, I suppose, for the unemployment that was rapidly building up in this country. The RED scheme was brought in; it was extended; it was chopped. There were new commissions, new inquiries and new ideas about how to change the social structure of this country to some Utopia that the academic people who run the Labor Party might like. New commissions started and finished. There were new foreign affairs policies. There was always something new; always some new friend to be made and some old friend to be thrown aside. There were new policies every day. The Australian newspapers were flooded because, I suppose, of the number of competing Press people who worked for the Whitlam Ministry. The newspapers were flooded with new ideas, new schemes and new disasters. There was a new Aboriginal affairs policy. The Labor Party said: ‘We must help the Australian Aborigines. We must try to stop the tremendous degradation that has occurred to that unfortunate group of people over many years’. Those new policies degraded the Aboriginal people more than they had been degraded before.

There were new handouts in every direction. There were new ideas that the Budget deficit could be run as if we had a bottomless pit. There were new ideas that money could be printed without creating inflation in this country. There were always new policies and always the impending and final disaster. The Australian people know about it and they will remember because the unemployed in this country were put in that situation by those new, stupid policies of the Labor Government- new medical schemes, a new free medical scheme, new ways for the Australian people to get better treatment and new ways to send people bankrupt. That is the sort of situation that we have had to try to correct by sound, stable government policies which are a change after those three years of disaster in this country. After those three years many people changed their vote; many Australian working men who had always voted Labor decided that they would not support the Labor Party any longer. Those people have not forgotten this, nor will they forget in a month’s time when they have to vote again. Perhaps they will revert to voting for Labor at some time in the future if they see the true Labor personality coming out-if they see the true personality of a man who is prepared, as we are, to stand up and fight for the working men of Australia. At the present time there is no choice. The new policies- the disastrous policies- of the Labor Party are being persisted with. The unfortunate position in this country is that there is no real Opposition. There is no stable alternative to the Liberal-National Country Party Government. I suppose I would have to admit that democracy demands a reasonable alternative, but we do not have one.

The Opposition talks about deliberate creation of unemployment. Those emotional words seem to have been picked up in certain sections of the national Press in the last couple of years. Fancy saying that our Government is deliberately creating unemployment. There is always the urge for members of the Opposition to attach some tag of silvertail ‘ or ‘ the privileged ‘ to our parties. I suppose this is some scheme for the purpose of catching votes by trying to put forward the idea that we are interested in deliberately creating unemployment, so that people will have their noses kept to the grindstone and kept in fear of retrenchment. What poppycock. Let us look at what happened during 23 years of government in Australia by this coalition. How many people were out of work? The Leader of the Opposition has just admitted that an additional 200,000 people were thrown out of work in the time of his Government. Who is talking about deliberate creation of unemployment? Who are the fellow travellers of people like Halfpenny and Carmichael? Those men want to create unemployment and, ultimately, to create a revolution. Who are the people who have been game to stand up in this Parliament and deplore the industrial activity that has been going on in Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia in recent months? We have not heard one word from the Opposition that the people in Victoria did not act responsibly when they threw their fellow workers temporarily or semi-permanently out of work. We heard not one word of criticism from those people sleeping on the Opposition benches. We have not heard a word about the people that they should be talking about, the workmates -

Mr Armitage:

-You are talking about Billy Wentworth.

Mr SAINSBURY:

-A few words are coming out of that large mouth at the present time.

Mr Armitage:

-You will be a oncer, boy.

Mr SAINSBURY:

-On the contrary, our responsible policies have grappled with inflation and are showing signs of at last getting some stability and some long term prospects back into this country. We have grappled with inflation and, because of it, we have been unpopular in some sectors. People like me have had to go around our electorates and speak to responsible groups of school teachers about the fact that we cannot keep increasing our funding for education so rapidly. We have had to point out the fact that we have to cut back on some programs and that we have to get the Budget deficit under control for reasons of responsibility and because we want interest rates to come down. We do not want to have a monopoly on the borrowing of money in this country. Responsible government has returned. Responsible government has created a new direction in the rate of inflation- a new direction after such a rapid increase in the consumer price index quarter after quarter. In December 1972 the consumer price index was 4.5 per cent and in June 1975 it had risen to 16.9 per cent. How do honourable members opposite think the pensioners liked that? What about the people who had $4,000 or $5,000 put away for a rainy day and who found that within three years it was turned into half its previous value? How do honourable members opposite think the people who were thrown out of work felt? In the words of a previous Treasurer: One man’s wage increase is another man’s job? How do honourable members opposite think they felt when the Labor Party encouraged profits to be eaten away- profits that genuinely were required by small business people so that they could plough money back into their stock and their businesses and, thereby, create more jobs for more Aus.tralians. But the situation has changed. The deficit POliCY followed by this Government is working. Interest rates have shown the first sign of coming down, as we have seen in the last week.

Mr Armitage:

– They will be put up again in January and you know it.

Mr SAINSBURY:

– Here is one of the economic advisers to the Opposition who is saying that interest rates will be put up after the election. I ask honourable members to look at the direction that the consumer price index has taken in this country. Quarter by quarter, the CPI went up rapidly in the period under Labor. Of course, there was a lag and unemployment increased, just as there will be a lag now and unemployment will start dropping, as we are beginning to see. People are looking now to the banks for investment funds because they can see that we have stability back in this country. We have a Government that is interested in getting people back to the work places that they were in for so many years under our sort of Government. A hard job is being done. Stability has returned. I was reminded of this last night at a meeting in my electorate- it was not a party meeting, it was a public meeting- when we were talking about the plight of primary producers in this difficult time. After we had talked about possible government policies and all sorts of views had been put, one of my constituents said: ‘We are having a terrible time at my place at the present time. We have a drought and our beef prices are down. We have had all sorts of disasters in the last couple of years through cost increases and the low prices in the market’. He said his wife wanted him to put linoleum on the kitchen floor but he could not afford it. He said he had enough problems without Whitlam getting back into power. He said that would be the straw that broke the camel’s back. That is what one of the people in my electorate said. I can see just what he means.

On my desk today I have a commendation for Government policies which has come from two groups that have been rather critical because they have been a Utile worried about short term results of our strong, stable and constant policies. The Australian Industries Development Association has commended the Government in today’s Bulletin. The Master Builders Federation of Australia in today’s Bulletin also has commended the Federal Government The working man of Australia who knows that this country needs the old fashioned stability that we had for so many years also knows on which side his bread is buttered. That is the way he is going to vote. He knows that the Australian Labor Party offers no stability but only new policies with chops and changes of personnel and in the direction of the Australian economy. The average working man knows that there is no stability under Labor and that is the way he will see it on 10 December.

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

– I think an example of the concern which this Government feels about unemployment- we submit that there is a need for new economic policies to reverse the Government’s record of increasing unemployment- is evidenced by the fact that two quite insignificant back benchers opposite, who are well known to be oncers who win not be returned to the Parliament, will be speaking in this debate.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– There is only one here now.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– There is only one in the House now. As soon as the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Sainsbury) finished his speech he left the House. The only other member here now is the honourable member for Henty (Mr Aldred) who is a oncer and is insignificant, just like the honourable member for EdenMonaro. As I said, I think that is evidence of how much concern this Government has for unemployment. Even though a matter of public importance has been brought forward this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) the Government does not even have the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street), who is responsible for this matter, in the chamber to reply. We are to hear only from two insignificant oncers. That shows the degree of the Government’s concern. An article which appeared in the Melbourne Age of 31 October reads:

The Federal Government had shown ‘sensitivity and concern’ for unemployed Australians, the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, said yesterday.

He said unemployment was a severe problem, but it would not be solved by money alone . . .

He said the Government’s policies tackled the ‘real causes of unemployment and, at the same time, provided creative solutions to immediate problems ‘.

According to the article, he called on the Liberals to get out and persuade employers to hire young unemployed people under the Government’s $65 a week subsidy scheme. That is what the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) said, according to an article which appeared in the Age

Financial Review of that very same day, 31 October, an article which reads:

The Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, has cancelled a $ 100m job creation scheme because of the unexpectedly low 2 per cent increase in the September consumer price index.

Soon after the Budget, the Cabinet, on Mr Fraser ‘s prompting, decided to announce in November a new $100m jobs plan.

The Prime Minister intended to go ahead with the new program but pulled back because of the unexpected small rise in the CPI.

The cancellation reflects the effect the low CPI increase had in hardening the Government’s attitude to increasing expenditure.

This is the crunch:

It also shows Mr Fraser ‘s confidence that the electoral benefit derived from falling inflation far outweighs any loss of votes from high unemployment.

That shows the insensitivity of the Prime Minister on the question of the unemployed. Today’s Sydney Morning Herald carries a report of some remarks made by Dr Andrew Robertson, clinical supervisor of the Parramatta Psychiatric Hospital. The report reads:

About 350 people in Blacktown Municipality -

I represent the Blacktown municipality- aged 14 upwards, try to kill themselves each year and in a high percentage of these cases unemployment is an important factor.

The article goes on to say that Dr Robertson has studied 235 cases listed as attempted suicides for the year ended 30 September 1976, but he estimates that the total number is close to 350. The article continues:

Unemployment is a major stress factor which has set the stage for a large number of these attempted suicides, ‘ he said yesterday.

His survey found that 72 males and 163 females tried to commit suicide, mainly through taking overdoses of prescribed medicines.

I think that is a very good example of the social impact that the unemployment is having upon our community. Yet we have reports such as the one I have just referred to coming out at a time when the rate of unemployment is rising rapidly- the very time the Prime Minister decides to scrap a $ 100m job opportunity program. Does that show the Prime Minister’s -

Mr James:

– What about the Newcastle dockyard?

Mr ARMITAGE:

– The honourable member for Hunter mentions also the Newcastle dockyard. The Prime Minister has also decided to scrap that, despite a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence of this Parliament that the dockyard should be maintained. Does that show the Prime Minister’s so-called, to quote the Age, ‘sensitivity and concern’ for unemployed Australians? It shows a complete lack of sensitivity to what is occurring in the area of unemployment.

I shall refer to what is happening in the BlacktownMount Druitt area, which is the area concerned with the survey carried out by Dr Andrew Robertson. The number of unemployed registered in Blacktown at the end of September this year totalled 3,088; in Mount Druitt the number was 3,692. In other words, more than 6,700 people were unemployed in those two areas as at September this year. Almost half of those people are under the age of 21 years. Furthermore, we can add to that list, as from the beginning of next year, some 2,000 school leavers. That will give some idea of the figures that will pertain about the end of January or February next year. Furthermore, sources from within the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations indicate that in the area covered by the Blacktown office of the Commonwealth Employment Service, 8.05 per cent of the labour force is unemployed, and in Mount Druitt 17.4 per cent of the labour force is unemployed. That is a massive figure. Yet at the same time this Government refuses to allocate the necessary finance to establish job opportunity programs. As late as 3 1 October the Cabinet decided that a job opportunity program which was to cost $100m was to be cancelled. As I have said, that is an example of the Prime Minister’s ‘sensitivity’ in relation to this important issue of unemployment, and particularly youth unemployment.

The matter of public importance brought forward today calls for new economic policies to overcome the unemployment situation in this country. The major economic policy which needs to be introduced is to reverse the decision by this Government to cut back public expenditure. The Government has adopted the Milton Friedman policies of giving everything to the private sector without realising that government is the biggest purchaser from the private sector. When government expenditure is cut back, when expenditure on the public sector is cut back, that has a very big impact upon the private sector and accordingly creates unemployment not only in the pubUc sector but also in the private sector. It is time that the Government’s POliCY was reversed. Surely, after two years of following that policy the Government must now realise that it has failed. Also there is a very vital need to inject funds into job opportunity programs. I believe that when the people go to the polls on 10 December they will demonstrate that the

Government’s policies have been a failure and that these new policies must be implemented.

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

Mr ALDRED:
Henty

– I must say that I have listened with great interest to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) and the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Armitage) because the general standard of what they have been putting forward this afternoon has been at about the same level as the sorts of announcements that the Opposition has been making on economic POliCY during the last few days. Those announcements have been related basically either to personal abuse or to ideas and concepts which failed some considerable time ago in Western Europe. I do not intend to go over the ground covered by the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Sainsbury) who, I think, laid out very clearly this afternoon the fact that the bulk of the unemployment which is afflicting this country today was in fact created during the time honourable gentlemen opposite were in government.

I think one could say at the same time that the general correctness of the economic policies that have been followed over the last two years has been clearly vindicated by the announcements that have been made over the last two months in relation to economic indicators. I refer, obviously, to our latest success as far as the consumer price index is concerned. The average annual rate of inflation in this country is now running at about 10 per cent, compared with some 17 per cent about two years ago. During the past two years, particularly the last year, we have seen a considerable increase in the level of company profits. A number of other economic indicators also show quite clearly that the economy is moving firmly to a state of recovery and prosperity.

Before discussing in more detail some of the policies which we have brought down during the last two years to deal with the general problem of unemployment and related issues, I would like to comment in specific terms on some of the things that members of the Opposition have said this afternoon and in the last few days about economic pOliCY and unemployment. The message that comes through quite clearly is, as the actress said to the bishop: Let’s do it again. It is the same old stuff over and over again. It is nothing new. Like the Bourbons, members of the Opposition have forgotten nothing and they have learned nothing. That came through quite clearly at the Labor Party ‘s National Conference held in Perth earlier this year, when no new initiatives were produced. It was simply the same old material being brought out again

In that regard I was interested to hear the discussion that emanated from the other side of the this House about the proposed Department of Economic Development. This concept in fact was tried in the United Kingdom 10 or IS years ago, when a Department of Economic Affairs was established. It failed dismally there. I have not the slightest doubt that it would fail here, for the simple reason that in setting up the Department of Economic Affairs the British Government created a body which had power over everything but responsibility for nothing. In the end it achieved nothing, except a larger Public Service salary bill. The suggested Department is fairly indicative of the level of imagination and initiative of members on the other side of the House at the moment as far as economic policy and the related question of unemployment are concerned.

It is worth referring to some of the schemes which the Labor Party introduced when it was in government in an attempt to solve the unemployment problem. I remind the House that the Labor Party was largely responsible for creating the unemployment problem. At one stage we had a scheme, which the Labor Party eventually deleted, called the Regional Employment Development scheme. The examples of abuse and waste of money under that scheme were manifold. There was a classic case of one municipal council in Perth which was given a grant under the RED scheme. That grant was used for digging a trench from one end of the municipality to the other, supposedly for drainage purposes. It was so poorly planned that as fast as it was dug it started to fill again. I could instance some examples of the way RED scheme grants were used in my electorate. Basically, they degenerated into what could be called grasscutting exercises. Extra money was give to councils. Instead of grass being cut once a fortnight, it was cut two or three times a week. This is a clear indication that the sorts of schemes which the Labor Party introduced in an attempt to solve unemployment were dismal failures.

A similar thing happened with the National Employment and Training scheme. Although it started out with the best intentions to retrain people who were out of work, particularly to train semi-skilled and unskilled people for trade positions, over a period of time it degenerated into another lurk for the academics. It became another tertiary training scheme. I think one could conclude that all these schemes, both the schemes introduced when the Labor Party was in government and the schemes that it has produced in the last few days, are not so much schemes with a certain grandeur as schemes with a stink of stupidity about them. There is nothing practicable or reasonable in them. No practicable benefit or result is likely to flow out of them.

By contrast, we have attempted to set about solving the basic problem of unemployment by looking carefully at what causes it. Although there are certain short term causes, there is a much longer term cause, and that relates to the change in the industrial structure in this country. One in fact has the paradox today that there are insufficient skilled tradesmen, for instance, to fill the various positions that exist. The Leader of the Opposition this afternoon apparently made a remarkable discovery of that fact- a particularly startling revelation for the honourable gentleman concerned. If he had been a little more aware of economics he would have been well ac- quainted some time ago with that problem and le cause of it

Mr Brown:

– That is asking too much of him.

Mr ALDRED:

-The honourable member for Diamond Valley is correct; that is probably asking too much of the Leader of the Opposition. The other side of the paradox is that while we have a shortage of skilled tradesmen we have a problem with unemployment of people in unskilled and semi-skilled categories. So, the basic problem that must be solved is a retraining problem- that is, to retrain people who have been retrenched from many of our labourintensive industries during the last few years, as those industries have become capital intensive, so that those people can be placed in skilled trade categories.

In that regard, during the past couple of years the Government has brought down a number of practical and sensible schemes to overcome this problem. As a result of the Norgard inquiry into the Commonwealth Employment Service a number of things have been done to improve the operating efficiency of the Service so that it is better placed to put people into jobs. We have expanded the NEAT scheme and taken it back to its original practical purpose. It is not now a lurk for the academics, as it degenerated into under the Labor Party. Many of the Labor Party’s schemes degenerated to that stage. As a matter of fact, many of its well intentioned initiatives degenerated over a period of time into a sort of academic lurk. It happened not only with the

NEAT scheme but also with many other schemes that Labor introduced.

The NEAT scheme has been expanded to take into account its original purpose- that is, basically to retrain people in skilled trade categories. We have brought in the Special Youth Employment Training Program by which practical assistance is afforded to employers by way of a Commonwealth subsidy of $65 a week so that they can take on unemployed school leavers. A number of employers in my electorate already have taken advantage of this scheme and have employed a number of people under it. Despite the fact that my electorate does not have a particularly high unemployment level, the scheme has been of great use in my area. There have been a number of other schemes, such as the Commonwealth Rebate for Apprenticeship Fulltime Training scheme which has been welcomed by employers as a very successful initiative, and the Community Youth Support Scheme.

Obviously, the way out of our unemployment problem is to retrain people from the unskilled and semi-skilled categories for skilled positions and to solve the more general economic problems that confront the economy, such as inflation, and not to indulge in personal abuse or to propose the outdated ideas of western Europe of 10 or 15 years ago that have been proposed by the Opposition.

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

– The discussion is now concluded.

page 2684

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Mr HOWARD:
Minister for Special Trade Negotiations · Bennelong · LP

-On behalf of the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) I move:

That Standing Order 103- the 11 o’clock rule-and the sessional order of 10 March relating to the adjournment of sittings be suspended for the remainder of the session.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-On behalf of the Opposition it is necessary for me to lodge some protest, not so much at the suspension of the 11 o’clock rule- that happens fairly frequently at this stage of parliament- but at the amount of legislation which has been brought into the Parliament in the last day or so and the amount which is to be brought in today. Some of it is legislation which the Government would claim is of extreme substance. It has been introduced without any opportunity being given to the Opposition to look at it, to examine it and to consider its ramifications.

May I mention one or two Bills which are to be pushed through the Parliament. Already listed for debate tomorrow are some Bills which have not been introduced yet. This imposes a task which is completely beyond the Parliament. I know it is a regular practice towards the end of a sessional period. Some of the legislation which is suddenly appearing has been talked about by Ministers around the country for the best part of 12 months. As always towards the end of a sessional period- I am not sure whose responsibility it is- legislation suddenly flows into the Parliament. Major Bills are pushed through the Parliament without honourable members having a chance to consider them, especially the clauses of Bills in the Committee stage. One Bill to be introduced later today is the Australian Rural Bank Bill, which will have major repercussions on the financial institutions of the country as well as on a large section of the community. It can be described only as a beat up Bill. The Parliament will not have an opportunity to examine it properly or to disclose its deficiencies.

The people involved in other legislation ought to be consulted. They ought to be able to examine it and discuss it with members of the Government parties and members of the Opposition. This will not happen. The Government is looking to pass some 50 pieces of legislation in a week. Most of it has been on the Notice Paper less than one or two days. Legislation is not the property of the Cabinet or the legislative committee only; it is also the property of the community at large. If Bills have a wide effect and do not necessarily apply specific monetary policies of the Government but change avenues within our way of life, then the community is entitled to see the legislation and determine whether it carries out what has been promised. They are entitled to make recommendations on it to their members of Par.liament if they feel that such representations ought to be made. People would not be able to get copies of many of the Bills going through Parliament at the moment in time to look at them before they become law. That is how quickly they are being pushed through the Parliament. Seven Bills are to be introduced today. All of them are listed for discussion in the Parliament tomorrow. Some of them will sUp back to Monday. I am sure that the Government has no intention of passing some of the legislation this session. Some of it will be passed for propaganda purposes and most likely never proclaimed. The point that I make is that substantive legislation should not be dealt with by a Parliament on this basis. This situation occurs regularly. It is a problem from which the Parliament suffers.

The decision to dissolve the Parliament on 10 November was taken by the Government.

Therefore the Government has to accept the responsibility for its own inability to prepare the ground so that the legislation can be dealt with properly and effectively. The community at large will suffer from the mistakes that are made through this type of practice and the Parliament will become completely redundant in the process of passing legislation. It will exist merely to allow a Minister to make a second reading speech and some token response to be made by the Opposition or a supporter of the Government, but the proper role of Parliament will be totally excluded. That role is to represent the people who sent members here to represent them. If this type of practice continues ad infinitum, as it appears it will unless there are substantial changes, we may as well allow the Cabinet to pass the legislation and try to find a suitable moment to present it to the Governor-General when he is capable of signing it.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– Very briefly, I support what has been said by the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) in this debate. I know that it is the practice at the end of a sessional period or a Parliament to have a tremendous flood of Bills. I remember no flood as bad as that with which we are confronted at the moment There are 10 Bills listed on the Notice Paper to be brought in today. On the Notice Paper are 22 undebated or scarcely debated Bills. Some of these Bills should lie on the table for some time so that the community can see them. I refer particularly to the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill. A number of responsible organisations, including churches, have asked that this Bill not be passed until they and other elements in the community have had a chance to see the nature of the Bill, which will have a great impact upon the social life of Australians. Apart from these Bills, I notice, for example, that the Government’s own statement on defence lies undebated. It was one of the shames of this Parliament that we did not have an opportunity to debate the defence estimates, which were slammed through. I believe that one of the things that has gone into discard is the need for us to do something about Australia’s defence policy. Now is not the time to debate it.

I will not take up the time of the House for more than another few seconds, but I suggest that we should use every opportunity and every moment between now and the forecast dissolution of the House to sit in this chamber and see to the best of our ability that we reduce to the minimum- we cannot eliminate them- the troubles that are inherent in the situation that I have described. A moment ago I heard the Government Whip berating an honourable member for not attending the Parliament. Why should we attend the Parliament when we have put before us such a flood of new material that we cannot possibly digest it or understand it? I ask very definitely that the Government see that we have no ban on overtime- that is not something for honourable members-but that we sit every moment available until the House is dissolved. We can do at least that- and even that will not cure the disastrous situation that lies in front of us now.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-I support my two colleagues, the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) and the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth). I have had substantial disagreements with my friend, the honourable member for Mackellar, over large areas of public policy and even, perhaps, about the way we have run the Parliament on occasions. However, on this issue I think we have stood pretty well shoulder to shoulder since we came to this place. This is what Parliament is all about. I cannot understand how people in all conscience can handle the Parliament as it is being handled. I mentioned in the debate on the hours and days of meeting the sheer inconvenience caused to everybody- Hansard writers, Library staff and all the other people associated with the Parliament. Suddenly their arrangements have to be changed. Things that they were going to do at a certain hour they are now unable to do. There is no guarantee that they will be free at the normal times at which they would be free from the ordinary business of making a living and whatever else they do. Let us consider the whole subject that is before us. Take, for instance, the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill. I understand that this makes substantial changes to the actual powers of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications to control programming. I think it is a fundamental change -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! I point out to the honourable member for Wills that although he may use as an illustration a Bill being put through without sufficient time for discussion, he must not touch on the subject matter of the Bill or facts relating to it or any other legislation.

Mr BRYANT:

– I am not talking about the substance of the Bill at all. I am not saying whether it is good or bad. I suppose that is what debate is about. The question under consideration is what is before the House for discussion. We may not discuss anything. We have been victims for long enough of the forestalling of debate and the behaviour of the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Bourchier) in having the brass to chide other persons for not speaking in this House. The only speeches he ever makes are to move that the question be put. I notice that an amendment to the Copyright Act is likely to come before us. An archives Bill is to come before us. Both the archives Bill and the copyright amendment Bill are matters that cause a great deal of discussion and ought to have a great deal of parliamentary scrutiny. They are both fundamental.

This House is the inheritor of some 900 years of parliamentary tradition. All the substantial systems of examination of legislation have been developed over that time to protect the rights of minorities in this chamber, the majorities and minorities outside and the members of the Par.liament to discuss the questions before it. What we have seen in the last two years is an almost unprecedented shaking of the system. Indeed it went back further than that with the behaviour of the other place.

What I said earlier today is in fact happening in the community. People are saying: ‘What is the point of the institution? It is run as the Prime Minister’s private parliament. He does as he will with it. His own side just fronts up. They are just numbers in the situation’. My friends at the table-the Minister for Special Trade Negotiations (Mr Howard) and the Minister for Construction (Mr McLeay)- seem to think that I am speaking in rather too many decibels. But when one has to get through to people such as they, one needs to speak loudly and long. It may even be that they think I am being repetitious. I was a member of the Victorian teaching service for many years and I was taught- I found it was substantially true- that with slow learners one has to be repetitious. I do not know when this Parliament is going to learn that the suspension of the 1 1 o’clock rule is a change to the traditional way in which we run the place. I thought that perhaps during our term of office we were often a bit heavy-handed.

Mr Howard:

– You are being charitable.

Mr BRYANT:

-No. I used to say so. But I recognise the great difficulty we have. Even if this legislation were to have another six months before us we could not debate all these issues satisfactorily. This matter should have been looked at during the hearings of the Joint Committee on the Parliamentary Committee System and some of the recommendations of that Committee implemented. That is very important. The facts are that not only was the 1 1 o’clock rule established to bring sensible discussion to debate, but also the 11 o’clock closure was a substantial advantage to the whole institution. I deplore any effort to change it, to remove it or to get into the bad habit of meeting late at night. It is one of the worst features of the parliamentary system.

I know that my friends, the Minister for no trade negotiations in Europe, Mr Howard, and the Minister for not building anything, Mr McLeay, are getting a bit edgy about this. They would juke to get on with the business of running the country as their private property. From my experience of watching governments for a long while and from a close study of history, I can say that it is a very good prescription for ending up outside the parliament. The mishandling of this institution is a very good way of making the community fed up with the government and with us too. I do not mind the people getting fed up with the Government. After all, they made a serious error in the first place. But it reflects on all of us and we have to do something about it I hope my friend, the honourable member for Holt (Mr Yates), who is temporarily with us, will have a word to say because I do not think that the institution he graced earlier behaved often in this way.

Mr YATES:
Holt

-I shall take only one second, Mr Deputy Speaker. The House of Commons sat many times all through the night when government business had to be passed. There is nothing wrong or absurd in asking for the suspension of the 11 o’clock rule. As soon as the Government gets on with its business, the better.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2686

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Precedence

Motion (by Mr Howard) proposed:

That Government Business shall take precedence over General Business tomorrow.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-I will not delay the House for very long. The Opposition Will oppose this proposition. We believe that members who have placed items of General Business on the Notice Paper have a right to have them debated in the Parliament. In the previous Parliament, despite aU that could have been said about the conduct of the House, even during Budget discussions, private members’ business on the day on which it was listed was given precedence and aU matters were taken to a vote. Honourable members have had items of General Business on the Notice Paper for over 12 months, waiting for them to be debated. I think it is unfortunate that the matter which is listed for tomorrow in the name of the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young), namely, that we discuss the requirements for election purposes and the financing or political parties, cannot be debated. The second item on the Notice Paper, in the name of the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden), is a matter relating to the Australian Assistance Plan, which was one of those things on which a clear undertaking was given by the then caretaker government, through the then Minister the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp), who subsequently left the Liberal Party because of the repudiation of that promise and other matters with which he was personally concerned.

These matters have been listed since the first day of the sitting of this Parliament, which was at least 18 months ago. This does not apply only tomorrow; it has applied to the whole of the Budget session of this Parliament during which honourable members have been denied the opportunity of discussing General Business matters. This effectively takes out of the Parliament any discussion at all of private members’ business. Other General Business notices are listed. There are, in fact, some 40 of them on the Notice Paper. Only one or two of then have even got past the stage of giving of notice. I think it is fair to say that in most cases honourable members did not expect their notices to get past that stage. I think it highlights the inability of honourable members to bring matters before this Parliament at all. The present Government’s return to the pre- 1972 situation where General Business was brought on only when it suited the convenience of the Government rather than as a right to members is, I think, a retrograde step. The Opposition opposes this proposition.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-Mr Deputy Speaker-

Motion (by Mr Howard) put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker- Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 56

NOES: 20

Majority……. 36

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put-

That the motion (Mr Howard’s) be agreed to.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 58

NOES: 22

Majority ……. 36

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 2688

AUSTRALIAN RURAL BANK BILL 1977

Bill presented by Mr Lynch, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr LYNCH:
Treasurer · Flinders · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to provide the legislative framework for the establishment of an Australian Rural Bank, in fulfilment of LiberalNational Country Party policy. As mentioned in the primary industry policy statement which we issued in 1975, access to capital on suitable terms and conditions has been an increasingly serious problem for the farm owner-operator. We considered longer term loans essential and undertook to establish a national rural bank in conjunction with the trading banks and other lenders in the rural sector to provide credit for investment in land, machinery and plant and for various other purposes to which I will refer later in this speech.

Before outlining the purposes and provisions of the Bill in detail, I wish to pay tribute, on behalf of the Government, to the work undertaken over many months in the development of this measure by my colleagues, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) in his capacity as Minister Assisting the Treasurer. We have also had the benefit of valuable advice provided by the Government Members Rural Committee.

This Bill is the product of the most extensive processes of investigation and consultation.

The Australian Rural Bank will be unique in a number of respects. It Will be the first financial institution of its kind set up under the aegis of Commonwealth legislation for the sole and specific purpose of facilitating the provision of finance to primary producers. It will be unique also in the way that the Commonwealth Government will be working in close partnership with private sector financial institutions in the establishment, operations and POliCY decisions of the Bank. I will explain later the ways in which this will be achieved.

The Government’s primary consideration in providing for the establishment of this new facility has been to devise a way of enabling credit to be made available to primary producers, including fishermen, for significantly longer terms than has generally been available up to the present. Many farming, forestry and fishing enterprises involve expenditures which yield returns over extended periods. The cash flows from these investments frequently take some years to reach their potential, but then have life expectancies of many years. Under these circumstances producers can be discouraged from embarking on many worthwhile development projects by the relatively short repayment terms often required by traditional lending sources. Thus, our purpose in proposing this measure is to increase the availability of loan funds for primary production by facilitating the provision of longer term loans to primary producers than would otherwise be practicable.

It is not the Government’s wish to restrict the purposes for which refinance loans by the Aus.tralian Rural Bank may be made available. The primary consideration wa be the financial viability of any particular proposal and this will remain a matter for negotiation between borrowers and lenders and be based on normal commercial considerations. We have in mind, however, that funds will be available for the refinancing of loans for such purposes as the purchase of land, fixed and structural improvements, machinery, stock, farm equipment, fishing vessels and facilities and for the expansion of existing farm development and fishing projects as well as the reconstruction of existing debts. Whilst loans are envisaged for periods from 10 to 30 years, it would not be realistic to extend repayment periods beyond the expected life of the secured assets. For such purposes as machinery and livestock purchases, therefore, loans with shorter repayment periods would often be more appropriate.

The purposes which I have outlined will be achieved without the creation of a large, and therefore expensive, new direct lending institution. The Bank will operate as a re-finance institution, meaning that it will borrow funds for lending to other existing financial institutions which will in turn on-lend the funds to individual primary producers. Thus, the new Bank will work through and with existing institutions, and not in competition with them.

The Bill makes provision for the use of the refinance facilities by Banks and other lenders. In accordance with the Schedule, the precise range and types of lenders to be granted access will be a matter for consideration. It is the Government’s aim, however, that there be wide participation; in particular it is envisaged that the Commonwealth Development Bank will be able to refinance loans to primary producers through this new facility. It is expected that on the basis I have outlined the new Bank will be able to operate with only a relatively small staff and administrative apparatus. Its main role will be to raise funds for ultimate use in the rural sector, generally for longer terms than are available to the trading banks.

I turn now to outline the main provisions in the Bill. Clause 4 gives the Governor-General power to grant a banking authority to a company with the name Australian Rural Bank Limited. The Banks have indicated their willingness to cooperate in this venture. Under clause 5, however, the power to grant a banking authority shall only be exercised if the company’s Memorandum and Articles of Association conform to the provisions set out in the Schedule to the Act. This will ensure that the Bank’s general objectives are consistent with those which the Government has in mind and to which I have already referred. It will also ensure the Government’s right to participate in the Bank as a shareholder, as well as providing for some directors to be designated by the Treasurer on behalf of the Government. The Treasurer will designate a person to be chairman, the Government’s intention being that the Chairman will be a person of independent standing. The Treasurer will also designate a person to represent the interests of the Commonwealth and two persons to represent the interests of primary producers. Conditions may be attached to the granting of the banking authority and this will be a further means by which the Government will be able to influence the policies of the Bank if necessary and to the extent considered necessary to achieve the Government’s objectives.

Clause 7 of the Bill provides that the Treasurer may make grants or loans to the Bank on terms and conditions determined by him. This provision may be used to enable loans to primary producers to be made on terms more favourable than would otherwise be practicable. The precise ways in which this provision will be used can be determined only after consultation with the Bank when it is established, in the light of prevailing circumstances in the economy and in financial markets, and of course in the light of budgetary circumstances. The House may be assured, however, that our general aim will be to keep interest rates to primary producers as low as practicable consistent with all the relevant considerations.

Under clause 8 any funds provided by the Commonwealth to the Bank may be provided from moneys appropriated by Parliament or, in the case of loans to the Bank, from amounts held in the income equalisation deposits trust account. Use of the latter source will, however, be subject to regulations. Clause 9 of the Bill provides for the Treasurer to be kept informed of the Bank’s policies and proposed policies and also requires the Bank to consult with the Treasurer at his request. Under clause 10, the Treasurer will be required to table in Parliament copies of the Bank’s annual report together with a separate report on action taken under this part of the legislation. This will ensure that Parliament is kept fully informed of developments under the legislation. Clause 1 1 provides for the making of regulations, including regulations for the purpose of obtaining and publication of statistical and other information.

The remaining clauses in the Bill provide for appropriate amendments to the Banking Act so as to give the new institution full bank status and to place upon it the obligations and privileges attaching to that status. The amendments closely follow those made in 1967 in relation to the Australian Resources Development Bank. The Bank will, of course, be subject to General banking and monetary policies as appropriate. Honourable members will observe that, although the new Bank will be working very much in cooperation with existing banking and other financial institutions, the Legislation provides a number of means through which the Government will be able to take necessary action to ensure that the operations of the Bank meet the Government’s objectives. I refer in particular to:

  1. 1 ) The fact that appropriate conditions may be attached to the granting of the banking authority;
  2. the participation by the Commonwealth as a shareholder in the Bank and with direct representation on the Board of the Bank;
  3. the need for the Bank’s Memorandum and Articles of Association to conform with the general objectives set down in the Schedule to the Bill;
  4. the requirement placed on the Bank to keep the Treasurer informed of its policies and proposed policies and to consult with him at his request;
  5. the ability of the Government to attach appropriate terms and conditions to any financial assistance that might be provided from time to time.

I appreciate that honourable members will be interested to know when the new Bank will be established and begin operations. Work will commence immediately in consultation and in conjunction with the banks with a view to establishment of the new institution at the earliest practicable time consistent with the obvious requirements in relation to incorporation, staffing, location of premises and so on. The House will be kept informed on these matters. The Government, in proposing this measure, is convinced that it will make a significant contribution to improving the credit facilities available to primary producers, and that it will do so in an efficient and economical manner. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Scholes) adjourned.

page 2690

CUSTOMS AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Bill presented by Mr Fife, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr FIFE:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Farrer · LP

– I move:

The primary purpose of the Bill I have just introduced is to make amendments to the Customs Act which will increase very substantially the maximum penalties for drug trafficking offences and provide for seizure and forfeiture of cash, cheques or goods that are in the possession or control of a person by reason of:

  1. His importing, selling, otherwise dealing in or having in possession any of the narcotic substances specified in Schedule 1 to the Bill;
  2. his aiding, abetting or being knowingly concerned in any such enterprise; or
  3. having been acquired by the person, in the case of goods, by purchase out of moneys received for participating in trafficking or, in the case of moneys, by the sale or exchange of goods received as proceeds from such participation.

The proposal stems from acceptance by the Government of recommendations by the National Standing Control Committee on Drugs of Dependence which, late last year, were unanimously adopted by a meeting of Commonwealth and State Ministers concerned with drug abuse. The meeting of Ministers agreed that existing penalties for offences involving cannabis leaf should not be varied. While this decision requires differentiating between marihuana and other drugs as regards trafficking, it means retention of the existing lower-tier penalty for all drugs where the quantity concerned in an offence is not indicative of trafficking.

Penalties for trafficking in drugs were last increased in 1971. However, significant developments since that date, namely:

The alarming rise in trafficking in, and abuse of, extremely dangerous drugs such as heroin, morphine and concentrated cannabis derivatives, cannabis oil and cannabis resin; evidence of participation by ‘organised crime’ syndicates operating from overseas as well as within Australia; and emergence of Australia as a major market worthy .of inclusion in regular smuggling routes as a destination and as a transit pointusually for drugs en route to New Zealand-. indicate that the present maximum penalty level of $4,000 or 10 years imprisonment, or both, is singularly inadequate in view of the enormous rewards that can be reaped from the illicit trade. I do not need to tell honourable members that the participants in this shameful trade are dealers in the ultimate in human misery, degradation and despoliation and I am sure that all will agree that penalties of a sufficiently high level to serve as a deterrent are called for.

In the past, the deterrent effect of the penalty has suffered because the ill-gotten gains from drug trafficking have been beyond the reach of the law even m those instances where, in the course of arrests and drug seizures, large sums of money have been intercepted in the course of changing hands. To correct this weakness and to strengthen the deterrent effect where strengthening is as much, if not more, needed than m the area of prescribed penalties, the Bill provides in clause 8 for the forfeiture to the Crown of moneys, cheques or goods that can be shown to be proceeds from drug-trafficking offences. Safeguards are included under which cash, cheques or goods seized from a person as forfeited to the Crown, but in respect of which another person establishes innocent ownership, shall, by direction of a court, be delivered to that lastmentioned person. Similar safeguards are included in respect of innocent storage of narcotic goods by warehouse licensees.

Clause 10 of the Bill proposes that offences against the Customs Act that are related to importation, exportation or possession of a prohibited narcotic substance- other than cannabis in leaf form- and that involve a quantity of that substance that is not less than the quantity specified in relation to that substance in Schedule 1 to the Bill, be punishable by a penalty of up to $100,000 or by imprisonment for up to 25 years, or by both a fine and imprisonment up to those limits. The quantities set out in that Schedule as traffickable quantities are in accordance with the recommendations of the National Standing Control Committee on Drugs of Dependence to which I referred earlier. The quantities reflect the experience of law enforcement agencies in relation to amounts which would reasonably be consistent with personal use. In the light of the proposed substantial increase in penalties, the quantities decided upon are, in most cases, four times the quantity at present prescribed. The Bill proposes a number of other amendments to the Customs Act which are more of a general ‘housekeeping’ nature. These include:

Amendments dealt with in clauses 3, 4 and 9 which are consequential to Australia’s adoption last year of the Brussels Definition of Value. The ‘Brussels’ system relies on normal commercial documentation and does not require ‘Customs’ invoices.

Amendments proposed by clauses 5 and 6 which are designed to provide greater flexibility for regulations to govern the granting, operation and transfer of licences or permissions in respect of goods subject to imports- export restriction.

In co-operation with the Treasurer, by clause 7, a restructuring of provisions setting out the general requirements in relation to exports to provide a basis for eliminating the need for export licences under the Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations by upgrading the export entry as the sole control document.

Although the proposed amendments require entry before export, instead of within the present three days grace, any apparent disadvantage to exporters is outweighed by, firstly. the elimination, consequential to the passage of this Bill, of export licences and, secondly, by the introduction of a system under which regular exporters may, subject to observance of the conditions of the system, furnish to Customs periodic returns of exports instead of shipment-by-shipment entries. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Scholes) adjourned.

page 2691

BRIGALOW LANDS AGREEMENT AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Bill presented by Mr Sinclair, and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to obtain the approval of Parliament for the Government to enter into an agreement with the Queensland Government to amend the existing Brigalow Lands Agreement Act 1962. Under this Act, which was first enacted in 1962, and subsequently amended in 1965 and 1967, the State is obligated to repay loans, together with interest, made to the State by the Commonwealth for the purchase and development of the brigalow lands. The period of the loan extends over a 20-year period with interest at concessional rates. In a similar manner, the settlers in these areas are required to repay loans made to them by the State.

In recent years, the settlers have found themselves in financial difficulties. These difficulties have arisen through causes outside their own control and have largely resulted from the disastrous financial situation in the beef industry generally. To assist these needy settlers, the Commonwealth is willing and very happy to grant concessions to the State Government, in respect of repayments to the Commonwealth, on the condition that similar concessions are made available by the State to the settlers in the brigalow areas. It is proposed that a 12 month moratorium on repayments by the State will apply. Principal repayments will be deferred and spread over following years and interest which would normally accrue over the period will be waived. The concession is being provided by the Commonwealth on the condition that the State Government agrees to extend a similar concession to settlers, according to need, for an average two-year period.

The period over which the repayments are made, at present, is 20 years. The Commonwealth has agreed to extend this period to 27 years, in relation to the State’s commitment to the Commonwealth, on the condition that the State similarly extends the repayment period applying to the settlers. The Government believes that this concession, together with other means of assistance available to beef producers, will be of material assistance to those needy settlers in the brigalow areas of Queensland. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Scholes) adjourned.

page 2692

BEEF INDUSTRY (INCENTIVE PAYMENTS) BILL 1977

Bill presented by Mr Sinclair, and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of the Bill is to provide for incentive payments to be made to beef producers who carry out certain recognised animal health and husbandly procedures. The provisions of the Bill will help to alleviate the very serious cash flow position of beef producers, while serving the national interest by maintaining essential animal health activity. The period during which the scheme will operate is related to the performance of procedures between 23 September 1977 and 22 September 1978. The Bill provides for a basic eligibility criterion, which is the ownership of SO or more cattle kept for beef production on 30 June 1977. Eligible persons may be paid $10 per head, to a maximum of $2,000, in respect of recognised procedures which include dipping and other treatments for external parasites, drenching and other treatments for internal parasites, tuberculin testing and blood sampling and vaccination for brucellosis and spaying of female cattle less than two years of age.

Provision is made for the Minister to accept other disease control measures as recognised procedures. This will enable approval of procedures not specifically mentioned but which fall within the spirit of the Bill. The Bill provides that partnerships, companies and trusts will qualify for payment as if they were individual owners. In order to expedite payments and achieve administrative economies, claims will be accepted only in a form approved by the Minister. Claim forms will be printed and distributed as soon as possible. It is intended that claims will be lodged with the Department of Primary Industry, Canberra. The completed claim will include a declaration by the owner. Provision is also made for supporting declarations in respect of eligibility and, when appropriate, in respect of performance of the procedures themselves. The Bill provides penalties for false declarations. There is also provision for appropriation of the revenue. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Scholes) adjourned.

page 2692

AUSTRALIAN SHIPPING COMMISSION AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Bill presented by Mr Nixon, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · Gippsland · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The main provisions of this Bill to amend the Australian Shipping Commission Act are designed to encourage a regime of equal opportunity for competition in coastal trades between the Australian Shipping Commission and private shipowners, and to enable the Australian National Line to undertake shipping services for the carriage of goods between places in a State where that State authorises the Commission to provide such services. The opportunity has also been taken to effect a number of minor amendments to the Act.

The Australian Coastal Shipping Agreement 1956 expired in September 1976 and the Government has considered the effectiveness of this Agreement and whether any useful purpose would be served by entering into a new agreement. The main purpose of the Agreement was to facilitate trade and commerce in coastal shipping by ensuring the continued operation of ships by private shipping companies and the Australian Shipping Commission, and to ensure the maintenance of competition between the private companies, and between the companies and the Commission. Following discussions with private shipping interests and the Commission, the Government concluded that a new agreement was not necessary but that certain amendments to the Australian Shipping Commission Act were desirable to ensure that ANL enjoys no special advantages or suffers any disadvantages vis-a-vis private shipping interests. The amendments proposed are therefore designed, among other things to provide a situation of equal competition and equal opportunity as between ANL and private shipping companies.

I propose to refer only briefly to the principal amendments to be effected to the Act. An explanatory memorandum that is being circulated gives details of all the amendments contained in this Bill. Section 17 of the Act is being expanded. This section currently provides that the Government may direct the Commission to operate a particular service in the public interest. If such a direction is given and the service incurs a loss, the Commission is entitled to reimbursement of the loss. However this provision does not enable other shipowners to be offered the subsidised operation. There will be added a requirement that if such a direction- to provide a particular service in the public interest- is issued, the Minister must at the same time set up an inquiry into alternative services, and the form and amount of assistance that such alternatives might need. Where a service is considered necessary in the public interest all Australian shipowners and other forms of transport will have the opportunity to compete for that service. All possible ways of handling the cargo will be explored and a proper commercial evaluation made of the best way to solve the transport problem involved.

A new section 17a will be inserted to require the Commission to earn sufficient to pay dividends in respect of its coastal operations to the Commonwealth on a basis that puts the Commission on a footing with comparable private enterprises. The Minister will have power to instruct the Commission as to the target dividend it should aim for in respect of its coastal operations, and the Commission will be required to report to the Minister during the trading year with proposals to correct the situation should it appear that the target will not be achieved. These requirements would place additional pressure on the Commission to operate in a commercial way. Section 30 is to be amended to require the Commission to pay interest on borrowings from the Commonwealth at the going rate paid by private first class borrowers. This is in fact the position now, but it will be expressed specifically in the Act. Under the amendment to section 36 the Commission will be required to pay State and Territory taxes as well as Commonwealth taxes.

Under its present legislation, the Commission is not empowered to trade intrastate. However following extended negotiations between the Commonwealth and Queensland governments, the Queensland Government recently legislated to authorise the Commission to operate intrastate shipping services in Queensland following its decision some time ago to allow the Commission unrestricted access in the general cargo trade from Brisbane to north Queensland ports.

A new section 16a will be inserted to enable the Commission to carry out the powers and functions relating to intrastate trading conferred by a State government, such as Queensland. The service between ports in Queensland will be provided by the Line’s vessels which currently operate regular services between southern ports, Brisbane and north Queensland, but are presently unable to accept cargoes from Brisbane to northern ports in the State. This will provide residents of north Queensland with the benefits of an alternative transport system previously denied them. The Bill also provides an opportunity to make a number of minor amendments of a procedural or consequential nature to the Australian Shipping Commission Act which will bring the provisions of the Act into line with present practice and make for uniformity with legislation in relation to other Commonwealth transport undertakings. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 2693

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY SUPREME COURT AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Bill presented by Mr Howard, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr HOWARD:
Minister for Special Trade Negotiations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister · Bennelong · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill and the Northern Territory Supreme Court Amendment Bill 1977 which I will be presenting shortly are introduced so as to permit the making of regulations fixing fees to be charged in the Supreme Courts of the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory. In the past, fees have been fixed by Rules of Court which, of course, are made by the Judges of each court.

The previous Labor Government had a policy that, generally speaking, court fees should not be charged. In pursuance of that policy the Judges of the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory Supreme Courts amended the Rules of each Court to abolish most fees in these Courts. This Government believes that court fees should be imposed, so that those who have recourse to the courts will contribute towards their cost. When this matter was raised with the Judges, the Australian Capital Territory Judges pointed out, quite properly, that the question of court fees appeared to have some political significance because of the difference of view between the previous Government and this Government, and that it may therefore be more appropriate for fees to be imposed by the Executive Government. The Government respects the position of the Territory judges in not wishing to be involved in a matter of this kind that might be the subject of political difference. Accordingly the present Bills are brought in.

I would add that the Federal Court of Australia Act and the Family Law Act each empowers the making of regulations to provide for fees payable in respect of proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia and in the Family Court of Australia and other courts exercising jurisdiction under the Family Law Act. The proposed amendments to the Territory Supreme Court Acts therefore bring them into line with the other courts created by the Parliament in this respect. I commend this Bui to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Keith Johnson) adjourned.

page 2694

NORTHERN TERRITORY SUPREME COURT AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Bill presented by Mr Howard, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr HOWARD:
Minister for Special Trade Negotiations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister · Bennelong · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

In commending this Bin to the House, I draw the attention of the House to the contents of the second reading speech made in respect of the Aus.tralian Capital Territory Supreme Court Amendment Bill 1977. The remarks contained in that speech apply equally to the measure I have just introduced.

Debate (on motion by Mr Keith Johnson) adjourned.

page 2694

ENVIRONMENT (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1977

Bill presented by Mr MacKellar, and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This is a Bill designed to allow for grants of financial assistance to the States for projects related to the environment. Honourable members will be aware that the Commonwealth’s role with respect to protection of the environment and conservation is essentially concerned with national policies, and that the States have the authority and the responsibility for the development and implementation of programs that deal with environmental issues at the grass roots level. In most cases it is the States that nave the legislative powers to monitor and enforce environmental standards. They also have the appropriate agencies and establishments in these areas. The role of the Commonwealth is to assist the States as far as possible and as far as is desirable in providing the means for coordination of policies for the environment. Honourable members Will know that there are councils comprised of Commonwealth and State Ministers through which common standards and common policies with respect to issues relating to conservation and the environment are debated and decided.

A recent initiative pursued by the Government through the Australian Environment Council is the decision to move towards comprehensive and co-ordinated regulation for the export and import of environmentally hazardous chemicals. The responsible State and Commonwealth Ministers have agreed to the establishment of a national body to assess the environmental effects of potentially hazardous chemicals and to recommend the appropriate controls to Federal and State authorities. For some years now the Commonwealth has also taken the lead in providing special purpose grants to the States to assist them in undertaking activities within a variety of environment and conservation policies. These grants are a reflection of the Commonwealth’s responsibility to encourage national standards and national policies, where it is judged that these are required in the interests of the States and the Commonwealth.

One matter that is of great significance is the question of national parks and nature reserves. A project where the Commonwealth has been able to provide substantial assistance is the natural resources survey now being undertaken jointly by the Commonwealth and the State of Tasmania in the south-west area of that State. It is designed to assist the State in making appropriate and responsible land use and management decisions for this unique area of Australia. This particular project is an excellent example of Commonwealth-State co-operative action of a kind which we would wish to encourage through joint consultative arrangements and the grant of funds for special purposes. The need for prompt and effective Commonwealth and State actions to monitor the quality of air in our major cities is well established. The Commonwealth has provided funds in the past to assist in the establishment of monitoring stations as a step towards the setting up of a national program of air quality monitoring and the compilation of comparative data. This is an on-going program and our consultative arrangements will be underpinned this year through the grant of further financial assistance for this important initiative.

In the current financial year amounts are included in the Appropriation Bill for grants to the States for air quality monitoring, soil conservation, and nature conservation. The purpose of this present Bill is to allow for these grants to be disbursed to the States. Honourable members will be pleased to know that the Bill will provide the mechanism not only for these three programs this year but also for others that may be deemed necessary in subsequent years. In other words, it is a standing piece of legislation that will be available to provide a proper and convenient means for the Commonwealth to assist the States financially with respect to matters relating to the environment.

The Bill provides for the Minister to agree with a State upon financial assistance and, acting jointly with the appropriate State Minister, to approve projects relating to the environment. Agreements made under this provision in the Act will be laid before each House of Parliament, as is the customary procedure. It is in essence a simple Bill, but it is, nevertheless, a significant pokey decision which emphasises again the Government’s concern to work co-operatively with the States, through well established means in the interests of responsible and rational management of the environment. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Keith Johnson) adjourned.

page 2695

DEFENCE FORCE (RETIREMENT AND DEATH BENEFITS AMENDMENTS) BILL (No. 2) 1977

Bill presented by Mr McLeay, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr McLEAY:
Minister for Construction and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence · Boothby · LP

– I move:

This Bill amends both the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948 and the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973. First it introduces significant improvements to the reversionary benefits arrangements of the defence forces retirement benefits and defence force retirement and death benefits schemesthose benefits which are extended to the family of a contributing or retired member upon his or her death. Second, it incorporates an amendment to the commonly known ‘no detriment’ provisions of section 25 of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act. The effect is to enhance these provisions in respect of certain late entrant officers who elected to limit their contributions to the old DFRB scheme, with a consequential reduction in benefit expectation, but who, because of the conversion arrangements from the old to the new scheme, were placed in a disproportionately worse position visavis others transferred to the new scheme.

The Bill also seeks to rectify a series of technical deficiencies and anomalies in the legislation which have come to light with the benefit of experience in its operation. Foremost amongst the liberalised reversionary benefits provisions are:

  1. the non-cessation in the future of spouses’ pensions on remarriage;
  2. spouses whose pensions had previously been cancelled on their remarriage may be granted pensions at such rate as the DFRDB authority determines where it is satisfied that the spouse is in necessitous circumstances or that the grant of a pension is otherwise warranted;
  3. in the case of spouses of deceased DFRB pensioners, the grant of discretion to the DFRDB authority to award a pension where the marriage took place after the member’s retirement- a benefit largely analogous to that currently available under the DFRDB scheme; and
  4. access to pension entitlement, subject to the prescribed conditions, for spouses of deceased DFRB and DFRDB pensioners where the marriage was contracted after the pensioner attained 60 years of age.

These provisions devolve from changes made to reversionary benefits in the Public Service superannuation scheme. Thus, the defence and public service prescriptions will be very largely on the same footing, so maintaining the longestablished principle of common treatment amongst the general body of former employees of the Crown.

Turning now to the amendment to section 25 of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act, I should first explain that the Act already contains ‘no detriment’ provisions to protect certain late entrant officers transferred to the new scheme against any possible diminution of their pension entitlements for which they were contributing at the time of transfer. This Bill expands those provisions for that group of officers to place those who limited their contributions under the former scheme in a comparable position to those who did not. The reason for this provision is that amongst the conversion arrangements from the old to the new scheme all transferees had their contributions to the former scheme equalised on the basis of 5.5 per cent of the aggregate pay received in the past from which they made their contributions. So it is therefore clearly equitable that the ‘no detriment’ provisions should apply uniformly to all. The amendment is to be effective from the date of commencement of the present scheme- 1 October 1972.

In conclusion I turn to the amendments designed to overcome anomalies and technical defects in the DFRDB legislation. Let me first make it quite clear that a cardinal principle of the transfer of all serving members from the DFRB to the DFRDB scheme was that the new range of benefits was not to be additional to those provided in respect of service under the former scheme but in substitution of those benefits. There was to be no double counting.

So, to avoid dual payments, any benefits paid before 1 October 1972 in respect of service for which benefits also become payable after that date were to be recovered or used as an offset against pension and associated benefits payable under the DFRDB scheme. The pre-October 1972 benefits to which I refer are gratuity; deferred pay; certain pension payments for periods of service which were able to be paid under the old scheme to some classes of members whilst serving but which, on transfer to the new scheme, they could convert to full DFRDB pension entitlement for those same periods; and DFRB commutation payments where members again commute in respect of their DFRDB pensions derived from both initial DFRB and subsequent DFRDB service.

Certain provisions of the Act dealing with these matters have been found to be defective in that they do not adequately reflect the policy intention. The amendments concerned, which are to rectify these deficiencies, will therefore apply from the date of commencement of the DFRDB scheme. In providing for retrospectivity in this way, no pensioner will be required to pay any moneys to the Commonwealth or suffer a reduction in his existing pension benefits. It merely provides beyond doubt statutory sanction for what has been done to date in conformity with accepted policy.

The remaining machinery amendments are of a minor character and serve to consolidate some matters relating to the administration of the DRFDB scheme. May I say that we have welcomed the constructive initiatives of former member representative organisations. They have made a very practical and realistic contribution. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Keith Johnson) adjourned.

page 2696

DEVELOPMENT OF GLENBROOK ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE BASE HEADQUARTERS OPERATIONAL COMMAND

Approval of Work: Public Works Committee Act

Mr McLEAY:
Minister for Construction · Boothby · LP

– I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Development of Glenbrook Royal Australian Air Force Base Headquarters Operational Command.

The development proposed will include working accommodation for RAAF operational command, permanent living accommodation for senior non-commissioned officers, airmen and airwomen currently accommodated at Penrith, renovation of existing hotel building for officers mess and quarters and some working accommodation, construction of new police dog training section and isolation compound. The Committee in reporting favourably on the proposal made three recommendations in relation to recreational facilities. These are:

Recommendation No. 3. The Committee recommends that the RAAF carries out a comprehensive survey throughout the Service and in consultation with Service welfare officers to establish what recreational facilities are suitable to a modem integrated defence force.

Recommendation No. 4. The Committee recommends that a comprehensive survey of the views of prospective users of senior NCO messes and other ranks’ canteens be carried out in order to determine what minimum standards are required for airwomen’s recreation faculties.

Recommendation No. 7. The Committee recommends the construction of the work in this reference with the exception of the separate airwomen ‘s recreation building.

In regard to these three recommendations, the Department of Defence will undertake further investigations into the provision of recreational faculties on the lines recommended by the Committee and will be in contact with the Committee again to resolve these matters. The further recommendations of the Committee include:

Recommendation No. 5. The Committee recommends the provision of two new tennis courts and two squash courts at an estimated additional cost to the development of $100,000.

The Government accepts this recommendation, and the proposed facilities will be incorporated in the development. Another recommendation is:

Recommendation No. 8. The Committee recommends that the departments concerned re-examine the possibility of providing modern automatic fire detection to sleeping accommodation, particularly the refurbished hotel building.

This matter will be re-examined as recommended by the Committee. The third recommendation is:

Recommendation No. 9. The Committee recommends that carpet be provided to office areas in the combined equipment/barrack store complex and the unit headquarters/medical/dental centre in heu of vinyl tiles.

The provision of carpet to these areas may not be entirely appropriate, but in view of the time factor, I am not able to give a final opinion on this question. The recommendation will be further examined, and the Committee advised of the outcome.

The total estimated cost of the proposal including the cost of the tennis and squash courts recommended by the Committee is $8.4m at June 1977 prices. Upon the concurrence of the House in this resolution, detailed planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee.

Mr MILLAR:
Wide Bay

-I wish to make a brief observation on a point on which the Minister for Construction (Mr McLeay) touched, namely, the provision of recreational facilities for airwomen. As a member of the Standing Committee on Public Works, I would certainly not like an opinion to be formed that the Committee has determined to eliminate this special accommodation for airwomen which is provided in the form of private recreational facilities. The Committee certainly holds the view that consistent with contemporary lifestyles separate recreational facilities could be redundant. That point was put at a public hearing at the Royal Australian Air Force base at Edinburgh. A response from the RAAF of a persuasive nature was forthcoming, but it did not completely dispel the Committee’s view that a thorough survey of the personnel involved could establish whether these facilities that are traditionally provided may be somewhat redundant in our contemporary society.

The thrust of the Committee’s recommendation was, therefore, to establish once and for all whether the Air Force could quite properly adopt a mildly paternalistic attitude which would ensure that young entrants to the Air Force at least would be given some form of refuge so that they could determine the lifestyle to which they might wish to adjust. So the Committee would naturally be eager to have a response from the RAAF on the information that it seeks.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2697

CONSTRUCTION OF A BEEF CATTLE RESEARCH LABORATORY AT ROCKHAMPTON

Approval of Work: Public Works Committee Act

Mr McLEAY:
Minister for Construction · Boothby · LP

– I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of a beef cattle research laboratory at Rockhampton, Queensland.

The proposal is for the construction of a comprehensive beef cattle research laboratory complex comprising the following main groupings of buildings: The laboratory, administration and central plant buildings, an animal building, a food preparation building, a caretaker’s residence and a flammable store. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $5.44m at June 1977 prices. The Committee has reported favourably on the proposal and, upon the concurrence of the House in this resolution, detailed planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-One could be forgiven for being cynical about the speed with which the Government has dealt with this matter. It was only yesterday that the report of the Standing Committee on Public Works was presented to the Parliament and was ordered to be printed. Today the expediency motion to carry out the work has been moved. I realise the tight timetable because of the announced election date. It is interesting to note that this facility at Rockhampton is not isolated from two other facilities. The Committee reported on one in its fifth report of 1973. That was the high security off-shore animal quarantine station at Cocos (Keeling) Islands. I repeat that date- 1973. It is more than four years since that report was presented to this Parliament. That facility still does not exist. The Committee, in its sixth report of 1974, reported on the need for an animal health laboratory at Geelong. All that has happened there so far is that some site work has been done. The Government neglected to include in the Estimates this year funds to provide that muchneeded facility. So one could be forgiven for being cynical about the speed with which this expediency motion has been brought into the Parliament. Other works for which there is a pressing need have not yet commenced or are not proceeding at a rate -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Order! The honourable, member has made his point. Would he like to debate the motion to set up the facility in Rockhampton?

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-That is exactly what I am doing.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I am waiting for the honourable member to do it.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Obviously you have not had the benefit of reading the report.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-On the contrary, I have led my Rural Committee to Rockhampton and have viewed the problem already.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Marvellous. I am very pleased to hear that. If you read paragraph 17 on page 4 of the report, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will find that both the off-shore animal quarantine station and the Animal Health Laboratory at Geelong are mentioned. I do not think I am straying very far from the report. It seems to me that the motion that it is expedient to proceed with the work is based on the report. I mention that because it is important that it be understood that Australia, a very large cattle producing nation, is very dependent on suitable breeds. As you well know, Mr Deputy Speaker, our country stretches from the tropics to the temperate zone and much of its area is not ideal pastoral land. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation needs the new facility at Rockhampton so it can continue its genetic research and to determine the beast that is best adapted to the poor pasture lands, the most resistant to external parasites such as ticks, the most resistant to internal parasites such as worms and, as scientists say, with the best appetite, that is, the ability to live on poor pasture but still produce quite an amount of flesh.

The need for this facility is undoubted. It is undoubtedly tied in with the Animal Health Laboratory at Geelong and the off-shore animal quarantine station. May I highlight that by referring to a question answered by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) in this House yesterday. Mr colleague. the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes), raised the question of an announcement that there had been an outbreak of bluetongue virus among Australian insects. The Minister in his answer said that he was not sure about it being bluetongue but said that certainly some virus had been found. The insects had to be sent to America and South Africa to be analysed because the facility which the Public Works Committee recommended in 1974 does not exist. The report of the Public Works Committee contains a great deal of information. I am pleased that you have read it, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I know of your great interest in cattle breeding in Australia

As the Minister for Construction ( Mr McLeay) indicated, the work is to cost $S.44m. When the Committee was in Rockhampton hearing evidence it was confronted by a number of people who seemed to be under a misapprehension as to what the facility was all about. Certainly parts of the facility, as you will understand, Mr Deputy Speaker, will replace existing facilities at Belmont station. There was a great deal of misunderstanding by some of the witnesses as to the role of CSIRO in this area. I reiterate now that there was no indication to the Committee that CSIRO was engaged in anything other then genetic research. There was a thought in the minds of cattle breeders in the north of Australia that the Australian Government, through its agency, the CSIRO, had set itself up a stud. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is for this reason that the report, on which the motion suggesting expediency is based, does not raise in any great way the need for the CSIRO to become a body of extensionists- people who carry out research and then propagate it throughout the community. In effect it is compiling a handbook of the traits of various cross-breeds of cattle, starting with the bos indicus.

This is why there is a need for the off-shore animal quarantine station, as stated in the report. The animals with which CSIRO are working were imported into Australia some in the 1930s, most in the 1950s. No new genetic strains of zebu, bos indicus brahman of Afrikander cattle have come into Australia since, simply because of the lack of an off-shore animal quarantine station. I cannot stress too strongly the need for the Government to proceed with projects other than the proposed works at Rockhampton. Frankly, I compliment the Government on the speed with which it has been able to consider the report from the Public Works Committee, come to conclusions about the recommendations of the Committee and within a space of less than 24 hours recommend to Parliament that work proceed. I speak on behalf of all the cattle breeders in Australia when I say that I hope that the Government proceeds just as quickly with the construction or this facility and does not procrastinate as it has done with the other two works.

It is quite true that other problems are involved in the cattle area, but cattle breeders need to have a genetic strain of stock which they can turn off their properties with a higher than normal meat content and which do not suffer distress because of the heat. Genetic research is now being done at Rockhampton in very cramped, uncomfortable and, as I viewed them, most unsatisfactory conditions. The sooner the Government provides proper facilities, as should exist there, the sooner it can engage more scientists to study more cattle and conduct experiments in more congenial conditions. The sooner information resulting from that research becomes available to the scientists of CSIRO, the earlier it will be disseminated amongst the cattle breeders of Australia

I make one final appeal to the Government. I would not be so unkind as to suggest that the Rockhampton proposal is window dressing for an election campaign. Far be it from me to suggest such a thing. I am sure the Government is quite sincere in its intentions. Certainly it has moved quickly so far. I hope that it moves to get the facility built as quickly as it has moved to bring this motion before the House. The Minister might take it on board to get on to his Department or whichever department is responsiblethe Department of Foreign Affairs or the Department of Health- to make sure there is an immediate start on the off-shore animal quarantine station. The cattlemen of Australia have been crying out for it for the last four years. Over the last two years this Government has done absolutely nothing about it, and that is rather tragic. I make that appeal on behalf of the cattlemen of Australia. I am sure they will be most interested to see how the beef cattle research laboratory proceeds after they have seen how the other two- the off-shore animal quarantine station and the Animal Health Laboratory at Geelong- have not proceeded. This Government, with a Cabinet of farmers, has not done anything about these facilities on behalf of the cattle producers of Australia

Mr CARIGE:
Capricornia

– I thank the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for its recommendation that a beef cattle research laboratory be constructed at Rockhampton, and I congratulate the Government for moving with the speed with which it has moved in proposing that the work proceed. The honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar) asked me to pass on his congratulations to the Vice-Chairman of the Public Works Committee, the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson). I do so. The honourable member threw in a few barbs and said that the Government was electioneering. He should look at the history of this proposal. When it was first put forward his Government procrastinated, and in fact deferred the proposal on three different occasions. Finally it was the present Government which referred the matter to the Public Works Committee so that it could go to Rockhampton and fully investigate the proposal. I appreciate the fact that the Committee visited Rockhampton and for two days listened to the evidence given to it. I also appreciate the remarks made by the honourable member for Burke about the evidence the Committee received.

The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation laboratory in Rockhampton is of major significance to all beef cattle breeders in Australia, not simply those in the isolated areas of central Queensland. It is of major significance to people who are importing and exporting cattle. It is of major significance to those producers everywhere in Australia improving the genetic strain of their animals. It is a little like- and I know how the people at Belmont feel occasionally- a prophet not being recognised in his own area. I suppose, Mr Deputy Speaker, it would be like trying to teach your producers in South Australia how to raise jersey cows and how to influence the breeding of those animals. That is precisely the reaction at the moment in central Queensland. The people there are saying that the scientists cannot teach them anything further about their particular breeds.

I welcome the Government’s decision to go on with this project at this time, not purely for electioneering purposes as the honourable member for Burke said, but because it is of major significance to the whole industry. This Government saw the need for it. I question why the previous Government, if it saw the need, did not act but deferred the matter.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– We were too busy having elections.

Mr CARIGE:

– My word, the Labor Government had an election oh its hands and it deferred the project again in 1975. That was true to its form. It could never find money for the rural sector.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– We never had time to do anything.

Mr CARIGE:

-Well the Labor Government had time, almost to ruin the beef industry. It seemed to do that with great speed and great diligence. I rose only to thank the Committee for handing in its report and to thank the Government also on behalf of the producers and the scientists in the central Queensland region for expediting this matter.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-One cannot let pass statements made by the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Carige) relating to delays in matters referred to Public Works Committees. I seem to recall that a project which I would have thought important to all animal experts- the animal health research laboratories -was approved by the Public Works Committee and this Parliament in 1975. The works have reached the stage where the designs are now complete.

Mr Carige:

– It might have something to do with the quality of representation.

Mr SCHOLES:

-I think that is true and as it is a matter of vital importance to the National Country Party, I would accept the qualification that the preoccupation of the National Country Party with the mining industry as opposed to rural industries is most likely the reason why the project has not been funded this year. It is important that Australia makes sure that it is selfsufficient in protective mechanisms, both in research and preventive areas and in proof of eradication areas. I suggest there is every reason why the Government should be censured for its failure to proceed with what is the major project in this area, a project which could be called into use in a very short period.

I think it is important that we look at the answer given to a question directed yesterday to the Minister for Construction (Mr McLeay) as to what I hope is only a minor incident. The fact is that in order to examine and identify a virus it is necessary to send such specimens as are collected overseas for examination. We do not have the necessary facilities in Australia. Irrespective of what anyone might say, if there is an outbreak of an exotic disease in Australia the cost to the rural community and the country itself will be $50m a month while we prove eradication. To prove eradication we have to send the specimens and in some instances the animals out of Australia for testing. I think that every honourable member understands the importance of the project. What I am complaining about is that this project was deemed to be not urgent in 1970 when it was before a government of a similar colour to this Government and was not proceeded with. There was talk about representation in this place. The National Country Party and the farmers’ organisations ought to be pressing for this project. It does not matter where the laboratory is built. It is vital to the industries concerned.

Mr McLEAY:
Minister for Construction · Boothby · LP

– Let me remind. the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson) and the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) that these references go back to 1973 and 1974 when the Australian Labor Party was in government and when inflation headed off in such a dramatic way. The honourable member for Burke will remember what the deficit was, and we inherited it.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– It was very nearly as big as the deficit the Government has now, was it not?

Mr McLEAY:

– It was just double the deficit we have now. We had to look at everything that would increase the deficit, and cut our cloth accordingly. No one doubts the need for these things. It is a question of what we can afford.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2700

CONSTRUCTION OF DWELLINGS IN ROCKINGHAM AREA, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Approval of Work: Public Works Committee Act

Mr McLEAY:
Minister for Construction · Boothby · LP

– I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, because of the urgent nature of the work, it is expedient that the construction of approximately 163 dwellings in the Rockingham area, Western Australia, be carried out without having been referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works.

The proposal is for the construction of approximately 165 dwellings, over a period of about two years, in the Rockingham area, Western Australia, at an estimated cost of $4.2m, at March 1977 rates. The housing is required for married naval personnel serving at the naval support facility, HMAS Stirling or on ships having HMAS Stirling as their home port.

Construction is proposed utilising ‘design and construct’ contracts from commercial builders for batches of eight to 20 dwellings over the period November 1977 to July 1978 as land becomes available. The need for the housing is urgent to ensure sufficient accommodation being available by mid- 1978. The proposal has been discussed with the Public Works Committee which has agreed that it would not be appropriate for examination and report as it involves repetitive construction of houses to a series of designs submitted by contractors.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I congratulate the Minister for Construction (Mr McLeay) on advancing this defence Service housing project. It was one with which I was very deeply involved for several years from 1972. I had it close to the stage of implementation when I transferred to another portfolio. It certainly concerns the welfare of ex-servicemen. I am a bit surprised that it has taken the Minister so long to bring the project to this point so that the Parliament can give its approval. Nevertheless I am pleased that, although belatedly, what I had almost ready has at last occurred.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Sitting suspended from 6.3 to 8 p.m.

page 2701

OVERSEAS CARGO SHIPPING LEGISLATION

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport · Gippsland · LP

-I present the Overseas Cargo Shipping Legislation report prepared by my Department, dated October 1977. Because of the limited number of copies available, two copies have been placed in the Parliamentary Library and copies will be distributed to all honourable members and senators as soon as they become available.

page 2701

PUBLIC SERVICE (PERMANENT HEAD-DUAL APPOINTMENT) BILL 1977

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27 October, on motion by Mr Street:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The Opposition does not oppose this Bill; yet it is intrigued to know, as many people will be intrigued to know, why the Bill is necessary. The Bill authorises the appointment of one person to hold or to act in the offices of Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade and Secretary to the Department of the Special Trade Negotiator. I am told that the announcement was made on 17 July that the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade, Mr McKay, was to be Acting Secretary to the newly created Department of the Special Trade Negotiator. The instrument of appointment was published in the Gazette on 17 July 1977. On 15 September there was shown under the heading ‘Appointments and acting appointments as Permanent Head’ what appeared to be an instrument of appointment of Mr McKay to the office of Secretary to the new

Department. On the following day a correction was made which stated that no such appointment had been made.

The Bill provides that a person who is Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade may also be appointed to act as Secretary to the new Department without affecting his tenure in the Department of Overseas Trade. In essence, this apparently means that there is a Mr McKay who is Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade, and he is to hold the same position in the Department of the Special Trade Negotiator. Legislation is necessary because there has been some doubt over the legality of one person being the permanent head of two departments. In other words, in this legislation we are correcting some ambiguity, some anomaly, possibly some kind of shemozzle. I am told that the GovernorGeneral intervened and questioned the legality of the dual appointment. I also am told that the Public Service Board has been concerned about the dual appointment ever since it was announced. I recall, and there are other people in the House now who will recall, that there have been precedents for this kind of situation. Apparently, a Mr Fred Green was at one time permanent head of both the Department of the Army and the Department of Air for a short time. That was back in the late 1 960s.

The appointment of the Minister for Special Trade Negotiations (Mr Howard) and the establishment of his Department have been widely criticised. Many people in this Parliament believe, and certainly some spokesmen in the media take the same view, that the Minister for Overseas Trade (Mr Anthony) should have lost his portfolio and the new Minister should have had the prerogative of embracing the entire area of trade. There seems to be a very great possibility that we are moving into an area of overlapping which could be disastrous not only from the standpoint of ministerial obligations and responsibility but also from the standpoint of the duplication of permanent heads. Even if there were to be separate permanent heads there would be a number of responsibilities and obligations which would have a common denominator. Also, in the dimension of the entire bureaucracy, we could find ourselves getting into overlapping situations.

The New Minister for Special Trade Negotiations was supposed to deal exclusively with the European Economic Community. Already there seems to be confrontation at the ministerial level about the overlapping that is occurring. I am concerned that it might occur also at the level of the Department, especially at the level of departmental head. The Minister for Special Trade Negotiations was described originally as Minister for Special Trade Negotiations with the European Economic Community. I am told that the Minister does not see his brief as being confined to the EEC. He has thrown off the title and already is endeavouring to spread out. This could have very serious implications and I believe that it is important to air the misgivings that are very much in evidence at present. There is obviously room for conflict between the Minister for Overseas Trade and the new Minister who has responsiblity for trade matters relating to the EEC. There does not appear at any level to be sufficient clarification or definition of responsibility for the Ministers, the permanent heads or the departments.

The creation of that ministry caused this Government to have the same number of departments as the Australian Labor Party Government had in 1975-76. Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be able to recall that Government was criticised consistently for having too many ministries. With the creation of this new ministry, it is important for us to evaluate whether it is a new ministry with new merit and with a capacity to contribute anything worth while.

I want to make some reference to the public attitude that has been expressed about this matter in the media. I refer, firstly, to the Australian Financial Review of 1 8 July. I read in that paper:

Creation of a Ministry of Special Trade Negotiator is puzzling for more reasons than this.

The EEC is far from Australia’s major trading partner.

The Community is in fact declining as a market for Australian products, despite the British entry.

It goes on to give some figures in support of that contention. It states:

Australian exports to the EEC have fallen from 20.3 per cent of our total exports in 1972-73 to 14.8 per cent last financial year.

In respect of imports it says:

Imports from the EEC have been steady at around last year’s figure of 27 percent of total imports.

It goes on:

If a Department and a Minister for Special Trade Negotiations is required it must surely be for Japan, which last year took 36.6 per cent of our exports.

I do not know whether or not the newly appointed Permanent Head will concern himself with Japan, or whether or not the Minister will concern himself with Japan. Clearly, there is this grey area of ambiguity. I would not be surprised if conflict emerges. Worse still, I Minister, it is likely that we will have overlapping which will cost the taxpayer a great deal and add to bureaucracy. I will quote further from that Australian Financial Review editorial of 18 July. It says:

The new Department of Special Trade Negotiator will no doubt shortly acquire all the trappings and staff of other government departments.

The new department is an obvious competitor with Doug Anthony’s Overseas Trade National Department.

In fact, between the Department of Overseas Trade and Australia’s Special Ambassador to the EEC, one would have thought that any trade problem could be adequately dealt with.

It continues:

If the Overseas Trade Department was not doing its job it should have been hauled into line.

It says further:

Mr Fraser has chosen instead, with little justification, to create a new department and one which will require the minister to spend a fair amount of time travelling around Europe.

I think this is fair conjecture. What is implied in this whole proposition, the matter now before the House concerning the clarification of a problem concerning the appointment of a new department head, is the establishment of a new department. We should be asking ourselves: Was it necessary at all? Was there some inadequacy in respect of the activities of the existing Minister for Overseas Trade and his Department? If so, probably there was a need to get rid of the Minister. But was there any justification to set up yet another ministry, yet another permanent head, yet another bureaucracy? Never in Australia’s history has there been a dual role, have there been people going off with separate responsibility for separate parts of our potential export market areas. We are creating a precedent and I believe it is beholden on this Parliament to consider seriously whether this has been made necessary by the new ramifications concerned with the establishment of the European Economic Community on the one hand or whether on the other hand, it has been made necessary by virtue of the inadequacy of the Minister who prevails at the present time. The article in the Australian Financial Review continues:

If the Overseas Trade Department and Mr Anthony have not fallen down on their job (and Mr Fraser certainly does not suggest this) the kindest interpretation that can be placed on yesterday’s aberration from Canberra is that Mr Fraser has chosen to reward the man regarded as the golden-haired boy of his ministry.

I think the last part is an overstatement. He is the declining-haired boy in many respects. Nevertheless, the point that is made is in sharp relief. The Australian Financial Review was not on its own in this respect. The Australian had something to say about the matter as well on 19 July. It said: . . . there will have to be an increase in the Public Service structure to support the new department. It would have made far more sense to have given Mr Howard Overseas Trade, leaving the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anthony, the important Department of National Resources, which covers mineral, water and energy resources.

It continues along that line. I think it makes a very significant point in that regard. The article goes on: . . . it is a sign of the erosion of Country Party influence and the strength of Mr Fraser that a Liberal minister has taken over such an important area of overseas trade as that with the EEC. It would not have happened in Sir John McEwen’s day

All honourable members know that to be the fact of the situation. There is all this by-play between coalition members. The Opposition could make political capital out of that if it was so inclined but that is not the point. The question of trade is at stake. It is not a matter of making a political point about whether the ministry is duplicated, whether the heads of department are duplicated or whether the bureaucracy is duplicated. Clearly what is at stake is whether or not Australia is going to have an efficient trade department; whether- if we go right back to the grassroots level- we are going to have the chimneys smoking, although that is antienvironmental; whether we are going to have the production in this country and work opportunities for the masses of unemployed people who are now reaching unprecedented proportions in Australia. Why should the unemployed or the trade prospects of Australia be put at risk and jettisoned because the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), as the head of the Liberal Party, wants to make some point against the leader of the National Country Pary and cut him down to size by getting a new Minister to take over this little side-swipe of the whole operation. I think that is a disastrous situation. I do not intend to labour this point but I refer to the attitude expressed by the Age, one of the most reputable newspapers in this country. The Age of 19 July said:

Mr Howard does not appear to have been demoted by his transfer to a highly specialised and less influential post.

I do not think he has been demoted but he may be if it does not work, and it might not work. It depends on what kind of sabotage or lack of cooperation might be in evidence. The article continues:

If anyone has been eclipsed it is the Deputy Prime Minister and Overseas Trade Minister, Mr Anthony. It may be that his health has not been sufficiency restored to allow him to lead arduous trade negotiations in Europe. If so a simpler solution would have been to appoint Mr Howard as Minister for Overseas Trade (with instructions to give special attention to Europe) and leave Mr Anthony with his increasingly significant other portfolio, National Resources.

I believe that the Age has made a good point. Either the Minister for Overseas Trade, the Deputy Prime Minister, can cope adequately with his Department or he cannot. That appears to be the point of the whole exercise. Obviously the Prime Minister would not have appointed somebody else to hive off a part of the operation if the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Overseas Trade, had been capable of doing it. A simpler solution would have been to have found a man who was capable of doing the whole operation. Always in Australia ‘s history we have had such a man. We have not had one with a dual role since 190 1. For the first time it seems that we have a Minister for Overseas Trade who cannot operate without a secondary subjective, probably sycophant, Minister and heaven knows what his role is in the whole of the arrangement. Never before have we had a situation in which we have had to have a second departmental head, a second bureaucracy. Maybe sickness is involved. I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister who is the Minister for Overseas Trade, is not sick, but I believe this development, the subject of this legislation, is a reflection. If it is not a reflection on the incapacity of the Deputy Prime Minister, who is the Minister for Overseas Trade, if it is not a clear indication that he cannot do his job, it must mean that the Prime Minister wants to cut the National Country Party down to size. It is not good for a coalition government to have division which Will result in productivity being impaired, employment opportunities being undermined and so on.

In today’s Australian Financial Review there are some comments about Mr Howard’s role in the entire situation. The comments are to the effect that Mr Howard might not be going to be that crash hot anyway, that he has come back to Australia and made some statements about what is happening within the European Common Market and all that kind of thing, but it does not seem to be working out too well and he might be at risk. We might even be putting at risk a new departmental head whose position we are clarifying tonight by this legislation. There are a lot of things being put at risk at the present time. The Australian Financial Review had this to say:

Mr Howard sought to put a brave face on the outcome of his talks, though his failure to take home any substantive concessions from Europe can hardly help his Government in its forthcoming election campaign. . He said that he had agreed in principle with the commission to hold another round of ministerial level trade talks in Brussels early next year.

But even this attempt to inject a ray of hope into the outlook was deflated by Mr Loeff -

I will tell honourable members in a moment who Mr Loeff is- who said that he ‘knew nothing’ of arrangements for such a meeting.

So Mr Howard-that is the name that is used in this article, Mr Deputy Speaker- has come back to Australia saying: ‘I have not done too well yet fellows, but there is a new prospect looming up’. But there is that Mr Loeff saying: ‘I do not know of any prospects’.

Mr Groom:

– Who is saying this?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I am going to tell you; just be patient. Mr Loeff is saying: ‘I do not know of any prospects at all. I do not know of any new round of talks at all’. That newspaper article reads:

Mr Josephus Loeff, the senior commission official who represented Brussels in the recent high level talks with a visiting Australian delegation, said that the EEC . . .

I have identified the man and that is what the honourable member wanted me to do. I am only making the point that this second-row Minister has come back with all the trappings of a ministry, a departmental head and a bureaucracy, and has said: ‘I have not done too well but we are going back’. But Mr Loeff who is obviously very significant in the whole of the scenario is saying: ‘We do not know of any second round of talks at all’. Let me turn to the Canberra Times of 19 July.

Mr Cotter:

– That is a reputable newspaper, is it not?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-What do you think about it yourself?

Mr Cotter:

– I just said: “That is a reputable newspaper’.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I think it is a reputable newspaper. If the Liberal Party members do not believe this let them stand up and say so. I believe it is one of the best newspapers in Australia They have asked me. I am telling them my view. It is a good newspaper. It is a newspaper with national characteristics. It reports this Parliament as effectively as any newspaper in Australia

Mr Cotter:

– Can you believe it aU?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-You tell me whether you believe what it says in its editorial of 19 July m respect of this matter. It says:

The immediate objective of the appointment of Mr Howard as Minister for Special Trade Negotiations and of the proposed trade conference later this year between Australia and the Community seems to centre on the sale of

Australian uranium as a lever to obtain access to the Community for Australian agricultural produce, notably meat, dairy products and sugar.

It is laudable enough to use a lever in our desire to export primary products. The article goes on to say:

Mr Fraser’s approach is of course seen by the Europeans as a direct attack on the Community’s common agricultural policy. The ploy of a pointed trade-off, which Mr Fraser is apparently determined to pull off, is seen in some quarters as, in addition, a politicalisation of the trade in uranium at a time when the United States President, Mr Carter, is using the same approach to retard the development of the fastbreeder reactor and, through this, the spread of military nuclear technology.

Mr Cotter:

-Good stuff.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I know you do not attribute much importance or significance to it but here is this newspaper contending -

Mr Cotter:

– You do not know that at aU.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Let me put it to you to judge what you think it is worth. It is simply saying that the Government is using this whole exercise, running this whole gambit, this whole gimmick of appointing a special ministerial trade negotiator, for the purpose of running at variance with the President of the United States who is trying to quieten down the tendency to spread military nuclear technology.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! I think the honourable member is making a few most interesting comments and I would congratulate him possibly on some of the matters that he has been able to refer to in this speech. I also congratulate him because every now and then I have heard him use the words ‘Permanent Head’ and ‘dual appointment’ but I think there are some comments that the honourable member has made that are getting just a little bit away from the Bill that is before the House.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I would not be surprised if what you have said is pretty close to the mark. I think you have been fairly indulgent, and quite frankly I have made most of the points that I wanted to make and I think I have made them tellingly.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I think the honourable member also was helped by a few interjections that came from the other side.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Yes. Mr Deputy Speaker, I regard you as having been more than fair in this whole situation. If you will allow me to continue I will certainly comply with the point that you are making. I have here many newspaper cuttings which made the kind of point that I have made. I do not intend -

Mr Cotter:

-There is a library full of them.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I will table them if you like. What we are really dealing with is a total schemozzle. The taxpayers outside are not impressed with the fact that the Government is involved through this legislation in the establishment of yet another department. It has all the trappings associated with yet another ministry because the present National Country Party Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister of this country, cannot do his job in 1977 as it has been done since 1901. We on the Opposition side are very concerned about the dubious objectivity which is involved in the appointment of this ministry. Honourable members have to make up their own minds what it is about. In the first instance, is it about the fact that the Prime Minister wants to cut down the power of the Country Party in the whole area of trade? Is it about that? I do not know. I think I have raised enough questions to cause somebody on the other side of the House to stand up and give some answers. Many millions of dollars are involved in the duplication of a department. Apparently the Government has made a mistake m appointing one man to run two departments. The whole purpose of this exercise is to redress that mistake. We are talking about a government mistake. That is the superficiality of the whole scene. I am putting to the House that the mistake is far broader. The mistake is at the expense of the Australian taxpayer and clearly demonstrates a rift between the Liberal Party and the Country Party. It clearly shows that we have a Minister for Overseas Trade at the present time who, unlike all his predecessors, is unable to fulfil the obligations which he is sworn to undertake.

Mr MILLAR:
Wide Bay

-From time to time matters of innocuous innocence come forward that scarcely seem to warrant the time of the House, but nevertheless the statutes and regulations required for good government must be attended to. This Bill arises from such a situation. The Public Service (Permanent HeadDual Appointment) Bill of 1977 simply authorises the appointment of one person to hold or to act in the office of Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade and also the office of Secretary to the Department of the Special Trade Negotiator. The Bill is not a divisive attempt on the part of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to detract from the magnitude of the job being done by the Minister for Overseas Trade Mr Anthony) as was suggested by the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson).

In simple truth, since 1901 the international situation has become so varied and complex that it would defy the best intentions of any Minister for Overseas Trade to give the time necessary to contend with those barriers, both literary and figurative, that the European Economic Community has constructed with such severe impact on Australia’s exporting industries. Rather than dissipate the strength and resources of the Minister for Overseas Trade and distract him from international undertakings in order to concentrate on the EEC, it is far more logical to have a special Minister to address himself to the EEC exclusively. Rather than expend the Minister for Overseas Trade on the barricades so erected, the special Minister can apply himself, persistently, to the task of finding the chinks m the EEC armour so that eventually reason and justice may prevail. This office has been established for that reason. It is nothing short of an outright mischief for the honourable member for Hughes to suggest that the establishment of this office in any way undermines the integrity or the reputation of the Minister for Overseas Trade. The reactivation of trade activities and investment activities, in regard to both trade and mineral development, since this Government came to office is so noteworthy as to indicate clearly the absurdity of the protests of the honourable member for Hughes.

In brief, the background of this Bill relates to a government announcement on 17 July 1977 of the appointment of the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade, Mr D. H. McKay, as Acting Secretary of the newly created Department of the .Special Trade Negotiator. As the honourable member for Hughes pointed out, the instrument of appointment was published on 17 July 1977 only to be withdrawn immediately after when it became apparent that in some abstruse way this contravened regulations relating to such appointments. A correction was published subsequently. The Bill provides that a person who is Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade may also be appointed or act as Secretary to the Department of the Special Trade Negotiator without affecting his tenure in the Department of Overseas Trade.

The honourable member for Hughes made much play of the establishment of a new department. Rather than establish a traditional department with a new head, the Government had adopted the perfectly logical step of utilising not only the time but also the talents of the head of the Department of Overseas Trade in respect of the new instrumentality. This Government, more than any other government, has demonstrated clearly that it has no particular sympathy for the increased bureaucratisation of the forms of government. The Bill comes through quite clearly as being a very logical step to ensure that the best may be derived from the existing establishment rather than to engage in the type of empire building exercise which has characterised the Public Service and government instrumentalities in the past. No additional remuneration is payable to the Secretary or Acting Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade by virtue of him holding a dual role. If there is any inconsistency between the provisions of the Bill and the Public Service Act of 1922 or the Remuneration Tribunal Act of 1973, the provisions of the BUI will prevail. There is also provision to make it clear that nothing in the Bill overrules the provisions of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 which provide for continuity of appointment to permanent head positions, the names of which have been changed.

When it comes to bizarre and unprecedented appointments, the previous Government demonstrated a talent which excelled any other capacity it may have had to bring an original twist to government. It is also pertinent to comment that that original twist may have been a very costly exercise with disastrous consequences for the economy of Australia. The honourable member for Hughes took considerable license in departing from the substance of the BUI which, as I said initially, is simplistic in the extreme. It was introduced into this House purely to remove a defect in the appointment, an inconsistency with the requirements that existed previously. For that reason I do not intend to delay the proceedings of the House. I recommend that the BUI be given a speedy passage.

Mr MACPHEE:
Minister for Productivity · Balaclava · LP

– I do not think that I need to detain the House for very long. I believe that the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar’ has responded most appropriately to the Opposition. We heard from the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson), who has now left the chamber, a lengthy, tedious and repetitious speech which was amply padded by newspaper editorials. As you observed, Mr Deputy Speaker, they had nothing to do with this BUI. As was observed by the honourable member for Kal.goorlie (Mr Cotter), it was interesting for us on the Government side to hear tonight the support which was forthcoming from the Opposition by means of newspaper editorials. Almost daily in this House members of the Opposition are prone to say that the newspapers are slanted against them. It was illuminating to hear the support for Australia ‘s leading newspapers which was given by the Opposition on this occasion.

The speech of the honourable member for Hughes was repetitious. I am reminded of the fact that he was once Minister for Housing. It was then said of him that he could talk under wet cement but could not build a house. It has been demonstrated tonight that at least he can talk at great length on a Bill which occupies just over a page and contains six clauses. It is a simple Bill and it could be disposed of quickly. All of the points raised by the honourable member -

Mr Hayden:

– It merely proves he would make a good lawyer.

Mr MACPHEE:

-The honourable member for Oxley should know; he once aspired to be one. All of the points raised by the honourable member for Hughes argue in favour of the Bill. He raised the matter of expense. I understand that 12 people are permanently in the new Department. A few other people have been seconded, but only a few and only temporarily. He also referred to the function of this Department and made a point, again repetitiously and tediously, about overlap. This point was answered adequately by the honourable member for Wide Bay.

The honourable member for Hughes mentioned confrontation. He said that there was potential for confrontation at ministerial and permanent head level. With respect to ministerial level, the matters with which the Minister for Special Trade Negotiations is concerned are decided by Cabinet, as are those of the Minister for Overseas Trade. That, one would have thought, would minimise confrontation at that level. The whole spirit and purpose of this BUI is to avoid any possible confrontation at permanent head level. So the honourable member for Hughes was speaking quite contrary to the BUI. One wonders whether he has read the BUI.

I want to quote from the Press release referred to by the honourable member for Wide Bay. It was issued by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on 17 July and in it he announced the appointment of Mr Howard as the Minister for Special Trade Negotiations. The Prime Minister said:

Mr Howard remains Minister Assisting the Prime Minister. He will work in close collaboration with the Ministers for Overseas Trade and Foreign Affairs.

It is quite clear that there will be no confrontation there. The Prime Minister then went on to say:

Mr Howard’s appointment has been made because Australia needs to be represented at the highest level, on a continuing basis, if the bilateral trade problems facing Australia and the EEC are to be resolved adequately.

The need for this high level appointment became clear during my discussions in Europe with the President of the Commission and with heads of a number of European Governments. The decision to appoint a Minister to lead these negotiations demonstrates the importance which Australia places on its trading relations with Western Europe.

Later in that Press statement, the Prime Minister said:

His role will extend to other areas in the international and commercial field, where problems of interest to Australia could profitably be discussed with the EEC.

It is very clear from that statement- I have not bored the House by reading all of it- that none of the so-called fears expressed by the honourable members for Hughes is realised or realisable. I commend this Bill to the House.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2707

QUEENSLAND GRANT (SPECIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1977

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 November, on motion by Mr Viner:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley

-This Bill, when enacted, will authorise the payment to the Queensland State Government of $24.8m in this year as a special grant. Of course, the payment of that amount is established according to the recommendations of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. Queensland is the only State which claims before the Commission now. The Commonwealth Grants Commission was established to compensate the more disadvantaged States so that in spite of the disadvantages they would be able to provide a better level of public services for their residents than otherwise would be the case. It is generally said, in a somewhat coarser way, that the poorer States are claimants before the Grants Commission. Queensland, I repeat, is the only claimant State now.

In the light of the nature of the role of the Grants Commission it is clear, in spite of claims to the contrary by the Queensland State Government, that the ability of that Government to improve the standards of public services falls considerably short of what other States are able to provide. What I am really moving towards saying very simply is this: At the Government level Queensland is poorly administered. It is administered by an uninspired group of men of indifferent quality. The consequence is that the standard of public services in that State is mostly well below the Australian average.

The Premier of Queensland likes to favour himself in a generous fashion by periodically making comparisons between what he has done for his State and what is done in South Australia by Mr Dunstan. When one analyses the comparative performances, one realises that there is only room for a great degree of embarrassment on the part of the Premier of Queensland. The fact is that Queensland lags badly behind South Australia. That is a consequence of poor administration in Queensland. We must bear in mind that Queensland is particularly fortunate in that it is well endowed with mineral resources. In turn, that allows the Queensland Government to derive a great deal of additional income from revenue from mineral development, mainly royalty charges and transport charges. Other revenue sources are generated within the economy as a result of the influence of mineral development. In short, Queensland has this advantage over a State such as South Australia which is particularly limited in the availability of mineral resources. In spite of that, South Australia makes a greater spending effort in support of its public services.

The important feature here, very simply, is that Queensland is spending less than South Australia and would be spending a great deal less than that again if it were not for the completely fortuitous circumstance that mineral resources are providing such a large addition to revenue in that State. What it means simply is that South Australia is a far better administered State. Almost exclusively the fruit of administration there is the product of hard, creative and enterprising work by able men. There are no fortuitous advantages being reaped from vast mineral resources, as there are in Queensland. I cannot make that point strongly enough. I am a Queenslander and I am disappointed that our State is so poorly administered by the State Government.

Mr Hodges:

– But the people are not disappointed.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I am disappointed that the capacity for improving the standards in that State is not being tapped in the way it ought to be. The honourable member for Petrie says that the people in Queensland are happy. I suppose he measures the degree of happiness by the success with which the Queensland Government can rig its boundaries. It is just about to rig the Liberal Party out of existence in Queensland. That is something upon which he can cogitate after 12 November. The important point I want to stress here is that if Queensland was administered by a group of men as able, as inspired and as enterprising as the men who administer the public affairs of South Australia, Queensland with the resources available to it would have the best standard of public services of any State in the Commonwealth. When I say ‘public services’ I am talking about the faculties that governments provide.

Let us look at the substantial evidence to support that assertion. First of aU, the living standards in Queensland are not as good as they ought to be, in spite of the remarkable natural wealth of that State. I take two simple indicators to make that comparison. I refer, firstly, to personal income per capita. In Queensland in the period 1970-71 to 1974-75 the level was $2,530. These are the latest figures provided by the Grants Commission. The Australian average was $2,750- that is, more than $200 per person better than the average in Queensland. In Queensland personal consumption expenditure per person was $1,790, but the average in Australia was nearly $2,000 per person. Again, the average Queenslander was some $200 worse off than the average Australian. That is the sort of record which was achieved between 1970-71 and 1974-75 by the Queensland Government. There is a long term situation in which the ca- pacity to enjoy life, the standard of living, has lagged considerably behind that of the rest of Australia on average. This is a remarkably depressing result for a State which is as potentially rich as Queensland and which has such enormous latent ability to provide the best living standards of any State in the Commonwealth.

Let us look at some of these public service facilities. After all, they very much establish the level of prosperity and personal comfort which a State will be able to achieve and reflect the sort of regard and concern with which government administrators attend to their responsibilities. Education is probably one of the most important measures in that area as a social indicator of the social concern of government administrators and of the opportunity for improvement they provide for people within society. Education expenditure per capita in Queensland is $ 1 5 1 , as against $ 1 69 on average in Australia. The figures I am giving are for 1975-76.

When we look at the situation in South Australia we discover that the average amount spent on education there is $194 per capita. That means, in very simple terms, that if the Queensland Government were to make an equivalent effort in the field of education to that being made by that forward-thinking and inspired government in South Australia, the Queensland Government would have provided $90m more for education than it has in its 1975-76 Budget. There is no consolation at all for any Queenslander to be aware, as we mostly are in Queensland, that we have the worst standards of education of any State in the Commonwealth. Queensland spends less per person on education than any other State in the Commonwealth.

They are some of the contrasts that I wanted to make, but there are more. There is a tendency for many people in Queensland to believe that we lead the Commonwealth in the provision of community health, hospital and welfare services. It is easily understood why that general impression should be around. Labor governments in the 1940s and 1950s gave primacy to the development of community health and hospital services and displayed a great concern about welfare services. I illustrate this point by saying that accordingly public hospitals were established in Queensland by a State Labor government. They were retained in Queensland subsequent to their being destroyed in other States. Public hospitals had been set up earlier by the Chifley Labor Government but subsequent to their having been set up by the Queensland State Government. They were subsequently destroyed in all States except Queensland by the Menzies Government during the first few years of the Menzies period in the 1950s.

There is a lingering belief that, because a system of free hospitalisation was preserved in Queensland, that State still leads in the provision of community health, hospital and welfare services. Well, it does not. If we spent in Queensland as much per person as was spent on these services in the State of South Australia, another $22m would have been spent in that area. That is the degree to which we are falling behind the other States. That is the level by which standards in that important area of community health, hospital and welfare services have fallen short of those provided in States like South Australia

AU these things are put together in the latest report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. I am now referring to Table E-4, as it is designated: ‘State Expenditure on Certain Social Services from Consolidated Revenue and Special Funds: Net Expenditure 1975-76’. Under this categorisation we find that on a per capita basis Queensland spent $275.23; South Australia. however, spent $335.58. It is just a matter of simple arithmetic to establish that if the Queensland Government had been as concerned about people, had been as committed to improving the facilities that need to be provided to the public sector if they are to have better standards, and had been as concerned as the South Australian Government, then in the 1975-76 Queensland budget another $127m would have been provided for that explicit purpose.

The honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) is suddenly silent- and why not? The facts which are available from official sources show beyond any doubt that we have an incompetent, uncaring inadequate State Government in Queensland. We have a government which is certainly committed to preserving the interests of foreign multinationals, which are extracting and exporting enormous profits from the State, but which is not committed or concerned enough to ensure that some of that wealth that rightly belongs to the people of this country is redistributed to the community to benefit at least the people of Queensland. I repeat that in Queensland we are languishing well behind the performance which has been established by the South Australian Government.

I suspect that the Premier of Queensland probably does not understand, if I can move to another point, the way in which he has been manipulated by the present conservative coalition Federal Government. It is undeniable that in real comparative terms Queensland, in common with the States generally, is worse off as a result of being treated much less advantageously than was the case under the last Labor Government Budget of 1975-76. Other State Premiers- for instance, Mr Dunstan- have protested loudly, clearly and in a quite convincing way, but the Premier of Queensland is something of a fellow traveller of the national Government.

Let me give evidence of that. Total payments to or for the States in 1975-76 amounted to 10.9 per cent- almost 1 1 per cent- of gross domestic production. In this Budget for 1977-78 they are down to 10 per cent. That is, the States are disadvantaged in real comparative terms by some $920m. That is a substantial amount of money. I sincerely trust that the honourable member for Petrie, who would like to camouflage these matters and who desperately wants to conceal the way in which this conservative coalition national Government has disadvantaged the States, will explain this situation. In the case of Queensland it means that that State is some $147m worse off than it would have been if it had been treated as generously as it was in 1975-76.

In specific terms, we find that, in relation to important programs such as the national sewerage program, in 1975-76 it attracted $ 13.8m for Queensland; it attracted only $lm in the following year. That program has an important contribution to make at a time of high unemployment. It is a labour-intensive program and it is a program which would have specific multiplying effects in its demand for resources if it were allowed to proceed. The sorts of resources which are required are both material and labour. In both cases demands would be made in areas where resources are idle. So we could put to productive work idle resources, which would allow stimulation for economic recovery to get under way without aggravating inflationary forces in any way at all.

Queensland is a vast State with a decentralised population which is sparsely spread in many areas. Roads are of absolutely crucial importance and should be regarded as one of the greatest assets of the State. Yet the further north one travels on the coastal road the worse its condition becomes; the further one goes into the interior, the more appalling the condition of the road becomes. In both cases the further one goes away from Brisbane the greater is the neglect. That is, the further one moves away from George Street, Brisbane, where the Premier holds court, the more apparent becomes the neglect in the provision of roads.

If in this Budget the present Government had provided as much for roads in a real comparative sense as we did in our last Budget, $75m more would have been made available for road projects than was made available, and a substantial amount of that would have gone to Queensland as extra expenditure. One of the important points here is that Queensland has the resources available- but they are idle- which would allow more road development to take place than is taking place. Furthermore the selfishness displayed in the development of Queensland road projects is illustrated by the heavy concentration of government expenditure on roads in the electorate of the Minister for Local Government and Main Roads, Mr Hinze. That electorate is located in a highly populated area near Brisbane. That is occurring to the neglect of the rural areas of Queensland- the important productive areas of Queensland which contribute so much to the export income earning capacity of the State and, indeed, of the nation.

Queensland is a dry State. That is a common problem in this nation. Yet as far as I am aware no protest has been made by the Queensland Premier at the announcement by his comrade the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) and Leader of the National Country Party that no more Commonwealth funding will be made available for new water conservation projects. This is sad news for important areas of Queensland. It is bad news for the Monduran dam project outside of Bundaberg. The Queensland Government, because of limited resources- if it were more competent than it is, if it were as competent as the South Australian Government is, it would have more resources, but that is another point which I have already made- and in the absence of sufficient support from the national Government, finds that the Monduran dam project is being delayed and that important financial obligations which it believes the national Government has a responsibility to discharge are being neglected by the national Government.

The consequence is that the connection between headwaters works and reticulation projects is unable to proceed. So it is almost a white elephant which is costing money to the people of Queensland because of interest payments on loans which went into the capital development of this project, but nothing is being generated productively to earn income to pay those charges because the program is nearly frozen into immobility because of the neglect of the national Government. I repeat that the Queensland Premier is not hammering this issue at all. He is not condemning the national Government. Perhaps he is not fully aware of the implications of this neglect by the national Government.

In Townsville, the largest centre in the State outside of Brisbane, there is a desperate need for financial support, nationally and at the State level, to provide more water conservation projects to serve the city. If there is not an immediate undertaking to do this the growth of Townsville could be brought to a dead halt. Indeed, even if water conservation projects such as the second stage of the Ross River dam and the Burdekin River dam were to start tomorrow, the city would still have to impose water restrictions, probably as early as 1979. In the absence of any commitment, State or Federal, financially supporting stage two of the Ross River dam and the Burdekin River dam, the expansion of Townsville, the most important industrial centre in Queensland outside of Brisbane, will be brought to a dead halt. It is shameful that the city of Townsville finds its industrial development imperilled because of the indifference of both George Street, Brisbane, and Parks Place, Canberra.

The Labor Party has made it quite clear that a Labor government would commit itself to providing the necessary finance to allow the Monduran dam to proceed as rapidly as possible. We would take immediate steps to complete the benefit-cost analysis of the Burdekin River dam. On the basis of that being favourable- we have no doubts about that at all- we would proceed to negotiate a cost sharing arrangement with the appropriate authorities, that is, the State Government and the Townsville city authorities. The growth of an important industrial centre such as Townsville should not be delayed in the way it is currently being delayed because of the irresponsibility of both the national conservative coalition Government and the State conservative coalition Government.

I move on to another area which is directly related to this matter of the economy of Queensland. Of course all of these things flow from the Bill which proposes authorisation, when the Bill becomes enacted as law, of $24.8m to Queensland as a special grant. Why a special grant for Queensland? Why Queensland, the only claimant State before the Grants Commission? I made the point earlier that it is because of the indifferent, at best, standard of administration in Queensland. The performance of the economy in that State, despite all its clear natural wealth, is not as good as it ought to be. It certainly is dismally inferior to that of a State such as South Australia

One area in which the State’s economy suffers is the area of industrial relations because of the provocativeness of the State Government in this area. It is provocative largely for political reasons. A great degree of conflict and division occurs which has a significant economic cost. It is important to note that the only State with a worse industrial record than Queensland is Western Australia. It has a Premier who is somewhat similar in makeup and who is of the same political outlook as the Premier of Queensland. The States with the best record in industrial relations, measured in terms of working days lost per thousand civilian employees, are the Laborgoverned States of South Australia, Tasmania and New South Wales. Let me put the statistics on record to establish that point. The number of working days lost per thousand civilian employees through industrial disputes in Western Australia between January and July 1977 was nearly 409. In Queensland the number was more than 228. In Victoria it was more than 206. In

New South Wales and Tasmania it was about 151. In South Australia fewer than 46 working days per thousand civilian employees were lost through industrial disputes. That is important and indicates the sort of result that can be achieved through enlightened industrial laws and enlightened government, especially in its relations with the industrial movement.

That is another area in which Queensland has a dismal record. It is the product of the narrowmindedness and the political opportunism of the Queensland Premier. I am not denying for a minute of course that he does not have quite obvious personal qualities. After aU, he is the only Premier in the Commonwealth who is so beloved by his people that he must wear a bullet-proof vest in public. While the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) sets his sights on union leaders, the Queensland Premier sets his sights on nothing much lower than an archbishop, and certainly nothing lower than a dean. So we find for political purposes theologians, atheists and communists lumped together in Queensland as the threat to the solidity and the security of the society. I suppose the next people in the firing line will be the vegetarians and the anti.vivisectionists. About the only group which will be safe will be the flat earth movement, and that is only because the Premier believes that that movement is correct.

Let me not be personal about the Premier. Let me refer to the opinion of the Premier’s distinctive qualities by none other than his personal friend, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Country Party in this Parliament. In July in Queensland the Deputy Prime Minister described the Premier as, in inverted commas, ‘unreasonable, selfish and unchristian’. I think the Deputy Prime Minister should have the last word on the matter. He, after all, knows him better than any of us.

One other matter ought to be referred to because it was attended to briefly in the second reading speech of the Minister Assisting the Treasurer, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner). It concerns the Federal Government’s financial support for local government. The Prime Minister especially seeks to presume that his Government has been more generous than any preceding government in the provision of financial assistance for local government. He certainly asserts that his Government has been more generous than the last Labor Government was in the provision of financial assistance for local government in its 1975-76 Budget. Let us look at the official record. I refer to Budget Paper No. 7 for 1 977-78 which is entitled ‘Payments To

Or For The States And Local Government Authorities’. I refer to table 98 at page 113. The grand total, excluding allocations for roads, being the summary of Commonwealth Government payments to or for local government authorities in 1975-76 was $275,046,000. In 1977-78 it feU to $203,967,000. So, even in money terms, without allowing for inflation, the national Government’s total support for local government fell substantially.

A more relevant measure is a comparison of the allocations as a proportion of gross domestic product in each case. In 1975-76 the Labor Government provided 0.4 per cent of gross domestic product as direct assistance from the national Government to local government. In this year’s Budget the allocation is 0.2 per cent of gross domestic product. What that means is that if the present conservative coalition Government were to provide as much in real comparative terms as the Labor Government provided in 1975-76 it would have to double its total allocation to local government. Instead of providing just on $204m, it would have to provide nearly $408m. That is the measure. That is not only the measure of what the Government should have done; that is the measure of the way in which financial support to local government by the national Government has been cut back.

Again this has most undesirable consequences for the economy because this is a time when local government can play a most vital role in helping to get the economy under way again. But now can we expect anything other than this narrowminded, inadequate response from a conservative coalition Government in Canberra and equally from the Government in Brisbane? This year there Will be more unemployment than there was last year. Next calendar year it will be even worse. That is acknowledged by the Queensland Premier. For aU that, in this recent Budget he reduced from $69m last year to $50m this year specific allocations to relieve unemployment- a 30 per cent reduction; in real money terms a $25m reduction in the allocation of relief for the unemployed. How fair dinkum is the national Government? How fair dinkum is the Queensland Government? How poorly does the record of the Queensland Government compare with the record of achievement of the South Australian Labor Government?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

Mr HODGES:
Petrie

-There is no doubt that the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) is one of the most vociferous members in this House. He has always been heavy on words and light on action. I am sure that his being heavy on words tonight in his criticism of the Queensland Government will win him no friends whatsoever. It just shows how much out of tune he is with the people of Queensland. At present his party in Queensland holds one out of 18 Federal seats. The Queensland Opposition led by Tom Burns has 11 members in a Parliament of 82. It is often referred to as the broken-down cricket team. It cannot even provide a twelfth man. Of course, one can understand the honourable member being a little out of tune. He cannot make up his mind. He is too preoccupied with whether he is economic spokesman for the Opposition, whether he is to take the portfolio of Treasurer, the portfolio of economic manager or the portfolios of Defence and Foreign Affairs combined.

The people of Queensland are thoroughly satisfied with the State coalition Government. They will reflect that satisfaction come Saturday week, 12 November. The people will have their say then, and all of the loose words that have been spoken tonight by the honourable member for Oxley will be meaningless. The people rejected the Australian Labor Party in December 1974 in the State election, and they repeated their action in December 197S in the Federal election. They will do it on 12 November in the State election and again on 10 December in the Federal election. The honourable member for Oxley implied that Queenslanders are less than astute. They will not forget those words. Queenslanders have their feet firmly planted on the ground. They know what they are doing, and that will be reflected in their vote in the two forthcoming elections. They will not forget the comments of the honourable member for Oxley.

The honourable member had the temerity to stand in this Parliament tonight and tell us what extra money should have been spent in Queensland and how the Queensland Government should run its Budget. Let me remind him that when he was Treasurer of this nation he budgeted for a deficit of something like $2.8 billion- a large deficit, to say the least- and after only three and a half months the deficit was heading for $4.5 billion. Yet tonight he had the temerity to tell this House what the Queensland Government should be doing with its Budget. If I remember correctly, inflation was running at 4.5 per cent when the Labor Government came to power in December 1972, and it was running at 17 per cent when it left government in November 1975. The Labor Government inherited an unemployment figure of about 100,000. When Labor left office the figure was about 260,000. There was a wages explosion under Labor. All of these issues came about as a result of the bungling of the Labor Party when in government. I suggest to the honourable memer for Oxley that he might need a bullet-proof vest in Queensland, not the Premier, Mr BjelkePetersen.

It is my view that the Queensland Government will be returned with a handsome majority. There has been an unbroken period of 20 years of stable government for the State of Queensland. The Government has developed the State’s resources of coal and bauxite well. Queensland has a stable sugar industry and other primary industries. It has developed a road network that certainly needs work done on it, but this will take time. The electrification of Brisbane’s rail system is proceeding now at a time when electrification will be viable. It was not proceeded with when the Labor Party wanted to develop it 20 years ago. There were then insufficient people to provide the necessary support for such a system. Hospital and medical services are being developed m the State and I believe that they are second to none. Queensland is the most decentralised State in Australia, with one million people living in south-eastern Queensland and a further one million people spread throughout the remainder of the State. There are first class port developments right up the coastline. Schools have been built, and a multitude of other services and programs are in the pipeline.

It is my view that the people of Queensland want stable government. They have expressed that in Federal elections; they have expressed it previously in State elections; and they will do it on Saturday week, when in my view the Labor Party will be lucky to get 35 per cent of the total vote. So much for the honourable member for Oxley talking about gerrymanders. What can he expect with 35 per cent of the vote? It is my view that that is roughly the proportion his party will get. The Queensland Government will be returned because of its record- I repeat ‘because of its record’- and because of its forward policy program.

I refer now to the speech made by the honourable member for Oxley in this House yesterday. He ought to be ashamed of that performance. It was a savage speech. Indeed, I believe that it was a merciless speech. It was unwarranted and it was a deceptive attack on the Utah Development Corporation in particular. The honourable member conveniently made no reference in that speech to the massive benefits that - flow to Australia and to Queensland as a result of the operations of Utah in Queensland. I noticed that he made no reference to the rail freight revenues that flow to the Queensland Governmentsomething like $56m in 1976. He made no mention of the taxes and royalties of some $2 1 m that flowed to the Queensland Government in the same year. A letter from John Bailey of Brighton, Victoria, which appeared in the Australian Financial Review yesterday, set out quite clearly the position in relation to the Utah Development Corporation. Mr Bailey quoted figures from the annual report of that company for the year ended 31 October 1976.

If the honourable member for Oxley has visited the central Queensland coal fields that are operated by Utah, as I understand he has, I am surprised and ashamed that this man can put forward such a story. I say to all honourable members that if the opportunity arises they should visit such townships as Dysart, Goonyella Peak Downs and Saraji. The Utah Development Corporation has constructed railway lines to Hay Point. It has also constructed loading faculties at Hay Point. I wonder whether the honourable member for Oxley has talked to some of the employees there.

Mr Braithwaite:

– He has never been there.

Mr HODGES:

– I can assure the honourable member for Dawson that he has been there because I checked it out today. But let us look at the amenities that are provided- squash courts, a golf course, shopping centres, swimming pools and so forth. The average wage earned in the central Queensland coal fields operated by Utah is $16,000 to $17,000 a year and that does not include management wages.

Mr Jull:

– That is the average.

Mr HODGES:

– As the honourable member for Bowman interjects, that is the average. That average wage does not include management wages and salaries.

Mr Armitage:

– How much did Utah send back overseas this year?

Mr HODGES:

-I shall move on to that matter in just a moment. Labourers earn about $12,000 a year and semi-skilled people earn up to $20,000 a year. I wonder whether the honourable member for Oxley has talked to the men and women in those townships, the labourers and the plant operators, as I have done. They are extremely happy. He ought to go and talk to the management again because I can assure him that it is contented as well.

As a Queenslander, I strongly resent the words spoken in this House yesterday by the honourable member for Oxley. The Utah Development Corporation has achieved much for Queensland. Indeed, if we examine its annual report to which I referred earlier we find that about 60 per cent of earnings went in tax to governments. I hope the honourable member for Chifley is listening because only 40 per cent went to shareholders. The estimate for this year is that S3 per cent of earnings will go to governments and 47 per cent will go to shareholders. What the honourable member for Oxley failed to tell the House yesterday was that there are total assets of the order of $500m invested there, with the Utah Development Corporation having invested about $43 Sm. The situation, as I understand it, is somewhat different from the distorted view conveyed to this House by the honourable member for Oxley. About $ 1 4m was paid to Australian shareholders and $1 17m was repatriated with the approval of the Foreign Investment Review Board. I should like the honourable member for Chifley to listen to what I am saying. I should like him to go to the central coal fields and talk to the men and women there who receive wonderful support from this company. They would run him out of town.

A substantial portion of the $117m that was repatriated would have gone into the development of the Norwich Park coal fields only for trie actions of the seamen’s union. I noticed that the honourable member for Oxley had nothing to say about this particular matter. Norwich Park will be developed at a cost of about $250m. What about the job opportunities that that will provide? I do not hear the honourable member for Chifley being quite so outspoken at this stage. I remind the House that the job opportunities that would arise from the development of the Norwich Park coal fields would not be confined to that particular area. Indeed there would be job opportunities such as those that arise now in workshops in Newcastle, Port Kembla, Sydney and other centres as a result of Utah’s other operations in central Queensland. So the 3,000 jobs that were referred to as directly involved in Utah’s operations in central Queensland would be increased to many more thousands, taking into account all the ancillary works that go to support that wonderful development.

I wish to turn now to the fact that the States of Australia are doing very well under this Government. Indeed, there was no mention by the honourable member for Oxley in his earlier speech as to just how well the States are doing.

When one examines the general revenue assistance, that is, the tax sharing assistance that this Government has provided to the States, it will be noticed that in 1976-77 about $3.6 billion went to the States. In the same year, for section 96 or specific purpose payments, about $2.4 billion went to the States. These figures are to be increased substantially to about 18 per cent this financial year and will total, for both general revenue and specific purpose payments, $7,24 1.7m. This is a substantial amount of money which flows to the States. I mention this in particular because too much criticism flows to the Commonwealth from the States. Whenever a State government cannot carry out a program, it invariably says that the Commonwealth Government is not providing adequate funds. I think this is reflected m the condition of the State budgets.

I wish to refer now to the healthy condition of the six State budgets. In 1976-77 New South Wales had a deficit of $0.5m, Queensland had a deficit of $lm and South Australia had a deficit of $0.1 m. Queensland’s deficit of $ 1.02m on its Revenue Account was arrived at only after allocating $Sm of the State’s personal income tax sharing payment in 1976-77 for use in 1977-78. The budgets of the other three States were: Victoria, a surplus of $9.1 m; Western Australia, a surplus of $3.4m; and Tasmania, a surplus of $1.6m. Indeed, shows examination of the State budget estimates for 1977-78 again shows a very healthy picture. The States have reduced their taxes. That is entirely their business. Of course one of the great advantages of the present Government’s federalism policy is that it allows the State governments to do as they will. All of the State governments have decided to reduce payroll tax in the 1977-78 financial year. I am not saying for a moment that this should not be done: I support such a move. Practically all of the States have reduced probate duty, stamp duty, land taxes and gift taxes. As I say, that is entirely the business of the States. But one does get a little tired of the way in which the States bleat every time they do not have sufficient funds. The States must be honest with their electors and tell them when they cannot carry out a project. They should not continually blame the Commonwealth.

I wish to refer briefly to the rate of growth of the State Public Services. It is my view that while the Commonwealth has reined m in this particular area and cut back on the number of Commonwealth employees, the States have not been of the same mind. I think this is an area at which the State governments ought to look very seriously. The provision of $24.8m in this Bill to

Queensland will be a great boost to that State’s finances. The Commonwealth Grants Commission examines the position. I think one would agree that if a particular State wants to be a claimant State- and Queensland is the only claimant State at the moment- the four less populous States of Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania should not be disadvantaged. In this particular case the Government of Queensland, the only claimant State, is to receive $24.8m in 1977-78. It is more expensive to provide services to smaller cities in outlying areas in a vast State such as Queensland. Indeed a State such as Queensland cannot raise taxes as easily as can the standard States of New South Wales and Victoria. So this payment is compensation to Queensland for being a disadvantaged State. I trust that the people of Victoria and New South Wales will not mind this, as I believe it would be unfair if the people of Queensland had to pay higher taxes in order to enjoy a reasonable standard of living- In conclusion I want to mention a matter that affects my electorate. It is on rare occasions that I mention anything of a parochial nature.

Dr Klugman:

– When were you last there?

Mr HODGES:

-If the honourable member for Prospect would like to come with me I will show him around. Let me add that his political party is having difficulty in finding a candidate. The honourable member can come and campaign for a candidate any day of the week and every day of the week between now and the Federal election. The matter I want to raise concerns the augmentation of what is known as the Hornibrook Highway, a project which will cost about $9m. In October last year I asked the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) a question on notice. He replied that the Queensland Government had not seen fit to include that project in any program. In answer to a further representation made by me the Minister replied today saying that the Queensland Government has not included any works on the Hornibrook viaduct in its submission for the 1977-78 urban arterial roads program as submitted under the States Grants (Roads) Act.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond:

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

Debate interrupted.

page 2715

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL REDISTRIBUTION BILL

Notice of Presentation

The Deputy Clerk- Notice has been received from the Leader of the House of his intention at the next sitting to present a Commonwealth Electoral Redistribution Bill.

page 2715

QUEENSLAND GRANT (SPECIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1977

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– The Bill before us embodies the recommendations of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. I suppose those recommendations have to be accepted, but I find them very hard to follow and I think they could be open to criticism. We have had the report of the Grants Commission for only a little while. It was presented on 25 October and therefore most honourable members would not have had a chance to study it. On page 107 of the report the Grants Commission makes a recommendation which appears to me to be very ill-founded. If honourable members look at the details of the report I think that they will come to that conclusion. I want to refer particularly to the fact that Queensland, under its bushranging Premier, which is the only way in which I can describe him -

Mr Armitage- Is that Bjelke-Petersen?

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Bjelke-Petersen. Under its bushranging Premier, Queensland has been able to eliminate its death duties- other States have not been able to do this-and yet we have nonsense talked by Queenslanders in this House about how Queenslanders are so heavily taxed and about things of this character.

If one looks at page 42 of the Grants Commission report one will see that the Commission has expressed doubts about the facts of the case and makes qualifications there. It is a great pity that the Commission did not follow these qualifications, because it is a scandal that Queensland, which has been able to do this, should be given a grant for which other States have to pay. I am a bit sick of the people from New South Wales in this House and in the Senate who will not stand up for their own State and who let it be bled white by States such as Queensland.

Bjelke-Petersen is a bushranger. Let us look at what has happened. Queensland has abolished death duties and we are paying for it. Because of that the Premier has been able to attract to

Queensland a tremendous amount of investment from other States.

Mr Hodges:

– Good luck to him.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-The honourable member says: ‘Good luck to him. ‘ That is fair enough for a Queenslander but, as a New South Wales person, I say that this is bushranging. I am ashamed of my New South Wales colleagues who let this go on. It is time somebody stood up for New South Wales and stopped this bushranging. I can well sympathise with the people from Queensland. They are priming the parish pump with great success and they are getting money out of that pump. It is time this was stopped.

Mr Millar:

– They are producing a lot of wealth.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Here we have Queenslanders saying: ‘We are producing all this wealth’. That is so, because Queensland has tremendous natural resources and the bonanza of open-cut coal has fallen into its lap. Queensland should be paying to the other States rather than having the other States pay to it. What is going on is a scandal. Perhaps it is because of inefficient administration in Queensland; I do not know. What is happening in Queensland is very much like what happened on a smaller scale with the Channel Islands when they became a tax refuge and they profiteered at the expense of the rest of the British Isles. This is a bit of blatant profiteering, to abolish death duties and to use money which is being paid under this grant.

Mr Hodges:

– Are you criticising the Grants Commission?

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Yes. I am criticising the Grants Commission. I started off by criticising the Grants Commission and I do so because apparently the Grants Commission has been very naive. It has been sucked in and has not realised what was happening. This is just like the scandal that went on with the Channel Islands and the British economy. By reducing or eliminating their taxes they got all the hot money to come to them. In Australia we have free trade between the States under section 92 of the Constitution and we have a single currency. Inside the Australian economy there is no way of putting a rein upon a State which starts bushranging as Queensland is now doing.

Mr Armitage:

– It is a tax haven.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– It is a tax haven. This is like some of the Norfolk Island scandals. Queensland is a tax refuge and a tax haven. It is making money out of that. Look at what is happening on the Gold Coast. Look at the way in which money and investment are flowing into the Gold Coast, as evidenced by the tremendous skyscrapers and things like that. This is all sucked out of the rest of the States of Australia which want to be fair and which keep up their necessary revenues. Queensland by cheating- it is cheating against the rest of Australia- is making a great deal of profit from this operation. I think it is utterly scandalous that this House should be voting money to a State which has behaved in that way.

As I said a moment ago, I am ashamed of my New South Wales colleagues, who will not stand up and fight for their own State, who allow thenown State to be pillaged by Queensland in this way. That is what is happening and that is the truth of the matter. Because Queensland has abolished death duties it is profiteering at the expense of all the other Australian States.

Mr Hodges:

-They can do the same.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Maybe death duties have to be abolished in other Australian States. That may have to be done. It may be less expensive to the other States to allow this anomaly to proceed than to abolish what is received in those States by way of death duties. Queensland is sucking the lifeblood out of the other States of Australia by this type of bushranging and profiteering in which the Premier of Queensland has indulged. It is about time it stopped.

Queensland is a claimant State. It is a State where, as I have been reminded by Queenslanders a few moments ago, there are tremendous natural advantages. There has been the immense bonanza of open-cut coal. BjelkePetersen did not put the coal there. It just happened to be there. It was great luck. I believe that Queensland has rather mishandled its opportunities but its opportunities in natural resources are so great that even though Queensland has mishandled them, there is still a great deal left. Queensland has had a tremendous bonanza fall into its lap, and it is still a claimant State. Look at bauxite. Look at the Gladstone complex which is being paid for largely by Commonwealth money. Look at the extra grants that are being given to featherbed Queensland, right, left and centre. The tragic thing is that members from New South Wales will not stand up for their own State. They are prepared to ditch their own State in this and in other ways, and it is time something was done about it. From time to time over the last 20 years I have protested and raised my voice in this House against this. I have been alone. My colleagues from New South Wales have always abandoned me when I did this. I have had no support -

Mr Cotter:

– I wonder why?

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I will tell you. It is because they are a lot of sheep. They are all looking for votes in the small States and are prepared to ditch New South Wales.

New South Wales was the oldest of the States and it was the richest of the States. It was quite right that in the early days New South Wales should support the other States as a parent sup- ports his children. This was right, but the time as come now when New South Wales can no longer carry the burden. I would say that we have a very inefficient government in New South Wales but we have had a different kind of government over the past ten years and the burden still has been there. New South Wales can no longer maintain the burden of the high taxes and the high charges that it has to bear in order to subsidise the smaller States. I go to Sydney, and I still pay my toll over the Sydney Harbour Bridge. Is there any toll to cross the Tasman Bridge in Hobart? None at all, because we subsidised its construction. Western Australia receives an immense bonanza because it draws its road money on the basis of area. Where does it spend most of its money? On suburban freeways in Perth. The traffic runs freely because the freeways have been paid for by Sydney motorists but Sydney motorists have traffic jams all the time.

I return to the Bill. We must accept, because we have not had time to study it, the report of the Grants Commission. We have had it in our hands for only a few days and the Government has seen fit to railroad this Bill through the House quickly without the members of the House having any opportunity to read the foundations on which this Bill is built. Although I have read it, I think that very few other members have read it. We are accepting uncritically the report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. I say that the Grants Commission has not looked at the whole position properly. It has not drawn attention in this report to what is happening in Queensland as a result of the abolition of death duties which has not occurred in other States. This report says nothing about the extra wealth which is flowing to Queensland as once it flowed to the Channel Islands. Queensland has cheated the rest of the States. It has done something within the boundaries of a common currency and trade area which the other States are not doing. Because it has been able to do this, Queensland has drawn to itself wealth from the other States. This is something which any competent commission should have analysed and said something about. I have read this report. There is not one word in it about the effects of this iniquitous, unilateral abolition of death duties.

Mr Braithwaite:

– Why should there be? It only came off at the beginning of this year.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Exactly so. My friend asks why should there be; it has applied only from the beginning of this year. Apparently he has not looked at page 107 of the report and seen that some of the grant is for the coming year. Why has he not said so? Why did the Commission not say so? I think the Commission has been grossly negligent in not saying so. As I have said before, it is time we had a look at these things. It is terrible that Bills are railroaded through this House. Here we have a Bill which we have not had a chance to read fully, formulated on the recommendations of a report which is over 200 pages of close print and which was given to the Government only on 25 October. It has not been considered soberly by this House, and I venture to say it has not been read by the members who have supported the Bill in general. That is true. They have not had a chance to study it and I do not blame them.

Mr Armitage:

– They have not read it.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-They have not. I do not blame them because there have been other things before this House, and in the last week what chance do people have to look through a 200 page report and examine it critically?

Mr Hodges:

– Turn to page 42.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I turned to page 42 because I quoted from it a few moments ago. I mentioned the uncertainty -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins)Order! The honourable member will address the Chair.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. When there are disorderly interjections sometimes I cannot help but answer them. I hope you will be able to repress the interjectors as well as call me to order. Once again I come to the point. Queensland is a rich State. In many ways it is the richest of all the States. It has tremendous natural resources and advantages. It is a good place to live. It has everything ping for it yet it is the only claimant State. This is a shame and a reproach to Queensland, and it is a shame and a reproach to the Grants Commission that we are not able to bring the matter to some kind of proper and logical consideration. Queensland had a bonanza of copper at Mount Isa. It has a smaller bonanza of uranium at Mary Kathleen. It has the tremendous bonanza of bauxite at Weipa, which has caused a Commonwealth finance bonanza of industrial development at Gladstone. There will be a lot more development at Gladstone. The Premier of Queensland has appealed to foreign companies to bring in capital. This is not altogether to the advantge of Australia, but it certainly is to the advantage of Queensland. It is a case of the man who is selfishly following his own interests being able to get something at the expense of the national interest.

Mr Armitage:

– And we will have to pay the dividends.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I do not very often agree with my honourable friend, but I am afraid that for years we will have to pay hundreds of millions of dollars a year in dividends on coal which should have belonged entirely to Australians and when those dividends should have come entirely to Australians. It is not good enough to give these concessions to companies, even if a government does get a short term profit out of it. Yes, Queensland does get a short term profit, the Premier gets something for Queensland; but he betrays the national interest of all Australians while he does so.

It is true that New South Wales has some coal prospects in the Hunter Valley. Perhaps they are not as great as those in Queensland, but they are there. New South Wales has had no real bonanza over the past .20 or 30 years, as some of the other States have had. Victoria has had the oil and gas bonanza. Western Australia has had the iron ore bonanza and it will get the off-shore oil bonanza. Queensland has had the bonanzas about which I have talked. Tasmania is limping. I do not know what has happened to Tasmania. Maybe its only bonanza is to be able to be feather-bedded by the Commonwealth Government at the expense of New South Wales. It is a real bonanza because it gets this tremendous feather-bedding. It gets all sorts of payments and they are made from New South Wales and, to a lesser extent, Victoria. These things are happening. New South Wales, which quite rightly in the past should have contributed and did contribute to the development of the smaller States, continues to be victimised -

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

Mr CARIGE:
Capricornia

– I will say only one or two things about the remarks of the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth). That would be probably the longest three minutes I have ever witnessed. I will say no more about that. In speaking on this Bill the honourable member referred to the fact that nowhere at all in this handsome book- the report of the Commonwealth Grants Commissioncould he find any mention of probate and succession duties. I refer him to page 42, sub-section 4.7, entitled ‘Probate and Succession Duty’.

Mr Wentworth:

– That is not what I said at all. I will take up this misrepresentation later.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The House will come to order. I call the honourable member for Capricornia to speak without assistance.

Mr CARIGE:

– Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will deal with the honourable member for Mackellar later. The honourable member for Oxley -

Mr Armitage:

– He will deal with you, brother.

Mr CARIGE:

– Hooray, Rent-a-mouth. The honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden), instead of speaking to the actual Bill, politicked and carried on here tonight as though he were electioneering; so I beg the indulgence of the Chair in that I feel that we all will have to do the same thing because of his tirade.

The purpose of this Bill is to enable the Commonwealth Government to make a grant of $24.8m to Queensland, comprising a completion grant of $ 10.8m and an advance grant of $ 14m in respect of the year 1977-78. The Government accepted the Commonwealth Grants Commission recommendation and the grant was announced by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on 1 August. That is what the Bill is all about. The honourable member for Mackellar called the Queensland Government a pack of bushrangers and said that Queensland had a bushranger Premier. In fact, what he was saying was: Why should the Queensland Government be so astute and the New South Wales Premier and Government so inept? That is also what he was saying about all the other Premiers and all the other State Governments throughout Australia.

There is no reason in the world why we should be apologetic for having 20 years of stable government in Queensland. That is how we came to have the vast development that we have in the southern region of Queensland. That is what is worrying the honourable member for Mackellar. I do not know why he is worried about it, because I am led to believe that he has bought substantial properties there and I am led to believe that he bought them only after the Queensland Government abolished death duties. So I do not know why he is complaining tonight about the Queensland Government.

Mr Wentworth:

– That is entirely untrue. How could you learn that?

Mr CARIGE:

– I learned it because you told me.

Mr Wentworth:

– I did not tell you any such thing. That is a bloody he.

Mr CARIGE:

– The honourable member for Mackellar saw fit to challenge the integrity of the Queensland Premier, the Queensland Government and the members representing Queensland. Surely to heaven the honourable member for Mackellar can take it when it is given back. He cannot question the integrity -

Mr James:

– He can, but it was not true.

Mr CARIGE:

– The honourable member for Hunter would not have a clue about what goes on in Queensland. The only time he came up there was when he was with the Public Works Committee, and I welcomed him there then. The Queensland Government makes no apology whatsoever for abolishing death duties. If the honourable member of Oxley, who spoke at great length about the abolition of death duties which came into force on 1 January 1977, believes that it was such an iniquitous decision that was taken by the Queensland Government- the honourable member for Oxley raved on about taxes in other States- why can he not be honest about the whole thing?

He held up the Don Dunstan South Australian Government as the greatest government in Australia. He said that South Australia is the most progressive State in Australia. Let us have a look at some of the facts. Even though Queensland has abolished death duties, the people of Queensland pay $ 1 89 per head in State taxes. What do the people in South Australia pay? They pay $237.20. Let us have a look at what happens in New South Wales- this grand State of New South Wales. The people in that State pay $284.40.

Dr Klugman:

– Because we subsidise Queensland.

Mr CARIGE:

– How do you subsidise Queensland? If Queensland had not been a member of the Federation Queensland would have returned to its taxpayers this year approximately $lm. That is what the Queensland Government could have returned to its taxpayers, because that is what went out of

Queensland. When honourable members opposite rave on about what is going on they should have a look at the tariffs imposed on Queensland. There is no way in the world that any special grant could compensate Queensland for the enormous tariffs which are imposed to protect industries.

Mr James:

– What about sugar?

Mr CARIGE:

-The sugar industry is the most stabilised industry in Queensland. Honourable members opposite rave on about these things. We make no apology whatsoever for having the most decentralised State in Australia. Other honourable members particularly the honourable member for Oxley, went on and slated the Queensland Government. Why should the Queensland Government hang its head in shame? It is a stable government and it attracted foreign investment. It not only attracted foreign investment but also went overseas and sold the raw product. The Queensland Government has nothing to be ashamed of there. It has opened up new mining ventures throughout Queensland. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) only today expanded on the new projects that are corning forward in the very near future.

Dr Klugman:

– Straight after the election.

Mr CARIGE:

-Straight after the election. The honourable member for Prospect does not realise that many Queensland jobs depend on the result of the next election because if honourable members opposite got back into power the investors would go back to wherever they were in between 1972 and 1975. Why cannot they realise this? Why cannot they realise that their Government almost ruined the nation during that period? Honourable members opposite fooled the people once, but they will never fool the people again, make no mistake about that.

The honourable member for Oxley went on and on about hospitalisation and how Queensland is disadvantaged. Let me give the figures on hospital beds. New South Wales has 6.8 beds per thousand population; Victoria has 5.8; Queensland- the terrible State of Queensland that everybody raves on about- has about 7.2; South Australia has 6.4; Western Australia has 6.8 and Tasmania has 6.7. The average for Australia is 6.4. I repeat that Queensland has 7.2 beds per thousand population. That is not a bad statistic at all. It is one of which we are rightly proud. An honourable member opposite is interjecting.

Mr Fisher:

– You are doing all right without any help.

Mr CARIGE:

– I do not need the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron), or whoever it was who spoke, to help me. I know that the honourable member wants to help me. I know that he would like to see me back here next time. Simply because he is not coming back next time is no reason to think I will not come back here.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– What is the point?

Mr CARIGE:

-The night of the long knives has not finished yet so far as the ALP members in Victoria are concerned.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I have been here 28 years, yet you say I am not coming back !

Mr CARIGE:

– Well, the honourable member has not yet got preselection, has he? He has to have double preselection in his State.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

– Order! The honourable member for Capricornia will address himself to the Bill before the House.

Mr CARIGE:

-I ask for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker. The honourable member for Oxley went on with one of his normal ravings in this place. They seem to be coming more apparent since a few events occurred during the course of this year. He was never quite sure what portfolio he would have and what position he was holding. He did not know whether he was on the front bench or on the back bench. He did not know whether he was going into finance, foreign affairs or whatever else. Tonight he took on the task of expounding on the industrial trouble throughout AustralIa. He said that once again Queensland was in some way deficient.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Hear, hear!

Mr CARIGE:

– My friend from South Australia is again trying to help me. Let us look at what happened in 1976. In New South Wales 1,456,000 man days were lost. In Victoria the figure was 1,420,000. In Queensland it was 426,000. I do not know how the devil the honourable member for Oxley relates his figures. I do not know from where he gets them. I do not know why he does not read some of the official statistics that are churned out. They are there for everybody to see. Honourable members do not have to fabricate figures in this place. If they want to they can find them out from the Ministers. They can find out from anywhere. There is no reason to fabricate them. Western Australia is another State that the honourable member lampooned. In Western Australia 252,000 man days were lost. That is not a bad figure when compared with what happened in New South Wales.

What happened in South Australia? Some 1 5 1 ,000 man days were lost.

Dr Klugman:

-That is better, is it not?

Mr CARIGE:

– That is a better figure still but by the same token let us look at the work force in that State. Why did the honourable member for Oxley ask us to look at the track record in South Australia and New South Wales? What a great track record! Let us get the up to date figures and look at what is happening now. For the months of June 1977 New South Wales lost 33,000, Victoria 21,000, Queensland 21,000, South Australia 24,000, Western Australia 76,000 and Tasmania 3,200.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– What is the point?

Mr CARIGE:

– What is the point? The point, in case the honourable member does not listen to parliamentary debate, is that his great colleague, the honourable member for Oxley, came into this Chamber and politicked like crazy because a State election campaign is on in Queensland. It never ceases to amaze me how he gets this new found feeling for rural Queensland and for nonmetropolitan Queensland. Where does he find it? He went for a safari up the east coast of Queensland with the State Leader of the Opposition and suddenly came back with a new found wealth of knowledge. And did he gain some knowledge! He runs along with the Leader of the Opposition in Queensland who only the other night, after a trip through rural Queensland, made the magnificent discovery that a drought was on in western Queensland. He found out a week ago that Queensland was being plagued and beset by a drought.

Dr Klugman:

– You asked Anthony today about it.

Mr CARIGE:

– Anthony is well aware of what is going on up there. I am talking of the Leader of the Opposition in Queensland. The honourable member for Oxley tied himself in with him tonight. The Leader of the Opposition in Queensland said in front of the television two weeks ago: ‘Do not trust the National Party. Do not trust the coalition. They are pandering to the south-east corner’. The honourable member for Oxley expanded on that tonight. He went on and on about it. When he went back to the provincial areas he lampooned my Party again. He said: ‘All they are worried about is looking after the western areas. They are not worried about the provincial areas of Queensland’. It is amazing how these people twist and turn whenever there is an election campaign.

The honourable member for Mackellar tonight criticised the Queensland Government for diligently going about its duty. He criticised it because it has been in office for so long and because it is a stable government. What did the Queensland Government do? It became a claimant State. It has every right in the world to become a claimant State. There is no reason in the world why it should not have become a claimant State. What happened in New South Wales? It changed its government. It changed its leadership time after time.

Dr Klugman:

– It is a terrible thing.

Mr CARIGE:

-The honourable member for Prospect was probably a leader in changes of government. He is never quite sure about which side of the House he sits on. Because of those changes the New South Wales Government did not exploit what it had. It could not hold what it had in New South Wales. In fact New South Wales is now losing its population to Queensland. There is no doubt in my mind why Premier Wran is so worried. He is worried because the people of New South Wales are moving to Queensland. They are moving up to the Gold Coast, the area about which the honourable member for Mackellar spoke, and to the Toowoomba area, which the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) represents, because they are good areas to live in. Queensland is a pleasant State. It is a stable State. It has good government. It has no death duties. It has the lowest State taxes in Australia

Dr Klugman:

-It has got the most hospital beds.

Mr CARIGE:

– From the remarks of some of the members of the Opposition here tonight one would tend to think that they are on our side. They have been criticising the Queensland Government for being so efficient. That is all they are proving. They are proving that the Queensland Government is very efficient and that it is concerned about Queensland. If the New South Wales Government and the South Australian Government were concerned about those States they would be getting in and making claims before the Grants Commission.

Mr James:

– They are bushrangers.

Mr CARIGE:

– There is no need to bushrange. I know that die honourable member for Hunter is well associated with bushrangers. He knows a lot about them. There is no need for him to start associating the Queensland Government with his colleagues

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Bjelke is a bushranger.

Mr CARIGE:

– If Bjelke-Petersen is a bushranger I would hate to think what the honourable member for Hindmarsh is. The honourable member for Hindmarsh is -

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Florence Nightingale.

Mr CARIGE:

-The honourable member for Oxley looks a bit like Florence Nightingale. The only reason I know he is like Florence Nightingale is because of the handbag he carries.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Hindmarsh will cease interjecting. I ask the honourable member for Capricornia not to respond to disorderly interjections.

Mr CARIGE:

– They are rather disorderly, Mr Deputy Speaker. There is no doubt in the world about that. They come from disorderly members.

Dr Klugman:

– Tell us about the hospital beds.

Mr CARIGE:

-The honourable member for Prospect wants to know about hospital beds. He would be well aware of them. He has been expanding on the theory -

Dr Klugman:

– When are they going to build schools?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I offer the same warning to the honourable member for Prospect and I repeat my invitation to the honourable member for Capricornia to ignore the interjections.

Mr CARIGE:

– I am quite sure that all honourable members opposite are trying to do is to gain headlines. They want you to name them. They want to be thrown out of the chamber. They are behaving in this way in the name of cheap politicking.

Mr Corbett:

– They want to get out and electioneer.

Mr CARIGE:

– Some honourable members opposite undoubtedly want to get home and electioneer. Quite a few would find, if they looked at the poll released today, that they are in real trouble. I feel sorry for the honourable members from New South Wales.

Mr King:

– The Opposition will probably come back with less numbers than it has now.

Mr CARIGE:

– I think that is almost impossible but judging from the performance of some honourable members here I agree that some could come back and find that their colleagues are not here.

Mr Millar:

-Which Bill is this?

Mr CARIGE:

-I thank the honourable member for Wide Bay. The honourable member for

Oxley campaigned for the election and got well away from the Bill. In the main all he said was that what the Queensland Government was doing was wrong. He said he was apologetic for the fact that he was a Queenslander. I would never apologise for being a Queenslander. I am proud of the fact that I am a Queenslander. The point that so many speakers have missed up to date is that this Bill provides an advance grant of $14m for 1977-78. This is very important. The Queensland Government has been a claimant State in the past. It is not something new. I am quite sure that all honourable members have known for many years that Queensland is a claimant State. This year, because of many factors, Queensland rightly argued the case before the Grants Commission that it should have an increase. If one looks at the arrangement under the Housing Agreement and at many other areas one can see that Queensland had a very worthwhile case to argue. There was a slight disadvantage in the tax sharing arrangements for Queensland but this has been caught up with the special grant of $24.8m.

I am at a complete loss to know why honourable members from other States are complaining when their State governments have every right in the world to make claims and to become claimant States under the Commonwealth Grants Commission. There is no reason that the States cannot lodge claims or argue them before the Grants Commission. Queensland, with its vast decentralised areas, has a rightful case to argue. Due to the enormous length of roads that we have in Queensland and the enormous rail service that we have, we can rightly argue that in some areas we are disadvantaged. I cannot for the life of me see why these people so consistently criticise the Queensland Government. One honourable member has stood here tonight politicking and another has said that he feels sorry for the State Government of New South Wales and feels sorry for the fact that he is a taxpayer of that State. We acknowledge the fact that Queensland is the most decentralised State. We acknowledge the fact that Queensland has the benefit of mineral resources, but other States have the same mineral wealth if they want to exploit it. We have every reason to exploit our mineral wealth for the betterment of Queensland. Surely that is what it is all about- for the betterment of Queensland. If it is good for Queensland it certainly is beneficial to Australia as a whole. There is no way in the world that Queensland looks in isolation at everything it does.

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

Mr WENTWORTH (Mackellar)-I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Yes. There are four points on which I have been misrepresented which arise from the speech of the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Carige). First, he said that I had purchased property in Queensland. That is utterly untrue. Not only have I not purchased property but also I have not negotiated for it and I am not contemplating it.

Mr King:

– He alleged it.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– 1 am sorry, the honourable member for Capricornia alleged that.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Mackellar should make his personal explanation and ignore the interjection.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I am trying to so far as I can, Mr Deputy Speaker. What was said was utterly without foundation, reckless, irresponsible and completely and utterly untrue. Secondly, he said that I had not realised that death dudes had been mentioned at page 42 of the report. If he will do me the honour of looking at the Hansard record of my speech he will see that I did mention page 42 of the report specifically and also I did not say what he alleged. I did not say that the Commission had said nothing about death duties. I said that it did not say anything about the differential effect of the abolition of death duties in Queensland. It was from this that I was criticising the Commission and not what he alleged. He has entirely misrepresented me on that matter. Thirdly, he said that I was attacking the Premier of Queensland because he had been astute and looked after his State. I was attacking the members and senators from New South Wales who had let the astute Premier of Queensland get away with it. That is a quite different matter. If he will look at my speech he will see that the attack was never levelled against the Premier.

Mr King:

– I raise a point of order. This is a rather lengthy personal explanation, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I ask for your ruling.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Mackellar claims to have been misrepresented on four points. I have been listening carefully. He knows the Standing

Orders and he knows that he may not debate the matter. I am listening carefully and if the honourable member strays from the path of correctness I will pull him up.

Mr King:

– He is getting pretty close to straying.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-That is for the Chair to judge.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think I am entirely within the Standing Orders. The misrepresentations were gross, unmitigated and uncalled for. I say finally- this may be a little close to the line- that he can complain about the tariffs, that Queensland was -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Mackellar must give a personal explanation and not debate the matter. I invite him to resume his seat.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I think, Sir, you are quite right in pulling me up on this point.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I think the honourable member has had it pretty good.

Mr CARIGE (Capricornia)- I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr CARIGE:

– Yes. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) said in his personal explanation that he did not call the Premier of Queensland a bushranger. He personally attacked me because I allegedly stood here and tried to protect the Premier of Queensland. I feel that my credibility is in question now because -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! In making a personal explanation the honourable member must refer to the misrepresentation of his remarks and not debate the matter.

Mr CARIGE:

-The point I am making is that the honourable member for Mackellar did in fact call the Queensland Premier a bushranger.

Mr James:

– Not individually.

Mr CARIGE:

– He called him individually a bushranger. Then he said -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Capricornia must explain where he personally was misrepresented. He must not debate alleged misstatements of the honourable member for Mackellar.

Dr Klugman:

– He identified with the Premier of Queensland.

Mr CARIGE:

-I do not mind being identified with the Premier of Queensland.

Dr Klugman:

– As a fellow bushranger.

Mr CARIGE:

– I ask for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Prospect will come to order.

Mr CARIGE:

-The honourable member for Mackellar alleged that I misunderstood what he said. He alleged that I in fact misheard him when he called the Premier of Queensland a bushranger. In fact, he said that he was referring to the other Premiers. I listened carefully to what he was saying and, therefore, I quote his text as he said it.

Mr WENTWORTH (Mackellar)-The honourable member for Capicornia (Mr Carige) is -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! What is the honourable member for Mackellar seeking?

Mr WENTWORTH:

-The honourable member for Capricornia has entirely misrepresented what I said.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Yes. I am afraid that the honourable member for Capricornia is rather deaf or rather slow witted. I was not attacking the Premiers of other States at all. I was attacking the members and senators in this Parliament who have not stood up for their States and who have let the Queensland Premier bushrange successfully.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Mackellar knows that he is straying from a personal explanation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2723

COAL RESEARCH ASSISTANCE BILL 1977

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 November, on motion by Mr Anthony:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr STALEY:
Minister for the Capital Territory and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister m the Arts · Chisholm · LP

– May I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation. Before the debate is resumed on this BUI I would Uke to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill, the Excise Tariff Amendment Bm (No. 2) 1977 and the States Grants (Coal Mining Industry Long Service Leave) Amendment BUI 1977 as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest, therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of the three bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

-The Op- position does not oppose the three pieces of legislation being debated cognately. The Excise Tariff Amendment BUI (No. 2) 1977 is designed to increase the existing excise on coal from 10c to 15c per tonne. The purpose of the Sc increase is to finance research into coal under the Coal Research Assistance Act which will be passed into legislation when these Bills are consented to by both sides of the Parliament. The other 10c which is normally collected under the Coal Mining Industry Long Service Leave Fund Will be transferred under the States Grants (Coal Mining Industry Long Service Leave) Amendment Bill 1977 so that only two-thirds of the funds collected Will go to the Long Service Leave Fund, whereas formerly the total money collected went to the Fund. In other words, 10c per tonne will go to the Long Service Leave Fund and Sc will go to the Coal Research Trust Account. The other BUI which we are debating cognately is the Coal Research Assistance Bill 1977. It establishes the Coal Research Trust Account. That Trust Account will manage the 5c per tonne levy imposed on aU existing non-State owned black coal production in Australia, together with collections made in respect of brown coal and State owned black coal not covered by the existing excise.

In his second reading speech the Minister for National Resources (Mr Anthony) indicated that this legislation will raise an additional $4m. The amount spent on research into coal technology for the financial year 1976-77 was $9.6m. The amount has increased only modestly since 1972 when it was $5m. The effect of this legislation will be that total moneys expended will be about $ 13.6m. It is not a lot of money and it is nothing for the House to get excited about when we consider Australia’s huge potential for coal production. We are very richly endowed with black and brown coal in this country. The research effort into coal technology is, of course, very puny.

In his second reading speech the Minister mentioned that at the moment Australia is entering into agreements with the Government of West Germany and with the governments of Victoria and New South Wales to look at feasibility studies for the production of synthetic liquid od from Australian coal. That is a healthy trend. The Government also says that it is moving into an agency-to-agency agreement on coal research in co-operation with the Department of National Resources and the National Coal Board of the United Kingdom. Whilst that also is a healthy trend, it is a case of far too little activity.

I think it is worth putting on the record the size of Australia’s coal reserves. To give an indication of them, I shall just cite Australia’s primary energy reserves in terms of millions of barrels of oil equivalent. We have in Australia about 1,850 million barrels of oil, about 5,500 million barrels of gas, 63,000 million barrels of uranium and 77,000 million in coal. Although these reserves amount to billions of dollars of production value, the research effort is but $14m. Of course, we should be doing much more. Perhaps we could take a leaf out of the books of other countries which are investing money in coal research. At the moment we produce about 40 million tonnes of coal. In Great Britain the British National Coal Board produces about 120 million tonnes. The German Democratic Republic- that is East Germany- produces about 240 million tonnes, which is six times the amount that Australia produces. I think it is sensible for Australia to enter into joint technological feasibility studies on coal conversion, coal science and coal research, given the experience in those other countries. But the kind of money being provided is not sufficient.

The last Federal Conference of the Australian Labor Party held in Perth adopted a policy that in government we would establish a national fuel and energy commission which would have the management of all research into energy in Australia. Such an energy commission would have the role of co-ordinating all research efforts around Australia, and it would manage the Federal funding of such research. There would be established an energy research and development fund financed, amongst other means, by a secondary profits related tax on energy industries. What Australia desperately needs, of course, is a body which can manage not only an energy policy but also research into alternative energy technology. We have never had such a body. Whilst the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation does a valiant job in carrying research in certain areas and whilst the private coal companies, through their own organisations, do some research, not enough research is taking place. That which is taking place is, by and large, unco-ordinated. The Federal Government must set up an agency which co-ordinates research and which can provide adequate amounts of money to be directed into certain types of research.

Australia is in a very critical position in terms of liquid fuel. In the next three or four years we will see the end of the high point of production of crude oil from Bass Strait, Moonee and Wapet in Western Australia. Australia’s crude oil reserves will then begin to decline rapidly. At the same time our demand for crude oil is growing exponentially. So within 10 years Australia will probably be providing only about 25 per cent of its crude oil requirements. At the moment it is providing 65 per cent of its requirements. It therefore makes sense for Australia to be directing its research efforts at those energy reserves which can complement our diminishing liquid fuel sufficiency, or portable fuels. One such area is, of course, coal.

The Opposition does not oppose the legislation, although we do not support it because we believe that the amount of money being provided is not enough. It is just too puny an effort. The 5c per tonne is just a small increment to what is otherwise a very modest research effort. So we on this side of the House would like to see a much better performance in relation to coal research, and a much better performance in relation to research into alternative energy sources generally. A Labor Government would set up the machinery to ensure that there was a fully coordinated, integrated and well-funded research effort.

Mr O’KEEFE:
Paterson

-We are debating cognately the Coal Research Assistance Bm 1977, the Excise Tariff Amendment BUI (No. 2) 1977 and the States Grants (Coal Mining Industry Long Service Leave) Amendment BUI 1977. 1 want to speak briefly on the BUI for an Act to establish a Coal Research Trust Account. That BUI has been introduced to encourage an expanded coal research effort in Australia. This Government is establishing an industry financed coal research fund for the purpose of providing financial assistance to organisations undertaking appropriate coal research programs. The Minister for National Resources (Mr Anthony) will be advised by an expert group on the projects to be funded. Although we have an abundance of coal in Australia. particularly in New South Wales and Queensland, it is nevertheless necessary that we carry on a research program.

The fund is to be financed by a levy of 5c per tonne on coal production in Australia. That will include coal produced by private companies and coal produced by State authorities. The situation in New South Wales, of course, is that quite a few State coal mines and State authorities are producing coal. I have no doubt that the same situation applies to Queensland and Victoria. The existing excise of 10c per tonne on coal production for the purposes of funding the Coal Mining Industry Long Service Leave Fund will be increased to 15c. Two-thirds of the moneys received from the excise will be directed to the Coal Mining Industry Long Service Leave Fund. One-third will be directed to the Coal Research Trust Account. South Australia and Victoria do not participate in the existing excise scheme which pays money into the Coal Mining Industry Long Service Leave Fund. Arrangements have been made with those two States for them to contribute to the Coal Research Trust Account amounts related to their coal production. The introduction of this legislation necessitates an amendment to the Excise Tariff Act 1921 to increase the excise from 10c to 1 5c a tonne. As all excise on coal currently is paid into the Long Service Leave Fund, an amendment also is needed to the States Grants (Coal Mining Industry Long Service Leave) Act 1949 to limit the amount paid to the Fund to two-thirds of the amounts raised as duties of excise.

In my electorate of Paterson great progress and development are taking place in the coal mining industry, particularly in the area known as Warkworth. It was a great setback to the mining industry in this district, and indeed to Australia, when the State Government jumped in and took over the lease of the company known as Coal and Allied Industries Ltd. The decision by the New South Wales Government to award the coal lease for the Warkworth deposit in the Hunter Valley to the New South Wales Electricity Commission is, to my mind and to the mind of the coal industry, deplorable. The ramifications of this action by the New South Wales Government are very serious indeed. The erosion of confidence generated by this action will have grave implications for investment and employment in the coal industry not only in New South Wales but throughout this country.

The coal deposits in question had been explored by an Australian company- Coal and Allied Industries Ltd. As a successful explorer, that company might well have expected that in line with convention it would have been allowed to benefit to the full degree as a result of its efforts and the risks it took. This company went into the area, took risks and invested about $5m. Now it has found coal, and the State Government wants to jump in and take over the lease. Expectations of this sort are the very essence of the mining industry in Australia. In the event, the Minister for Mines and Energy in New South Wales has patronisingly said that CAIL, in recognition of its exploration work, has been given the first option to participate as a minority partner in a joint venture arrangement. He has sought to defend this decision by claiming that it is in the national interest and in conformity with State Government policy of Australian equity in new mining ventures. On the face of the statement, the Minister is intent on 100 per cent Aus.tralian ownership at Warkworth. A policy of this sort raises the spectre of the worst excesses of the last Federal Labor Government The effect of that Government’s policy was to stifle investment and development in the mining industry.

The New South Wales Government is inconsistent, if not hypocritical. Recently, with a fanfare of trumpets, the Premier announced that 49

Eer cent of the new steaming coal deposits had een sold to Japanese interests. This is a higher foreign content than would have been the case at Warkworth if the Conzinc Riotinto of Australia Ltd and Howard-Smith Ltd takeover of Coal and Allied Industries Ltd had proceeded. Of course, a little pressure has been brought by the Premier upon the Minister concerned. They are rethinking the action that they have taken in this instance. It must be borne in mind that the Warkworth deposit is predominantly a soft coking coal deposit. Hence we have the prospect of the Electricity Commission in New South Wales extending its interests into the trade in steelmaking raw material as distinct from coal for electricity generating purposes. All of this demonstrates quite clearly that the motivation of the New South Wales Government is not directed to the maintenance of a foreign investment poliCy however imprecisely it might be enunciated by the New South Wales Government from time to time; nor is the decision consistent with the healthy development of the industry in that State. This action must be interpreted as a move towards State ownership of the coal industry in New South Wales regardless of the cost.

In the Hunter Valley, where great progress is being made, this action certainly has resulted in a loss of confidence in the industry. The granting of mining leases and licences is of course a responsibility of State governments, but when that responsibility is handled as badly as it has been in this case the repercussions on mining investment throughout Australia, whether wholly Australian investment or investment which includes foreign participation, will be profound. They will give rise to uncertainty on the part of investors, Australian and foreign alike. This seems completely counter to the national interest. That uncertainty will affect the decisions of investors to locate theninvestments in Australia. This action by the New South Wales Government will do little to inspire investment in the State coal industry as an alternative to investment in other States. No doubt the Premier of Queensland, who has been mentioned many times in this House tonight, will have received this announcement with glee. It assuredly will enhance the appeal of coal mining activity in Queensland.

Much has been said in this House in criticism of the Utah Development Corporation. As a member of the Trade and Resources Committee of this Government, I had the pleasure, with my colleagues, of travelling to Queensland to see the development that Utah is undertaking at Blackwater and at Norwich Park. Few members of this House, and indeed of the public of this country, realise just what development this company is providing in this part of Australia. The company has developed a town- Blackwater. It has lovely houses. The people who work in the Utah mines are well housed. The facilities there are second to none in any town in Australia. I suppose that the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter), who is sitting with me and who was on the tour when we looked at the Utah mines, knows just what this company has done for Blackwater-a town of, I suppose, 8,500 people.

The company has built railway lines to the mines. It has provided every facility for the men who work on the site. It has provided an Olympic standard swimming pool, houses and every modern facility for the men who work for it. The criticism by members of this House of this splendid company, which is developing Australia and which is providing employment for thousands of people, absolutely amazes those of us who had the good fortune to see the operations of the company. It has built roads to the mines and rail.way lines to the mines. It has provided wonderful facilities for the employees, who are earning splendid money and are happy and content.

I want to say a . little more about Utah Development Corporation. A heading for a article in the Australian Financial Review of Thursday, 27 October, said that Utah rips out its tax-free dollars and implied that Utah has avoided paying Australian taxes for which it is liable. This imputation is totally wrong. Taxes, levies and royalties paid to the end of September 1977 to the Australian Treasury total $553m. The article ignored the fact that UDC had approximately $ 166m in retained earnings at the beginning of 1977 which, coupled with the first nine months’ earnings in 1977 of $ 116m, gives profits available for dividends of $282m. From this figure dividends totalling $131m have been paid this year, leaving $15 lm in retained earnings in this country. Total UDC dividends since the commencement of its mining operations ten years ago to the end of September 1977 represent 3 1 per cent of accumulated profits before Federal and State Government taxes, levies and royalties are taken. Taxes levied and royalties paid to the end of September 1977 represented 52 per cent of accumulated profits.

The current dispute with the Seamen’s Union of Australia has deferred development of the $250m Norwich Park project which has often been mentioned in this House by honourable members on either side. If the SUA had not delayed the development of Norwich Park, a substantial part of the funds paid by way of dividends to Utah for use in other capital projects and to Utah Mining Australia Limited would have been used in Australia in financing that development. Contrary to the statement m the Financial Review, the increased dividend payout by UDC announced in UMAL’s latest quarterly report is not due to currency speculation, but to a decline in UDC’s capital commitments. In the longer term UDC’s capital requirements will increase with the development of deep stripping underground mining operations and the development of the Norwich Park mine. With regard to withholding tax, the 1953 tax treaty between the United States Government and the Australian Government is designed not to avoid tax but to avoid double taxation. Australian companies operating in the United States are treated exactly as UDL is treated under Australian law. As pointed out in the Financial Review editorial, nothing Utah has done has involved the slightest deviation from the law. I related those figure to Parliament tonight because companies of this nature too often are run down by people who do not realise their benefit to Australia both in developing the industry and in providing employment for good Australians.

I mentioned earlier that the coal mining industry in the Hunter Valley is expanding. It has been good to see that in the port of Newcastle a second coal loader has been constructed. Indeed the Broken HU1 Pty Co. Ltd is investigating coal deposits west of the Great Dividing Range in New South Wales at Gunnedah and Boggabri in the north-west. There is every prospect that these fields will be most profitable and will be developed over the next four or five years. It is a pleasure to support the legislation brought down y the Government and it is fully supported by my colleagues on this side of the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Viner) adjourned.

page 2727

UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS

Ministerial Statement

Mr VINER:
Minister Assisting the Treasurer · Stirling · LP

– I seek leave to make a statement on behalf of the Treasurer (Mr Lynch).

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins:

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

Mr VINER:

– During Question Time today the Treasurer responded to a question from the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr West) concerning unemployment. During his response the Treasurer indicated that in view of the honourable member’s question he would have the figures he quoted to the House checked. This has now been done. The Treasurer, who is unable to be in the House tonight, has asked me to inform the House that his answer was based on official advice, and the facts given about the level of unemployment in December 197S as compared with September of the current year were correct. However, the figure given for the increase in unemployment between September of this year and September of 1975, also based on official advice, involved a comparison of seasonally adjusted with actual figures. To that extent the comparison drawn was inaccurate. As a final point, the Treasurer has asked me to say that the increase in the level of unemployment under the former Government was very much greater than the increase that has occurred since December 1975.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-by leave-The Opposition acknowledges the correction. I think it shows the dangers of using seasonally adjusted figures, which the Government itself had decided were of no value. Quite obviously, the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) misled the House when he used figures which were no longer published or no longer used by the Government but which apparently were satisfactory to use to show a lower rate of increase in unemployment than actually existed.

page 2727

COAL RESEARCH ASSISTANCE BILL 1977

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

-The Coal Research Assistance BUI is a BUI to establish the Coal Research Trust account and for related purposes. I listened with interest to the speech made by the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating), with which I entirely agree, although I think the levy should have been more than 5c a tonne in connection with expanding the country’s research into alternative uses of coal. I believe that the Government could have been inspired to bring this BUI before the House because of an investigation that took place in Australia a few years ago when an international conference was held. It was decided at a meeting of the International Committee of Coal Research that more research should be carried out into alternative uses of coal. This organisation has grown rapidly since 1973 when the Western European Coal Producers Association and the National Coal Association of the United States of America decided to co-operate in coal research. Japan joined the organisation in 1976.

The main aims of the ICCR may be summarised as fostering a continuous exchange of information and experience among coal producers and coal research institutions to help facilitate the international co-ordination of research programs, and informing governments and the public about the importance of coal and the scope and results of coal research. The third international conference on coal research was held in Sydney from 6 to 8 October 1976. It was opened by the Minister for Science (Senator Webster). A wide range of technical papers were read and discussed. Reference is made in relevant parts of the Joint Coal Board report of last year to some of the information made available during the conference.

As I said earlier, I believe that the Government has been inspired as a result of that conference to introduce this BUI so that Australia can play its part in the world, as one of the major coal exporting countries, in research into alternative uses of coal. I welcome it. I hope that vigorous efforts will be instituted to find alternative uses for coal. Having been reared on the northern coalfields when a small boy, I know that it has been the hope of many of my people that one day there would be proper and vigorous research into achieving economic success in the extraction of oil from coal. I believe that in the years ahead it will become a reality because of the world energy crisis, because of the rising costs of Middle Eastern oil on the world market and because of the fears of people as to the use of uranium. They are worried about the disposal of the uranium waste after the uranium has been used in atomic power stations. It is my hope and wish that not in my lifetime will Australia have to resort to the generation of power from atomic stations because we have the God-given assets of coal.

In the South Maitland coal fields- one of the principal coal producing areas in Australia prior to 1950- there were 20 or 30 mines operating. Now there are only three mines. This BUI sponsors to a greater extent research into alternative uses of coal. It has been estimated by world coal experts that the South Maitland coal is the ideal coal to be used in further research into the possibility of economic production of oU from the high quality Greta seam in the South Maitland coal fields area. A lot of government money has been pumped into the area in the way of schools, roads and hospitals. There are fears from time to time, seeing that only three mines are working in the South Maitland coal fields, that these could become redundant. It would be a great boost to the area to have a plant there to produce oU from coal.

A German delegation recently in Australia spoke of two ideal types of coal in Australia for greater research and the possible production of oU from coal in the Toowoomba area and the South Maitland coal fields area. I would hope that the South Maitland coal fields area would have some priority. I am not trying to prime the parish pump because of the coal fields’ close proximity to the seaport of Newcastle. I think that if there is not much difference between the quality of oU extracted from Toowoomba coal and that extracted from South Maitland coal, it would be more appropriate for the South Maitland area to have priority. It may be that overseas interests, because of carrots held out by the Queensland Government in the way of minimum royalties placed on coal in Queensland, could be induced to invest in the Toowoomba coal resources.

It is a pity that one State plays off another in this field. It is a pity that the federal government could not say. ‘You W111 fix royalties at 10c or 50c a ton’. The States would be under the control of the Commonwealth so that they could not play one another off in the way in which this has been done by Queensland and New South Wales. Much higher royalties are imposed on coal producers in New South Wales than in Queensland. This may have been why the German interests thought they might develop the Toowoomba coal reserves or carry out greater research in connection with Toowoomba coal for the purpose of ultimately extracting oU and other by-products from coal at a commercial price in preference to the South Maitland coal.

I was somewhat disappointed at the remarks of my colleague, the honourable member for Paterson (Mr O’Keefe) a short time ago. He joined the critics of the New South Wales Government’s decision to take control of 51 per cent of the vast coal deposits in the Hunter Valley, outside the Hunter electorate and in the electorate of Paterson. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for National Resources (Mr Anthony) was vigorously critical, I believe unjustifiably, as was the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), of this action. I commend Premier Wran for taking over 5 1 per cent of the coal resources of the Warkworth region for the New South Wales Electricity Commission. It is regrettable if it is not going to stimulate investors’ interest in the stock exchange and in the coal mining industry.

The honourable member for Paterson tried to sell the idea that the Coal and Allied organisation had spent some $5m or $7m in research in connection with the Warkworth coal deposits in the Hunter Valley. I seriously doubt the accuracy of that figure. One has only to look at the Joint Coal Board reports which are SUPplied to every member of this Parliament year after year to find that the Coal Board carries out extensive drilling for coal in New South Wales and meets the cost of that drilling. It acts in a similar way to the Commonwealth Bureau of Mineral Resources. The Coal Board virtually pinpoints for private enterprise where the rich deposits of minerals are, whether those minerals be coal, bauxite, iron ore, manganese or whatever. The Bureau of Mineral Resources drills at the taxpayers’ expense. When private enterprise is interested in developing some coal resource it obviously gets in touch with the Coal Board or the Commonwealth Government and is given this information. However, it does carry out more extensive drilling. So actually the Bureau of Mineral Resources or the Coal Board spends the people’s money, the taxpayers’ money, in finding the reserves of coal or whatever mineral it may be. It then directs private enterprise to those resources. When the taxpayers claim a 5 1 per cent share, through their Government, of the interest in the venture they are criticised by members like the honourable member for Paterson- I am disappointed in him-and the honourable member for Bradfield. I can understand the attitude of the honourable member for Bradfield because he represents an electorate that consists predominantly of punters on the stock exchange. One can understand his echoing the opinions of vast numbers of electors in the electorate of Bradfield.

The honourable member for Paterson was, I believe, unduly censorious of the New South Wales Government for taking over 5 1 per cent of the Warkworth deposits for the State Electricity Commission. The attitude of his party colleague the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Ian Robinson) is worth placing on the records of this Parliament. According to a book I have here, The Nymboida Story, it was decided to close this little coal mine near Grafton, which was owned and controlled by private interprise. Because not enough profit was being made out of it, the ISO true Australian coal miners were cast to the four winds. They were thrown out of work, with utter disregard for their wives and famines and their children’s education. To his great credit, the honourable member for Cowper with members of the Miners Federation attended a meeting in January 1975 to discuss the future of Nymboida colliery On page 14 of this book it says:

In January 1975 Federation efforts around Nymboida included another in a series of visits there by the Northern District president Bill Chapman and vice president Jim Hayes, this time with District secretary Ken Fogg. While they were there, there was a meeting in Grafton involving themselves, the Nymboida workers, the Mayor (Alderman F. McGuren), and the local members of Parliament (Messrs I. Robinson M.H.R. and M. Singleton M.L.A., both of whom are Country Party members). This meeting pledged full efforts to see that the mine remained in operation

So this is virtually a socialist mine. It could not be run successfully by private enterprise because there was not enough profit in it. The owners were prepared to close it down, with utter disregard for the 150 employees, but it is functioning successfully today. It produces a very rich type of coking coal which the Japanese are hungry to get. I suppose that, being so far from the seaport, it is hard to market the coal for the overseas trade. Fortunately the coal produced from Nymboida, which mine is being owned and run by the Miners Federation, is being consumed by a power station in the Grafton region.

Whilst I would not agree much with the pohtics of the honourable member for Cowper, I applaud him for putting his shoulder to the wheel and doing what he could to keep this little mine at Grafton open in the interests of the 1 50 employees. This is the history of the coal mining industry. There would be no chance of the Miners Federation getting its hands on the rich coal deposits at Warkworth because it Will be almost as profitable as Utah’s resources at Blackwater in central Queensland. It seems amazing to me that the attitude of our society and of some of our politicians in this country, State and Federal, is to let the State have anything that is not profitable but, when something is profitable, private enterprise must not be interfered with. I have heard you say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that a lot of members of parliament who do not follow the political ideology of the Australian Labor Party believe in socialising their losses and capitalising their gains. This is what we find with the Warkworth deposits for which the Wran Government has been so unjustifiably criticised.

I believe that collieries such as Nymboida, which was not a profitable colliery for private enterprise, should be exempt from the 5c per tonne levy imposed by this BUI. Greater encouragement and inspiration should be given to those ISO miners and to the Miners Federation. The Federation was able to keep the 150 men employed. They would have been thrown out on to social service payments. I am sorry I did not think of this matter earlier today so that I could have raised it with our shadow Minister for Minerals and Energy, the honourable member for Blaxland, Mr Keating, at the committee meeting of our Party. With his astute mind I cannot understand why we did not have some discussion on why the Nymboida colliery should not be exempt or why provision should not be inserted in this BUI to exempt that colliery from paying the levy of 5c a tonne when it is struggling to exist. It has been in existence since 1975.

If it is too late now I hope that at some later date this colliery which has kept 1 50 men off the dole in Grafton Will, with the concurrence of every honourable member in the Parliament be exempt from the 5c a tonne levy because of what the men and the Miners Federation have achieved. It is to the great credit of the Miners Federation that it was able to take this mine over from private enterprise and keep it working successfully. My time is nearly up. I would like to mention only one other matter. I would have liked to have seen some provision in legislation similar to that which is now before the House to provide for the stimulation and strengthening of the financial position of the miners’ pension fund. The miners’ pension fund should be lifted to a height so that retired miners can live with respectability. They have to retire from the mines at 60 years of age. They are not eligible for the age pension until they are 65 years of age. If a levy of 5c or 10c a tonne were placed on coal for only 10 years to stimulate the miners’ pension fund it would be financially healthy until the end of time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2730

EXCISE TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL

(No. 2) 1977

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 1 November, on motion by Mr Anthony:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2730

STATES GRANTS (COAL MINING INDUSTRY LONG SERVICE LEAVE) AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 1 November, on motion by Mr Anthony:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2730

TASMANIA GRANT (THE MOUNT LYELL MINING AND RAILWAY COMPANY LIMITED) BILL 1977

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 November, on motion by Mr Newman:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

-The Opposition does not oppose this legislation. The purpose of the legislation is for the Commonwealth to provide assistance to Tasmania, on a dollar for dollar basis with the Tasmanian Government, to underwrite the operation of the Mount Lyell copper mine from 15 August 1977 to a date not later than 30 June 1978. In his second reading speech the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development (Mr Newman) indicated that the magnitude of the Commonwealth’s contribution would be of the order of $5m over the period mentioned. The Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Co. Ltd sustains the employment base of Queenstown in Tasmania. The mine has been facing financial difficulties since world copper prices started to fall while it is facing the prospect of rising costs. At present the Industries Assistance Commission is conducting a long term assistance inquiry into copper mining which, of course, is relevant to the problem at Mount Lyell, although the Government is in receipt of the temporary assistance report which was completed on 30 September.

The problem at Mount Lyell has been evident for sometime, as has the employment problem in regional centres depending on specific industries; yet to date the Government has done nothing about a structural adjustment program to face the kind of situation now faced at Mount Lyell. Not only has there not been any conceptual work done on a structural adjustment program but also no funds have yet been made available to meet contingencies. The industry policy of the Fraser Government has been characterised by its sheer ad hockery. The Government moves when it has to, and not before. One could almost believe that the Government thinks that these problems will just go away if it turns its attention from them for long enough. It is the intention of the future Labor Government to provide a comprehensive structural adjustment facility so that situations such as the Mount Lyell one can be accommodated and whole communities are not disrupted by changes in demand in Australia or a change in world commodity prices.

The agreement with the Mount Lyell company is, of course, between the company and the State Government of Tasmania, not the Commonwealth. As I said earlier, the Commonwealth will meet State contributions on a dollar for dollar basis, although the Government has made it clear that the funds would be repayable to the Commonwealth should the mine return to a position where its cash flow generation is positive. The Opposition regrets the plight of the Mount

Lyell company and the apprehension of the community that depends upon it. However, these situations do arise and will arise in the future. Only positive government policy can alleviate the upheaval which results from the closure of an enterprise which is the employment base of a regional centre.

There is another situation similar to this, at the Cobar copper mine in New South Wales. My colleague the honourable member for Darling (Mr FitzPatrick), who will be the honourable member for Riverina in the next Parliament has been conscious of the problem of diminishing copper prices and the effects upon the Cobar mine. It is interesting to note that, although this legislation is the preserve of the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) or the Minister for National Resources (Mr Anthony), in fact it was introduced by the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development. It has nothing whatsoever to do with his portfolio. But that is an indication of the Fraser Government’s cynicism, in having a Tasmanian Minister introduce the legislation. Nothing positive has been said or done about the Cobar mine- a copper mine which is faced with precisely the same problems as the Mount Lyell mine and which has been hanging on simply because it is in the middle of a Labor seat and is not in a position where the electorate surrounding it may be up for grabs.

What is sad about this is that the Government makes a move only a couple of weeks before the election and leaves the money outstanding only until next June. After next June, unless the government comes up with some positive program, the workers at Mount Lyell can whistle and find another job. It does nothing positive about the mine at Cobar in New South Wales. The fight for that is to be left to the honourable member for Darling. It is sad that these contingencies arise, particularly with mining, where fluctuations in commodity prices can affect the viability of a mine and, because it is regionally based, affect the whole employment structure of a particular regional centre. There must be a consistent, clear government program of structural adjustment to accommodate it- not the ad hockery and cynicism which have been displayed by the Government in this case. The point is clear. There are people involved at Mount Lyell and there is a town dependent on the mine. The Opposition does not therefore oppose the legislation but suggests to the Government that it treat Cobar equally. We expect to see legislation on Cobar brought into the Parliament before the House rises. In not opposing the legislation, the Opposition laments the fact that the Government has been so tardy in dealing with Mount Lyell and the broader problem of structural adjustment.

Mr GROOM:
Braddon

– I am pleased to have this opportunity to support this important legislation to provide financial assistance from the Commonwealth to the people of Queenstown and this important mining company, the Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Co. Ltd. I am sorry for the people of Cobar but delighted for the people of Queenstown that this assistance is to be provided. Honourable members will recall that on a number of occasions I have explained to the House in some detail the grave problems confronting this company in Queenstown and the people of the town. As the House knows, those grave problems have resulted from a combination of factors but essentially a rapid increase in overheads in recent times and a difficulty with world copper prices which have continued to be much lower than expected for some considerable time. The operations of the Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Co. Ltd are of vital importance to Queenstown, and to the people living in the nearby centre of Gormanston and, to a lesser degree, those living in Strahan. In fact, the mine employs over half of the work force in this region. The company has indicated that unless it gets some reasonable assistance from the Government it Will be forced to close the mine which obviously will have disastrous effects on not only this important part of Tasmania but also the whole of Tasmania.

The purpose of this BUI is to obtain the approval of the Parliament for the Government to enter into agreements with the Tasmanian Government for the provision of temporary assistance for the company pending the Federal Government’s decision on the interim Industries Assistance Commission report. There has been a great deal of misunderstanding in the minds of the people of Queenstown on the nature of the LAC report and the procedure to be followed in handing down the report and making decisions based on the report. Some of that misunderstanding has resulted from one or two people quite deliberately misrepresenting the situation in an attempt to gain cheap political advantage. I am very disappointed that people should try to use the anguish and despair of people involved in this crisis purely for political purposes. I shall endeavour to explain to the House the sequence of events as they have occurred and will occur.

Honourable members will recall that the Industries Assistance Commission was requested by the Minister for Business and Consumer

Affairs (Mr Fife) on 4 August 1977 to inquire into and report on the possibility of assistance being given to the copper ores and concentrates industry. The Government was concerned about the serious situation in Queenstown and asked the LAC to provide an interim report on whether short term assistance should be accorded the Mount Lyell company. That report on short term assistance was requested by the then Minister to be provided within 60 days. On 15 August 1977, following my representations to the Minister, the Federal Government announced that in order to assist the Mount Lyell company to continue operating it would join with the Tasmanian State Government to offer assistance to the company to meet its cash shortfall in operations from 15 August until the Commonwealth announced its decision on the interim LAC report. There was an agreement between the Federal and State governments for which approval of this House is being sought in this legislation. Commonwealth assistance is by means of section 96 grants to Tasmania on a dollar for dollar matching basis with assistance offered by the State Government. My understanding is that the agreement with Tasmania has been virtually finalised and the date incorporated in the agreement was 2 November 1977, which is today. In other words, the agreement under which the cash shortfall is to be met operates from the date I have already mentioned, 15 August of this year, until today. I do note that provision has been made in this Bill to extend the agreement until 30 June 1978 should that in fact be necessary.

It is worth noting that in a report of the Industries Assistance Commission, following the previous reference on the question of short term assistance for the production of copper ores and concentrates in September 1975, it found that low copper prices were causing liquidity problems for a number of producers, as in fact they are now. It was then recommended that loan guarantees be made to those companies unable to secure loans on acceptable terms without these guarantees. It is important to note that although this IAC recommendation was accepted by the Government, no company made use of the facility for government guarantees. This underlines the need for any company involved in this sort of situation in fact to accept any reasonable offer of assistance which might be made by the Government. The point that must be made clear to honourable members, to people who are directly concerned with the company and with Queenstown is that the IAC has not yet handed down its final report on assistance to the copper ores and concentrates industry. That is an important point to note. In fact the inquiry being conducted by the IAC has not yet concluded. The IAC has, however, completed an interim report-and I stress the word ‘interim ‘-on the question of short term assistance.

I understand that this interim report which canvasses the possibility of a continuation of short term assistance pending the final IAC report is now before the Government. I trust that a decision on that report Will be made without undue delay. It still remains for the Commission to report to the Government on long term assistance. It is expected to be some time early next year, at least before 30 June 1978, that the Government will receive this final report. This is not a new revelation. These facts have been known for some time. So this legislation that the House is now considering has nothing to do with the provision of long term help for the Mount Lyell Company, nor is it legislation brought in to implement any decision of the IAC. All it is doing is seeking parliamentary approval for the execution of agreements between the Commonwealth and the State which were promised and announced by the Ministers concerned in both the Federal Government and the Tasmanian Government on 15 August 1977.

Having said that, I want to make my position clear. To me the situation in Queenstown is one which cannot be solved without help from the governments, both State and Federal. I will leave no stone unturned to secure that assistance. At the moment it looks as though world copper prices will remain low for many months and the Government must come in on some reasonable basis to bridge the gap to give the company and the town some breathing space until the mining operations become commercially viable again. The solution inevitably Will be a joint effort involving both the State and Federal governments and the company. The company has an important role to play in seeking a solution. Without its agreement any offer from the government means very little. I trust that the company in this instance will show its good faith and accept any reasonable offer that may be forthcoming. Frankly the fact that the company not so long ago wrote down a substantial proportion of its assets in Queenstown is a matter of some significance and of some concern to me. Having had a long personal association with the people of Queenstown dating back to the early 1950s- in fact I had a sister living there for many yearsand knowing the people in the town so very well, I am not prepared to see the town neglected by either the State or the Federal government. In fact, it has not been neglected. I give full credit to both Governments- the State Government in Tasmania, despite the fact that it is a Labor Government, and this Federal Government- for what they have done to date. The assistance provided has been generous. To my knowledge, the temporary help provided by this legislation which is now before the House and which could amount to a payment of the order of $lm being made by this Government is unique.

Mr Hodgman:

– It is a great victory for you, too.

Mr GROOM:

-I thank the honourable member very much. Never before in the history of Federation has a government provided this sort of help pending a detailed report into a company’s operations. If we work out the figures on a per capita basis we find that the financial help being provided to the people of Queenstown by the Federal Government is very significant. However, it is help that the people of Queenstown deserve. The mine there has been operating continuously for some 80 years. Over those 80 years the people who work very hard in the mine have paid a fortune in taxes. Therefore, it is appropriate that in these times of very serious and real need in Queenstown governments are prepared to recognise the contribution made by the Queenstown people not only to the town itself and to its community but to the wealth of Australia and redirect some of the money back to the town in the form of this special assistance.

The spirit of Queenstown and of the people of Queenstown remains high. The people there remain quietly confident and quietly hopeful that the industry and the town will survive. Continued generous government assistance is necessary to ensure that that hope is fulfilled. I commend the work being done in Queenstown to find a solution to the present predicament. Over the past months I have worked closely with the warden of Queenstown, Mr Bruce Dilger, with the members of the council as a whole, with Mr Russell Maher, the present of the West Coast Trades and Labour Council and with the members of his council, with the local manager of the mine, with officials of the company involved, with organisations and business people in the town and with the ordinary hard working citizens of Queenstown. Many of the people with whom I have been in constant contact are not from my side of politics. But our good relations have been born out of a mutual concern for the future of the town. I know that the understanding and the trust that we have will continue to exist until a final lasting solution can be found.

I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Ministers concerned in the issue, Mr

Anthony, the Minister for National Resources, and Mr Fife, the Minister for Business and Consumer and Affairs, who came to Queenstown with me. We had a very interesting day there discussing the problems of the town with the local people, with members of the council and with officials from the company. We went underground together. The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has a very deep understanding and knowledge of the town and the company and their problems. He has continued to take a very keen and active interest in this issue. Similarly our own Minister from Tasmania, Mr Kevin Newman, the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, has done much work on this issue and is very concerned for the people of Queenstown. Mr Viner, the Minister assisting the Treasurer has worked hard. Of course, the Prime Minister himself has been actively involved in this issue. He has taken a keen and active interest in these problems. On one occasion, a delegation came from Queenstown to the Parliament here in Canberra without any notice. The Prime Minister opened his door immediately and in we went to see him to discuss the problems of Queenstown at some length and in some depth. I thank the Prime Minister for his efforts.

Similarly, I am pleased that the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) is in the chamber at the moment. I am pleased with the very active support I have had from my parliamentary colleagues from Tasmania. They have worked very hard with me to obtain this assistance. They have given me every support and I know that they will continue to do so until we have solved these problems. I trust that the Government will continue to provide assistance for the company and for the people of Queenstown after these current agreements with the State Government have expired. The problems of Queenstown, as I say, are most serious and desperately need assistance. I know that we will provide this assistance. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr FitzPATRICK (Darling) (11.30)-The honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom), a Government supporter, said that he was sorry for Cobar but happy that the Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Co. Ltd had received assistance. He should be sorry for the Cobar copper mine. The Industries Assistance Commission report on copper ore and concentrates of 14 November 1975 shows that the Cobar copper mine put a similar case to that of the Mount Lyell mine. It is surprising that this evening a BUI is before the House to provide assistance for the Mount Lyell mine but no assistance for the Cobar copper mine. I inform the honourable member for Braddon and members of the Government that it is not good enough to give us sympathy. I demand that a Bill be introduced to give the Cobar copper mine assistance similar to that going to the Mount Lyell mine. I remember that prior to the last election Government supporters went into the Cobar area and told the Cobar people what kind of assistance this Government would give them. My advice to any member of the Government is to keep as far away as possible from Cobar during the election campaign unless something similar to the assistance contained in this Bill is introduced for the Cobar people.

Mr Groom:

– This is the first time you have raised this matter.

Mr FitzPATRICK:

– It is not. My remarks are in the records, my friend. The honourable member has been here only five minutes and he will not be here after the next election. He should not refer to what I have said in the past. Honourable members opposite who were in the area prior to the last election should not go up there again.

The Tasmania Grant (The Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Company Limited) Bill 1977 has many shortcomings which the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development (Mr Newman) sought to hide in his second reading speech. He failed. Early in his second reading speech he made this point obvious when he said:

The purpose of this Bill is to seek Parliament’s approval to the implementation of the Government’s decision, by authorising the execution of an agreement or agreements between the Commonwealth and Tasmania for the provision of assistance to Tasmania.

The assistance is not to Tasmania; it is to the Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Co. Ltd. Why does the Government say ‘agreement or agreements’? Will there be one agreement or several? If there are to be several agreements why did not the Minister spell that out in his second reading speech? One can hardly call this a Bill for an Act; it is a poorly concealed notice that the Government is to give the Mount Lyell Mining Co. some assistance that is not available to other copper mining companies in Australia. I agree with the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating). The Opposition clearly indicates that it does not oppose assistance going to the Mount Lyell mine. We are only opposing the unfairness of the Government’s attitude and the fact that other copper mining companies in similar circumstances are not receiving similar assistance. Later on the Minister said:

The Bill thus provides for the contingency that some interim extension of the present assistance might be warranted following the Government’s consideration of the Industries Assistance Commission’s interim report on the copper industry, and having regard to the company’s developing cash flow situation.

This is the way the Government intends to hand out $lm for three months’ assistance to the Mount Lyell Mining Co. We point out to the Australian public that even in the dying stages of the life of this thirtieth Parliament the Government has given a clear indication of its slaphappy method of handling the economy of the country. It must be obvious to all Australians that the statement leaves a lot of questions unanswered. For instance, we are not told whether, if the recommendation of the IAC is not followed, other copper mines will receive the same assistance; whether towns such as Cobar will be left to die while Mount Lyell is given assistance.

Later in his second reading speech the Minister had this to say:

Honourable members will appreciate that the agreement being negotiated with Tasmania is necessarily complex, not least because of the need for precise definition of the detailed accounting concepts to which the assistance must be related.

We are not informed what the precise definition of the detailed accounting concepts would amount to, but what we can say is that, if we examine the appeals made by the Broken Hill South Mine and the copper mine at Cobar, the Government has on this occasion been more than generous in providing an interest-free loan to the Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Co. Ltd.

In his second reading speech, the Minister went on to say that should the mine be unable to achieve a cash flow position the Commonwealth’s advances to Tasmania would not be repayable. The Government’s decision is out of character with its previous treatment of mining companies and mining communities. I remember that when the South Mine at Broken Hill closed I appealed several times to the Government for assistance, but overnight the value of miners’ homes was reduced by about half, and they were obliged to walk out of the town without assistance, as happened also to many of the miners in Cobar.

The Minister said further:

While it is not practicable at this stage to calculate precisely the cost of this assistance, I can give the House an indication of the order of magnitude. Thus it is estimated that, for a period of continued operation of the mine from 1 3 August 1977 to 2 November 1977, the cost of the Commonwealth’s contribution would be approximately Sim. I believe the Government’s action in this matter has again shown its concern for the welfare of the Australian communities suffering adverse effects from international economic conditions.

Mr Groom:

– Hear, hear!

Mr FitzPATRICK:

– I ask the honourable member for Braddon to state any previous occasion on which the Government has shown its concern for Australian mining communities ‘suffering adverse effects from international economic conditions’, to use the Minister’s words. Not in my lifetime in this Parliament can an example of that be quoted. As a matter of fact, when Mr Connor introduced the Petroleum and Minerals Authority BUI, 1974, which would have provided some assistance to small companies, the supporters of the present Government were the first to challenge it, so that the assistance could not be rendered.

If the statement of the Minister were true it would have prevented the South Mine at Broken Hill from closing and have avoided much suffering by the people of Cobar; Members of the Opposition find it hard to believe that the Fraser Government has suddenly discovered concern for the ordinary people of the nation and is taking steps to provide them with employment. Time after time it has turned a deaf ear to appeals of mining communities for assistance. I point out that such assistance, not only in this case but also in most cases in mining areas, would have paid big dividends for the economy of the nation. Because of this, we must assess how profitable rnining has been in Australia. If we turn to the LAC report on the petroleum and mining industries of 28 May 1976 we find that in the seven years to 1974 the returns, before tax, on total funds invested by the 27 largest mineral producers varied between 1 1 per cent and 16 per cent. At the same time a large number of small mining companies ran at a loss and went out of business. Some of the mines in my own electorate at the present time are doing quite well but others are running down their liquidity quickly. We see smaller mines closing down, and others, such as the Cobar mines, just carrying on a holding operation. Many of the miners, of course, have already left and found work in other places.

I believe that this Parliament has a responsibility to give consideration to these facts and to have a look at the whole mining industry. It should not just bring down some legislation here that will assist the Mount Lyell Mining and Rail.way Co. Ltd. Although that assistance could well be warranted, the Government should examine the whole mining industry and give assistance generally where it is needed. I believe that the facts are there that will prove that an expansion of the mining industry is essential to the long term revival of the Australian economy. If anyone wishes to gauge the stimulus that mining can give to other industries of Australia I ask them to examine George Blainey’s book The Rush That Never Ended. It deals largely with the profits of the North and South mines at Broken Hill. These are the mines that the Government refused to assist. Other Australian industries have developed out of the operation of those mines.

In answer to questions in this House both the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) have admitted that much of the profit came out of the mining companies in Broken HU1. While this was happening in Broken HU1 other mines in the area were going to the wall. Although this is a national success story, the results could have been vastly different. Unfortunately, it was not to the Government’s credit that this happened. It was due mainly to the sensible industrial relations along the lines of lode. The industrial system at Broken HU1 often is criticised, but on two occasions the miners themselves accepted a worsening of conditions so that the mines could recover. On one ocasion they accepted a reduction in wages, and on another occasion they accepted a nine-shift fortnight. I was in the negotiating parties on that occasion. I believe that the Government should look at sensible working arrangements along the lines of lode at Broken HU1. That system of negotiation could well be adopted in other industries in Australia. I want to finish with the remarks with which I commenced: I believe that this Government has a responsibility to bring down a similar BUI to cover the Cobar mines. If such a BUI is not introduced before this House rises it is my intention to go to the Press and point out the unfairness of this Government. I assure honourable members opposite that they will not get any votes in the Cobar area unless something is done about this matter.

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

-The Government is indeed amazed and bitterly disappointed at the speeches of the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) and the honourable member for Darling (Mr FitzPatrick) on this important legislation. Indeed, we take exception to some of the comments made by the honourable member for Blaxland and the honourable member for Darling. One would have hoped that, rather than the Labor Party adopting a dog in the manger attitude towards this legislation, the legislation would have been dealt with on its merits and without some of the gratuitous comments which came from members of the Labor Party. But we must never forget that this is hate-Tasmania time in this Parliament. Only last week the Deputy

Leader of the Opposition (Mr Uren) actually complained in this House that the Commonwealth Government had been too generous to Tasmania and had given us too much housing assistance. We find repeatedly that at any opportunity to knock, to hit or to hate Tasmania honourable members opposite rise to their feet with some relish. I am particularly disappointed in the honourable member for Blaxland -

Mr° Keating:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Honourable members on this side of the House will not constantly be misrepresented by the honourable member for Denison.

Dr Klugman:

– He has been drinking again.

Mr Keating:

– I claim to have been misrepresented inasmuch as the Opposition is supporting this legislation, not opposing it, and no member is knocking Tasmania.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! The honourable member knows that that is not a point of order.

Mr HODGMAN:

-The honourable member for Blaxland, in a very poor -

Mr Bourchier:

-I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I heard the most obnoxious remark I have heard for a long while from the socalled gentleman sitting at the table, the honourable member for Prospect. He claimed that the honourable member for Denison had been drinking. He must withdraw that remark. He was absolutely out of order. It is disgusting. It is typical of the type of person he is. If he has any guts, he will withdraw.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There are occasions when remarks are made and it is considered wise for those remarks to be allowed to pass without comment. Our proceedings are not being broadcast and at the time there were very few people- in fact, no people- in the gallery. But as the honourable member for Bendigo now has drawn the attention of the House to the remark made by the honourable member for Prospect, I suggest to the honourable member for Prospect that he withdraw it. I remind the honourable member for Prospect that there has been a rule in this House that any comment such as that is treated as a disorderly remark and action is taken accordingly.

Dr Klugman:

-I obviously withdraw the remark on your instructions, Mr Deputy Speaker; but I argue with you on the principle -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no argument on principle.

Dr Klugman:

– I should like to argue with you the principle that it is disorderly to refer to a person being drunk but it is not disorderly for a person to be drunk. Surely there is a contradiction -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member knows that both his comments are out of order. I call the honourable member for Denison.

Mr HODGMAN:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, may

Mr Bourchier:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The honourable member for Prospect has to withdraw his remark without qualification.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I said that the honourable member for Prospect must withdraw his remark without qualification.

Mr Bourchier:

– He has not done so.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I understood the honourable member for Prospect to have withdrawn his remark -

Dr Klugman:

– I withdrew it, Mr Deputy Speaker; but I argued with you on the principle that if it is disorderly to claim that an honourable member has been drinking -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member cannot argue on any principle whatsoever. If the honourable member feels that a certain issue arises out of remarks, the correct procedure is for him to approach the Standing Orders Committee. This House is still governed by the Standing Orders. The honourable member for Prospect was asked to withdraw his remark unreservedly.

Dr Klugman:

– I did withdraw it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-That is the position.

Dr Klugman:

– I withdrew my remark earlier.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Prospect will now resume his seat.

Mr HODGMAN:

-Before I continue my remarks on the matter before the House, may I be heard to say that by happy coincidence I have not been drinking tonight, and I do not think I have ever sniffed ether in my life.

I was referring earlier to the speech of the honourable member for Blaxland. I must say that it was a very poor performance from a front bench member of the Labor Party. He was able to speak on the problems of Mount Lyell for a mere five minutes. I timed him. It rather amazes me that the honourable member for Blaxland can come in here and pose as a friend of Mount Lyell when I do not believe he has made a single speech in this House in favour of Mount Lyell and Queenstown since 1975, when I came to this place, and I doubt that he would find Gormanston with a compass.

It ill becomes the Labor Party when a victory has been achieved by the hard work of a member of this House- I refer to the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom)- to denigrate him. I remind the House that the honourable member for Braddon was gentleman enough, when he said that regrettably honourable members opposite had played politics with Mount Lyell, not to proceed to name all the members of the Labor Party who had played politics with it; he left it at that. He did the gentlemanly thing. Regrettably honourable members opposite chose not to do the gentlemanly thing in spite of the example set by the honourable member for Braddon.

My friend, the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Ellicott) who has been to the west coast area- in fact, he was there in 1975 and at a time when he was spokesman for Tasmania in this House- will bear witness, and indeed all honourable members on this side of the House will bear witness, to the work that has been put in by the honourable member for Braddon. He is a modest yet extremely effective member of this House. It is a very great pity -

Dr Klugman:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the House.

Mr HODGMAN:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, may I continue with my remarks while the bells are ringing? The honourable member for Prospect is determined to silence me, and again he will be unsuccessful.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

-Ring the bells! (Quorum formed).

Mr HODGMAN:

– Is it not incredible that the Labor Party, having called a quorum, can muster in this House at best 4& members. That is the best it can do. I congratulate the honourable member for Prospect because the Government benches are packed, indicating that we are in the chamber and working on behalf of the people of Australia. But as I look to the other side of the chamber I see only 4’A Labor members. I am particularly pleased that there is now a quorum of members present in the chamber to hear the compliment I am about to pay to the honourable member for Braddon. As I said a moment ago, my colleague the honourable member for Wentworth will bear witness to the fact that the west coast of Tasmania, and the electorate of Braddon in particular, has never had a greater member than the one who presently represents it. He has brought the problems of the west coast of Tasmania to the attention of Canberra. I believe he has gone down in history as the first Liberal member of the Parliament to introduce directly to the Prime Minister, without an appointment, a deputation from the West Coast Trades and Labour Council such was the urgency of the matter, such was the concern of this Government.

In many ways this BUI is a symbol of a great victory obtained by the honourable member for Braddon for his constituents. He has put in long hours working on this problem for many months, but never once, to my knowledge, has he sought publicity. Never once has he demonstrated the capacity to grandstand, as have some honourable members opposite.

Mr Hayden:

– There is no need for more of it from Tasmania when you are here.

Mr HODGMAN:

-The honourable member for Oxley cannot resist interjecting when I am speaking. He, of course, is one of the small group of honourable members opposite who have for the last two years been pricking us on this side of the House by calling us ‘oncers’. Let me reciprocate in a friendly way by dubbing the members of that group ‘lifers’. The ‘lifers opposite will remain on that side of the chamber for a very long time indeed. The oncers they have denigrated on this side of the House will be back. We will be twicers, thricers fourthers and fivers and however the sequence continues. In conclusion, I again draw attention to the fact that once again the Labor Party has shown its true colours. In has reacted violently and with bitterness to something that has been done for Tasmania. Once again, the Labor Party has faded to conceal its hatred for the State which overwhelmingly voted against it in 1 975. That hatred is reciprocated and will be reciprocated by the electors of Tasmania when we go to the ballots on 10 December next. The five members from Tasmania in this chamber today will be the five members in this chamber after the election on 10 December. I support the BUI. I congratulate the honourable member for Braddon on a magnificent achievement. I suggest that the next time the honourable member for Blaxland wants to talk about the mine on the west coast of Tasmania he ought to go there and talk to the people He would then understand the affection and respect they feel for the honourable member for Braddon and the superb victory he has achieved on this occasion.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I will not keep the House more than a couple of moments. I make three points. The first is that it is unfortunate that we have to sign a blank cheque because this Bill has been put forward with such haste. The second is that there are derelict mining towns all over the world. The vital point at present is that because of the stagnation of the economy there is no alternative employment for those who become unemployed when a mine cuts out. The third point is this: It is true that New South Wales does not get as favourable treatment as Tasmania. The honourable member for Darling (Mr FitzPatrick) referred to the Cobar mine in his electorate. If tomorrow he wants to bring into this House a Bill to do something equivalent for the Cobar mine I shall have the greatest pleasure in supporting it.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) was going to make great play about the problems of Mount Lyell. He barely mentioned the place. He was right in one thing. He said that all honourable members on that side of the House will be twicers. As a matter of fact that is what most of them are when it comes to political questions. I also congratulate the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom) -

Motion (by Mr Cotter) put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 52

NOES: 16

Majority……. 36

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Thursday, 3 November 1977

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

-Is it the wish of the House to proceed to the third reading forthwith?

Mr Staley:

– Aye.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I call the Minister for the Capital Territory.

Mr Bryant:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to go into Committee.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The question is: That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr Bryant:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I asked that we go into Committee. My understanding of the situation is that upon a request being made by an honourable member, the right for us to go into Committee is absolute.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The question is: That the Bill be now read a third time. Those of that opinion say ‘aye’; to the contrary ‘no’. I think the ‘ ayes ‘ have it.

Mr Keating:

– I rise to a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The honourable member for Willis did request a Committee debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I had called the Minister.

Mr Bryant:

-You did not.

Mr Keating:

-Mr Deputy Speaker -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr Bryant:

– Just sit down for a moment.

Mr Keating:

- Mr Deputy Speaker -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The House will come to order. The honourable member for Blaxland will resume his seat.

Mr Keating:

– No, I will not resume my seat. I am taking a point of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I name the honourable member for Blaxland.

Mr Keating:

– I will not sit down. I am taking a point of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I call the honourable member for Blaxland.

Mr Keating:

-I rise to a point of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order involved.

Motion ( by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the honourable member for Blaxland be suspended from the service of the House.

Mr Keating:

– You cannot move that I cannot raise a point of order, you bloody hooligan. What is wrong with you?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The question is: That the honourable member for Blaxland be suspended from the service of the House.

Mr Keating:

– You know what you will get tomorrow. We will give you trouble all day tomorrow, you bloody hooligan.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr Uren:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask you to reconsider the situation. It was felt by honourable members on this side of the House that you did not follow the Standing Orders. We were quite genuine in our belief that you did not obtain the leave that would enable the House to go to the third reading of the Bill. That is why the honourable member for Blaxland was persistent in raising a point of order. I think it would be wrong at this hour of the night to suspend him from the service of the House.

Mr Sinclair:

– I wish to speak on the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. If the honourable member for Blaxland withdraws, I am quite prepared to seek leave to withdraw my motion. However, as I understood it, the reason you named him was that one of his colleagues rose behind him, that the colleague behind him had the call and that the honourable member for Blaxland refused to answer your call. In circumstances where your authority in this place is under question, I believe that it is necessary for every member of this House to maintain your status and position. If the honourable member for Blaxland seeks to withdraw, I am quite happy to ask for leave to withdraw my motion.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– In reply to the two points of order raised I point out that the honourable member for Wills was on his feet The honourable member for Wills was the one who was involved in the discussion with the Chair with regard to the fact that he felt that he had not been listened to or answered when he rose to his feet. The point therefore was that whatever there was between the Chair and the honourable member was between myself and the honourable member for Wilis. The honourable member for Blaxland rose to his feet and constantly kept raising points of order before I could answer the request of the honourable member for Wills. Frankly, I think this is one of the reasons that the House is in difficulty at the moment. I asked whether it was the wish of the House to proceed-

Mr Scholes:

– The honourable member for Wills immediately rose.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– If the honourable member for Corio kept quiet we might be able to get along a little further. The honourable member for Wills rose. He did not say that he wanted to go into Committee. I thought that the honourable member was rising to speak on the motion for the third reading which was to be moved immediately leave had been granted for the House to proceed to the third reading. There was no objection to the House going from the second reading stage to the third reading stage forthwith. The honourable member for Corio can shake his head as much as he likes. There was no objection when I asked whether it was the wish of the House to proceed to the third reading.

Mr Bryant:

- Mr Deputy Speaker -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! If the honourable gentleman will resume his seat, we can clean up the matter concerning the honourable member for Blaxland.

Mr Bryant:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, you are completely inaccurate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member can argue that in a moment. If the honourable member for Blaxland will apologise for disobeying the chair and leave the matter to the honourable member for Wills and myself, we might be able to proceed as the Leader of the House has suggested.

Mr Keating:

-I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I make the point that I rose because you were then moving to the third reading stage.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The honourable member for Wills was also on his feet and I was having discussion with him.

Mr Keating:

-No, sir. It was your intention to go to the third reading -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I accept what the honourable member for Blaxland has said.

Mr Sinclair:

-Has he withdrawn?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member has withdrawn.

Mr Sinclair:

– In those circumstances, I seek leave to withdraw the motion that the honourable member be suspended from the service of the House.

Motion- by leave- withdrawn.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I say to the honourable member for Wills that I asked whether it was the wish of the House to proceed to the third reading forthwith. Frankly, in the circumstances I feel it would be wise to proceed now and if the honourable member wishes to speak, he may speak on the motion for the third reading.

Mr Bryant:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, there are long-standing traditional procedures. One is that an honourable member may request that a Bill be considered in Committee. This Bill includes in clause 4 points that I wanted to raise. As you put the question -

Mr Bourchier:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Bryant:

– I am speaking to a point of order.

Mr Bourchier:

– Is the honourable member speaking on the motion for the third reading?

Mr Bryant:

– No, I am not doing that.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member is speaking to a point of order about proceeding directly to the third reading stage.

Mr Bryant:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, you have been courteous and gracious enough to hear what I have had to say. As I was still sitting I said that I wanted to go into Committee. I stood up to say it too but unfortunately because of other circumstances, Mr Deputy Speaker, you did not hear me. 1 wanted to go into Committee. However I am happy to say what I have to say on the motion for the third reading. If the honourable member for Bendigo, who is trying to interject, wishes to make deals or threaten me he will find out tomorrow that the honourable member for Mackellar is only a beginner.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that the honourable member for Wills take no notice of the honourable member for Bendigo.

Mr Bryant:

– I want to go into Committee.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the House is prepared to allow the honourable member for Wills to speak briefly on the motion for the third reading. I think the situation might be resolved if the honourable member is prepared to accept that. That being so, I now ask the Minister for the Capital Territory to move for the third reading.

Motion (by Mr Staley) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-Let me remind honourable members that the exercise of absolute power and authority is often a very ephemeral matter. The Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) may make his gracious condescending acts on my behalf but I will be here after the next election. I suppose he will be too. This is no way to treat one another. This Bill deals with a grant to a mining company in Tasmania. None of us on this side of the House have any objection whatsoever to the company’s continuation in business and the preservation of the security of the people of Queenstown. However, the point I was going to make relates in particular to clause 4 of the Bill which refers to agreements. At the present moment the Australian Government is making a grant for a period of 1 1 weeks at a cost of $lm. The cost to the Tasmanian Government over the same period will be another $ lm. If we add those two amounts together we can calculate that the cost per employee is something like $3,600. Whatever the arithmetic is, it is not significant.

There are three points that I would like to make about this matter. Firstly, the company does not pay any interest. Secondly, it is under no obligation to make a repayment until it gets out of its problems. Thirdly the Commonwealth has no equity. The largest holding in the company involved is held by Consolidated Goldfields of Australia Ltd. I do not think it is any business of this Parliament to be giving continuous grants of this sort to sustain private enterprise in its continuing ownership of the resources of Australia My own view would be that this money ought to be recorded as being equity capital in the company.

Mr Hodgman:

– Socialise it.

Mr BRYANT:

-I do not know what you are doing. You are making a grant. You are one of those people- the honourable member for Denison is a man who is always talking about -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will direct his remarks through the Chair.

Mr BRYANT:

-That is what I was just doing.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I thought that the honourable member for Wills was referring to the honourable member for Denison and not to me. When the honourable member uses the word ‘you’ in this House he is referring to me.

Mr BRYANT:

– I was pointing out to you, Mr Speaker, his rather quaint logic. He is one of those people who is against handouts. He says that we should not pay the unemployment benefit and things such as that to people. He says that they ought to do something for the money they receive. But he wants handouts for big companies. I think in a situation like this, and in all subsidy situations, we ought to acquire equity in the concern to the level of the funds which we pour into it. I do not know whether the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) is shaking his head to test it or whether he is in disagreement with what I am saying. But the facts are that the people of Australia are making this contribution. We on this side of the House are happy to see the people concerned continue with some sort of security until the problem is resolved. As my friend the honourable member for Darling (Mr FitzPatrick) pointed out, it is still a question of selective anxiety because there are thousands of people throughout Australia in many other communities who are in just as serious trouble. While I am in this place I will attempt to have obtained for the people of Australia equity for whatever funds they put into an enterprise such as this.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2741

ADJOURNMENT

Proceedings in the House

Motion ( by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-I will not delay the House for long. But I think it is important that I should rise to speak in view of the circumstances which preceded this debate and also in view of what occurred last night on exactly the same matter, where the House passed over the Committee stage of a Bill when an honourable member rose. That should not go unnoticed. I only want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Chair does not have the right to gag members or to interfere with the rights of members, whether directly or indirectly. If gags or guillotines are to be applied, that is the responsibility of the Leader of the House or an honourable member operating from the floor of the House.

This is a serious matter. I draw attention to the fact that it is the responsibility of the person in the chair, before he moves onto the next stage, to make sure that no member is seeking to take a Bill into Committee. It is necessary for leave to be granted to pass over the Committee stage of a Bill. Otherwise, it is an automatic procedure. I do not comment on what occurred tonight. But I raise this matter because it has a serious consequence in that it takes away the rights that members have in relation to proceedings under a Bill. In this case it most likely delayed the passage of the Bill instead of facilitating it.

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

– in reply- Mr Speaker, I wish to speak very briefly on that point. As one who was sitting adjacent to the Chair during the circumstances to which the honourable gentleman referred, I believe that adequate opportunity was given by your Deputy for members of the House to declare whether they wished the Bill to proceed straight to the third reading stage. In the circumstancess I believe that the matter raised by the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes), in suggesting that the matter was preempted in any way, is not accurate. I believe that the rights of members were protected. I suggest that in future if members wish a Bill to be taken into Committee they should rise immediately at that stage of the proceedings being reached, because every member of the House knows when that stage is.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I am satisfied that my Deputy would not, under any circumstances, depart from the Standing Orders. If some difficulty did occur tonight, it was from a misunderstanding and not from any wish from the ministerial side or the Opposition side or from my Deputy to depart in any way from the rules.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-Mr Speaker, I just want to make it clear that from the moment I thought that the proceedings had reached the point where a member could say that he wanted the Bill to go into Committee, I started to say so, both from a sitting position and from a standing position -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman has made the point clear as has every one else. In fact the Leader of the House, having moved the adjournment of the House and having been called to speak, closed the debate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The House stands adjourned until this morning at 1 1 o’clock or such later time as the Speaker takes the Chair.

House adjourned at 12.22 a.m. (Thursday)

page 2743

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice

Bovine Semen Imports (Question No. 996)

Mr Lloyd:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 31 May 1977:

  1. Have there been problems and misunderstandings over the importation of cattle semen from Canada due to the blue tongue status of that country.
  2. If so, what has been the problem and what is the present situation.
  3. What amount of semen from which breeds have been imported from Canada in each of the years 1974 to 1976 and in the period 1 January to 3 1 March 1977.
Mr Hunt:
Minister for Health · GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The quarantine conditions for importation of bovine semen from Canada require inter alia a certificate that blue tongue has not occurred in Canada up to the date of dispatch of the consignment of semen. In March 1976 the Canadian Department of Agriculture advised that evidence of the disease had been detected. That country could therefore no longer meet Australia’s quarantine certification requirements. Semen importations from Canada therefore ceased. These requirements and other Australian quarantine provisions relating to semen imports are well known to Canadian authorities.

The cessation of Canadian semen imports has created substantial problems for certain Australian breeders and has stopped, for at least the time being, access by Australia to an important source of improved genetic material. The situation is being kept under review.

  1. See ( 1 ). The present position is that Canadian bovine semen is not a permitted import into Australia.
  2. My Department’s records show that the amount of semen imported into Australia from Canada, by breed, over the period 1973-74 to 1973-76 is as set out in the following table:

were circulated:

  1. Ray McDermott (Aust.) Pty Ltd: Australian Transactions (Question No. 1073)
Mr Jacobi:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 16 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the report in the Australian Financial Review of 14 April 1977 that an American manufacturer of off-shore oil and gas drilling equipment, J. Ray McDermott and Company of New Orleans, Louisiana, had disclosed in a report to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, that it had paid more than $US 1 m in bribes to officials of foreign governments, including Australia.
  2. If so, has this company or any subsidiary or affiliate been registered in any jurisdiction in Australia.
  3. If the answer to part (2) is in the affirmative, (a) under what names was the Company or were its associates registered and in which jurisdictions, (b) what are the names, addresses and occupations of the past and present directors, (c) have the accounts of the companies been lodged as required by the companies legislation and (d) do the accounts disclose the making of questionable payments and the recipients of them.
  4. Will he arrange for the inspection by an Australian Government representative of the public records of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission relating to this company and release any information about bribes to Australian officials as is revealed in those documents.
Mr Fife:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. A company known as J. Ray McDermott (Aust.) Pty Ltd was incorporated in New South Wales on 18 November 1968. The company is registered as a foreign company in South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory and holds ‘recognised company’ status in Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia. It is not registered in the Australian Capital Territory. No other affiliates or related companies are known.
  1. Information received from State companies offices indicate that the prescribed accounts have been lodged as required.

  2. No.

    1. In a report by an Audit Committee of the board of directors of J. Ray McDermott and Company, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in April 1977, Australia was listed as one of 14 countries in which the Company had made questionable payments or had been involved in other transactions involving possible improprieties. No details of the Australian transaction were given in the report of the Audit Committee. The Securities and Exchange Commission has advised Australian Government officials in Washington that the Commission does not have any other information concerning questionable payments by this Company in Australia.

Further inquiries are being undertaken by the Australian Embassy with the Audit Committee and with J. Ray McDermott and Company.

Pharmacists: Employment Statistics (Question No. 1081)

Mr Hodges:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 16 August 1977:

How many pharmacists were employed in each State and Territory in (a) public and (b) private hospitals during 1974-75, 1975-76and 1976-77.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

In relation to (a) the information requested is not available within my Department and State Government health authorities were approached to obtain the necessary information. Information has now been received and is as follows:

New South Wales: Not maintained. It is estimated that there are approximately 280 pharmacists on the staff of public hospitals in New South Wales at present.

Victoria: 1974-75 206; 1975-76236; 1976-77 272.

Queensland: 1974-75 80.6; 1975-76 101.6; 1976-77 110.

South Australia: 1974-75 69; 1975-7687; 1976-77 95.

Western Australia: 1974-75 53; 1975-76 57; 1976-77 57; 1976-7769.

Tasmania: 1974-75 17.5; 1975-76 19; 1976-77 19.

Australian Capital Territory: 1974-75 12; 1975-76 14.7; 1976-77 15.8.

Northern Territory: 1974-75 13; 1975-76 12.5; 1976-77 1 1.5.

The above figures include pharmacists employed on a part-time basis, and have been averaged so as to show the total number employed, expressed on a full-time basis.

In relation to (b) the information is not available.

Community Health Services (Question No. 1112)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 16 August 1977:

  1. How many community health centres were operating with Australian Government assistance in each State on 30 June 1977.
  2. What was the total number of staff employed in these centres in each State at that date.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. and (2) For the purpose of answering this question, a community health centre ‘is defined as a community located facility which has the characteristics of a general health service as distinct from a specialised service (e.g. mental health, alcoholism), which provides two or more categories of service (e.g. medical, nursing, therapy, counselling), and which may or may not provide general practitioner services.

The following information has been provided or confirmed by the relevant State health authorities:

Liquor Advertising (Question No. 1121)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 16 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has the committee headed by Dr Woodruff reported on the advertising of alcohol on the electronic media.
  2. If so, what were its recommendations.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The Working Party recommended the adoption of a Voluntary Code of Advertising of Alcoholic Beverages which reads:
  3. 1 ) Advertisements for alcoholic drinks should be directed only to the adult audience.
  1. Normally, children should not be portrayed in an advertisement for drink; however, in a scene where it would be natural for them to be present (e.g. a family situation, or in crowd or other scenes, where the background is not under the control of the advertiser), they may be included, provided that is made clear that they are not drinking alcoholic beverages.
  2. Anyone shown drinking in any advertisement shall be obviously above the legal drinking age.
  3. Advertisements should be directed to effect a change in the share of the total liquor market and they should not aim at increased consumption of alcohol.
  4. Advertisements should do no more than reflect people drinking responsibly in natural situations.
  5. It is legitimate to show persons preferring or enjoying a particular kind or brand of alcohol, but advertisements should not imply that success or social distinction accompanies drinking alcohol.
  6. Advertisements should neither claim nor suggest that the drinking of alcohol can contribute towards sexual success.
  7. Advertisements for alcohol will not show people drinking in work situations.
  8. Except in advertisements designed to educate consumers, characters may never be portrayed as both drinkers and drivers within an advertisement.
  9. 10) Advertisements should not “dare” people to try a particular drink to imply that they will “prove” themselves in some way if they accept the “challenge” offered by the drink.
  10. Inducements to prefer specific brands within the liquor market, because of their high alcoholic content, shall not be used.
  11. No liquor advertising should encourage overindulgence.
  12. The industry should encourage responsibility in drinking by continuing education towards the rational use of alcohol.

It should be noted that the Voluntary Codes adopted by industry are not identical with those recommended by the Working Party, although they are substantially in agreement, except as regards provisions 4 and 1 3 of the Code.

Anaesthetic Services (Question No. 1185)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 17 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) In view of his inability to provide, in his supplementary answer to question No. 1571, figures for claims for anaesthetic services prior to June 1975, can he provide any figures showing the number of operations requiring anaesthetics performed on private patients in Australia in each of the last ten years.
  2. Can he provide similar figures for standard hospital patients.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Part 10 of the Medical Benefits Schedule lists the Item Numbers of all operations for which medical benefits are payable. Some of these operations require the administration of anaesthetics whilst others do not.

Parts 3, 4 and 5 of the Medical Benefits Schedule list all Item Numbers for the administration of anaesthetics and associated anaesthetic procedures for which medical benefits are payable. The administration of anaesthetics and the associated procedures under these parts may be in conjunction with an operation listed in Part 10 or with some other service not listed in Pan 10. For example, there are other services in the Medical Benefits Schedule (e.g. Obstetric services Pan 2, Miscellaneous procedures Pan 6) which may or may not necessitate anaesthesia.

In 1975-76, the latest figures available, Medibank paid medical benefits on 2.015 million operations (Pan 10 of Medical Benefits Schedule). From the information available, it is not possible to identify which of these operations involved an anaesthetic. For the same period, benefits were paid by Medibank for 884,000 anaesthetic and associated procedures. (Parts 3, 4 and 5 of the Medical Benefits Schedule). Similarly it is not possible to identify which of these procedures were undertaken in conjunction with an operation.

Because of the change to the health insurance arrangements from 1 October 1976, no comparable figures are yet available from Medibank or the private health insurance funds in respect of 1 976-77.

Prior to the introduction of Medibank on 1 July 1 975, the statistics from 1 97 1 , after the introduction of the common fee concept for individual parts of the Schedule, were based on sampling methods. These methods varied between the years and amongst the States having regard to the quality of the data supplied by the private health insurance funds on a voluntary basis.

In addition the statistics were pan of a system designed to monitor the level of observance of the common or schedule fee and not to provide incidence figures.

In view of the above, it is not possible to provide the number of operations requiring anaesthetics as requested by the honourable member.

  1. Figures are not held by the Health Insurance Commission or the Department of Health in respect of operations performed on standard hospital patients. These patients are not charged for operations and therfore no medical benefits are available.

Quarantine Facilities, Broome (Question No. 1200)

Mr Bungey:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 17 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to a report broadcast by the Australian Broadcasting Commission Regional News in Western Australia on 20 July 1977 that a Western Australian Department of Agriculture stock inspector had claimed that cattle were walking through the remains of burnt quarantine material at the Broome Shire Council rubbish tip.
  2. If so, did the report indicate that the quarantine material had been taken from Vietnamese refugees.
  3. Did the report quote the Broome Shire Council tip contractor as being unable to handle the volume of material deposited at the tip.
  4. Has he or officers of his Department investigated these reports; if so, what were the detailed findings of the investigation, and what action has been taken on them.
  5. If the reports have not been investigated, will he institute an urgent investigation into the reports and publish the findings.
  6. What facilities exist at Broome to destroy quarantine material.
  7. What are the detailed procedures followed at Broome when quarantine material is obtained from the boats of Vietnamese refugees or arrested foreign fishing trawlers.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. and (2) Yes.
  2. and (4) Yes. My quarantine officers in Western Australia did investigate the incident. Investigations showed no quarantine risk because the material seized from the refugee boat had been burned under full quarantine supervision, the ashes raked and then reburned, still under supervision, at the Broome Shire Council rubbish tip.
  3. See (3) and( 4)
  4. The facilities existing at Broome to destroy quarantine material include a hospital incinerator to handle small articles, and incineration under supervision in a fenced rubbish area. This latter facility is considered to provide a safe method of disposal for goods too large for the hospital incinerator.
  5. Procedures in operation provide that quarantine material on these vessels is to be collected in heavy duty plastic bags. All articles are to be thoroughly burnt ensuring that all canned goods and materials in containers are properly punctured prior to burning. Ashes are then raked over, sprayed with diesolene and reburned

Retired Air Force Officers: Business Appointments (Question No. 1227)

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

am asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 17 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) Do Air Force Orders require officers of and above the rank of Air Vice-Marshal and officers holding posts of a special or technical character to obtain the approval of the Air Board before accepting business appointments within 2 years of retirement or resignation.
  2. 2 ) Did ( a) Air Marshal Sir Alister Murdoch, ( b ) Air ViceMarshal Brian Eaton, (c) Air Vice-Marshal Ian McLachlan, (d) Air Commodore A. D. Garrisson (e) Group Captain Lee Bourke, (f) Group Captain Charles Wakekam, and (g) Group Captains Milton Coffee and Alan Hodges and Wing Commander Roy Roberts seek or receive Air Board approval to accept appointments with (i) Philips Industries Holdings Ltd, (ii) Rolls Royce Australia Ltd, (iii) Northrop Corporation, (iv) Grumman Aerospace Corporation, (v) Westinghouse, (vi) British Aircraft Corporation, and (vii) OFEMA respectively.
  3. What periods elapsed after their retirement or resignation before these officers accepted these business appointments.
  4. What posts of a special or technical character did the Air Commodore, Group Captains and Wing Commander hold before their retirement or resignation.
  5. What other officers of and above the rank of Air ViceMarshal and officers holding posts of a special or technical character are known to have accepted such business appointments within 2 years of retirement or resignation within the last 10 years.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. Yes. But once a member’s service is terminated he is no longer bound to comply.
  2. No.
  3. The period which elapsed after retirement before these officers took up business appointments is not known. There is no requirement for such information for Air Force purposes.
  4. No Air Force posts are designated special or of a technical character for the purpose of the Air Force Order.
  5. There is no requirement for records to be held in Air Office regarding acceptance of business appointments after retirement.

Retired Naval Officers: Business Appointments (Question No. 1228)

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

am asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 17 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) Did Rear Admirals Bryan Castles and Gordon Crabb, Commander Nat Gould and Lieutenant Commander John Hazell seek or receive approval to accept appointments with Rolls Royce Australia Limited, Philips Industries Holdings Limited, Hawker de Havilland and Plessey Pacific Pty Ltd after they retired or resigned (Hansard, 21 September 1961, page 1083; 4 October 1961, page 1648, 27 February 1964, page 123; 1 September 1964, page 836; 16 March 196S, page 36 and 9 October 1965, page 2504).
  2. What period elapsed after their retirement or resignation before these officers accepted these business appointments.
  3. Has he or his Department made an investigation into the possible effects, to which the Committee of Inquiry into Government procurement Policy drew attention, of officers who have acquired inside knowledge of Government procurement practice and intentions accepting employment, without prior Government permission, with firms, which have procurement relationships with the Government; if so, what has been the outcome of the investigation.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No. There is no requirement in Naval Regulations for naval officers to seek approval to accept business appointments.
  2. There is no requirement in Naval Regulations for officers to advise Navy Office of their intention to take up business appointments or to advise the date of commencement of such employment. The information is therefore not available from departmental records.
  3. No investigation has been made by me or by my Department on this matter.

Mr H. W. Fancher: Discussions with Government Officials (Question No. 1229)

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

am asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 17 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) Did the Attorney-General’s predecessor’s predecessor confer in Melbourne on or about 17 December 1975 with Mr Henry Wiley Fancher Jnr, and were the Secretary to the Attorney-General’s Department and the Under-Secretary of the Queensland Premier’s Department also present (Hansard, 6 May 1976, page 2053 and 3 June 1976, page 3023).
  2. Have officers of the Attorney-General ‘s Department conferred, corresponded or communicated with Mr Fancher on other occasions; if so, when.
  3. On what other occasions, at what other places and in whose company did the Attorney-General’s predecessor’s predecessor meet Mr Fancher.
Mr Macphee:
LP

– The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. ) An officer of the Deputy Crown Solicitor’s Office, Brisbane, had discussions with Mr Fancher between April and June 1976 concerning proceedings to wind up Yarraden Pastoral Holdings Pry Ltd. Between August 1976 and December 1976 there were discussions and correspondence between an officer of the Deputy Crown Solicitor’s Office, Townsville and Mr Fancher concerning the recovery of telephone charges.
  3. So far as I am aware there was no occasion other than that mentioned in ( 1 ) above.

Electoral Division of Bowman: Closure of Non-official Post Offices (Question No. 1266)

Mr Jull:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 23 August 1977:

  1. What guidelines are used by the Australian Postal Commission in determining whether an unofficial Post Office is to be closed.
  2. Which unofficial Post Offices in the electoral division of Bowman have been closed since I January 1969 and which offices are to be closed during 1977-78.
  3. What rights do members of a community have in appealing against the closure of an unofficial Post Office and what form should this appeal take.
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. 1 ) The decision to close a Post Office is made only after a study of the volume of business handled, the likely future business that may eventuate, the general trend of development in the area and the ability of the postal network in the area to meet the postal needs of the community.

Generally, action to close a non-official post office is not taken in isolation but as a result of some other occurrence such as: resignation, death or dismissal of the postmaster lack of suitable accommodation for the continuation of the office conversion of a manual telephone exchange to automatic operation rearrangement or relocation of existing facilities of services provision of new postal facilities or services in the area.

  1. Since 1 January 1969 the following non-official post offices have been closed in the electoral division of Bowman:

Name of Post Office Closed

Erobin January 1974

Lota…….. December 1975

Wynnum, Glenora Street July 1 977

The Carina East and Murarrie Non-official Post Offices are the only offices programmed for closure in 1 977-78 in the electoral division of Bowman.

  1. A firm decision to close a post office is not made without prior consultation with local residents. Where there is local opposition to the proposal, the Divisional Manager for Australia Post normally visits the area and discusses the reasons for closure with the residents concerned.

Members of the community may, either directly or through their local member of parliament, make representations to me or to the Managing Director, State Manager, or local Divisional Manager of Australia Post. In addition to the avenues of appeal available through the Parliament and through Australia Post management, the Commonwealth Ombudsman provides a further avenue of redress for anyone who feels an injustice has been done.

Carina East Non-official Post Office (Question No. 1267)

Mr Jull:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 23 August 1977:

  1. What are the trading figures of the unofficial Post Office located at Carina East, Queensland, for (a) 1974-75 and (b) 1975-76.
  2. For what reason does the Australian Postal Commission feel justified in closing this Post Office in this high density population area of Brisbane.
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. 1 ) The trading figures for the Carina East Non-official Post Office are as follows:

The major portion of the revenue is derived from postage stamp sales. Costs, additional to the above, which must be set against the revenue include the expenses spread across the mail network for the service provided, i.e. transport, sorting and delivery.

  1. Australia Post is continually reviewing its network of post offices to ensure that customers’ needs are being met in the most effective manner.

With the opening early next year of the new shopping complex in Wynnum Road, Murarrie, the opportunity will be taken to make adjustments to the network of post offices in the area.

The Cannon Hill Post Office, which is at present poorly located in terms of the customers it serves, will be relocated in the new shopping complex bringing it within about 2 kms of the Carina East Non-official Post Office and within a much shorter distance of the Murarrie Non-official Post Office.

Past experience has shown that whenever a large shopping complex is established, customer patronage is drawn away from surrounding post offices to the office within the complex. It is proposed, therefore, to close the Carina East and Murarrie Post Offices in conjunction with the relocation of the Cannon Hill Post Office.

While some residents close to the Carina East Post Office may consider they would be inconvenienced by the closing of this office, most residents in the general area would benefit through being able to transact their postal business at the larger official post office when they do their other shopping at the complex.

Retired Service Personnel: Business Appointments (Question No. 1275)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 August 1 977:

  1. How many Service personnel of one-star rank or above have retired during each year from 1 July 1970 to 30 June 1977.
  2. Can he say how many of these personnel have been, or are now, in the employ of companies active in the defence or defence industrial areas; if so, what are the names of these personnel and for what company or companies have they worked, and for what periods.
  3. How many ex-Service personnel of one-star rank or above work, or have worked, for companies which have had contractual, including sub-contractual, dealings to the value of $100,000 or more with the Defence Force, the former Defence group of departments or the present Defence Department during the period 1 July 1970 to 30 June 1977, inclusive.
  4. What are the names of (a) the persons and (b) the companies.
  5. 5 ) In each case referred to in parts ( 3 ) and ( 4 ), what was (a) the monetary value and (b) the general nature of the contract.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. No. My Department does not seek this information.
  2. 3 ) , ( 4 ) and ( 5 ) As for part (2 ) of the question.

Legal Aid (Question No. 1311)

Mr Garrick:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 25 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to accusations made at the 19th Australian Legal Convention regarding legal aid.
  2. If so, do claims that the Government hopes to quietly dispose of legal aid have any foundation.
  3. Was the Commonwealth Government’s review of legal aid part of a campaign to drop it completely.
  4. Is the attempt to negotiate with the States in relation to setting up their own Legal Aid Commissions not only an attempt to avoid waste and duplication but also pan of the move for the Commonwealth Government to desert the field.
  5. Is legal aid a political liability for the Government; if not, will it act to overcome the present staff shortages in legal aid offices.
Mr Macphee:
LP

– The Attorney-General has furnished the following answer to the honourable member’s question: (1)I have noted that in a paper presented at the 1 9th Australian Legal Convention it was suggested that the Government’s ‘review’ of legal aid was a euphemism for ‘disposal’.

  1. and (3) The suggestion is unfounded as appears from this year’s Budget appropriation for legal aid of $23.4m which is an increase of $ 1 . 6m above last year’s expenditure.
  2. The Government believes that legal aid in both the Federal and State area can be most effectively provided through a single legal aid commission in each State established under State law. The interest of the Commonwealth in the adequacy and equality of the provision of legal aid in the Federal area throughout Australia will be given effect to through the Commonwealth Legal Aid Commission. The Commission will make recommendations to State and Territorial Commissions concerning the provision of legal aid in the Federal area and will monitor the performance of those Commissions in providing that aid. The Commission will also decide or advise upon the provision of legal aid in special Commonwealth matters in areas referred to it by Commonwealth legislation or by the Attorney-General.
  3. The Government has taken the view that the existing level of staffing should be maintained during the review of legal aid. Following the establishment of the Commonwealth Legal Aid Commission and the Legal Aid Commission of the Australian Capital Territory, the AttorneyGeneral’s Department is taking up with the Public Service Board the question of the staff needed by the new Commissions to enable them to efficiently perform their functions. The staffing needs of the State Commissions will be a matter for consideration by the Commissions themselves after their establishment.

Reserve Bank: Rural Credit (Question No. 1323)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 6 September 1977:

  1. 1 ) Which primary industry co-operative marketing arrangements or statutory marketing boards receive advances from the Rural Credits Section of the Reserve Bank to allow initial or first advance payments.
  2. In respect of which of these does the Government guarantee repayment to the Bank.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1) and (2) The Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank is currently providing finance at the request of the Commonwealth Government to the following Commonwealth statutory authorities, and in respect of each of them the Government has guaranteed repayment of the Bank’s advances:

Australian Dairy Corporation

Australian Egg Board

Australian Honey Board

Australian Wheat Board

In addition the Reserve Bank of Australia has pointed out that it provides, through the Rural Credits Department, advances to the State Egg Boards against guarantees issued by the Minister for Primary Industry under the Poultry Industry Assistance Act 1965.

I am not in a position to list all of the primary industry cooperatives or State statutory marketing boards which receive

advances from the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank.

Brisbane Airport: Aircraft Movements (Question No. 1334)

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 6 September 1 977:

  1. What were the total aircraft movements, including general aviation, international carriers, helicopter, military and mainline carriers, at Brisbane Airport in (a) 1969 and (b) 1976.
  2. What were the total aircraft movements at Brisbane Airport in (a) July 1976 and (b) July 1977.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. July 1977-8,487

Department of Administrative Services: Libraries (Question No. 1351)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 6 September 1977:

  1. 1 ) How many libraries are in the Department of Administrative Services, where is each located and what is the main purpose of each.
  2. How many (a) books, (b) publications, and (c) periodicals (i) have been acquired in (A) 1974-75, (B) 1975-76 and (C) 1976-77, (ii) are currently in the library and (iii) will be acquired under budget provisions for 1977-78.
  3. 3 ) What is the annual cost of running each library.
  4. What staff are employed in each library and what major staffing changes have occurred in the past 3 years, or are contemplated.
  5. When were the provision, number and purpose of libraries in the Department of Administrative Services last reviewed by the Department and /or the Public Service Board, and what recommendations were made at that time.
  6. Which libraries are open to the public, and what is the extent of public usage.
Mr Street:
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters · CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA · LP

– The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) Total number 2 1 . The number, location and purpose of each library is detailed below:

  1. (a) The amalgamation of functions from other Departments into the Department of Administrative Services necessitated a departmental review of existing library facilities in mid- 1976. The major recommendations arising from this review involved the retention of the existing separate library locations, with some centralisation of ordering, purchasing, cataloguing and bibliographical services.

    1. On 29 June 1977 the Department asked its Central Office Librarian to conduct a critical and comprehensive review of the library services provided to the Department. This review is still in progress.

Central Office Libraries

Last Departmental review mid-1976. Recommendations were to co-ordinate those services which could be most efficiently brought together while retaining the three locations.

Australian Government Publishing Service Design Library A 1970 review recommended the present arrangements.

Grants Commission Library

In 1973 a review by the Public Service Board led to the establishment of a library and a Library Officer 2 position.

Australian Electoral Office Library

The Scott/Public Service Board review of 1974-75 reviewed the role and functions of the Australian Electoral Office.

Australian Archives Library

Early in 1974 the Public Service Board reviewed the operation of the library and approved position reclassification to a Librarian Grade 2 at that time.

Australian War Memorial

Since January 1975 there have been several reviews leading to an increase in positions for senior professional staff.

Melbourne Office Libraries

Last reviewed by the Department in April 1977 when approval was given to staff the Library Officer 1 position.

Commonwealth Fire Board Library

No review has been undertaken in the recent past.

Commonwealth Police Libraries

  1. H.Q. Library: Last reviewed by the Public Service Board in 1973 when the present staffing level was recommended.
  2. Police College Library: In November 1975 a staffing review of the College was conducted by the Department of Police and Customs. No recommendations were made concerning library staffing.

Australian Information Service Libraries

When the inquiry function of the Publications and Inquiry Centres was discontinued in June 1977 a Departmental review of the library resulted in the withdrawal of two senior library positions.

Australian Parliamentary Offices Reference Collections

A review was undertaken by the Department’s Librarian in mid- 1976. This report is still under consideration by the Department.

  1. The only Departmental libraries offering public access are:

Australian Archives Library

All material is available for use by the public on request. The extent of public usage could not be accurately gauged.

Australian War Memorial Library

Excluding public holidays, the library is open to the public ever week day, 8.30 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. During 1 976-77 the library received approximately 150 visitors per month.

Commonwealth Fire Board Library

Public access to the library is by request, but little use of the library has been made by the public.

Industries Assistance Commission:

Employment and Report Statistics (Question No. 1380)

Mr Holten:
INDI, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 7 September 1977:

  1. 1 ) How many persons were employed by the Industries Assistance Commission, or its predecessor, the Tariff Board, during each of the last 5 years.
  2. What were the (a) qualifications, (b) classifications and (c) capacities in which they were employed.
  3. What was the cost of (a) individual and (b) total salaries and allowances for each classification during each of those years.
  4. How many reports of the Commission, or its predecessor, were (a) finalised, (b) accepted, (c) rejected and (d) referred back to the Commission or its predecessor by the Government during each of those years.
Mr Fife:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is in the tables below-

Legislation Presented for Royal Assent: Attorney-General’s Certificate (Question No. 1400)

Mr Antony Whitlam:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 8 September 1977:

Was it before or after the Governor-General signed the wrong States Grants (Aboriginal Assistance) Bill 1976 that His Excellency requested the change in the practice for giving the Attorney-General’s certificate in respect of each Bill presented for royal assent. (Hansard, 25 August 1977. p. 719)

Mr Macphee:
LP

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

The request was made after the wrong States Grants (Aboriginal Assistance) Bill 1976 had been assented to.

Wheat and Flour: Exports to Indonesia (Question No. 1439)

Mr O’Keefe:

asked the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice, on 14 September 1977:

  1. 1 ) Did Indonesia take delivery of 6 per cent of Australia ‘s exports of wheat and flour during the year ended 30 November 1976.
  2. Is this market looked on as a growing and developing one.
  3. Has the ACTU decided to impose bans on the handling of Indonesian flag vessels carrying Australian wheat and flour on account of alleged atrocities in East Timor.
  4. If so, are Indonesian flag ships being sent to the United States of America for loading wheat to Indonesia.
  5. Is this a very serious wheat trade situation and what can be done to protect Australia’s wheat and flour trade with Indonesia.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Indonesia took delivery of 5.3 per cent of Australia’s exports of wheat and flour during the year ended 30 November 1976.
  2. Yes. Indonesia’s present import requirements of wheat are about one million tonnes a year and it is forecast that by 1985 this could rise to about two million tonnes annually.
  3. Yes. In November 1975 a meeting of Australian maritime unions resolved in favour of a ban on the handling of Indonesian flag vessels and on war materials bound for Indonesia, in protest against Indonesian involvement in East Timor. The Australian Council of Trade Unions Executive in February 1976 passed a resolution endorsing the ban, which is still in effect.
  4. It is known that at least one Indonesian flag bulk carrier especially fitted out for the Australian wheat trade has been sent to the United States of America for the carriage of wheat to Indonesia.
  5. The ban represents a very serious setback to Australia’s wheat trade, especially in the present market circumstances where there is a growing surplus of wheat in the world and Australia’s competitors are making every effort to sell wheat in this area. The Australian Wheat Board advises that recent discussions with the Indonesians indicate that the removal of the ban would ensure that Australian wheat would continue to be purchased and the Australian share of the market increased.

Meat Stabilisation (Question No. 1448)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 14 September 1 977:

Did he inform a meeting of farmers on 29 August 1977 that the Federal Government had decided to fund any meat stabilisation scheme agreed to by the States.

Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

No. I did say that I had given an assurance that if all the States can get together on a domestic price stabilisation scheme then the Commonwealth will introduce the necessary supporting legislation.

Beef Marketing (Question No. 1449)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 14 September 1977.

Did he state in a speech at Cobden, Victoria, on 29 August 1977 that the Labor Government was responsible for the decline in beef marketing.

Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

No. I did say: ‘What went wrong? Markets, true- but not just markets- the 3 years of Labor also played a pan. The Labor administration, through the escalation of wages and conditions in the Public Service and its wild spending sprees brought Australia to the brink of bankruptcy’. A printed copy of the speech in question is available if the honourable member would like to have it.

Health Projects-Western Sydney (Question No. 1484)

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

am asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 14 September 1 977:

What projects were assisted under the principal programs administered by his Department in the electoral divisions of (a) Chifley, (b) Macarthur, (c) Macquarie, (d) Mitchell, (e) Parramatta, (f) Prospect and (g) Werriwa, and what was the expenditure on each project in 1976-77 (Hansard, 8 Sept. 1977, p. 983).

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

The principal programs which are administered by my Department and can readily be identified in monetary terms in the electoral divisions of Chifley, Macarthur, Macquarie, Mitchell, Parramatta, Prospect and Werriwa are:

Community Health Program

Australian School Dental Scheme

Home Nursing Service (Subsidy)

Hospitals Development Program

Details of expenditure for 1976-77 in respect of these programs are included in the following statements.

Other major programs which are conducted on a national or State basis but for which figures are not available for individual electoral divisions are:

Red Cross Blood Transfusion Service

Drug Education Program

Family Planning Program

Nursing Home Benefits Program

Domiciliary Nursing Care Benefits Program

Private Hospital Bed Subsidy Program

Health Program Grants

Hospital Cost Sharing Arrangements.

Community Health Program

Grants provided under this Program are to assist the States and through the States, Local Government Authorities and voluntary organisations to establish and extend community-based health services.

Expenditure incurred in 1 976-77 was:

Home Nursing Service (Subsidy)

Under this item, subsidies are paid to approved non-profit organisations conducting home nursing services. The operations of home nursing services are not generally confined to electorates and metropolitan services may operate in adjacent electorates e.g. the Sydney Home Nursing Service operates throughout the Sydney Metropolitan area.

Sankey Legal Proceedings (Question No. 1485)

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

am asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 14 September 1977:

  1. Who were the senior and junior counsel whose opinions the Crown Solicitor received in August 1976 on the statements which the former Attorney-General collected from the Solicitor-General, the Secretary and other officers of the Attorney-General’s Department and two officers of the Executive Council (Hansard, 6 September 1977, page 722).
  2. Who were the officers of the Department and the Executive Council from whom statements were obtained.
Mr Macphee:
LP

– The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) The Counsel were Mr D. G. McGregor, Q.C., and Mr W.H. Denton, Q.C.
  2. In addition to statements by the Solicitor-General and the Secretary to the Attorney-General’s Department, there were statements from Mr A. C. C. Menzies and Mr D. J. Rose of that Department Statements were also available from Mr N. F. Wicks, formerly Secretary to the Federal Executive Council, and Mr D. W. Edgerley, formerly an officer of the Council.

Hospitals Development Program

This program was established in 1974-75 to provide capital assistance to the States over a five-year period for the provision of new hospitals, mental institutions, hostels and nursing homes and the upgrading of existing facilities.

The following approved projects were included in the New South Wales total program of works for which a Hospitals Development Program block grant was provided.

The Government under its Federalism policy does not fund individual projects but makes funds available towards a total program of works. The final responsibility for managing total funds, both Federal and State, rests with the State, and the inclusion of a project in the Program therefore does not mean that the project is going ahead or construction has commenced. There is normally a considerable time required for planning and design of facilities and many of the projects in the Program are in the planning and design phase. The block grant allocated to New South Wales in 1976-77 was $36m.

America’s Cup Challenge: Cost of Australian Broadcasting Commission Coverage (Question No. 1536)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 21 September 1977:

What was the cost to the Australian Broadcasting Commission of the coverage of the America’s Cup challenge and its preliminaries at Newport, Rhode Island, United States of America.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

The actual cost specifically incurred for the coverage of this event has not yet been established. It will take some time before final accounts for various items of expenditure are received by the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s New York office and from outside organisations. These accounts then have to be checked and apportioned in accordance with agreements made by the Australian Broadcasting Commission with other organisations for the sharing of costs.

Precise cost estimates could not be made before the event because of the various possibilities of Australian involvement, depending on the outcome of the elimination races.

Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court: Availability of Judges (Question No. 1587)

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

am asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 4 October 1977:

Which resident Judges of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory will be able to devote themselves exclusively and full time to their duties as Judges of that Court during each of the next six months.

Mr Macphee:
LP

-The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

The resident Judges of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court are the Chief Judge, Mr Justice Fox, Mr Justice Blackburn and Mr Justice Connor. The intention of Mr Justice Fox to resign from the Court has already been announced (Hansard, 6 October 1977, page 177S) and it is anticipated that the person appointed to fill the vacancy thus created will then be available for full time service to the Court. Mr Justice Blackburn is presently on sabbatical leave and is expected to resume judicial duty on 12 December. Mr Justice Connor is presently committed to sit on the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia to hear appeals from the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court and on the Courts-Martial Appeal Tribunal for a total period of eight days. Subject to these commitments he is expected to be available to the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court until 9 December when he is scheduled to proceed on leave until early February.

United States Domestic International Sales Corporations: Agricultural Exports (Question No. 1695)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice, on 6 October 1977:

With reference to his answer to question No. 1642 (Hansard, 9 December 1976, page 3680) relating to United States Domestic International Sales Corporations (DISC) which are engaged in agricultural exports and competing with Australian products, has the special GATT committee reported; if so, what were the conclusions and what action has the Australian or any other Government taken with the United States of America.

Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

As stated in the answer to question No. 1624, the GATT panel of experts, appointed to examine complaints relating to the United States Domestic International Sales Corporations (DISC) legislation, reported to the GATT contracting parties on 2 November 1976 that there was a prima facie case of nullification or impairment of benefits which other GATT member countries were entitled to expect under the General Agreement. No decision has yet been taken on the report although it has been considered at several meetings of the GATT Council.

Asia Dairy Industries (HK) Limited (Question No. 1698)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 6 October 1977:

  1. 1 ) Is the Australian Dairy Corporation significantly altering the role of Asia Dairy Industries from an outlet for Australian dairy products to that of an international dairy entrepreneur; if so, is this considered to be in the best interests of Australian dairy farmers.
  2. What actual financial advantage has there been and is there likely to be for these dairy farmers.
  3. Have there been any proven cases for unexplained or excessive financial gain for individuals associated with Asia Dairy Industries; if so, who and what sums were involved.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. On 16 September 1977 I requested the Australian Dairy Corporation to undertake a review of the role and objectives of Asia Dairy Industries (HK) Limited (ADI) in the light of the changes which have occurred in the field of export marketing since the establishment of its subsidiary. I am awaiting the Corporation’s recommendations on this matter.
  2. ADI is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Australian Dairy Corporation. It was initially established in June 1964 to manage the joint recombining ventures under the then Australian Dairy Produce Board with a view to providing the industry with assured outlets for skim milk powder and butteroil. The main function of ADI has been the provision of technical and management expertise to the plants coupled with the supply of raw materials.

The Australian Dairy Corporation has supply contracts with its joint venture plants totalling approximately 35,000 tonnes of skim milk powder per annum. It also has supply contracts with two other plants totalling approximately 15,000 tonnes per annum. Small quantities of butteroil are also supplied to the plants.

In addition to providing access for Australian dairy products, the joint venture plants have returned dividends which flow directly into the Dairying Industry Stabilization Fund. They have been used in respect to the operations of the plants and for purposes directly related to the activities of the Australian dairy industry. For example, I recently agreed to the sum of $ 1 m being made available from the Fund to assist in the domestic promotion of dairy products. I also agreed to the sum of $ 1.5m being made available from the Fund and to be held in Trust by the Australian Dairy Farmers’ Federation so that the Federation can provide the Secretariat and research facilities for the recently established Australian Dairy Industry Conference on an on-going basis.

  1. No.

Protected Vehicles for VIPs (Question No. 1705)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 6 October 1977:

  1. 1 ) What is the estimated cost of ( a ) converting 2 vehicles to ‘Protected Vehicles for VIPs’ status and (b) purchasing 2 protected vehicles from abroad.
  2. What model vehicles (a) are involved in the Conversion and (b) have been ordered abroad, and who are the suppliers.
Mr Street:
LP

– The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

It is not the practice of this Government to give information which may have the effect of endangering security. The protection purposes of these vehicles will be obvious and I am sure the honourable member would not wish to press for the exposure of details which could give assistance to a potential attacker.

National Dairy Herd Improvement Scheme (Question No. 1740)

Mr Lloyd to ask the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 12 October 1 977:

What progress has been made with the development of the various aspects of the National Herd Improvement Scheme, and when will definite proposals be put to the Aus.tralian Agricultural Council and /or the Government.

Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

Standing Committee on Agriculture appointed a Steering Committee in July 1976 comprising Commonwealth, State and industry representatives to formulate in specific terms a proposal for a National Dairy Herd Improvement Scheme acceptable to all parties.

The Steering Committee has met on five occasions and is well advanced with its task. At its last meeting on 1 4 October 1977 the Committee discussed with industry and State representatives the draft proposals it would be making to the Standing Committee on Agriculture. The Steering Committee is now in the process of taking into account the aspects raised by participants at that meeting and other helpful comments it has sought and received in order to be able to submit its Report as early as practicable.

The Government has already indicated its desire that there be instituted, in conjunction with States and industry, Australia-wide arrangements for a program of genetic improvement, mastitis control and herd health for the benefit of dairy farmers.

Milk for Manufacturing Purposes (Question No. 1741)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 12 October 1977:

  1. What progress has been made with the proposal for a new basis of payment for milk for manufacturing purposes.
  2. When, and by whom, will any decisions be made to alter the basis of payment.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) At the request of the Australian Dairy Industry Council, a Committee was appointed by the Standing Committee on Agriculture (SCA) of the Australian Agricultural Council (AAC) to report on the basis of payment for milk used for manufacture.

The Committee reported in September 1972, recommending a change from the previous butterfat basis to a basis of payment made up of two components: one for the weight of tat and one for the weight of protein.

In August 197S, SCA resolved that the Basis of Payment for Milk Committee should carry out further investigations into the possibilities of changing to a system where payment would be made on a compositional basis, i.e. for fat plus protein. The Committee was also asked to examine whether there should be an adjustment for volume, as had been proposed in New Zealand.

SCA also agreed to expand the terms of reference of the Committee to include: a study of the implications of factory standardisation of market milk to denned compositional standards; and the feasibility of payment for market milk being on a compositional basis.

The Second Report of the Basis of Payment for Milk Committee was considered by the AAC at its meeting in February 1 977. The recommendations of the report are:

  1. The Committee endorses the recommendation of its 1972 report, namely that the price paid for milk for manufacturing purposes should be based on the mass of fat and the mass of protein contained in the milk.
  2. The Committee does not recommend the inclusion in the payment formula of a volume factor based on processing costs. It does recommend however that the farmer should be charged on a volume basis for the cost of transport of his milk.

  3. With respect of market milk, the Committee recommends:

    1. that the recommendation of the 1972 Report that milk for manufacture be paid on the basis of the mass of fat and the mass of protein, be applied to market milk with a financial adjustment to make up its residual market value.

The Committee recognised two ways of making the financial adjustment viz:

  1. a ) increasing the price of fat and /or protein; or

    1. inclusion of a third factor, based on volume.
    2. that standardisation of market milk for both fat and protein be legally permitted.
    3. that no minimum compositional standards should apply to the producers of market milk.

The Australian Agricultural Council: endorsed the principle that the payment for milk be made on the basis of fat and protein composition; directed that consultations be held with State Authorities and with industry bodies to facilitate the implementation of the recommended system; and agreed to the general release of an integrated report.

Consultations have been held with Market Milk Authorities and the Australian Dairy Farmers’ Federation. Advance copies of the integrated report were provided to these bodies and to State Departments of Agriculture, in connection with these consultations. Copies will shortly be available for general release.

  1. At its July 1977 meeting, the Standing Committee on Agriculture resolved that the implementation of changes in the Basis of Payment for milk is a matter for decision by each State.

Milk Products: Bacterial Contamination (Question No. 1750)

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

am asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 12 October 1977:

On what date and from what source did his Department receive the information, which it passed on to the Department of Primary Industry on 18 July 1977, that there was a problem with Salmonella bredeney in infants food formula and that the source of the trouble seemed to be Nestle ‘s Tongala factory (Hansard, 5 October 1 977, page 1691).

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

On Wednesday 13 July 1977 the Salmonella Reference Laboratory of the Institute of Medical and Veterinary Science, Adelaide, advised my Department that Salmonella bredeney had been isolated from a number of infants with gastro-enteritis, and there appeared to be a link with one or more brands of infant formula dried milk powders. The Commonwealth Health Laboratory in Launceston had independently and simultaneously detected the same relationship.

On Saturday, 1 6 July, the Victorian Department of Health notified my Department that it had succeeded in tracing the source of the trouble to the Tongala factory, and immediate action had been taken to recall the products.

On Monday, 18 July, urgent notification was passed to health authorities in the States and Territories and, as it had become clear over the weekend that export material which was the concern of the Department of Primary Industry was implicated, that Department was also urgently advised. On that same day an urgent meeting of State and Commonwealth officers was held with industry representatives in Melbourne to confirm the emergency action already taken and to initiate a thorough investigation into all aspects of the problem.

Apple and Pear Stabilisation Scheme (Question No. 1767)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 13 October 1977:

Since the introduction of the apple and pear stabilisation scheme, how much has the Commonwealth Government contributed each year to the scheme, and how much of that contribution has been for fresh pears.

Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

Commonwealth

Fruit-growing Reconstruction Scheme (Question No. 1768)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

As soon as the final figures become available, will he provide a detailed summary of the fruit-growing reconstruction scheme including the average, total and average per acre value, for each variety of irrigated and non-irrigated fruit in each State?

Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

Final figures in regard to the fruit-growing reconstruction scheme are expected to be provided by all States within the next few months. A detailed summary of the scheme will then be prepared providing information on numbers of applicants, area of trees removed for each variety of fruit eligible under the scheme, as well as total assistance and average assistance per acre. The summary will distinguish between fresh and canning fruit, but not between irrigated and non-irrigated fruit.

Road Trauma (Question No. 1770)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice on 13 October 1977:

Is a departmental committee or the National Health and Medical Research Council currently investigating the problem of road trauma; if not, why not.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

The Traffic Injury (Standing) Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council has the following Terms of Reference: ‘To inquire into and advise the Council through the Public Health Advisory Committee on:

factors of medical significance in the causation and prevention of injuries in traffic accidents; and

the medical aspects of the rescue of the victims of traffic accidents, their resuscitation and subsequent management.’

This Committee has made various recommendations on a variety of matters concerned with road trauma. However, due to the effect of current economic constraints and staffing limitations on the Secretariat, the activities of the Committee are at present in abeyance.

Coal Export Levy (Question No. 1785)

Mr Braithwaite:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 13 October 1977:

What was the amount of coal export levy collected from the Central Queensland coal mines and the amount paid from each mine site during 1975-76 and 1976-77.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

Information concerning revenue received from individual companies under the coal export levy is regarded as confidential.

Beef Industry (Question No. 1874)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 20 October 1977:

  1. 1 ) In his recent announcement of aid to the beef industry, did he indicate that he would endeavour to have the States refrain from increasing charges which affect beef producers.
  2. If so, what success has he had with these endeavours, particularly in respect of the 9 per cent increase in Victorian meat inspection charges which follows a 15 per cent increase in 1976, when the Commonwealth has abolished these charges federally.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. In my statement in the Parliament on 22 September 1977 announcing further aid for the beef industry, I said that the Government believes that responsibility for assistance to particularly seriously affected producers lies partly with State Governments and that the Government would expect them to undertake an examination of their charges to ensure that they do not unduly disadvantage one section of Australians as against another. In this connection I will certainly be endeavouring to persuade the States to take measures to support and complement the assistance that the Commonwealth is providing.
  2. Because of their awareness of the current situation for beef producers and the lead which has been given by the Commonwealth in making assistance available to the industry I am hopeful that the States will also do all that they can to provide assistance. In this context I regret that the Government of Victoria has felt it necessary to increase charges for domestic meat inspection. However, this matter is entirely the prerogative of the Victorian Government. Similarly, it is entirely a matter for the Victorian Government to decide on what, if any, measures of assistance it can provide to the beef industry at this time.

Australian Housing Corporation: Annual Report (Question No. 841)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 5 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has he at anytime since assuming administrative responsibility for the Australian Housing Corporation Act 1975 and subsequently the Defence Service Homes Amendment Act 1976 received the first annual report of the Australian Housing Corporation in accordance with sub-section 48 ( 1 ) of the Australian Housing Corporation Act 1 975.
  2. 2 ) If so, did he receive the report from either of the Ministers previously responsible for administering that Act or did he receive it from the Corporation.
  3. If he did receive the report, on what date was it received.
  4. Did he comply with sub-section 48 (4) of the Australian Housing Corporation Act 1975 and cause the annual report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within the prescribed 1 5 sitting days; if not, why not.
  5. When will he cause the report received from the then Corporation to be tabled before each House of the Parliament.
Mr Garland:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) to (5) To comply with the requirements of the relevant legislation, the annual reports of the Australian Housing Corporation to be laid before each House of the Parliament were required to be accompanied by financial statements in a form approved by the Treasurer and the report of the Auditor-General on those statements. The form of the financial statements has not yet been approved. Consequently, it has not been possible to table annual reports in satisfaction of the statutory requirements.

For the information of the Parliament, interim reports for 1974- 75 were tabled on 30 September and 2 October 1975 and an interim report for 1975-76 was tabled on 25 August 1977.

Public Hospitals: Prescriptions (Question No. 1080)

Mr Hodges:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 16 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) How many outpatient prescriptions were dispensed by public hospitals in each State and Territory during 1974-75, 1975- 76 and 1976-77.
  2. How many inpatient prescriptions were dispensed by public hospitals in each State and Territory during the same years.
  3. What was the total cost of the drugs dispensed and the labour and overhead costs of the public hospital dispensaries in each State and Territory during the same years.
  4. What was the cost to the Commonwealth for both outpatient and inpatient prescription dispensing by public hospitals during the same years and what is the formula for cost sharing.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

My Department does not have this information but has collated the following for the honourable member from information provided by appropriate State and Territory health authorities:

  1. New South Wales, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania advise that the information is not available. The Victorian authorities have advised this information is not available at this time. Queensland advises that the costs of drugs and chemicals used by its hospital dispensaries were:

Overhead costs are not maintained.

  1. Payments to public hospitals under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme by the Commonwealth during 1974-75 were:

Subsequent to 1974-75, hospital cost sharing arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States were commenced whereby the net operating costs of State recognised hospitals including the costs of drugs and chemicals were shared on a 50-50 basis. No further payments for drugs were made by the Commonwealth to State recognised hospitals (i.e. public hospitals which come under the cost sharing arrangements).

Private Health Funds: Governing Boards (Question No. 1099)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 16 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) What are the names of the persons who are the members of the governing boards of the private health funds in South Australia.
  2. Under what laws, State or Commonwealth, are the funds incorporated.
  3. What provision does the State or Commonwealth law or the rules of each private fund, have for the election of the governing board of contributors to the fund.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. The South Australian District, No. 81, Independent Order of Rechabites Friendly Society, The Albeit District No. 83, Independent Order of Rechabites, Salford Unity and the National Health Services Association of South Australia are registered (incorporated) under the Friendly Societies Act. The Mutual Hospital Association Limited is incorporated under the Companies Act. The remaining organizations are not registered or incorporated under State law.

The only organization incorporated under Commonwealth law is the Health Insurance Commission (Medibank Private)- Health Insurance Commission Act 1973.

  1. Neither Commonwealth law nor the relevant State legislation provides for the election of governing boards by contributors to the funds.

With regard to organizations registered under the Friendly Societies Act, the position is that, in general, contributors to these funds do not per se have any voice in the control of the friendly societies’ affairs including administration of health funds. Control is vested in lodge membership. Members of lodges elect their office bearers and their delegates to higher bodies which in turn elect their directorates. Contributors to such funds are not required to be members of the societies.

The following sets out the position regarding the rules of those organizations which make some provision for the election of governing boards by contributors:

The Advertiser Provident Society

The organization’s rules provide for a board of management often members, nine of whom are elected by contributors with the remaining member being appointed by the Company (i.e. Advertiser Newspapers Ltd).

The Fire Service Health Fund

The rules of the organization provide for a management committee of 11 members elected at the annual general meeting. All contributors are entitled to vote at the election of directors.

SA Police Department Employees’ Hospital Fund

The organization’s rules provide for a management committee of not more than 14 members, elected at the annual general meeting of contributors.

SA Public Service Association Health Benefits Fund

The organisation’s rules provide for a board of management consisting of five members/directors elected by contributors bi-annually.

Darwin Hospital: Medical and Nursing Staff (Question No. 1118)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 16 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) What is the (a) medical and (b) nursing staff establishment for Darwin Hospital.
  2. How many vacancies exist in each category at the latest date for which information is available.
  3. How many vacancies for (a) medical staff, (b) nursing sisters and (c) paramedical staff exist in other Northern Territory centres.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

Figures given represent the situation as at 19 October 1977. These compare favourably with the situation that applied at 21 November 1975, at the end of the Whitlam Government ‘s term of office:

Department of Veterans’ Affairs: Libraries (Question No. 1370)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 6 September 1977:

  1. 1 ) How many libraries are in his Department, where is each located and what is the main purpose of each.
  2. How many (a) books, (b) publications and (c) periodicals (i) have been acquired in (A) 1974-75, (B) 1975-76 and (C) 1976-77, (ii) are currently in the library and (iii) will be acquired under budget provisions for 1977-78.
  3. 3 ) What is the annual cost of running each library.
  4. What staff are employed in each library and what major staffing changes have occurred in the past three years, or are contemplated.
  5. When were the provision, number and purpose of libraries in his Department last reviewed by the Department and /or the Public Service Board, and what recommendations were made at that time.
  6. Which libraries are open to the public, and what is the extent of public usage.
Mr Garland:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) There are eight libraries in the Department of Veterans ‘ Affairs. The locations are as follows:

Repatriation General Hospital, Concord, New South Wales;

Repatriation General Hospital, Heidelberg, Victoria;

Repatriation General Hospital, Greenslopes, Queensland;

Repatriation General Hospital, Daw Park, South Australia;

Repatriation General Hospital, Hollywood, Western Australia;

Branch Office, New South Wales;

Branch Office, Victoria; and

Central Office, Australian Capital Territory.

In Tasmania there are small collections of books located in the various sections of the Branch Office and Repatriation General Hospital, Hobart.

The main purpose of each of these libraries is to maintain reference material relevant to the needs of both professional and administrative staff in carrying our their duties.

  1. This information is not kept in the precise form requested by the honourable member. The table below details acquisitions and current holdings of books and other publications. For the purposes of the table ‘ books’ includes monographs acquired costing over $5.00.
  1. The last complete review of all libraries in the Department of Veterans’ Affairs was during 1969. There have since been smaller local reviews as necessary. The 1969 review was conducted by the Department and establishment recommendations arising from this review were considered by the Public Service Board. The major thrust of the recommendations was related to the teaching responsibilities of the Repatriation General Hospitals as medical undergraduate schools of the Universities. The review recommended the Department’s libraries be developed to reflect requirements for up-to-date literature on a wide range of medical subjects, and to dispose of out-of-date or irrevelant material. Staffing requirements and structure arising from the review are detailed in (4).
  2. The Department’s libraries are not open to the public. Departmental books may be borrowed by others through inter-library loans and photocopies of journal articles are supplied by the same means. Officers of other departments, hospitals and universities use the facilities of the libraries but do not borrow directly.

National Acoustics Laboratory, Perth (Question No. 1521)

Mr McLean:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 September 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to reports stating that there are waiting periods of 12 months for pensioners, and 3 to 4 months for children, before they can have their hearing tested at the Commonwealth Acoustics Laboratory in Penh.
  2. If so, is there any substance in the allegations and what is the reason for the delays.
  3. 3 ) What is the position in other capital cities of Australia.
  4. What action does he propose to take to rectify the situation.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. An investigation into the waiting times has shown that a pensioner who applies for a hearing test at the National Acoustic Laboratories’ Perth office could expect to wait up to 10 months for an appointment. Children are tested within 3 to 4 weeks of application.

There are several reasons for the long waiting periods for pensioners. Children are given priority because early treatment is essential to successfully overcoming their handicap and children’s appointments are necessarily longer than adults’. Other factors are staff ceilings, increasing numbers of new cases and the additional time that is needed to fit aids of increased technical complexity.

  1. Pensioners in other capital cities wait approximately: 7 months in Sydney 10 months in Melbourne 6 weeks in Brisbane 6 weeks in Adelaide 6 weeks in Hobart

In all capital cities, children wait from 2 to 4 weeks.

  1. The staff ceiling for the National Acoustic Laboratories’ program was increased for 1977-78 and additional staff have been recruited. Consequently a reduction in the waiting time for pensioners is expected by early 1978.

Electoral Division of Oxley: Nursing Homes (Question No. 1523)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 September 1977:

  1. 1 ) Which nursing homes registered under the National Health Act are established within the electoral division of Oxley.
  2. In what suburb is each situated.
  3. Will he indicate whether each institution is a private (a) profit making or (b) non-profit making institution.
  4. What is the average number of beds provided for (a) intensive care and (b) ordinary care at each of these institutions and what weekly fees are charged in each case.
  5. What is the standard weekly fee for each of these forms of treatment in Queensland.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: ( I ), (2) and (3) According to information held by my Department which has been confirmed with the Electoral Office for the division of Oxley, the following nursing homes are located in that division or the patients accommodated are enrolled in the division of Oxley. For the sake of completeness homes approved under both the National Health Act and the Nursing Home Assistance Act are shown.

Notes:

  1. As from 1.10.77 the term ‘intensive nursing home care ‘ has been replaced by the term ‘ extensive care ‘.
  2. Nursing home beds are not provided specifically for ordinary or extensive care. Patients occupying nursing home beds are classified as either ordinary care or extensive care according to their medical condition and the level of nursing care required. Therefore, the number of ordinary care and extensive care patients varies from time to time.
  3. Approved nursing home fees may vary according to the type of ward accommodation provided.
  4. Patients accommodated in nursing homes approved under the Nursing Homes Assistance Act are required to meet a patient contribution which may be reduced or waived in individual cases of hardship. As from 1 October 1977 proprietors are required to charge insured patients an additional fee equal to the nursing home fund benefit and benefits are paid by the hospital benefits organisation with which the patients are insured. In Queensland the weekly fees charged from 1 October, 1977 are:

Prime Minister’s Department: Use of Services of McKinsey and Co. (Question No. 1596) Mr Morris asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 5 October 1977:

1 ) Has the firm McKinsey and Co. Inc. provided any services of an official nature to him or his Department.

If so, what was the nature of the services provided, and what were the terms and costs involved.

i Is he able to say if McKinsey and Co. Inc. is the same McKinsey and Co. Inc. of New York who operate as management consultants to American multi-national corporations.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. Not applicable.
  3. An entry in the 1977 edition of Who’s Who in U.S. Business in Australia indicates that the firm is a subsidiary, affiliate or branch of the New York company.

Pharmaceutical Benefit Prescriptions (Question No. 1662)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 5 October 1977:

  1. 1 ) In what proportion of pharmaceutical benefit prescriptions are the items identified by their (a) proprietary and (b) generic names.
  2. What is the percentage share of the market for the 100 most commonly used items prescribed by their proprietary name for each drug company supplying these items for the last six month period for which figures are available.
  3. Can he estimate the proportion of the market for each drug company for the same items prescribed under their generic name.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) From a recent survey of ready-prepared pharmaceutical benefit prescriptions the proportions are:

    1. 90.3 percent.
    2. 9.7 percent.

  2. Year ended 30 June 1977

Commonwealth Ombudsman (Question No. 1663)

Mr Hodges:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 5 October 1977:

  1. 1 ) How many staff are presently employed by the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
  2. 2 ) In what locations does the Ombudsman have offices.
  3. 3 ) How many complaints has the Ombudsman received.
  4. How many complaints have been investigated and how many have been partially or fully upheld.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. At the Prudential Building, University Avenue, Canberra City. Offices are due to be opened in early 1978 in the Sperry Remington Centre, 175-183 Liverpool Street, Sydney, and the Sun Alliance Building, 408 Collins Street, Melbourne.
  2. I have been informed by the Ombudsman that to 19 October 1977 he had received 1,063 written complaints or substantial inquiries from members of the public.
  3. The Ombudsman has also informed me that since 1 July 1977 when he took up duty his staff have been almost wholly engaged in investigating the complaints and inquiries received. He has indicated that to the present his priorities have been overwhelmingly directed to the investigation of those complaints. Because of this he has not had an opportunity to develop meaningful statistics which could provide precise information on the questions asked. He has advised me, however, that full details on these matters will be provided in his annual report for the year ending 30 June 1 978.

Unemployment: Aboriginals (Question No. 1747)

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

am asked the Minister for Employment and industrial Relations, upon notice, on 12 October 1977:

How many Aboriginals were registered for employment with the Commonwealth Employment Service at the end of (a) August and (b) September 1977 (Hansard, 8 September 1977, page 991).

Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. At the end of August 1977 there were 12,224 Aboriginals registered with the CES as unemployed.
  2. The corresponding figure for end of September was 12,352.

Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme: Drug Costs (Question No. 1769)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 13 October 1977:

Is there any allowance for increased drug manufacturing costs in the additional sum of $30m provided in the 1977-78 Budget for the pharmaceutical benefits scheme; if so, what are the details.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

The estimates of expenditure under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme for 1977-78 were prepared on the basis of drug costs current at that time and they contained no provision for unknown drug cost increases. However, an amount of $ 1 .9m was included to meet the cost of price increases that had recently been approved but had not at that time had an impact on the Scheme. As was mentioned in the Treasurer’s Budget statement, the total increase reflects mainly the prescribing of higher cost drugs and an increase in utilisation of benefits.

Rural Health in Australia (Question No. 1773)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 13 October 1977:

  1. 1 ) What progress has been made with the implementation of the recommendations of the report Rural Health in Australia.
  2. Which of the recommendations are considered to be the most important, and which are more likely to be implemented.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The report contains a number of proposals on each of the major aspects of rural health and also puts forward a number of relatively inexpensive proposals which could be adopted as short-term measures.

Ways in which the recommendations can be implemented, as the economic situation allows, are being investigated. Detailed work has been undertaken on a number of the proposals with a view to their implementation as soon as circumstances permit. As most of the recommendations contained in the report require State Government action and agreement to their implementation, State views have been sought These consultations are continuing.

  1. In their totality, the recommendations contained in the report are intended to improve the availability and accessibility of rural health services. One of the major disadvantages faced by people living in country areas is in obtaining necessary health care; they may, for example, be obliged to travel long distances to hospitals or specialist services. The development of initiatives that could improve the availability of certain health services and lessen the costs of travelling to obtain health care is, therefore, seen as the most important area for action.

Health Services Planning and Research program: Grants to Victoria (Question No. 1812)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 18 October 1977:

Has Victoria received less than any other State under the 52 for $1 grants of the Health Services Planning and Research Program; if so, why.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

Victoria was allocated $24,000 from the $360,000 available in 1977-78 for grants to State authorities under the Health Services Planning and Research Program. The allocation was less than to any other State.

In determining the level of allocations for 1977-78 the Hospitals and Health Services Commission took into account expenditure incurred by States during 1976-77 and funds unspent by them at 30 June 1977.

Victoria brought forward from previous years $16,164. Consequently, with the $24,000 granted in 1977-78 the level of Commonwealth funds available to Victoria for health services planning and research is $40, 1 64.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 2 November 1977, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1977/19771102_reps_30_hor107/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant