House of Representatives
4 November 1977

30th Parliament · 2nd Session



Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon. B. M. Snedden, Q.C.) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2869

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 in 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 Mr Dobie and Mr Graham.

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 Howard and Mr Eric Robinson.

Petitions received.

Non-State Tertiary Institutions

To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens (students, parents, teachers) of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the decision by the Government to withdraw all forms of financial assistance to students of non-State tertiary institutions is in total conflict with stated Government education policy.

The decision will result in a shortage of places for training secretarial and clerical students and an inordinate demand upon the State Government education systems.

At a time of severe economic disruption, this action must lead to a serious worsening of the current employment situation, particularly school leavers.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will act immediately to reverse its decision.

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

Petition received.

Whaling

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

That due to the new information on whale communication, behaviour and intelligence, and to the depleted state of most of the great whale stocks and the uncertainty associated with whale population estimates, that commercial whaling is no longer acceptable to the vast majority of Australians.

It is urged that immediate steps be taken to end this activity.

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

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. 6,469- ‘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 mothers 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. 6,469 of the Medical Benefits Schedule.

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

Petition received.

Air Fares

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

That the total cost of air travel includes the cost of transport to and from airports and that the availability of transport to and from airports is an essential factor in accessability to domestic and international air travel.

That proposals recently announced would indicate that Australians could have the benefit of cut-price overseas air fares.

That the Government’s decision to undertake a private departmental review of international civil aviation which is separate from the current review of domestic aviation is contrary to the best interests of Australia’s air travellers and consumers.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that:

A full scale public inquiry be conducted to ensure that Australia’s internal and international air fares are fairly priced.

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

Petition received.

Development of Canberra/Queanbeyan Area

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

  1. That the decline of the City of Queanbeyan over the past two years has been most damaging to employment opportunities amongst young people.
  2. That over 900 people are unemployed.
  3. 200 young people leaving school in 1977 face the dole.
  4. That Commonwealth Government action to promote revived confidence in the future of Canberra/Queanbeyan is urgently needed.

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

Petition received.

Commonwealth Grants to New South Wales

To the Honourable 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 the grants and payments made by the Commonwealth to the State of New South Wales have consistently been less per capita than the Australian average.
  2. That although the High Court has determined that ownership of off-shore oil rests with the Commonwealth and not with the States, the Commonwealth has made arrangements which deprive New South Wales of its fair share of the benefits from such oil.
  3. That New South Wales has thus suffered adverse discrimination at Commonwealth hands.

Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will cause these matters to be investigated and ventilated without delay, so that due restitution can be made to the people of New South Wales.

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

Petition received.

Mr Steve Biko

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 on 13 September 1977, Steve Biko, President of the Black Peoples Convention, died, aged 30, while being held incommunicado for questioning in detention without trial in South Africa;

That this is the 20th death of a black political prisoner in similar circumstances in South Africa in the last 18 months; and the 44th death of a prisoner while in police custody in recent years;

That Steve Biko had been held in detention since 22 August; and had previously been held for 101 days without trial; and in addition, was under a five year house arrest and restriction order;

That Steve Biko is the acknowledged leader of the black people’s resistance to apartheid, racial exploitation and injustice in South Africa, and that in this context his death in the hands of the white police must be regarded with grave suspicion;

Your petitioners accordingly request the Australian Government to register the strongest protest to the South African Government at the circumstances of Biko’s death and decline to accept the credentials of the new South African ambassador due to be appointed shortly.

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

Petition received.

page 2870

COMMONWEALTH GRANTS TO NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-I move:

That the petition lodged by the honourable member for Mackellar relating to Commonwealth Grants to New South Wales be printed.

The petition reads as follows:

To the Honourable 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:

That the grants and payments made by the Commonwealth to the State of New South Wales have consistently been less per capita than the Australian average.

That although the High Court has determined that ownership of off-shore oil rests with the Commonwealth and not with the States, the Commonwealth has made arrangements which deprive New South Wales of its fair share of the benefits from such oil

That New South Wales has thus suffered adverse discrimination at Commonwealth hands.

Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will cause these matters to be investigated and ventilated without delay, so that due restitution can be made to the people of New South Wales.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

In accordance with the Standing Orders, I now move -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman is not entitled to move a motion. He can inform the House that he intends to take action if it is so required.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Thank you, Sir. I now inform the House that I intend to take action by moving as follows:

That this House requests the Senate which has continuity over the period of the coming election to set up a select committee with full powers to inquire into and report upon: .

1 ) Whether or not the non-repayable grants made by the Commonwealth to the State of New South Wales, when computed on a per capita basis, have been consistently less than the corresponding figures for the average grants to all Australian States; and if so-

the extent of such deficiency;

b) reasons for such deficiency;

the continuance of such deficiency during the term of the last Government and the present Government;

whether or not, if the deficiency were to be corrected, New South Wales would receive an additional sum of approximately $250m per year.

) Arrangements made or contemplated for management by the States of the Commonwealth’s natural resources of off-shore oil.

The extent to which the various States will be advantaged by the exploitation of various areas of off-shore oil and whether those advantages will be equitably shared among the various States in proportion to their population.

The prices paid for bulk sales of oil and gas at various locations in various States.

Speaking to the motion that the petition be ! printed I now say that I have had a preliminary look at these figures and it seems to me that New South Wales has been treated most unfairly. It seems to me that the grants made by the Commonwealth per capita have been less to New South’ Wales than to other States. It would appear to be quite clear that New South Wales -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable gentleman is now discussing the merits of the issue and not the question whether the petition should be printed.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Sir, I am giving reasons why the petition should be printed.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have ruled that the honourable gentleman must speak to the question whether the petition should be printed.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I am moving that the petition be printed -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman is out of order. He will resume his seat.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Sir, I am asking that I be given my rights -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! If the honourable gentleman does not resume his seat I will have to deal with him.

page 2871

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2871

QUESTION

PURCHASE OF LAND FOR OMEGA BASE

Mr ARMITAGE:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Did the Minister for Transport tell the Parliament yesterday, in answer to a question, that he had no knowledge of the activities of the Department of Administrative Services in relation to the purchase of land for the Omega base in his electorate? If that is the case, why did the Minister seek through his Department to have a local stock and station agent appointed to act on behalf of the Government, contrary to normal Australian Government practice, with the comment that the principal should not be revealed?

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

– I have to say that I feel sorry for the Leader of the Opposition on occasions when I hear these sorts of questions coming from those bums who sit behind nim.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! If what I think I heard is what the Minister said, he had better withdraw it quick smart.

Mr NIXON:

– I meant the tramps who sit behind him. I apologise to the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Will the Minister withdraw?

Mr NIXON:

-I withdraw. It is a fact that a representative of a local stock and station agent came to me to seek from me information about the procedures used in the acquisition of land for the Omega navigational aid. As is the normal custom, I made representations on his behalf. There was nothing secret about that. There was nothing clever about it. I do not think that anything very much came of it. As I understand it, the Department of Administrative Services followed the normal procedures and appointed three or four agents to look at land throughout the area that it had under consideration. I do not have the exact details of the number of agents; nor do I know the specific details of their names. I will seek information from my colleague the Minister for Administrative Services and make the information available to the honourable member.

page 2872

QUESTION

OECD ECONOMIC REVIEW

Mr SAINSBURY:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Prime Minister whether he can expand on the answer he gave yesterday to the question asked by the honourable member for Oxley in relation to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development review of the Australian economy.

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

-Since the question yesterday from the honourable member for Oxley concerning the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development review of Australia, which he suggested had been completed, I have made some inquiries. The fact is that the processes leading to the review have not even been started. The honourable member asserted that the Government has been successful in suppressing publication of the review from its normal period in December and having it held over until the middle of next year. So far from publication of the review in December being normal, not one of the four reviews so far issued has been published in that month. The facts are that the December 1972 review was published in February 1973, the April 1974 review was published in June 1974, the July 1975 review was published in August 1975, and the December 1976 review was published in February 1977. It ought to be noted that the only one of these reviews which was published during the honourable member’s term as Treasurer appeared in August, not in December, 1975. The gaps between these reviews have been 16, 14 and 18 months.

The honourable member for Oxley seems to be suggesting that the OECD should now be producing another review only 10 months after the last review. That would be out of all normal procedures. From very old days, conspiracy theories have been part of the mind stuff of the Opposition, but there is no of substance in this instance. The conspiracy which the honourable member for Oxley is seeking to trump up now seems far fetched even for him.

As the Treasurer said, Australia has nothing to fear from an examination of policies by international organisations. In fact, we have the usual team from the International Monetary Fund in Australia at the moment. The usual discussions with the OECD secretariat have been proceeding in the normal way with a view to finding a mutually convenient time for an OECD mission to visit Canberra and for our officials to receive them. Australia must be fitted in to the OECD program which has about 20 member countries. As it happens, there may be an OECD mission in Australia next month, but that matter remains to be officially determined. If it does occur it will probably mean a publication of the resulting review of Australia in about April 1978. So much for that farrago of falsehoods which seems to be the only meat the Opposition has had for the last two or three weeks.

Let us look at the figures that the honourable gentleman quoted in his question. The Government and its advisers are quite unaware of their origin. Certainly they do not appear in any OECD document yet available in Canberra or any document yet available to our official delegation to OECD in Paris. Perhaps the honourable member for Oxley or his friends in Paris have been opening some mail there also. No doubt the OECD, like the Opposition, has not yet caught up with the transformation of this country’s economic prospects which in the last six weeks have brought a dramatic improvement in the outlook for inflation, as a result of the September quarter consumer price index, the very strong figures issued recently by the Australian Statistician for business capital expenditure for the current half year, which are up 14 per cent in seasonally adjusted terms, and the sharp change in attitudes towards the balance of payments and the exchange rate since the end of September. If the OECD or anyone else is talking of a GDP deflator of 10V4 per cent for the calendar year 1978, then like the honourable member for Oxley, it does not know what it is talking about. Currently the Government’s advisers’ own conservative figures would be around 7 1/2 per cent. As to growth next year, our advisers’ figures would be roughly double the rate quoted by the honourable member. Even that well known character whom the honourable member is so fond of quoting, Blind Freddie, would put him right on that one.

What does all this add up to? The honourable gentleman seeks, as a result of a short period in the Treasury, to give respectability to his claims and to what he says, but they are a thorough garbling of the facts, a use of falsehoods, a search for conspiracies where none exist and a desperate search for any basis at all on which to hang the Opposition’s fond hope of economic disaster for Australia. There is only one basis on which there could ever be economic disaster for this country. That is if the Leader of the Opposition were ever again to be in charge of this nation’s affairs. Then it would be a true economic disaster, and that is why his soliciting even for a mere two-year term will be rejected.

page 2873

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN WOOL CORPORATION

Mr SCHOLES:
CORIO, VICTORIA

-My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry. Is it correct that over the past two weeks the Australian Wool Corporation sold 20,000 bales of wool ex Flushing on the basis of f.o.b. prices in Australia? Does this mean that the purchasers have bought the wool without having to pay freight to Europe? If so, does this mean that the Corporation has effectively undermined its own reserve prices and in this case has caused the drop in the wool market over the last week? Does it mean a possible loss to wool growers of up to $600,000?

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

-I know the honourable member is seeking to learn a little bit about agriculture. One of the elements of trying to ensure stability in a market for a commodity is the recognition that whatever is said in this Parliament needs to be heard not just within these four walls but around the markets of the world. The Australian Wool Corporation has been a most effective marketing body. I do not know anything of the instance which the honourable member has just suggested has happened but I do know that Corporation stocks held abroad have each been sold in the past-I would presume on this occasion also- on the basis of all costs being included in the price charged for a particular line of wool. I will investigate the circumstance that the honourable member has alleged.

I can assure this House and the wool buyers around the world that the Corporation operates a flexible reserve. It sets the level of that reserve on a daily basis. It maintains a strong stable buying force. When sales are negotiated outside Australia those sales are normally on the basis of the cost of the wool at that particular point where it has been delivered. If there should be a variation in any particular sale that might be negotiated, I have no doubt that the variation is based on a very good premise, and indeed as far as Australian wool growers are concerned, since our return to office and the maintenance of a firm wool reserve and a sympathetic understanding of the financial policies of the Corporation, there has been no doubt that the Australian wool growers’ interests have been well protected. I nave little doubt that exactly the same has happened in this circumstance. I will investigate the circumstance and write to the honourable member about it.

page 2873

QUESTION

DUAL PORTFOLIOS

Mr HAMER:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

– My question is to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister seen a suggestion that one Minister could act as a combined

Minister for Defence and Foreign Affairs? Are the political and administrative responsibilities of the Minister for Defence such that he could also act as Minister for another major department? When the Foreign Affairs ministry was last combined with other major responsibilities, were those other responsibilities carried out in a satisfactory manner?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I believe that anyone who is aware of public administration in Australia would well know that the Defence ministry carries very heavy administrative responsibilities. After all, for a long while there were in that area Ministers for the separate Services and a Minister for Defence. How the Minister for Defence can preserve his calm and undertake in full the responsibilities formerly undertaken by four Ministers, I sometimes find difficulty in understanding. It is worth noting that in the United Kingdom where there is a unified structure, in many ways not dissimilar from our structure, there are a number of junior Ministers and Assistant Ministers- I think, from memory, about five in all in the United Kingdom contextassisting the Secretary of State for Defence. It is certainly a very full time job indeed.

I also would have thought that being Foreign Minister is a full time job if it is to be done well and properly, with a degree of sensitivity and strength such as we have seen over the last two years. I think my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, believes that he has been fully occupied in his functions as Minister for Foreign Affairs. How anyone, especially someone who at some stage had been involved in government administration in Australia, could ever contemplate combining these two offices, I just fail to comprehend. Of course, there have been suggestions that some people could do these jobs well and combine them and that there was an occasion when the ministry of Foreign Affairs was combined with the ministry of the Prime Minister and Cabinet under the previous Administration. I rather think that the administration of Australia’s affairs failed very dismally during that period, but I am not sure whether -

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

-Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Is it in order for the present Prime f inister to reflect on Mr Menzies in that way? It will be remembered that Mr Menzies, while Prime Minister, also took over the post of Minister for External Affairs.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! That is not a point of order.

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

– We are all embarrassed by his record in that period -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

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

– It is not fair to treat a sick man in this way.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-The monkey in the zoo? The honourable gentleman knows quite well that he was the person in the previous Administration who was being referred to.

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

-No; you were stabbing another Liberal leader in the back.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-The honourable gentleman continues interjecting in defiance of tanding Orders and abusing the privilege that you, Mr Speaker, accord to him as Leader of the Opposition. He does this when he is getting hurt and when he does not like what is being said. Mr Speaker -

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

- Mr Speaker, he is treating Menzies as he treated you and Gorton.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I call upon the Prime Minister to complete his answer. I ask him to remain relevant to the question. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to cease interjecting.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Mr Speaker, the completion of the answer will be relatively short if the honourable gentleman accords with your request from the Chair. During the previous Administration there were occasions when one might have suggested that the good government of Australia was forfeited because the then Prime Minister was also Foreign Minister and out of the country a very great deal. On the other hand, when he gave up the job of Foreign Minister the administration of the country did not improve because he was here more. I think one can judge from that that the administration of Australia might well have been better if he had been overseas entirely. Under those circumstances Australia would have benefited.

page 2874

QUESTION

TREASURER: PECUNIARY INTERESTS

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

– I ask a question of the Prime Minister. He will note that I have placed a question for him on the Notice Paper in the light of his answer to me two days ago that the Treasurer had mentioned to him the matter of his relations with Mr Peter Leake. I ask him: Has the Treasurer or anybody else brought to his notice a statement by a director of the company named in my question that that company merely acted as a nominee company and that if someone was uncomfortable about his name appearing in a share register he could use the company to register his holding? Does the Prime Minister think it appropriate for a Minister to make investments or to hold interests in a company in such a guise that the public cannot discover that Minister’s investments or interests?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-If the honourable gentleman wanted to put a question of that kind on the Notice Paper he would be entitled to do so. I think that really the public would be much more interested to know the full details of all those people who pay into the private fund of the Leader of the Opposition and of the cheques that he draws on that fund allegedly in the interests of the Australian Labor Party. So far as I know, that political party is the only one where the leader has specific control over a slush fund of that kind.

page 2874

AUSTRALIA AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY: TRADING

page 2874

QUESTION

OPPORTUNITIES

Mr McVEIGH:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Special Trade Negotiations. Are the present trading opportunities between Australia and the European Economic Community satisfactory? If not, what are the Government’s plans to rectify the position?

Mr HOWARD:
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister · BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-I think it would be clear to all honourable gentlemen in this House, particularly those who sit on the Government side, that the balance of trading opportunities between Australia and the European Economic Community is totally unsatisfactory and totally inequitable to the efficient and competitive primary producers in Australia. For that reason the Government took the step of appointing a Minister with specific responsibility for this area. It was very interesting to note that while I was overseas the estimates for the Department of Special Trade Negotiations were considered and the attitude taken by the Opposition was simply that the whole exercise was a waste of time.

Mr Young:

-That is right.

Mr HOWARD:

– The honourable member for Port Adelaide says: “That is right’. I think that ought to be on record for the benefit of every primary producer.

Mr Bryant:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. What the Minister says is quite incorrect Consideration of the Estimates was continuously gagged and no opportunity was provided to consider them.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order involved. The honourable member for Wills will resume his seat.

Mr HOWARD:

-I think it ought to be on record that the Opposition thinks it is a waste of time to try to secure greater access to the largest trading bloc in the world. What the Opposition is saying to the primary producers of Australia is that if it were m government it would not try to improve access for the efficient primary producers of Australia into the largest trading bloc in the world. Every honourable member in this House knows that it will not be easy to improve our access into the European markets, but those who have the interests of primary producers at heart will know that it is beholden on any Australian government to try to improve that access, to try to reduce the level of export subsidies paid in respect of the large surpluses that have been created in Europe through the operation of the common agricultural policy. After this Government is returned to office on 10 December it will continue its efforts to improve that situation.

I believe that as a result of my visit to the nine governments of the European Economic Community there is now a much better understanding, both of the depth of feeling throughout Australia and the fact that this Government will not be easily dissuaded in its efforts to improve our access to those markets. While this Government remains in charge of the nation’s affairs it will continue to try to improve access to those markets to which our primary producers are undoubtedly entitled.

page 2875

QUESTION

NUCLEAR ENERGY

Mr UREN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I refer the Prime Minister to the claim made in the parliamentary debate yesterday by the Minister for Foreign Affairs that the brief held by Mr Justice Fox, which I made public, corroborated the Government’s policy. I ask the Prime Minister whether that is true. If so, does the Government share Mr Justice Fox’s belief that the non-proliferation policy of President Carter and the Carter Administration would not succeed and was resented by Japan, major western European countries and many Third World states?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The honourable gentleman is asking me to repeat an answer which I gave yesterday. I said that Mr Justice Fox had given me approval to quote one sentence from a letter which he had written to me. I had discussions with him about it yesterday. He made the situation perfectly plain following his discussions in the United States. His Honour was not claiming any particular relationship between his own discussions and what happened later. Whether or not there was any direct relationship, he now finds himself in almost complete agreement with the United States officials in relation to these matters. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is continually trying to put the view that

Australia should not be actively involved in international forums seeking a safer arrangement for the world.

Mr Uren:

– What about what your Foreign Minister said yesterday?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-What the Foreign Minister said yesterday was completely right, as one would expect. What the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is seeking to do is com- pletely wrong, as one also would expect, knowing his affinities and knowing his circumstances in relation to these matters. It is important not only for Australia but also for the world that Australia, as a supplier country, be actively involved in trying to seek safer international regimes in these areas. If one accepts that the full thrust of the original United States policy in relation to the internationalisation of re-processing facilities is unlikely to be achieved in its entirety, the kinds of proposals which are being discussed by His Honour in international forums, and which are being met with a degree of acceptability in a number of areas, surely ought to be examined very closely if we are to achieve a safer world.

The honourable gentleman would much prefer that Australia have nothing to do with these matters. He has a remarkable expectancy that members of fraternal parties in other parts of the world whose working people are dependent upon the use or uranium to supply energy for peaceful purposes should become unemployed merely to meet his particular predelictions. It is not surprising that this is a view of the Australian Labor Party, because it wants to deny energy needed for peaceful purposes to countries in Europe which need it to keep their factories operating.

There is not much difference between that view and the report on possible ways of increasing unemployment which was referred by me in the Parliament yesterday. I made it perfectly plain yesterday that the Labor Party on that occasion had taken an action which was deliberately designed to increase unemployment. Not only that, the Leader of the Opposition, when he was Prime Minister, suppressed the document. It was not published until several weeks after the decisions had been taken. Then it was tabled amongst all the other Budget documents, in the hope that nobody would see what was in it.

Mr Uren:

– I take a point of order. Replies must be relevant to questions. I submit that the end of that reply is not relevant to the question.

Mr SPEAKER:

-It is relevant to the question. Had the Prime Minister finished his answer?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Yes, I had.

page 2876

QUESTION

BROADCASTS OF POLITICAL MATTERS

Mr WILSON:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-My queston is directed to the Minister for Post and Telecommuncations. Has the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal been ap-

E reached recently about the imbalance in aleged political broadcasting? If so, what decision did the Tribunal make?

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Yesterday I received a letter from the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, to which I wish to refer. I inform the House that towards the middle of September the Channel 0-TEN network decided to do an hour-long general interest television program called ‘Life At The Top’. It was based upon a week in the life of the Prime Minister. The decision was reached because of the general interest and audience appeal of the program. The television program was screened in late October. On 27 October Mr Combe, the National Secretary of the Australian Labor Party, wrote to the Chairman of the Broadcasting Tribunal. I quote from part of his letter

Dear Mr Gyngell

I write to inform you and the Tribunal of correspondence which was directed by me earlier this week to the Chairman of television station TEN Sydney regarding what we believe to be a serious breach of balance in respect of political programming.

Attached is a photocopy of this correspondence which was forwarded Priority Paid to Sir Kenneth Humphries on Monday morning last; to date no reply has been received.

I do not want to read all the letter. It demands equal time for the Australian Labor Party and for the Tribunal to give this matter consideration. Because a formal request was made to the Tribunal, Mr Gyngell convened a meeting of the Tribunal to consider the demand of the National Secretary of the Australian Labor Party. Mr Gyngell informed me by letter

The Tribunal viewed the program yesterday and decided that it did not have the power to act on Mr Combe ‘s demand for equal time for the Opposition as it is not yet the election period for the Federal election.

The interesting letter to which I wish to refer is the letter that Mr Combe wrote to Sir Kenneth Humphries. I quote from part of that letter

I read this morning with some concern that your station has prepared and is putting to air next Friday night at prime time an hour long documentary about the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser. My concern is based on the fact that to the best of my knowledge no opportunity has yet been given to the Opposition to have an hour of prune time on your channel.

A later paragraph states:

After our experiences of recent years the ALP has no intention of sitting by compliantly while it is being in its opinion screwed by television station licensees.

It further states:

Therefore 1 deem it appropriate that you should provide an hour of prime time to the ALP as the official Opposition. While I would prefer that such an hour be given to a similar documentary on a week with the Opposition Leader, I am certain that we could negotiate a program which would be mutually acceptable.

Mr Combe wants to negotiate a television program. I point out to the Leader of the Opposition that Mr Combe was not quite sure whether he wanted a week with the Leader of the Opposition or whether he wanted to use the television time in some other manner. I think the most interesting paragraph of the letter is the last paragraph. It states:

However, in the event of us failing to receive equality of opportunity to that which is being given to the Prime Minister, I would undoubtedly find it necessary to recommend to our Executive that we lodge a formal complaint to the Broadcasting Tribunal and that failure to receive satisfaction should lead to us contesting your right to have your licence renewed when next it is under consideration.

We see a most sinister threat by the National Secretary of the Australian Labor Party to the freedom of the media. After listening to the comments of members of the Labor Party last night in the debate on the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill, I can only conclude that this is a first-class example of the most insidious danger to this country should the ALP ever have the control of the media again.

Mr Scholes:

- Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Minister has provided an answer which clearly indicates that legislation went through this House last night at a time when the Government was being offered facilities for election campaigning by the person who was advantaged by that legislation. The matter should be investigated.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr Uren:

-Mr Speaker, I ask the Minister to table the letter in full. He quoted it only in part.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Would you like it incorporated in Hansard?

Mr Uren:
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

- Mr Speaker, I seek leave to have the three letters incorporated in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

The letters read as follows-

Sir Kenneth Humphries,

Chairman of TEN,

Channel 10,

Epping and Pittwater Roads,

NorthRyde,NSW2113

Dear Sir Kenneth,

I write to you rather than to your General Manager because of my belief that it is more appropriate that you should consider the matter which I am raising. Whilst I have no doubt that Mr Kennon is a most competent and effective General Manager for your station he was, nevertheless, closely associated with the formulation and production of the now infamous television commercials produced by Mr John Singleton at the 1974 election, and must therefore be assumed to have close association with our political opponents.

I read this morning with some concern that your station has prepared and is putting to air next Friday night at prime time an hour long documentary about the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser. My concern is based on the fact that to the best of my knowledge no opportunity has yet been given to the Opposition to have an hour of prime time on your channel.

Your are no doubt aware of and have probably read my evidence to the recent Broadcasting Tribunal Inquiry into self-regulation of television stations. Equally, I am sure you are aware of the Tribunal’s Report in so far as political con- - tent is concerned. While it did not recommend amendments to the law to enforce equality of treatment of both sides of politics it did give strong support to the principle that licencees were obligated to be fair and equal.

You will be aware that I brought to the Tribunal evidence showing that some stations in Australia had been most unfair and inequitable in their treatment of political parties in non election periods. In particular I made reference to the times at which Addresses to the Nation from the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader have been put to air on some stations. In the case of your station I made reference to the fact that, using the April 6 and April 13 addresses as an example, Mr Fraser had been put to air at the prime viewing time of 7.30 p.m. and that Mr Whitlam had competed with the National Anthem one week later at 1 1.58 p.m.

After our experiences of recent years the ALP has no intention of sitting by compliantly while it is being in its opinion screwed by television station licencees.

This brings me back to the program in question. The proposed one hour long documentary, as it was filmed at a time when the Prime Minister was clearly seen to be engaged in an election campaign, can be viewed by us only as a gift of an hour of prime time to the Government parties. I am sure that not even the most ignorant Australian would argue that at the time the documentary was filmed there was not a better than reasonable prospect of a general election in 1977. (Need I remind you that as long ago as early March I was able to forecast that such an election would take place).

Therefore I deem it appropriate that you should provide an hour of prime time to the ALP as the official Opposition. While I would prefer that such an hour be given to a similar documentary on a week with the Opposition Leader, I am certain that we could negotiate a program which would be mutually acceptable.

However, in the event of us failing to receive equality of opportunity to that which is being given to the Prime Minister, I would undoubtedly find it necessary to recommend to our Executive that we lodge a formal complaint to the Broadcasting Tribunal and that failure to receive satisfaction should lead to us contesting your right to have your licence renewed when next it is under consideration.

Your early response would be appreciated.

Your sincerely,

  1. D. COMBE

National Secretary

Mr Bruce Gyngell

Chairman

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal

PO Box 1308

North Sydney

New South Wales 2060 27 October 1977

Dear Mr Gyngell,

I write to inform you and the Tribunal of correspondence which was directed by me earlier this week to the Chairman of television station TEN Sydney regarding what we believe to be a serious breach of balance in respect of political programming.

Attached is a photocopy of this correspondence which was forwarded Priority Paid to Sir Kenneth Humphries on Monday morning last; to date no reply has been received.

Since writing to Sir Kenneth it has come to my notice that the program in question was a most recent scheduling in that the current issue of TV Times indicates that the scheduled program for the 7.30 p.m. time slot on Friday night is emergency’.

I am sure you will agree that we can be forgiven for thinking that the decision to replace that program with the hourlong documentary on Prime Minister Fraser was indeed an emergency one prompted by anticipation of that gentleman’s announcement of a general election on 10 December 1977.

I should advise you that I took the liberty of forwarding for information a copy of my letter to Sir Kenneth to the General Managers or television stations in the O/TEN network in Melbourne, Brisbane and Adelaide; subsequently I have learnt that the program in question was screened last evening in prime time by ChannelO Melbourne.

In view of the fact that no approach has been received by us from Channel O Melbourne regarding the provision of equal opportunity and time and that no reply to my correspondence to Sir Kenneth has been received, 1 now ask your Tribunal to exercise its influence to ensure that, consistent with the sentiments expressed in your recent report, equal opportunity is provided to the Australian Labor Party. Action on your part to ensure the provision of such opportunity is fundamental to the establishment of your Tribunal as an effective body which cannot be manipulated by the government of the day to its own partisan political purposes.

I look forward to your early reply.

Yours sincerely,

  1. D. Combe

National Secretary

page 2878

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL

1 S3 Walker Street North Sydney NSW 2060 PO Box 1308 North Sydney 2060 Telex’SECTEL’25193

Telephone 922 2900 Office of the Chairman 3 November 1977

The Hon. Eric L. Robinson, Minister for Post & Telecommunications Parliament House, Canberra, ACT

Dear Mr Robinson,

I thought I should let you know the background to a television documentary on the Prime Minister produced by the 0 TEN Network entitled ‘ Life At The Top’.

The Tribunal received a letter from Mr David Combe, National Secretary, Australian Labor Party, enclosing a copy of a letter he forwarded to Sir Kenneth Humphreys, Chairman of Directors, Channel 10, Sydney, requesting that the channel provide an hour of prime time to the Leader of the Opposition. I am enclosing copies of both letters together with Sir Kenneth’s reply to Mr Combe, which I have just received.

The program was shown on Channel 0 Melbourne on Wednesday, 26 October, Channel 0 Brisbane on Thursday 27 October, and Channel 10 Sydney on Friday 28 October 1977. Channel 0 Brisbane informed me per phone on 26 October that they had sought legal advice from Henderson and Lahey who advised that provided two statements were edited out of the program they would not regard it as political from an election point of view. (As you are aware it is an election period in Queensland for the State elections.)

The Tribunal viewed the program yesterday and decided that it did not have power to act on Mr Combe’s demand for equal time for the Opposition as it is not yet the election period for the Federal election. The election period as defined in the Act commences on the day of the issue of the writs and ends at midnight on the Wednesday next preceding the day of the polL The relevant section of the Act is section 1 16(3) which reads as follows:

  1. If, during an election period, a licensee broadcasts or televises election matter, he shall afford reasonable opportunities for the broadcasting or televising of election matter to all political parties which were represented in either House of the Parliament for which the election is to be held at the time of its last meeting before the election period.

You will note that reasonable opportunities shall be afforded, not equal time.

The Tribunal also decided that if the program was shown during the election period it would regard it as election matter and it would expect reasonable opportunities to be afforded to the Opposition. As regards the mention in Mr Combe’s letter to the Tribunal’s Report on self-regulation, the Tribunal decided it would be improper to act on any recommendations in the Report until such time as the Government makes a decision on the Report.

Mr Combe has been advised of the decision by phoneand this will be confirmed by letter.

The Tribunal will of course be advising FACTS of the decision and will advise FACTS, FARB and the stations of their obligations under the Act as regards election matter during the election period.

Yours sincerely,

page 2878

BRUCE GYNGELL

page 2878

QUESTION

TELECOM AUSTRALIA

Mr CHARLES JONES:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA

-I direct a question to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Does the annual report of Telecom Australia for the last 12 months tabled in Parliament yesterday dislcose a profit of $ 164.4m, depreciation of $340m and intent of $278m? Does this not in reality represent a total profit of about $783.8m and, based on the earnings of Telecom of $ 1,674m, a profit of 47 per cent- something that no private company in Australia would ever be able to achieve? Where is the depreciation reserve of $2,584m? Will the Minister direct Telecom to reduce its telephone call charges or rentals or connection fees so as to reduce these exorbitant profits? Do most of the interest charges of $278m go to Treasury, and are they in other words another form of taxation on Telecom users? To settle this question of whether the profit is exorbitant, will he refer Telecom charges to the Prices Justification Tribunal so that it can carry out a full and frank investigation into the Telecom charging system? Do the charges of today represent the greatest rip-off of any concern in Australia?

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I do hope that nobody ever runs the risk of putting you on the board of any commercial organisation because, frankly, the way you juggle figures up in the air and the way they fall out is appalling. I refer to the comments you made last night in which you referred to the dividend rate of some companies throughout Australia. You referred to the dividend rate as if it applied to the share issue, not to the market value of the shares.

Before I address myself to some of the comments, let us just look at the record. You are asking us to consider the lowering of charges. For the last two year period basic charges have been held. Indeed, a number of initiatives have been taken which have reduced charges, particularly in rural areas. Now that is in contradiction and in contrast to what you people- yourselves and the Commission- did in three years. The basic charges for telephone calls went up from 4c to 9c in a three-year period. In the two years that we have been in office, despite the fact that we have had a rate of inflation which although now moderating has had to be contended with, because we have shown a great deal of concern and interest and have had co-ordination with the Commission we have increased services and have held charges.

Let us look at this surplus. You well know what are the provisions of the Act. You well know that under the provisions Telecom has to find at least SO per cent of its capital requirement out of internal revenue- by way of depreciation, by way of long service leave and by way of surplus. Yet you use a figure of 47 per cent when the return on capital invested in Telecom is of the order of 2 per cent to 3 per cent. On the capital invested in Telecom, the surplus is of the order of 2 per cent to 3 per cent Indeed, this Government, with the co-operation it has had from the Commission -

Mr Charles Jones:

– It is 40 per cent on earnings.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will resume his seat. The honourable member for Newcastle has asked his question. I gave him considerable latitude to pursue a long question. I now ask him to remain silent.

Mr Charles Jones:

– He is not telling the truth, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable member for Newcastle will withdraw what he has just said.

Mr Charles Jones:

– That what he is saying is not true? Yes, I will withdraw it.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Telecom is a growth market. There is an overall increase in demand of about 9 per cent a year. Using technology and having co-operation, we will be able to give increased services and, I believe, hold costs for a considerable time into the future. Finally, your suggestion to me that I should suggest that the Prices Justification Tribunal should look at the charges has no appeal.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister should remember that in this House when he says ‘you’ or ‘your’ he means me, and that he is not referring to me on this occasion. Therefore I ask him to use the third person when referring to any other member of the House.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Thank you, Mr Speaker. The suggestion of the honourable member for Newcastle that I should consider referring the matter to the Prices Justification Tribunal has absolutely no appeal.

page 2879

QUESTION

DISMISSALS IN WODONGA

Mr HOLTEN:
INDI, VICTORIA

– My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, refers to the recent dismissal of 70 people by the firm of Sanyo Guthrie Aust. Pry Ltd in Wodonga. I have no doubt that the Minister has heard about this matter because I know that he takes a very keen interest in the AlburyWodonga growth centre. Is the Minister aware that one of the reasons stated for the dismissal was that the company’s sales had been affected by imported television sets? Can the Minister inform me whether he has any information on this matter? Will he take all possible action to assist this important decentralised industry in the rural city of Wodonga?

Mr FIFE:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I am indebted to the honourable member for Indi for his question because, like him, I have a very deep interest in this subject.

Mr Uren:

– The Government is not giving you much support.

Mr FIFE:

-The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is always very vocal on matters concerning the Albury- Wodonga growth centre. Of course the Government of which he was a member was an organisation- I use the word deliberatelythat tried to jack things up in an artificial way. When his party was in office it took an action that caused more unemployment in the cities of Albury and Wodonga than any other government in the history of Australia had caused. I refer to the 25 per cent across the board tariff cut. Borg- Warner (Aust) Ltd, one of the best decentralised industries in Australia, cut its employment as a result of the action of the Whitlam Government.

Mr Charles Jones:

- Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. What the Minister is saying is only partially true because the Government in which he is a Minister has increased the number of unemployed in the two years that it has been in office.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr FIFE:

-I suppose that at this time of the election year we have to excuse members of the Opposition for getting off the track. The fact of the matter is that the people sitting opposite are the guilty men as far as unemployment in this country is concerned. They created the worst unemployment since the Great Depression and they are not helping the present Administration to overcome the problem.

The matter raised by the honourable member for Indi is a very important and very serious one. He has asked a question in relation to the dismissal of some 70 employees of Sanyo Guthrie Australia Pty Ltd in Wodonga. I have had this matter investigated because it is one that concerns me greatly. I am advised that the dismissals have occurred for two reasons. One is largely the disastrous power dispute in Victoria. I am bound to say that many people who lost their positions for a so-called temporary period as a result of that dispute will not be re-engaged. It is an unfortunate fact that when disputes of this nature occur many people who are stood down are never re-engaged. The second reason is that a large number of colour television sets are being imported. I understand this matter is being referred to by the management of the company I mentioned. I inform the House that on imported colour television sets a duty of 35 per cent of the cost of the set less the picture tube is imposed.

At present there is no application before the Temporary Assistance Authority or the Industries Assistance Commission for additional assistance, but if the company makes application to the Minister for Industry and Commerce I can assure the honourable member and the House that that application will receive very careful consideration. If a recommendation is made for a reference to go to the TAA or the IAC it also will be considered expeditiously by me. This is a most important matter. The Government is extremely concerned about the employment situation in Australia and I am grateful, as indeed is the Government, to the honourable member for Indi for giving such strong support to the policies that are being pursued by this Government to protect Australian jobs and not to aggravate the unemployment position further by deliberately exporting jobs overseas as our predecessors did.

page 2880

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Mr WILLIS:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

– My question, which is addressed to the Prime Minister, concerns an answer he gave earlier this week in which he claimed that Australia’s rates of inflation and unemployment in comparison with those of selected overseas countries were worse under Labor than under his own Administration. Has the Prime Minister’s attention been drawn to a recent report by a responsible economic commentator which demonstrated that, in comparison with the average performance of all member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Australia’s performance in respect of economic growth, unemployment and inflation has deteriorated since the Fraser Government came to office? If he has seen the report does he now acknowledge that by his earlier statements alleging the opposite result he misled the House? If he has not read the report will he do so soon and learn the real facts of this important matter?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The statements I made in answer to a question, emphasising the gross distortions in an interview on This Day Tonight and a Willesee interview, were and are correct I say only two things in relation to the honourable member’s question. Over the last two years only two of the major countries in the

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development have reduced unemployment. I referred to a number of countries in which unemployment has increased. The Leader of the Opposition, carried away by his rhetoric, said: ‘You cannot point to a country in the world where these things have happened.’ I was demonstrating very plainly that the Leader of the Opposition, if he did not know what he was talking about, knew that he was talking falsely.

With regard to inflation, excluding the Medibank distortion, the gap between Australia’s inflation and the average inflation in the OECD countries has been closed from 6 per cent to 7 per cent in 1975, which was Labor’s inflation, to a situation in which Australia’s inflation broadly matches that of our major trading partners. It is worth noting the comments from other informed commentators who give advice to business houses around Australia. They all point to a continued downward thrust in inflation and the consumer price index leading to reduced interest rates and leading, as the Treasurer said yesterday, to 1978 being a good year economically as long as the present Government’s policies continue. The honourable member can thresh around as much as he likes. I respect him for trying to support an insupportable leader and for not taking the view that Senator Button took that what his leader says is, in any case, irrelevant.

page 2880

QUESTION

SPORT AND RECREATION

Mr SIMON:
MCMILLAN, VICTORIA

– Is the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development satisfied that the Government’s policy on sport and recreation can be implemented having regard to restraints on public spending? Has the establishment of the Sports Advisory Council been accepted by the Confederation of Australian Sport and other interested sport and leisure groups in Australia? What importance does the Minister place on the Government’s commitment to the national ‘Life- Be In It’ campaign, having regard to the general state of the nation’s health?

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

– I thank the honourable member for McMillan for his question. He and other members of his Government back bench committee have done a great amount of work in producing the sport and recreation program that was announced in the Budget. I thank him for that. The sports program that was first announced in the Budget has proceeded well. We said that we would be helping national sports bodies in this country to improve their administration and employ coaches to enable them to compete here and overseas on an international basis. That has been done. We also said that we would establish a national sports council. That sports council has met twice, once in September and once in October. I am pleased to report that the request by that council for assistance in the sports program has met with wide response.

On 23 and 24 October the council met to consider requests. I am hopeful that within the next week or so we will be able to announce what those allocations of money will be under the program. The number of letters and other communications I have received show that not only individuals but also sporting organisations and major national organisations such as the Olympic Federation and the Confederation of Australian Sport have welcomed the program I have been speaking about and have congratulated the Government on its initiative in introducing it. This means that for the first time we have an efficient sports program in Australia that will help the national sports body. It will help Australia compete better not only here but also overseas.

The honourable member mentioned the ‘Life- Be In It’ program. That also has proceeded well. In co-operation with the States the program will commence on a national basis in the last week in November.

page 2881

QUESTION

ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE

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

– I ask the Prime Minister a question. If I place on notice the question he invited me to place on notice this morning will he answer it before the House rises as the Treasurer has promised to do in respect of the same matter? I ask also: Why has he not yet answered a question I put on notice on 7 September for him concerning his involvement with Mr Keith Gale?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-On many occasions I have said all there is to be said on that subject.

page 2881

QUESTION

GOLD COIN

Mr SHIPTON:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA

-My question, which is directed to the Treasurer, concerns the minting of an Australian gold coin. The Treasurer will remember that I have made representations to him and have suggested to the Government that Australia should have a gold coin. Earlier in this session, in answer to a question from me on this subject, the Treasurer indicated that the issue of an Australian gold coin was under consideration. Does the Treasurer agree that the issue of a gold coin would be a profitable venture for the Government? Has the Government made a decision on this matter? Will Australia have a gold coin.

Mr LYNCH:
Treasurer · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

– It certainly would be a profitable venture and I have no doubt that the issue of a gold coin would be attractive to collectors and gold investors alike. The honourable gentleman has pressed this matter very vigorously with me over a long period of time and I can assure him that as a consequence of his representations the Government has decided to adopt in principle the issue of a gold coin. The matter will, of course, be dependent upon further processes. There are technical difficulties which will have to be resolved but I can advise the honourable gentleman that the Government has decided to adopt in principle the representations he has made.

page 2881

QUESTION

VICTORIAN RAILWAY WORKERS: AWARD

Mr BRYANT:

– I address my question to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Yesterday, in answer to a question from my colleague the honourable member for Prospect, the Minister for Health admitted that Mr Justice Ludeke had granted to the medical profession an award greater than that which was justified by the consumer price index increase and that he did not propose to appeal against it. Has the Minister noted that the Victorian Government has appealed against an award for railway workers in Victoria, thus causing serious industrial unrest? Will he use his good offices as a senior member of this Government and of the Victorian Liberal Party to ask the Victorian Government to apply to other members of the work force the same principles that this Government applies to the members of the medical profession?

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

– I have noted the action of the Victorian Government. It will be supported by this Government.

page 2881

QUESTION

TASMANIAN FREIGHT EQUALISATION SCHEME

Mr GROOM:
BRADDON, TASMANIA

– I preface my question, which is directed to the Prime Minister, by pointing out to the House that the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme, which is generally recognised as the single most important initiative ever taken by a Federal government to assist Tasmania, has been operating now for well over 12 months. I ask: Has the Government had an opportunity yet to assess the impact of this scheme? If so, can the Prime Minister say whether it has assisted in alleviating the serious problems faced by Tasmanian industries because of high freight costs?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– In a little under two years this Government has done more in terms of special policies for Tasmania than, I think, any other government has done since the federation of Australia. A number of concerted policies have been announced and are operating. There is also a special report on the disabilities of Tasmanian industries. An announcement yet to be made in the other place by Senator Cotton will very shortly be made in this House by the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development. So far as freight equalisation is concerned, a number of specific benefits have flowed to Tasmanian industries. The cattle, sheep and pig industries have benefited; the fruit and vegetable industries have benefited to the extent of about $3m; confectionery and chocolate products, baled wool, pulp and waste paper, tin, newsprint and paper have benefited by nearly $6m- an area m which I think the honourable gentleman might well have an interest In addition, the aluminium and zinc metal industries, as well as a number of other industries, have been advanced significantly. A great many Tasmanian firms and a number of other industries have benefited specifically as a result of our policy on freight equalisation.

I hope all honourable gentlemen in this House will be particularly pleased at the announcement that has been made about the spending of some $30m at Burnie. That reflects the confidence of Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd in Australia’s future. This company’s decision to spend $30m on expansion, I venture to say, might well not have occurred had it not been for the policies of freight equalisation. This indicates what we are doing for jobs and opportunities in Tasmania.

I think it ought to be said that the honourable gentleman and his Tasmanian colleagues quite constantly, vigorously and certainly very properly have brought to the notice of Government Ministers the particular and special requirements of Tasmania. We are now starting to see the very real benefit of those policies in Tasmania, just as we are starting to see the very real benefit of our general overall policies throughout the whole of Australia. I compliment the honourable gentlemen on the effect that their representations have had- especially this latest example, APPM’s $30m vote of confidence in our policies towards Tasmania and Australia. That is not a bad vote to have.

page 2882

QUESTION

PURCHASE OF LAND FOR OMEGA BASE

Mr MORRIS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

-My question is directed to the Minister for Transport I hope that he will be able to answer it without reference to gaseous ejections. The Minister will recall confirming yesterday that Mr John McDonald was the vendor of the Omega land and was personally known to him. Is it not a fact that there are vendors of the property being purchased? If so, are those vendors John McDonald and Great Gippsland Farms Pty Ltd in which three Japanese companies hold a substantial shareholding? Maybe the directors are personally known to him also. Is it a fact that the company had a deficiency in shareholders funds of $921,186? In the light of the Victorian land scandal, is this another case of helping out the mates?

Mr NIXON:
LP

-The honourable member for Shortland has to be the slowest learner in the House. The first thing he does not understand is the proprieties that usually accompany the naming of individuals in the Parliament. When the Leader of the Opposition was Prime Minister he was very precise on this matter and said that any time an individual was named in a question that question should go on the Notice Paper. I do not know that the Leader of the Opposition has been so pernickety on that matter since he came back as Leader of the Opposition, but that is something for the record. The honourable member for Shortland ought at least to follow those procedures. In his question he has made what I would call some rather scurrilous suggestions. I do not propose to deal with them lightly. I will treat the question as though it is on notice and give him a considered reply.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The Minister for Transport, while answering that question, made some references which I think need to be commented on. There is no reason why a person should not be named in a question, provided that if the reference is opprobrious to the reputation of the person the question ought to be put on notice. If a name were used for the purpose of identifying the matter on which a Minister was being questioned, I would not require the question to be put on notice.

Mr Nixon:

- Mr Speaker, I think you have pulled out exactly the point I was making. Thank you.

Mr Charles Jones:

- Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. In the light of the comment made by the Minister for Transport, I ask you to rule on whether the question asked by the honourable member for Shortland was in order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Had the question been out of order, the honourable member for Shortland would have found himself back in his seat as quickly as the honourable member for Newcastle had better return to his seat.

page 2883

QUESTION

URANIUM EXPORTS: BRITISH DELEGATION

Dr EDWARDS:
BEROWRA, NEW SOUTH WALES

-My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Did the Government complete its negotiations with the British Minister for Energy, Dr Mabon, before he returned home?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-Dr Mabon completed his full itinerary here. The discussions were extremely useful and, as all honourable gentlemen know, Dr Mabon made quite clear the extent to which the British working people are depending upon supplies of uranium to produce energy for peaceful purposes. Dr Mabon conducted himself, I believe, with great propriety in the face of a certain degree of provocation on one or two occasions. What he was saying was completely consistent, as I have indicated to the House before, with the attitudes expressed by Mr Wedgwood Benn and also by the British Prime Minister, who rightly have not only a concern for matters of proliferation that are of major world concern but also a concern and an obligation in relation to their own people and in relation to the provision of energy to keep their factories operating. It ought to be noted that Dr Mabon did complete his full itinerary in this country. This is the normal program that is put out, and I would like to table it; if honourable gentlemen would like to look at it in order to make quite certain that he completed his itinerary. On Willesee at Seven on 3 November a certain person, when he was interviewed, said: . . . there are some people in Britain . . . who have allowed their judgment and their good sense to be warped by their own particular personal-

Then he was interrupted. He went on to say:

He was told by his Government to shut up and come home. He did and he has.

The honourable gentleman who made that statement knows quite well that it was a completely false statement. Dr Mabon did what he was intended to do and Dr Mabon completed his itinerary. Let me leave that as one more falsehood in a current affairs interview. I think these current affairs programs really ought to be applauded because the more they get the honourable gentleman on, the more he speaks and the more he mentions in front of large audiences and in front of the people of Australia various factors which are evidently false, the better the Government parties will like it over the next six weeks. I shall just point out one or two other things. I would not want to go exhaustively into the list of these matters, but he said: . . . if Utah and Ford were to pay taxes, as Australian owned companies have to, then there would be plenty to spare.

Ford, of course, as I am advised, does pay tax in the normal way. It is registered in Australia. A government might get $40m or $50m out of these companies, even with Labor’s vicious taxes, and I do not think that $40m or $50m would go very far towards paying the $3 billion for the promises that the honourable gentleman has already made. At another point the honourable gentleman said: … we didn’t have to devalue, we didn’t have to devalue.

He said that twice. Later in the interview he said it again. Would he like to say in this Parliament that the Labor Government did not devalue in its time, as he said three times in that television interview last night? That really was a plain, blatant, utter and knowing falsehood of which the honourable gentleman must have been well aware. If he was not aware of it and it was a moment’s mental aberration, really it is a stance claim for him to make while he is trying to lead a political party into an election, which I suppose his supporters are hoping he will lose. That was something said falsely three times- plainly, bla.tandy and evidently- last night on television. Yes, three times he said it. Of course, in September 1974 there was that particular devaluation. The honourable gentleman is exposing himself to the Australian people time and time again for what he has become, and all these parties want is for him to be given the maximum opportunity to show himself for what he is. I know that people then will vote accordingly.

page 2883

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN WOOL CORPORATION

Mr SINCLAIR:
NCP/NP

- Mr Speaker, I would like to supplement an answer which I gave during Question Time in response to a question from the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes). He asked specifically a question regarding some sales of wool from Flushing. In the time available I have not been able to identify sales from one selling centre, but wool is held at both Flushing and Tilburg and between 23 September and 14 October sales were made from stock piles in those two centres. I am advised that the realisation was approximately $1.7m. That represents not just the total cost value. The sales included a small premium which is always added to cover added costs of holding wool outside Australia and to compensate for the wool being sold privately. The idea is to try to make the Australian auction system more attractive. I am advised that the only sales that have been negotiated have been on that basis. There is no record of sales being made on the basis that the honourable gentleman has suggested.

Mr Scholes:

– I take a point of order. The matter I raised referred to last week and not to September.

page 2884

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW COUNCIL

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

– Pursuant to section 58 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, 1 present the annual report of the Administrative Review Council for 1976-77.

page 2884

LAW REFORM COMMISSION

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

– Pursuant to section 37 of the Law Reform Commission Act 1973, I present the report of the Law Reform Commission on ‘Insolvency: Regular payment of debts’.

page 2884

FAMILY LAW COUNCIL

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

– Pursuant to section 115(9) of the Family Law Act 1975, I present the first annual report 1977, of the Family Law Council. Copies of the report will be sent to all honourable members as soon as bulk supplies become available, In the meantime, copies of the report have been placed in the Parliamentary Library and Table Office.

page 2884

LOCAL GOVERNMENT: FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer · Stirling · LP

For the information of honourable members I present the report of the New South Wales Local Government Grants Commission and the Western Australian Local Government Grants Committee on financial assistance to councils for the year 1977-78. The recommendations made in these reports have already been made available to honourable members from New South Wales and Western Australia.

page 2884

AUSTRALIAN WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the report of the 20th meeting of the Australian Water Resources Council held in Adelaide on 5 August 1977.

page 2884

DARWIN CYCLONE TRACY RELIEF FUND

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the monthly report of the Darwin Cyclone Tracy Relief Trust Fund for September 1977.

page 2884

COUNCIL OF THE AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF MAKINE SCIENCE

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

– For the information of honourable members I present an interim annual report of the Council of the Australian Institute of Marine Science and an interim financial statement for the period 1 July 1976 to 30 June 1977. The final report will be tabled pursuant to statute when it is available. Copies of the interim report will be sent to all honourable 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 2884

DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT, HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

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

For the information of honourable members I present the annual report for 1977 of the Department of the Environment, Housing and Community Development. Copies of the report will be sent to all honourable members as soon as possible. In the meantime, copies of the report ave been placed in the Parliamentary Library and the Table Office.

page 2884

BANKRUPTCY ACT

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

– Pursuant to section 314 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966, I present the 10th annual report on the operation of the Bankruptcy Act 1 966 for the year ending 30 June 1 977.

page 2884

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the Opposition has indicated to me that he claims to have been misrepresented.

Mr E G Whitlam:
Leader of the Opposition · WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I seek leave therefore to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman may proceed.

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

-Today and yesterday, and maybe on an earlier occasion, the Prime

Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has misrepresented what I have had to say on unemployment in Australia and in other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. I want to correct the position. Australia has normally had a lower rate of unemployment than the average for OECD countries. This remained true during 1974 and 1975. In 1974, Australia experienced an unemployment rate of 2.2 per cent compared with the OECD average of 3.3 per cent. In 1975 the figures were 4.3 per cent for Australia and 5.1 per cent for the OECD average. Unemployment went up everywhere in that year. By the third quarter of 1976 the rate of unemployment in Australia had risen to 5.2 per cent, almost the same as the average rate in OECD countries which was, by then, 5.3 per cent. By the second quarter of this year the rates were identical- 5.5 per cent in Australia and also, on average, 5.5 per cent in the other OECD countries. The second quarter of this year is the last quarter for which OECD figures have been published. The current seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment in Australia has risen to 5.8 per cent. It is unlikely that the average figure for the OECD countries when published, will be found to have risen to 5.8 per cent.

Might I also mention a misprint in Hansard. Since the House will be rising soon the correction which will be made in the weekly Hansard will not be readily available. Yesterday the Prime Minister was giving an answer to the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) in which he .quoted a letter from Mr Justice Fox in these terms:

Whether my arguments and the changes were casually related I cannot tell but I find myself now in almost complete harmony.

I interrupted and said: ‘I think he said ‘causally related ‘. The daily Hansard shows me as saying:

I think he said ‘casually related ‘.

Hansard, I would have thought in error, has me repeating what the Prime Minister said. Hansard tells me that the weekly edition will contain the words ‘causally related’ which is what I said and which, I am sure, is what the judge said.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– I have a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman may proceed.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Impliedly the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam’ has misrepresented me in indicating that an answer I gave yesterday is not completely correct. He made an imputation about the figures that I gave in answer to a question. It is necessary to recall that in regard to inflation and unemployment when the Labor Party 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.

Those remarks were made during interviews on the This Day Tonight program and the Willesee show. The increase m unemployment under Labor was worse than in many other countries. Unemployment in 1975 was nearly three times the 1962-72 average in Australia. 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. Under Labor unemployment went up 157 per cent in one year. No other country can match that notorious record. The document that became public yesterday, evidently, the Tariff Board report politely named ‘how to increase imports’ but more properly named ‘how to increase unemployment’, demonstrated perfectly plainly that the Leader of the Opposition was pursuing a policy designed to increase unemployment.

Mr E. G. WHITLAM (Werriwa-Leader of the Opposition)- I claim to have been misrepresented by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). In those comments he intruded remarks about a document which was before the Cabinet considering the Budget in mid- 1973 and which was tabled with the Budget Papers in August 1973. The Prime Minister, of course, selectively quotes these documents and does not point out that for the first time the then Australian Government came out with a program for structural adjustment.

page 2885

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

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

I move:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Minister for Primary Industry moving the following motion:

This House censures the Leader of the Opposition for his persistently misleading and untruthful statements to the Australian people regarding the effects of the economic policy of his Government between 1972 and 1975 and the impact of the economic policy of the present Government since its election in 1975 as exemplified in recent weeks by his statements to the following effect:

1 ) His assertion that Australia ‘s rate of inflation has not fallen during 1976-77.

2 ) His false and misleading comparison of the economic performance of Australia and other Western countries during 1976 and 1977.

3 ) His claim that under the Labor Government inflation and unemployment were no worse than in other countries;

His claim that the Hayden Medibank scheme would cost no more than the present Medibank scheme; and (,5) His claim that the Australian Labor Government never devalued the Australian dollar.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The motion will need to be put in writing and seconded.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– I move this motion because in the last few weeks the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) has been appearing on a number of occasions on the media and around Australia and making statements which we believe to be deliberately contrary to the real position. In circumstances in which he is offering himself to the Australian people as an alternative Prime Minister, we believe that the suspension of Standing Orders to debate a motion of this sort is the only fit and proper way by which the Parliament of Australia and the people of Australia can adequately and effectively deliberate on matters which we believe are being distorted before the eyes and the ears of every Australian.

The position of Prime Minister of this country is such that no man can lay down his case and purport that case to be true when in fact it is not true without the people being advised to that effect. The proposal to suspend Standing Orders is to ensure that the people of Australia look back at the real record, the real facts and the circumstances of the whole economic program of the Whitlam Government. It is imperative that we suspend Standing Orders so that we can deliberate on these matters. We believe that the various statements which have been made by the Leader of the Opposition in public to the media, on the electronic media in particular, are deliberately misleading the Australian people on matters of substance and matters of real concern. For that reason I have moved that we suspend Standing Orders so that the debate can ensue on the substantive motion.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is the motion seconded?

Mr Howard:

– I second the motion.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-The Opposition will not oppose this motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. We realise that it is a parliamentary tactic which is being followed for the purpose of giving the Government some semblance of respectability in its claims in the electorate. We believe that Parliament is entitled to a debate on the economic management of the Government, and we will seek to have that debate. We believe that the Government ought to be exposed for the sort of fraud that it has perpetrated on this Parliament. In the deep hours the other night the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) came into the House and admitted to the Parliament that at Question Time he had used the seasonal figures of two years ago and compared them with the current figures. Thus he gave false information to the Parliament.

It is important that the Parliament debates the real issues. It is sitting at a time when an election has been called. In recent days the Government has sought on every possible occasion to prevent debate on matters of substance relating to the election. The Opposition will not oppose the motion, even though we realise that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) feel the need for this type of smokescreen in order to cover up matters of real substance which ought to be debated in the electorate. The Government will be using its numbers to carry the motion. I am fairly certain that the Leader of the House was hoping that we would oppose his motion. We will not.

I can assure the Leader of the House and other honourable members who sit behind him that those people who pay the Medibank levy, for instance, know that they pay it. It is not a mirage, as the Prime Minister seems to suggest, in the cost of living. The levy comes out of the pockets of the people. It may be a mirage to honourable gentlemen opposite. It is certainly important that the Parliament should expose the deception and the damage that has been done to this country by the self righteous, opinionated approach to policy of the Government. It has portrayed itself to everyone as God and has said that everyone who opposes it or suggests that it is wrong is guilty of a mortal sin and should be excommunicated from the community. We do not propose to oppose the motion.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman ought to keep theology out of the debate, if he does not oppose the motion.

Mr E G Whitlam:
Leader of the Opposition · WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The Opposition does not object to the suspension of Standing Orders for the purpose of debating this matter. It is quite clear that only by allowing a debate on this matter will the Opposition be given the opportunity to put the correct facts in relation to Australia and the rest of the world. I gave notice yesterday of a motion of censure. It was not taken immediately, as would be the normal practice. It is quite obvious from the antics of the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) that he will not today move for the suspension of the Standing Orders to take the motion of censure of which I gave notice yesterday. A week ago also I gave notice of a motion of censure. Again, the Leader of the House did not follow the normal procedure of immediately moving suspension of Standing Orders to enable the censure motion to be debated. On subsequent days no such motion was taken. I have therefore taken the censure motion off today’s Notice Paper. Instead, since it was likely that the Government would not call on the motion of censure of which I gave notice to be debated today, I put the substance of that censure in the form of a matter of public importance. I anticipate that you will call on that debate, Mr Speaker, because it is on the informal unofficial Blue Paper which we all have before us but that the Leader of the House will abort it by moving that the business of the House be called on or whatever the formula is.

The Opposition welcomes the opportunity of putting these questions straight in the Parliament. The Government has adopted the technique of providing its back benchers, particularly those who will be in this place for the last time next week, with questions which give the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) or the Treasurer (Mr Lynch)- when he is here- an opportunity to make prepared speeches and an opportunity to distort the facts and to misrepresent them completely. Out of this farrago of falsehoods which constantly spews forth from the Prime Minister and the Treasurer at Question Time, they and those who sit so forlornly behind them, hope to gain some publicity.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition refers to the matter before the Chair, namely, the suspension of Standing Orders.

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

-I am supporting the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. It is only when a substantive motion is before the House that members of Parliament, both front bench and back bench, have an equal opportunity to put their cases. Question Time has been so distorted by having Dorothy Dix questions thrown up by oncers to the Prime Minister or the Treasurer that the Opposition welcomes the opportunity to have a substantial debate. We have been constantly prevented from having that debate. I cannot remember a case when so many notices of censure have been ignored in this manner. There is one motion of censure on the notice paper which should be coming on today. It will not be coming on, so we can now put the case on the motion which the Government will move.

Let me say immediately, in case anybody believes there is any substance in that part of the motion which is now to be brought on which states that I claimed that the Labor Government never devalued the Australian dollar, that of course the Labor Government did devalue on one occasion. When, however, the Labor

Government went out of office the Australian dollar stood higher than when the Labor Government came in. The Australian dollar stands much lower now than it did when the Fraser Government was installed because of the frequent devaluations that this Government has made. Devaluations were always a prickly matter in the Government which preceded mine. The right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon) has disclosed the fact- and I hope he will be given the opportunity to repeat it, for it is a most valuable comment- that during the last debate that took place on devaluation in December 1971 he admitted that he was preparing to have a solely Liberal ministry sworn in. The Country Party was to be omitted from the ministry in the circumstances that he outlined. I do not want to go further, Mr Speaker, because you were the Treasurer at the time.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Furthermore, the honourable member should not go further because he is supposed to be discussing the reason why he supports the suspension of the Standing Orders. I have given him very great latitude. I ask him to return to the specific question of why Standing Orders should be suspended.

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

-I believe that the Standing Orders should be suspended in order that honourable members on both sides will have an opportunity of putting their cases. They would otherwise not have it. As I said by way of interjection which you permitted the other day, Mr Speaker, I look forward to the day when we meet after the elections and you are once again the Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia and Leader of the Opposition.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I wish to raise the point that, whilst we agreed to this debate proceeding, it seems to me to be a total misuse of the parliamentary forms. There are already on the Notice Paper a number of items which, if debated adequately, would cover the matters that are contained in the substantive motion. I refer to the Australian Rural Bank Bill, which I have no doubt will be debated in die most meagre fashion, the Beef Industry (Incentive Payments) Bill and the Industries Assistance Commission Amendment Bill. There are two reports on the Notice Paper which are unlikely to be debated. They have been on the Notice Paper for a long while. I refer to the report by the Department of Productivity and the White Paper and ministerial statement on Manufacturing Industry. They could cover the whole question of the economy of the country.

I regard the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders as a total misuse of parliamentary time and of the parliamentary power of the majority. During the last few weeks when we were debating the Estimates, in each instance the debate was cut short. Matters that ought to have been debated fully were not debated. I want to know for how long the debate on the censure motion will proceed. Will it be an open forum in which at least 10 or 12 members will take part, or will it be simply another foray, so that there is a record placed in Hansard, by two or three members from each side, and the rest of us being here to make up the numbers? On this matter I speak on behalf of everybody in this Parliament, I am sure. There has been a great deterioration in the opportunity for most back bench members to participate in debate. Honourable members will say to me: ‘Yes, but you make enough noise; you speak often enough . It is true that I do. I have spent a long time studying the Standing Orders so that I can take advantage of opportunities such as this to say what I have said now. There are other opportunities which I may take if I am not heard properly and in the way in which I think the man representing the people of Wills ought to be heard. My firm conviction is that the representative of the people of Wills ought to have as much right to speak in this House as the man who represents the people of Wannon. This is a consortium of equals. The way in which it has been handled is a disgrace to the parliamentary system.

Mr Sinclair:

-Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. I suggest that the honourable gentleman study the Standing Orders of which he professes to be so knowledgeable and return to the subject matter before the House.

Mr BRYANT:

– I am speaking about the necessity to suspend Standing Orders. I am saying that it is unnecessary. The point of order taken by the temporary honourable member for New England is a typical example of him and of his approach to everybody else in the place. Fortunately the lessons of history are clear to those who care to look. The people who exercise power in an arbitrary and a capricious fashion are due for the axe themselves before long.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2888

MOTION OF CENSURE

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

– I move:

That this House censures the Leader of the Opposition for his persistently misleading and untruthful statements to the Australian people regarding the effect of the economic policies of his Government between 1972 and 1975 and the impact of the economic policies of the present Government since its election in 1975 as exemplified in recent weeks by his statements to the following effect-

1 ) His assertion that Australia ‘s rate of inflation has not fallen during 1976-77.

His false and misleading comparisons of the economic performance of Australia and other Western countries during 1976 and 1977.

3 ) His claim that under the Labor Government inflation and unemployment were no worse than in other countries.

His claim that the Hayden Medibank scheme would cost no more than the present Medibank scheme.

His claim that the Labor Government never devalued the Australian dollar.

It is not lightly that the Government launches this motion, and contrary to the assertions made during the debate on the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders the purpose of this motion is to ensure an adequate opportunity for people outside this place to know something of the farago of falsehoods, if I might use the phrase that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) has used, that has been spread around Australia on the media and in the newspapers by those people who are putting themselves up as the alternative government of this country and who in a few weeks will seek to offer themselves as the Government of this country. The list of items in the motion is brief but the number of false assertions by the Leader of the Opposition is many. The motion lists five. The first paragraph in the motion is:

His assertion that Australia’s rate of inflation has not fallen during 1976-77.

What utter nonsense! Can the man not read? Can he not understand? Probably the answer is no. Surely, with all that economic advice, conflicting though it might be, by those several and successive Treasurers, would-be Treasurers and possible Treasurers behind him, there is a capacity for him to understand that the consumer price index at this stage indicates that the rate of inflation in Australia is now below double digits. What a contrast to the 19.4 per cent inflation rate at the height of the Labor years. The second paragraph m the motion is:

His false and misleading comparisons of the economic performance of Australia and other Western countries during 1976 and 1977.

Statistically, every comparison between Australia and other countries shows that we are doing very well. A couple of other countries are doing better than we are, but over the whole of the parameter of the average of the countries which are members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development there is no doubt. Our economy is picking up. I want to say a little in a moment about the state of play as we inherited it in December 1975. Everybody should look at the alternative, look at the man who was there for only two years and who has already acknowledged that if he were to be elected he would be only a lame duck Prime Minister, not a man there for the full term, not a man who wants to stay but a man who wants to get out. Quite obviously those behind him also want that. Whether he will stay after he is defeated at the election, as he undoubtedly will be, .is another interesting matter of contention.

In terms of his comparison of economic performance, there is no substance whatsoever in his suggestion that the Australian economy is not now improving significantly. The various economic writers who have been looking at the performance during the last three months, in particular looking at the last CPI figure, are acknowledging that it now signifies that the Australian economy is rising out of the morass into which the Labor Party led us more than three years ago. The third paragraph in the motion is:

His claim that under the Labor Government inflation and unemployment were no worse than in other countries.

Again, that is an utterly false contention. It is misleading. It is deliberately seeking to put the Australian voter into a position of believing that in some way the improvement that is demonstrable is not real. On the contrary, the assertions that the Leader of the Opposition makes are unreal. They are intent on leading people into a totally false belief on the overall state of the man’s capacity in government.

Mr Charles Jones:

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-A quorum is not present. Ring the bells.

The bells being rungMr Graham- Mr Speaker, if it had not been necessary to call for a quorum, what would you have done to the honourable member for Newcastle :

Mr SPEAKER:

– I leave it to the honourable gentleman’s imagination.

Mr Charles Jones:

– Under Standing Orders I would have been suspended, but I counted the number of members present. I counted the number of heads opposite and noticed how many were missing. (Quorum formed).

Mr SINCLAIR:

-I am indebted to the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) for drawing attention to the state of the House. It gives me an opportunity to state that the number of members of the Labor Party who have been in the House this week has been an absolute disgrace. Sixteen members voted in a division on

Tuesday. I do not believe that on any earlier occasion has the number of members of a major Australian party voting been so few. The next day the number of members who voted was 17. Today five members are present.

Mr Charles Jones:

– I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. The honourable member for New England is correct. Sixteen Labor members voted in the division to which the Minister referred, but more than 30 members opposite were absent at the same time.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order involved. Before I call the Minister, I remind the House that under the Standing Orders any honourable member can draw attention to the state of the House and call for a quorum. Therefore, there is no need for a discussion about the quorum. Any discussion about the quorum is not relevant to the motion. Therefore I call upon the leader of the House to continue his speech.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– The fourth paragraph in the motion is:

His claim that the Hayden Medibank scheme would cost no more than the present Medibank scheme.

That is deliberately misleading. The Hayden Medibank scheme, on its past costing, has to be inflated to the present value and the cost of providing it. To do so makes that statement totally false. The final paragraph in the motion is:

His claim that the Labor Government never devalued the Australian dollar.

That statement, too, is of course a farago of falsehood. I turn now to the detail, because I want to speak at some length on it. Recently on This Day Tonight Mr Whitlam said, regarding inflation and unemployment:

It didn’t hit Australia worse than other countries . . .

On Willesee at Seven he said:

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

On another edition of that program, dealing with inflation during this Government’s term, he said: . . . Japan, Western Europe, North America … in all those countries it has improved in 1976 and 1977 and in Australia it has not.

On another This Day Tonight program he said: . . . in 1976 and 1977 inflation has gone down in other countries. It hasn’t in Australia.

Liking the sound of his own rhetoric he said on another Willesee at Seven program: . . . inflation has gone down in all the other Western countries, scarcely at all in Australia.

Those statements are deliberately misleading and false. Speaking on unemployment during this Government’s term, the Leader of the Opposition said: . . . Canada and the United States and West Germany . . . they don’t have as much unemployment

He went on: . . . unemployment has certainly gone down in every other Western country . . . You can’t quote another country in the world where it has gone up anywhere near that at all.

Unquestionably, the Leader of the Opposition was making two assertions. The first was that under Labor Australia’s economic performance was as good as that of other countries. The second was that under the present Government it is worse. It is for that reason that I believe it is quite imperative that we look at the real record and see where we are.

Firstly, Labor’s inflation was demonstrably worse than that of many other countries. There are so many statements, articles and commentaries about the record of those Labor days that there is little point in my going through them all today. I wish to mention only two. One is an article by Professor Michael Parkin, who has the chair in Economics at the University of Western Ontario. He was a visiting research economist at the Reserve Bank of Australia in 1973. In an article in the Australian Financial Review on 14 January 1976 he commented about the Whitlam performance:

This is a worse stagflation performance than that achieved by any comparable country.

So much for the performance of Labor. He said:

There is no mystery as to why the Australian economy suffered a worse stagflation than any other major country. It was not because of the behaviour of Australia’s labour unions: it was not because Australia was in a particularly vulnerable position . . .

The stagflation was made in Canberra by budgetary and monetary policies which can only be described as insane.

The problem with Whitlam ‘s economic management can be summed up in a phrase as “too much, too often’.

The Labor Government has left the Australian economy in a very dangerous situation.

Just in case there is any mistake in the minds and memories of people about those days of Labor mismanagement, I refer to an article in the Economist of 27 March 1976. This was an article in the British media describing something of the problems that Britain saw in Australia. It made this comment about the Australian economy in those Labor days:

This is now in a state of even greater confusion than most other Western economies . . .

The major economic mistake of the Whitlam government was that Mr Whitlam himself was more interested in foreign policy and the quality-of-life issue at home than he was in economics, and at the decisive period of his prime ministership he left the economy in the charge of left-wingers whom he never really tried to get under control until it was too late.

It is that, above all else, that the people of Australia need to recognise as one of the Achilles’ heels of the present Labor regime. In the problems and traumas of the Labor management one finds the Leader of the Opposition still subject to the same insidious influence by the communist trade union leaders and the radical left wing. There is no change. The problem identified in the article in the Economist of March 1976 is the problem that exists today. It talked about the encouraging of ‘a flood of wage increases far beyond the rise in productivity’. There is a comment about the replacement of the successive Treasurers. There is a comment about the extent to which they were inclined ‘to say yes to virtually every proposal for increased public spending’. The article goes on:

No economy could stand the double inflationary pressure of a budget deficit this size and a government-encouraged wages explosion. To be sure, Australia was bound to be hit by the general world inflation to some extent But a reasonable guess is that its own inflation could have been held down to about eight to ten per cent if the economy had been managed better, the country does not, after all, need to import most of its raw materials, and it supplies two thirds of its own oil. Instead, inflation went up to 17 per cent at its peak. The overpricing of labour, and the squeeze this applied to the cash flow of companies, sent unemployment up higher than it need have gone . . .

They are only two of the commentaries on the state of play in those days. Thirdly, Labor certainly generated a pace of escalating unemployment that was greater than that in any of the other member countries of the OECD. In the United States of America it went up 1.8 times the 1962-72 average; in Australia three times; in Japan 1.6 times; in Canada 1.4 times; and in the United Kingdom 1.75 times. Labor’s record was three times the average. Under Labor unemployment rose 157 per cent in one year. So much for the claim of the Leader of the Opposition that unemployment was not bad. Under Labor inflation rose above 17 per cent. The underlying rate of inflation today has geen reduced, if one takes the annual rate for the first nine months of this year, to 9.1 per cent. There is no doubt that each one of the assertions by the Leader of the Opposition is made deliberately to mislead the Australian electorate. There is no doubt that the statements are not accurate. They have no substance in fact, and they are deliberately intended to persuade the Australian people in some way that those disastrous three Labor years can be put aside.

An interesting article was published in the Reader’s Digest in the United States in January this year. It was published only in the United States, but it identifies one of the problems that we have had. So many of the overseas commentators accepted that under the successive LiberalCountry Party governments prior to 1972 there was a continuity and responsibility in government. They knew that government was understandable and trustworthy. But the article I am about to read illustrates just what those Labor years did to Australia’s reputation. It is headed ‘The Sobering Story of Australia’s Big Spending’. The Labor Prime Minister might well be called the last of the big spenders. The article begins:

In April 1975, the Australian economy was in its worst shape since the Great Depression. The country’s socialist Labor Government was running a $3 billion deficit, five per cent of the gross national product. Business confidence had all but vanished, unemployment had soared to the highest level in 30 years and inflation had accelerated to an annual rate of 13.4 per cent. In Canberra, Australia’s federal capital, a wry joke went the rounds: ‘The only Australian factory working day and night is the government mint. ‘

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Is it possible to obtain some silence from Government back benchers while the Government Minister is speaking? I cannot hear him.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr SINCLAIR:

- Mr Speaker, I can understand the honourable gentleman ‘s distress. After all, he has now been laid aside finally as the alternative Labor Treasurer. Firstly. he was offered a position in foreign affairs and defence. Quite obviously the Leader of the Opposition at that stage was not too sure whether the honourable member for Oxley was really going to be a contender for the leadership or how soon, but they came to an arrangement. The arrangement is not that the Leader of the Opposition will make the honourable member for Oxley the next Treasurer. Far from it. He will have a hotchpotch of financial and economic miscellany. We are not too sure what it will contain. We are quite sure that if he has advice it may or may not be taken.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I remind the right honourable gentleman that he is moving a censure of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr SINCLAIR:

- Mr Speaker, how right it is. The point of it all is that it is the Leader of the Opposition who at the moment, according to the latest record, is intending to appoint the honourable member for Oxley to one of those uncertain economic advisory roles. It is the Leader of the Opposition whose credibility is suspect and against whom this motion is directed. It is the Leader of the Opposition who suggested on one day that the honourable member for Oxley would have two impossible portfolios so that the honourable member for Oxley presumably could not possibly be in Australia long enough to be available sufficiently to be a plausible alternative to the Leader of the Opposition. Finally we know the truth. The Leader of the Opposition has said: ‘I will have two years’. He will be lucky if he has two months.

It is important that the Australian people remember that the commentary I am now giving from a Reader’s Digest analysis of what happened in the Australian economy over those years is the sort of view that the average man or woman in other countries is getting of the Australian status under a Labor government. The first article I quoted was from the Economist. The second quotation I gave was from a university professor of economics. The one I am now quoting is the sort of document that average men and women read, and I think it is very important.

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

– What is the date of the Reader’s Digest

Mr SINCLAIR:

-I would be happy to table the document. The Leader of the Opposition may have it. It was published only in the United States edition in January 1977, but I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that it was talking about the performance of the economy under him. It states:

When Labor came into office in late 1972, unemployment was just 2.4 per cent and inflation 4.5 per cent- an economic performance matched only by West Germany.

Is the Leader of the Opposition suggesting that it was not so when he came into office? Of course not. What happened? The whole of the development over those three years led to this commentary by my predecessor as Leader of the House: ‘Few of us bothered to count the cost in those early days’, said Fred Daly. ‘We spent money as if it were going out of fashion’, said Fred Daly. That is what one of his colleagues thought of him. Remember those commentaries he made in his first years in office that the Labor Government had some special relationship with the trade union movement. But strikes proliferated and 2.634 million working days were lost- a 31 per cent increase over that for the 1972 period. Then of course we had the Khemlani affiair and those Iraqi breakfasts and all those disastrous attempts to try to cover up and patch up the economy in ways that led to the Labor Government’s defeat in December 1975.

One of the things that does worry me in terms of the credibility of the Leader of the Opposition is that he is now saying he has learned his lesson; that perhaps the Labor Government was rash; that if he oners himself to the people on an economic program it will be properly costed. That demonstrably is not true. The demonstrable untruths in the statements he has made to the public in the media in the last few weeks set theackground. He has successively made a number of statements. They have been contradicted by the truth. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), in answers in this House, has successively gone through each of those points.

The point I first wish to make is that the credibility of the Leader of the Opposition as an alternative Prime Minister is ml. The second point is that the people of Australia need to realise that the statements he is making about his performance as Prime Minister, about the economy under Labor, are equally totally wrong. The third point is that as far as our performance is concerned most of the traumas we have had in trying to establish again common sense and rationality in developing sound economic programs, in again launching Australia into a position of full employment, have been because of the heritage of those Whitlam years. In the primary industry sector alone, there are so many areas where, as a result of the implementation of those Coombs report recommendations, Australian farmers were significantly disadvantaged. Of course Mr Whitlam has never had any particular regard for the farming community. Setting that aside, his assertion of what his government might do needs to be seen in the light of the mis-statements he has been making in the media in recent weeks.

This censure motion is presented to the Parliament and to the Australian public because it is essential that people realise that in no way have the economic policies of Labor changed from those of the Labor regime of 197S. They need to remember the product of the economic programs of the Whitlam Government in 1975 and, in looking at the statements that Mr Whitlam has made in recent weeks, accept that not only has he not learned his lesson but also that he is not prepared to tell the truth about it.

Mr E G Whitlam:
Leader of the Opposition · WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ‘this House censures the Fraser Government for its economic policies which have caused a serious deterioration of the economy during 1977.’

I am not going back to the appearance of the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) on the Willesee program because the misrepresentations and falsehoods he committed there and the threats he carried out against Mr Willesee and the program mean that he is not likely to face interrogation in any searching media forum during this campaign.

Mr Sinclair:

– For an honest man it would be easy. I would hardly do that in front of you.

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

– Willesee revealed and the Leader of the House has never disputed and has never even sought to justify the fact that he signed documents that in two of his family companies there were misappropriations of a quarter of a million dollars in the last four years.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition will remain relevant to the motion.

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

-Yes, I shall, Mr Speaker. I first state this fact: The Australian economy is now more depressed than at any time since the middle of 1972. This is the finding of an impeccable source- the Australia and New Zealand Bank. I am referring not to a United States edition of the Reader’s Digest of last January but to the ANZ Bank’s index of economic activity released two days ago. This index is based on the Bank ‘s own measures of the level of factory production, of job vacancies, retail sales and motor vehicle registrations. The index shows the appalling extent to which the economy has fallen below the level of economic activity which could be expected on the basis of past trends of economic growth. It shows that the Australian economy has fallen far below the level of output and income which should have existed and has fallen lower than at any time since mid- 1 972.

This is the measure of the consequences of the Fraser Government’s policies for economic recovery- the government which was going to turn on the lights. Instead, the ANZ index throws an entirely new light on the state of the economy. It is true that most people discount entirely the claims of recovery made by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Treasurer (Mr Lynch), who avoids Question Time. So they should discount those claims. The more charitable observers have thought that Australia was now just stagnating- striving for salvation through stagnation, as the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) has said. But the evidence which is now becoming available shows that far from recovering, as the Government has claimed, the Australian economy has declined severely during 1977. There has not merely been stagnation; the recession is deepening and deepening.

The central truth about this Government’s economic management is that it has chosen policies which are deliberately aimed at driving down production, output and employment. This is the result of its hostility to the public sector, even when the effect of crippling the public sector is to cripple the private sector equally. A competent, compassionate government would recognise that its true task lay in reducing the rate of inflation and unemployment together, and that these twin aims can ‘best be achieved by careful, selective, stimulatory policies aimed at moving the economy progressively towards fuller employment and greater price stability. This Government, however, has chosen the destructive approach of deliberately retarding recovery. The consequence has been severely to depress all economic activity and to increase the difficulty of eventual recovery because of the distortions which are being effected in the economy.

Let us examine the facts. The ANZ Bank index shows a severe recession in 1961- the result of the Menzies credit squeeze- a shallower trough in 1966-67, a sharp deterioration in 1971 ending in about April 1972, a splendid expansionary phase throughout 1973, a decline during the world-wide recession following the oil crisis of 1974, and the beginning of recovery in late 1975 and early 1976 when the effects of the Hayden Budget were still working. Since the beginning of 1977 it has been falling sharply. This new recessionthe worst slump for five years- is all the Fraser Government’s own work.

The ANZ index is made up of four indicators: Total new motor vehicle registrations, retail sales, factory production and job vacancies. Registrations of new motor vehicles have fallen in each of the last three months and in September were 5 per cent lower than a year earlier. Retail sales increased by 1 1 per cent during the last year. Since the existing rate of inflation was 13.1 per cent, this means that real retail sales have fallen during the last year by 2. 1 per cent.

Factory production, which is the third indicator, has been falling since the beginning of 1977. The decline has been continuous since January. Total factory production is now well below the level in November 1975 when this Government was installed. The number of job vacancies registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service fell sharply during the first five months of this year and has remained at the same low levels since then. The ratio for unemployed to vacancies is now 16: 1.

Let me emphasise: These are not my figures or my chosen indicators. They are the key indicators chosen by the ANZ Bank to show the current state of the economy. They have been chosen from amongst a great many available series as being most suitable as indicators of the present state of the economy. Most indicators lag considerably behind events. These ones are available fairly quickly. They represent a crosssection of real activity in the economy. And most important, they have been found by the experts to be the most accurate guides to the real level of aggregate economic activity.

The ANZ index has not been published before. We are fortunate that it should become available now, because it shows us clearly the state into which the economy has fallen as a result of Fraser-Lynch policies. The message of the ANZ survey is repeated in every other indicator published since the Prime Minister announced his panic election. The message is plain and it is always the same: There has been severe economic deterioration throughout 1977. For example, at the beginning of this week the most recent month’s home building approvals were released by the Statistician. They show that home building approvals slumped during the last year. In September they were 22 per cent lower than in September last year. In fact building approvals are now 14 per cent lower than they were in September 1975. This is particularly serious because building approvals are another leading indicator of the level of economic activity.

Another indicator published a week ago is the Statistician’s unemployment figures- the Prime Minister’s own preferred index of unemployment. The Statistician says that 5.8 per cent of the work force is now unemployed. He has also estimated that at least another 65,000 people have ceased to seek work because of repeated rejection and disappointment. He classifies them as ‘discouraged persons’. So real unemployment is already above 400,000. This means that unemployment will rise above half a million early next year. Unless there is a change of policies, and that requires a change of Government, it will remain higher than in 1977 throughout 1978.

Under this Government there has been a dramatic drop in private sector employment. Total private employment has declined by 50,000 since November 1975. So much for the recovery of the private sector under a private enterprise Government!

What we have now is a new slump brought on by deliberate domestic policy. This is not a continuation of the world wide downturn of 1974-75. It is a new recession-all Australia’s own work. Real government outlays have fallen during the last two years. In its obsessive hostility to the public sector the Fraser Government has taken perverse pride in an ^discriminate and arbitrary slashing of cost-effective programs. Yet it does not have the wit to see that what it is doing does not make room for the private sector. It merely reduces the demand for the goods and services produced by the private sector. Our obsessed and obsessive Prime Minister cannot see that the two sectors depend on each other.

The Fraser Government has been inflicting wounds on the Australian economy. We are now in the midst of a recession caused directly by domestic policy. In late 1974 and early 1975 Australia shared a recession with the rest of the world. In contrast, the 1977 recession is internally generated. This is all the Fraser Government’s own work. The Prime Minister, in his characteristic fashion, has tried to create confusion about this in every Question Time. The facts are unambiguous. In 1974 and 1975 the annual rates of growth in Australia were one per cent to 1.5 per cent respectively. During those two years the average level of economic activity fell in countries belonging to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

In 1974 the OECD average fell by 0.1 per cent and, in 1 975, by one per cent. In both those years therefore, while output was falling overseas, it continued to grow m Australia. The difference between the situation in Australia and the situation in the OECD countries as a whole was quite marked. Our rate of growth was 1.1 per cent faster than the OECD average in 1974 and 2.5 per cent faster in 1975. These are the OECD’s own figures. The exact reverse is true for 1976 and for the estimates for 1977. In 1976 national income grew by 3.6 per cent in Australia but by 5.2 per cent on average in the OECD countries. The rate of growth in Australia was well below the OECD average last year. In the current year the rate of growth in Australia is estimated to be 2 per cent and, in the OECD countries, 4 per cent. That is, under Labor, Australia’s growth rate was higher than the OECD average; under Fraser it is lower.

Only one conclusion can be drawn from these facts and figures. During the years of international recession of 1974 and 1975 Australia’s national income continued to grow. The Labor Government’s policies prevented Australia from experiencing the worst of the international recession. Yet during the last two years the contractionary policies of the Fraser Government have forced an artificially low rate of growth on Australia. Under Labor, Australia performed better than most OECD countries. Under the Liberals, Australia has performed far worse than other OECD countries. And why? Because other governments have been encouraging economic expansion while this blinkered Government has been ensuring recession. The most recent Australian national accounts show that the national income actually fell in Australia in the first half of this year.

Earlier I gave the unemployment figures which showed that in 1974 and 1975 the gap between the OECD average and Australia was in Australia’s favour but that in 1976 and 1977 it contracted and disappeared. Unemployment in Australia is still worsening. Whereas Australia used to be below the other industrialised countries in unemployment, it now has a rate of unemployment higher than their average. Unemployment in Australia has been worsening relative to the situation in most other industrialised countries.

All this havoc, deterioration and damage have been done in the name of fighting inflation. So let us examine the facts about inflation. In the year to September 1975 the rate of inflation in Australia was 12.1 per cent. This was the rate of inflation in this country when the last election was held. At that time the average annual rate of inflation in the OECD countries was 10.4 per cent. In the year to September 1976 the rate of inflation in Australia was 13.9 per cent; in the OECD countries it was 8.3 per cent. In 1975 the difference between Australia and the OECD countries was 1.7 per cent. In 1976 it became 5.6 per cent. It sharply increased in this Government’s first year.

The rate of inflation in Australia in the year from September 1976 to September this year was 13.1 per cent. The OECD average was 9.4 per cent. The difference is 3.7 per cent. The figures show dramatically that Australia’s inflation rate has not improved and has tended to worsen relative to other industrialised countries during this Government’s term of office. The Fraser Government has had two years in which to experiment. All the evidence shows clearly that its policies have failed. It refuses to change its policies; therefore a new government must be elected. Two years ago, the Prime Minister demanded three years. He has only himself to blame when the people say on 10 December. You’ve had enough- and we’ve had enough’.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is the amendment seconded?

Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley

– I second the amendment The Government has persistently misled and has been consistently untruthful in its statements to the Australian public on the economy. It has been equally misleading and untrustworthy in its forecasts about the performance of the economy in 1978.

Mr Bourchier:

– I raise a point of order.

Mr HAYDEN:

– The fact is that the Australian public cannot afford another term of a LiberalNational Country Party government

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Oxley will resume his seat.

Mr Bourchier:

- Mr Speaker, it is all right The clock was not on. It has now been fixed. We would hate the honourable member to have any more time than he should have. He wastes words at any time.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I repeat that Australia cannot afford the high cost of another term of government by the conservative coalition parties. The 1976-77 recession cost Australia in excess of $3,600m in lost domestic product. A conservative estimate is that lost domestic product in this financial year will exceed $4,500m. The Government likes to imply that there is enormous disruption and cost to the Australian community because of industrial disruption. Lost work days through the recession in 1976-77 exceeded 68 million. Compare that against a little over 3 million work days lost through industrial disputes. Compare the high cost in lost domestic product which was the result of the disastrous economic policies of the Government in that year- $3,600m- with the cost in lost domestic product through industrial disputes of $ 1 70m.

It is a simple matter to calculate the working days lost through unemployment after allowing for holidays and so on and relating that as a ratio of the total wage bill to gross domestic product. I point out that the result is that the disastrous consequences of Liberal-National Country Party Administration during 1976-77 exceeded $3,600m in lost domestic product for this country. That means more than 5 per cent of the gross domestic product of this country for that year was lost. That is a conservative estimate because it makes no allowance at all for hidden unemployment which represents probably another 2 per cent on top of the official unemployment statistics. The Government is claiming that there will be a recovery in the new year. The Treasurer (My Lynch) is on record as saying this. Nothing could be more deceptive and dishonest than that statement. The Government does not believe it. If inflation is to be reduced to single digit figures in the new year, if the economy is going to be moving forward again strongly, then why is the Government going to the people at this point when, politically its situation is so precarious? Why is it seeking an election when the opinion polls show so convincingly that it would be very lucky indeed to win government? The fact is that in the new year there will be record high unemployment, the country will be in the grip of stagnation and there will be little impact at all upon the level of inflation in the country. That is why the Government is seeking a Senate election some seven months ahead of the normal time and a House of Representatives election more than a year ahead of the normal time.

The Treasurer’s suggestion yesterday, which was reported in the media this morning, that there is expected to be a substantial reduction in inflation in the course of this financial year is nothing but cheap pie in the sky served up as election fare. Not even the Government believes that because none of its advisers believes it. Let us look at what these advisers have been telling the Government. The Reserve Bank of Australia has told the Government that by June next year unemployment will be of the order of 6 per cent, much higher than for any month this year. Month by month this year we have had the highest unemployment since the Great Depression of nearly half a century ago. The Reserve Bank of Australia- the information has been published- has indicated that the rate of growth in the economy will be down to about 1.3 per cent- almost a dead halt. After the very slow rate of growth last year, which was higher than is projected for next year, it is quite evident that as bad as things have been this year in economic terms, they will be far worse next year. The Reserve Bank report says bluntly that the effects of the Government’s monetary policy and the general thrust of economic management imply a credit squeeze in the course of this financial year. That is a clear implication of Treasury documentation attached to the Budget Papers.

The Treasury does not believe the false state- ‘ ments, the untruthful statements, the dishonest statements, which are being circulated in die community by Government spokesmen, especially the Treasurer. It is a conspiracy of deception against the Australian public for any Government spokesman to suggest even for a minute that there will be an improvement in the economy in the new year. Treasury documentation makes that abundantly clear. I have quoted from the assessment of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development of the Australian economy. I stand pretty much by what I have said. My sources are reliable and impeccable.

Mr Shipton:

-Pretty much!

Mr HAYDEN:

-Let us be clear about the substance of these statements. Whether or not the review has been completed in literary detail, the fact is that economic forecasts are available in the OECD, I checked with the local source of my information today, which show that the rate of growth in 1978 will be about 2V4 per cent as against an increase in productivity of about 2 per cent and a growth in the work force of about 2 per cent. That clearly implies an increase in unemployment in calendar year 1978 of something like In per cent. There have been grand claims by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) that the deflator has increased by only 9 per cent. OECD forecasts and projections show that for this year the GDP deflator is expected to increase by about 1 1 per cent, an increase, therefore, on the figure the Prime Minister has been quoting for an earlier annual period, but falling in part of this calendar year, over this calendar year which has been forecast by the OECD. More importantly, the best forecast now before the OECD is about 1014 per cent for calendar year 1978. We are going to have the enormous dislocation of massive increases in unemployment, an economy that is scarcely moving, a deepening of the recession, far more dismal prospects for business and scarcely any dent at all in the rate of inflation in this country.

Something has been made by the Treasurer of the increase in the consumer price index for the September quarter of 2 per cent. This is only a marginal improvement over the 2.2 per cent for the September quarter last year. Let us look at the interesting parallel between the excessively optimistic and totally hypocritical claims being made by Government spokesmen about their success in conquering inflation in the September quarter. If one goes back to newspapers subsequent to the release of the CPI figures for the September quarter last year, one finds that exactly the same statements were made. I quote from the Brisbane Courier-Mail of 22 October 1976. It said:

The reduced inflation rate revealed by the latest Consumer Price Index figures showed that the Government’s economic strategy was working, the Prime Minister (Mr Fraser) said yesterday.

That is a direct quote. The article continues: ‘The foundations for a sound, sustainable recovery in economic conditions, and employment are now emerging’, Mr Fraser said.

That was a dishonest statement. It was made 12 months ago but the Prime Minister’s speech writer has not thought of anything new to say. The Prime Minister is making equally dishonest statements today about the inflation rate following the release of the September quarter figure. The Canberra Times of ‘22 October 1976 said:

The Treasurer, Mr Lynch, said the September quarter movements reflected the important progress the Government had made in reducing inflation.

Some progress! Inflation for last financial year was worse than for the annual period to September 1976. The Sydney Morning Herald of 77 October 1975 said:

The Treasurer, Mr Lynch, hailed today’s announcement as an important step in reducing inflation and a justification for the Government’s economic strategy.

Inflation was worse for the year ended June this year as against the year ended June the previous year, and is only marginally better for the year ended September this year than for the year ended September last year, yet the Treasurer is making these outlandish claims. The fact is that the Treasurer’s policies, in fact the Government’s policies in economic management have failed. Let us look at the indicators of price change in the latest Treasury roundup. If we look at the broadly based figures, the early indicators of price movements, we find, for instance, that the implicit deflator for gross non-farm product in March was 4.8 per cent. We find that the external implicit deflator for imports of goods and services was 10.6 per cent in March and 5.5 per cent in June. The external implicit deflator for imported materials used in manufacturing was 11.4 per cent in March. Those forces now are feeding through the economy because of lag problems and economic effects. That means, very simply, that they will tend to telescope into the December quarter and alter and accentuate the inflationary effects of the 1 1 cents per gallon increase in the price of petrol announced m the Budget by the Treasurer. That is the sort of result we are getting and that is why the Government has decided to call an election earlier than later. The economy will not be better later so as bad as things are now it is better to go to the polls earlier because the consequences politically will be disastrous if the Government waits.

Let us look at the remorseless rise in unemployment which is the direct product, the conscious product, of the Government’s policies. The Government believes the more it can increase unemployment, the more it can grind the economy towards a dead halt, the less inflation we will have. It has been very successful in increasing unemployment remorselessly, in grinding the economy towards a dead halt but it has not been particularly successful in reducing inflation. Unemployment in the early new year will be of the order of 7% per cent to 8 per cent, that is, between 465,000 and 500,000 people will be out of work. As many as half a million people will be out of work in the early new year, most of them young people. Compare that with the current situation of a little over 300,000. Since this Government has been in office it has been successful in the area of determinedly increasing unemployment. It has increased unemployment by 24 per cent so far. It is going to increase unemployment by 40 per cent on top of that in the New Year. When we were in government we increased the number of people in the work force by about 150,000. Since this Government came to office it has reduced the number of people in the work force by 11,000. In that period about 120,000 people who would have been added to the available work force are not accounted for in the official statistics. Therefore, one gets a better insight into the sorts of problems confronting this country and the abject failure of Government economic policy.

What does this Government care about human suffering? Not a jot. In our last Budget we set aside $153m for employment creating programs. The best this Government can provide in this Budget is $7m. If honourable members look at page 92 of the Budget Speech and statements, in Statement No. 3 attached to the Budget they will find that $40m is allocated for the cattle, sheep and pig meat industries. Cattle sheep and pig meat are more important than human beings and the distress that they are suffering. The Utah Development Corporation is able to ship out of this country, in respect of its financial year just completed, some $20m which if adequate income tax laws had been applied could nave been paid to this country as withholding tax. That $20m could have done a lot to relieve the distress of unemployment in Australia. No step has been taken yet -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman)Order! There are too many audible interjections in the chamber. I ask honourable members to listen to the honourable member for Oxley in silence.

Mr Hodgman:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Is it in order for the honourable member for Oxley continually to mislead this House with falsehood after falsehood after falsehood, knowing that the statements he makes are totally and absolutely untrue? It is a scandal and a disgrace -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Denison will resume his seat. There is no substance in the point of order, and the honourable member knows it.

Mr HAYDEN:

– The honourable member for Denison, with a carnation in his lapel, a limp wrist and a lisp on his lips, makes a spurious point. He has a mind like an unweeded garden that grows to seed, possessed of things rank and coarse in their nature. He is unworthy of any time in this Parliament.

What this Government has achieved is an unemployment rate amongst young people that is 300 per cent worse than that for the rest of the population of Australia and a 35 per cent unemployment rate amongst Aboriginals, resulting in a situation in which it is reported in the newspapers that young people are literally being driven to attempted suicide because of the distress and the depression of unemployment. It was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald of 2 November that 350 young people m the Blacktown area had attempted suicide. The article reads:

Unemployment is a major stress factor which has set the stage for a large number of these attempted suicides . . .

The Government provides more money for cattle, sheep and pig meat than it is prepared to provide for human distress. Such is the measure of the concern of the Government. The year 1978 will be a disastrous year for this country. The economy will be in a far worse conditionunemployment will be far worse and there will be little improvement in inflation. That is why the Government is seeking an early election -

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

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– I move:

That the honourable member for Oxley be granted an extension of time.

I have moved this motion because of the deliberate interruptions by members of the Government parties.

Question put.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker- Mr A. W. Jarman)

AYES: 22

NOES: 65

Majority…… 43

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

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

-This debate is about the political credibility of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam). It is entirely appropriate that at this time and in this place we should have a debate about the political credibility of the Leader of the Opposition. We ought to have that debate for two reasons: Firstly, to remind the Australian people of just what happened when he was in charge of the affairs of this nation and, secondly, to remind them that if, by mischance, he were ever given the opportunity to be Prime Minister again he would do it all again. Out of his own mouth is an admission that if ever the Labor Party became the Government of this country again he would do it all again.

I think one of the most interesting commentaries on the political fortunes of the Labor Party that can be found at present is an analysis of its approach at Question Time. One would have thought that a parliamentary opposition, six weeks before an election, an election which it says it has a chance of winning, would have organised itself at Question Time and would have endeavoured to probe the policies and the performance of the Government But no, do we see any sign of organisation? Do we see any trace of a systematic approach? No! The only element of co-ordination and synchronisation which has come from the Opposition during Question Time has been scurrilous attempts to impugn the integrity of certain Ministers of this Government. The levels to which members of the Opposition have sunk, particularly the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris), the sort of questions that have been asked and the sort of implications in them are a very sad commentary. They are a very sad commentary on the contribution to political life by the Parliamentary Labor Party at present.

More interesting even than that is that those actions are a commentary on the Labor Party’s own assessment of its chances of winning this election. They are a commentary on the internal divisions which are apparent to all of us on this side of the House. Where, for example, is1 the putative Treasurer of this country, the honourable member for Adelaide^ (Mr Hurford)? Where is he? We are having a debate on economic management and on the economic policies of the Labor Party when it was last in power. Where is he? He is not present. Where, for example, is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Uren)? I see he has finally graced us with his presence. This debate is about the credibility of the Leader of the Opposition and in a broader sense it is about the credibility of the Labor Party as an alternative government of this country.

In the short space of 1 5 minutes it is impossible to categorise all the misleading statements which have been made by the Leader of the Opposition and more recently by the honourable member for Oxley ( Mr Hayden). Perhaps the greatest untruth of all that has been put around persistently in the past 12 months is that this Government has used unemployment as an instrument for fighting inflation. Time and time again, Labor spokesmen have tried to demonstrate that we have systematically used unemployment as an instrument of fighting inflation. Not only is that statement incorrect, but also it can be more accurately applied to the policies that were pursued by the Labor Party when it was in office. During Question Time yesterday and today the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) referred to that rather infamous document that was commissioned in 1973 entitled ‘A Report on Possible Ways of Increasing Imports’. In other words it was a report on how to export more Australian jobs.

Mr Hodgman:

– They would do it again.

Mr HOWARD:

-Of course the Labor Party would do it again. It was quite blatant and unrepentent at the time as to its objective. Out of bis own mouth, the present Leader of the Opposition, shortly after announcing the decision for a 23 per cent tariff cut, said:

These measures will allow us to keep inflationary tendencies under control.

In other words he was using the deliberate dismantling of protection for Australian industry and the resultant unemployment as an instrument for fighting inflation. In other words he was sacrificing the jobs of thousands of Australian people. He was doing it quite openly and quite deliberately. Of course the real falsehood of it all is that the very charge which is so untruthfully levelled against us was the very practice which was indulged in By the Labor Party when it was in office.

That action and these statements were symptomatic of the punitive attitude that the Leader of the Opposition took to so many sectors of our nation while he was Prime Minister. It is very strange that a person who seeks political support should take such a punitive attitude to so much of the Australian nation. His punitive attitude to the primary industries of Australia is well known. Is there any sign that he would be any different if he were again Prime Minister? Is there any sign that he would not again go to the rural areas of Australia and wave his finger at an audience and say: ‘You have never had it so good*? Is there any sign that he has learnt a lesson from the fact that as a result of the last election not one single Labor member in this House represents a genuinely rural area of Australia? Has he really learnt that lesson? Of course he has not.

The punitive attitude of the Leader of the Opposition is not restricted to primary industry. He does not do things in small measures. He also has a punitive attitude to manufacturing industry. That attitude is extremely well known. It reached its dizzy height during his famous address to the Heavy Engineering Manufacturers Association in 1975 when he talked about the nervous Nellies. Do honourable members remember the talk about the nervous Nellies? Who were the nervous Nellies? They were ordinary Australian people who were worried about losing their jobs m Tasmania. They were also, incidentally, some of his own parliamentary colleagues. So obsessed was the Leader of the Opposition at that time with his punitive approach to manufacturing industry that he regarded his colleague and the Australian people who were concerned about jobs as being nervous Nellies.

Do honourable members really think that the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition towards manufacturing industry has changed? Do they really imagine that if he were given another opportunity he would not do it all again? Of course he would. What did he say in his address to the National Press Club on 20 July this year in answer to a question about levels of protection for Australian manufacturing industry? He said:

There is no doubt that Australian industry is excessively protected.

In other words, the Leader of the Opposition was saying very plainly: ‘Give me another chance and I will export some more jobs’. Of course that is what he was saying. Give him another chance and he would certainly export some more jobs.

It is right that this House should today look very carefully at the credibility and the truthfulness of statements made by the Leader of the Opposition. He is asking that in the weeks ahead the Australian people again make him Prime Minister. I believe that it is the duty of this House and it is our duty as members of this House to remind ourselves of what happened between the years 1972 and 1975. We should remind ourselves that, when we listen to the statements of the Leader of the Opposition in the coming weeks, we cannot believe everything we are told. Not only can we not believe everything we are told, but also we cannot believe that he believes everything he tells us. An interesting point about the Leader of the Opposition is that not only does he occasionally say things that are not correct, but also he occasionally says things which contradict what he has said on earlier occasions. One of the more interesting examples of this is a statement that he made on the television program This Day Tonight on 26 October 1 977. He said:

It didn’t hit Australia worse than other countries.

He went on to say:

When it went bad under us -

As we all know, it went very bad under his Government- it went bad in every Western country without exception.

The Leader of the Opposition said that in October 1977. On 21 January 1975, when he was Prime Minister, he was quoted by the Melbourne Age- surety he would agree that is a reputable newspaper- as saying:

Excessive wage demands had caused Australia’s unemployment and inflation crisis.

He then went on to say:

You cannot blame Vietnam for inflation in the Western world. You cannot blame the oil crisis for inflation in Australia. You cannot blame the takeovers and the currency rates for inflation in Australia now. You have to place the blame on wage claims.

In other words, not only was he on that occasion speaking an element of economic truth, but also he was totally contradicting the stance that he had taken on other occasions. Of course, that is illustrative of the carelessness displayed by the Leader of the Opposition towards truth. Last night, during his interview on the Willesee program, he said that the total cost of the taxation concessions given by this Government to the mining industry amounted to $ 1 billion. The true figure, of course, of $560m is almost half that. Last night he accused this Government of having twice devalued the dollar and denied that there was any devaluation under the previous Government. Everybody knows that a 12 per cent devaluation took place in September 1974. Everybody remembers that infamous September quarter of 1974 when unemployment rose by 53 per cent, when inflation reached a figure of 20 per cent and when interest rates rose to 10 per cent. Indeed, it was one of the worst quarters of all during the time that the previous Government was in office.

It is right that we should draw the attention of the Australian people to the fact that the Leader of the Opposition led the most disastrous government that this country has had since Federation. Of course, he is a person of great modesty, a person who is still quite happy to describe himself as the greatest Foreign Minister this country has had in the past 25 years. Above all, we in this House have an obligation to remind the Australian people that, far from having learnt any lessons during the period that he was in office, the Leader of the Opposition would do it all again. He would return to the printing presses. He would increase government spending to a new level of irresponsibility. He would create once again the levels of unemployment, the levels of inflation, the lack of business confidence, the feeling of division between country and city, and the feeling of isolation in sectors of the Australian community that was so evident between 1972 and 1975. 1 have not the slightest doubt that if, during the next five weeks, the Australian people are reminded, as they have been reminded today, of what happened between 1972 and 1975 and also -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! As a matter of courtesy I ask the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) and the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) to return to their seats.

Mr HOWARD:

-That is the longest time that they will sit on those benches for many years to come. During the next five weeks we will certainly be reminding the Australian people of what it was like under Whitlam between 1972 and 1975. We will be reminding the people that if he should ever get the chance he would do it all again. He would be totally unrepentant and would lead this country in the manner in which he did during those years. I move:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Rt Hon. B. M. Snedden, Q.C.)

AYES: 64

NOES: 22

Majority……. 42

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question put.

The House divided. ( Mr Speaker-Rt Hon. B. M. Snedden, Q.C.)

AYES: 65

NOES: 21

Majority……. 44

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 2901

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) raising a matter of public importance. I have been informed by the honourable member that he wishes to withdraw the matter because it has been covered in the matters debated earlier today. I draw that fact to the attention of the House so that those people who are following the items listed on the program of proposed business will know that the next item to be called on will be Government Business.

Sitting suspended from 1.3 to 2. IS p.m.

page 2901

JOINT COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Reports

Mr CONNOLLY:
Bradfield

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I present the 166th, 167th and 168th reports of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts.

Ordered that the reports be printed.

Mr CONNOLLY:

-by leave-The 166th report comprises two Department of Finance minutes. The practice of presenting Finance minutes is a result of a long-standing arrangement between the Committee and the Department of Finance which ensures that the Committee’s recommendations and conclusions are followed up and reported to Parliament. These minutes refer to the Committee’s 158th report relating to expenditure from the Advance to the Treasurer in 1974-75 and the 160th report relating to expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the same financial year. The minutes detail the action taken to rectify faults in procedures and controls discovered during the Committee ‘s examination of expenditure performance and the use of the Advance to the Treasurer by departments in the financial year

1974- 75.

The 167th report relates to the Committee’s inquiry into matters raised by the AuditorGeneral in his report for the financial year 1975- 76. In the inquiry the Committee found that in the Department of Administrative Services on-the-job training was deficient and there was insufficient supervision of subordinates. The Department of Construction also had been negligent in its responsibilities towards fire safety, and there were considerable arrears in inspections of government property for fire protection purposes, particularly in the Australian Capital Territory, where cycle time for surveys had reached 56 years. There was evidence of disregard of financial instructions by senior officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs and incredible incompetence shown in the purchase and renovation of a residence in Dublin for the Counsellor at the Australian Embassy.

In the case of the Northern Territory electricity supply undertaking the financial results since 1971-72 clearly indicate that increasing costs of operation have not been matched by corresponding increases in revenue to recover the full costs of providing power to residents. The Committee records its extreme dissatisfaction that, as a consequence, more than $23m may not have been recovered and believes that a major contributing factor was the division of responsibility between the Department of the Northern Territory and the Department of Construction. A report on the electricity undertaking in the Northern Territory recently tabled in this Parliament recommended that a statutory authority be established to draw these responsibilities together. The Committee believes that in fact responsibilities should be unified and that a single authority should be created for all the utilities in the Northern Territory as a duplicate administrative machine will be wasteful and expensive for consumers.

The Committee took evidence relating to fraud by officers of the Department of Social Security and beneficiaries. The Committee is concerned to note increasing trends towards overpayments of benefits and has sought a further submission on the matter. The Committee has recommended that further consideration be given to the introduction of a national identity card system which could also have advantages in other areas such as health and immigration. The Committee also received evidence that short periods of casual employment were being refused by persons on the grounds that it adversely affects their unemployment benefit entitlements. The Committee believes that changes should be made in administering the benefits so that permanent job seekers are not disadvantaged by taking casual employment when the opportunity arises.

The 168th report relates specifically to evidence taken in connection with items of expenditure from the Advance to the Treasurer in 1976-77. As honourable members are aware, after the close of each financial year the Treasurer submits to the Parliament a statement of expenditure from the Advance to the

Treasurer showing allocations to heads of expenditure made by him under section 36a of the Audit Act. As our report shows, there were cases where expenditure from the Advance was confined to urgent and unforeseeable requirements for which provision could not have been made in the Appropriation Acts. In other cases, however, there was evidence of overtime being used to circumvent staff ceilings, inefficient estimating procedures, and unacceptable delays which caused expenditure to be charged to the Advance when provision should properly have been made in the Additional Estimates. In general, however, there was a reduction in the number of requests for funds from the Advance, and results of the Committee’s examination suggest that the majority of those requests were confined to urgent and unforeseeable requirements.

Mr Deputy Speaker, for the benefit of the House, I would like to recall, very briefly, the work of the Eleventh Committee, which concludes its work with the presentation of these three reports. Your Committee was appointed in March of 1976 and in the 20 months since then has met on 84 occasions and has presented 13 reports to the Parliament- a total exceeded only by the first Public Accounts Committee chaired by Professor Bland, M.P., which tabled 14 reports. These 13 reports have ranged in subject matter from tabling Finance minutes reporting the follow-up action taken in respect of the Committee ‘s recommendations, examination of the Auditor-General’s annual reports and expenditure performance of departments, examination of the financial affairs of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, which we regard as a most significant report, and a special report on the conference of Commonwealth and State public accounts committees which I tabled earlier this week. Honourable members will recall that on that occasion I stated that the conference was of historic significance as it was the first occasion since Federation that similar committees from parliaments throughout Australia had gathered together to discuss mutual problems. Already we have begun to implement some of the initiatives outlined in that report. Because of the early prorogation of the Thirtieth Parliament the Committee has been unable to report on its inquiry into the former Overseas Property Bureau, and the Twelfth Committee will have to decide whether to continue a major inquiry into the use of automatic data processing in the Commonwealth Public Service.

As this is my last statement as Chairman of the Eleventh Public Accounts Committee, I would like to thank my colleagues for their co-operation and the Secretary to the Committee and his staff for their devotion to their dudes and loyalty to the Committee. I would like to place on record the Committee’s appreciation for the support given by the previous Secretary, Mr Tom Devine, who retired at the end of August after four years with the Committee, and his successor Mr Michael Talberg. I would like particularly to note the loss to the Parliament and the Committee which will follow the retirement of the Committee’s vice-chairman, the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean). He has made a most significant contribution to the work of the Committee and to the Parliament. When the Committee was re-established in September 1952 he was an original member. We are going to miss his wisdom in the next Parliament, but I know that all members of the Committee wish him well in his retirement. Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the reports to honourable members.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

-by leave-I thank the Chairman of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), for his kind remarks. I thank him for the service I have enjoyed on the Committee. This Parliament has been a very difficult period because almost from week to week we have not known how many more weeks the Parliament was to sit. In the last couple of weeks the Committee has spent a great deal of time just trying to finalise what was on its plate. These matters tend to get lost if they are not finalised before the conclusion of a Parliament.

I have appreciated the opportunity to come back on to the Committee. It has been a very valuable Committee in the 26 years or so since it was re-established. Actually there was such a committee in the very early days of the Federal Parliament; but it lapsed, I understand, for economy reasons in the 1930s. To my mind, that is simply typical of what can really be false economy. The Chairman referred to one or two matters. What sort of an economy is it when buildings worth hundreds of millions of dollars are the property of the Commonwealth and there are not enough firemen to look after them properly, and when there are insufficient people to work all sorts of mechanical devices satisfactorily? I think it is being rather absurd when, in the name of halting inflation, we cease to employ an individual who, if he were employed, certainly would return more in real terms than the cost of his wage or salary. It is time that this sort of thing was looked at more closely.

I wish the Committee every success in the future, in the very important work that it has to do. I said a couple of evenings ago that I thought the first Budget that I saw presented in this House in 195 1 or 1952 was of the magnitude of a billion pounds or $2 billion. Now we contemplate Budgets of the magnitude of $22 billion. It is about time this Parliament gave far more serious attention to the work done in committees and, even at the expense of time spent in this House, made more time available during the week so that committees could sit for several hours at a time instead of having either to meet on days when the Parliament is not meeting or to try to scramble meetings either at luncheon or dinner breaks. That is not sufficient.

The work that is done in committees is valuable. I think we get a far better relationship between members in close committee work than we do in the more intense atmosphere of this place. I found that where differences occurred on committees they tended not to be on political lines at all but to be differences of opinion about what are often technical and mechanical matters. I think all of us are better for the cross-fertilisation that can be gained through committee work. I thank the Chairman in particular for what he has done, and the staff of the Public Accounts Committee. I hope that the staff will be strengthened so that the work that the Committee is supposed to do can be more satisfactorily encompassed.

page 2903

DAYS AND HOURS OF MEETING

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

- Mr Deputy Speaker, as a number of members have asked me about sitting times, I wish to explain that I expect that the House will be sitting at 1 1 a.m. on Monday and will probably be sitting again on Tuesday at 10 a.m. The House will rise as soon as possible on Tuesday, subject to the completion of Government business.

page 2903

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Reports

Mr FRY:
Fraser

-On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, I present the following reports:

Report on Action taken on the Report of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory on Canberra City wastes-a long-term strategy for collection and disposal.

Report that the Committee is unable to complete its Inquiry into Planning Procedures and Processes in the Australian Capital Territory.

Ordered that the reports be printed.

Mr FRY:

-by leave-The two reports that I have tabled relate to the work of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory in the Thirtieth Parliament. The first refers to the inquiry currently being undertaken by the Committee into planning procedures in the Territory. The second is a report from the Committee on a matter referred by the Senate on the extent to which the Committee’s report of last December on ‘Canberra City Wastes- a Long Term Strategy for Collection and Disposal’ has been implemented.

The work of the Committee is now, however, limited to investigations and inquiries referred by the Minister for the Capital Territory or by the Parliament. Members will be familiar with the Committee ‘s reports on proposals to vary the plan of lay-out of the City of Canberra and its environs. In this Parliament the Committee has examined proposals relating to the 60th, 61st, 62nd, 63rd and 64th series of such proposals and has presented reports to the House on each series. As well as providing a source of information to Parliament about the planning of the national capital, the reports also provide a useful source of information for the local community. It also permits a degree of involvement by the Parliament in the overall planning of the national capital.

The decision taken by the Committee earlier this year to conduct meetings in public, at which the National Capital Development Commission and the Department brief it on proposals, rather than in closed session means that details of proposals contained in the transcript of these proceedings are readily available for immediate and future use by Press, public and others concerned with or interested in Canberra’s planning. The Inquiry into Planning Procedures and Processes in the Australian Capital Territory is well advanced and the Committee would have reported early in the next autumn session if the duration of this Parliament had allowed. Evidence has now been taken from 34 of the 63 persons and organisations who have made submissions to the Inquiry. The Committee also visited Darwin, Adelaide and Albury-Wodonga to obtain relevant background information for the Inquiry and had proposed to extend this to include other capital cities.

The report I have just tabled contains a strong recommendation that the inquiry into Planning Procedures and Processes in the Australian Capital Territory be again referred to the Committee if it is re-appointed by the thirty-first Parliament. An election for the Legislative Assembly will take place in 1978 at which issues of future constitutional development for the Territory will be widely canvassed. The role that the Legislative Assembly should plan in planning and development is a central point in this Inquiry and will be an important consideration in the debate proceeding that election. The Australian Capital Territory Committee’s conclusions and recommendations on the role that the National Parliament should play, the future role and structure of the NCDC and its relation with the Legislative Assembly and the community, as well as relations between the various bodies involved in the planning process and their various relationships with the community should be available for consideration by those involved in that debate. I would therefore emphasise this Committee’s view that the re-appointment of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory after the election, and the referral of this matter to it again, should be a matter of priority.

I have also tabled a short report dealing with steps that have been taken to implement the report from this Committee of last DecemberCanberra City Wastes- a Long Term Strategy for Collection and Disposal’. This report simply informs Parliament of the actions that various Ministers and their departments have taken to implement recommendations made in the main report. Annexed to the report itself are copies of replies from Ministers to letters from the Chairman of the Committee, detailing the actions so far taken.

The Committee notes in the report its general satisfaction with progress so far made on the recommendations in its report but expresses the view that proposals which have not been implemented should be matters for continuing review by the departments concerned, and that further action should be taken where appropriate. Particular matters which still concern the Committee are:

The failure so far to implement the Committee’s recommendation for a pilot scheme to test the feasibility of a household-based waste collection system that would involve segregation of waste so that as much paper, metal, glass and other valuable products can be recovered from the waste stream;

Continued delays to enact the Air Pollution (Stationary Sources) Ordinance and Regulations. Air pollution in Canberra needs to be regulated by legislation and everything possible should be done to expedite the draft ordinance.

In relation to the Committee’s recommendations for the establishment of a waste authority to integrate various aspects of collection and disposal in the Territory, the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Staley) has commented that, in view of possible transfer of this function to the control of the Legislative Assembly, it would be wrong to pre-empt the Assembly by making a decision about future arrangements and authorities. The Minister has, however, established an interdepartmental co-ordinating committee as an interim measure. In the Committee’s view, as an interim step, this is a satisfactory compromise but it holds to its earlier view that a waste authority is necessary if this matter is to receive the expert and co-ordinated attention that it requires in a city such as Canberra.

Finally, I should like to express my thanks to all members and senators who have served on the Committee during this Parliament for the support they have given me as the Deputy Chairman and the contributions they have made to the work of the Committee. Like the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), I pay particular tribute to the honourable member for Melbourne Ports, Mr Frank Crean, for his contribution to this Committee. He has been on the Committee for only a very short time, but we were very pleased to have the benefit of his wide experience and knowledge. He made a conscientious and valuable contribution in that time. I should also like to thank the Clerk to this Committee, Mr Nairn, and the Committee’s Research Officer, Mr Watson, for the work they have done for the Committee during this session. I commend the report to the House.

page 2905

TRADE PRACTICES AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 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 main purpose of this Bill is to amend the Trade Practices Act to enable parties to certain commercial transactions, which fall within the definition in the Act of a consumer transaction, to limit their liability above a minimum level.

The Trade Practices Amendment Act, which came into force on 1 July 1977, extended the definition of a consumer transaction to include certain commercial transactions involving acquisitions of goods or services costing less than $15,000. Since that amendment, the Government has received representations from sections of industry expressing strong concern. This concern relates to the possibility that, in certain circumstances, a breach of the non-excludable conditions and warranties implied by the Act into relevant commercial contracts could present industry with enormous costs for consequential damages. Furthermore, the Government has been informed that the risk involved in such circumstances is, for the most part, non-insurable.

The Government has concluded that in the context of commercial dealings in commercial goods or services it is reasonable to allow parties to a contract to negotiate their own arrangements regarding liability for consequential damages flowing from a breach of the contract. The Government is seeking to free Australian commerce from unnecessary straitjackets imposed by legislation. The present position is unnecessarily restrictive.

In making the amendments to which I have just referred, the Trade Practices Act will continue to maintain a basic philosophy that suppliers of goods or services should stand behind the quality and title of those goods or services in their dealings with business as well as with the public. Accordingly, the Bill does not allow liability for repair or replacement of faulty goods or services or for a breach of the undertakings in section 69 relating to title to be excluded. Further, the Bill does not allow relevant liability to be limited with total disregard to equity between the parties. The Government believes that recent amendments to the law in the United Kingdom in this regard are appropriate to the Australian situation. Accordingly, a limitation of liability in a contract governed by the Trade Practices Act may be challenged on the grounds that the limitation was not fair or reasonable between the parties.

The Bill gives a list of indications as to the determination of fairness or reasonableness. Apart from the question of limitation of liability there are a number of technical difficulties in the language of the present Act relevant to calculating the monetary limit. Particularly, these relate to situations where goods are hired or leased or there are credit charges involved in a transaction. The Bill remedies these technical difficulties.

I now turn to another matter dealt with in this Bill. Honourable members will be aware that quality standards for, and information about, consumer goods is the central concern of the Australian consumer movement. The present Act provides for consumer product safety standards and consumer product information standards to be prescribed by regulations. This has led to substantial delays due to complexities in drafting which have been greatly criticised by the consumer movement. This is an important area and the Government has decided to provide for alternative procedures to enable consumer product standards to be brought into law more simply. The procedure envisaged by the Bill seeks to rely upon the very substantial work done in the field of consumer standards by private organisations in Australia, particularly the Standards Association of Australia.

Mr Speaker, in a Press statement I made two days ago I referred to the intention of the Government to amend the Trade Practices Act with respect to manufacturers’ warranties. The Government will be dealing with this matter early next year, upon our return to office. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) adjourned.

page 2906

SOCIAL SERVICES AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20 October, on motion by Mr Hunt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr HUNT:
Minister for Health · Gwydir · NCP/NP

-I seek the indulgence of the House to foreshadow an amendment not included in the second reading speech of this Bill. As announced by Senator the Honourable Margaret Guilfoyle, Minister for Social Security, the Government has decided to make provisions for a benefit to be paid to supporting fathers on the same basis as supporting mothers. In the Committee stage I shall move an appropriate amendment to the Bill.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-This Billrovides a number of amendments to the Socialervices Act. The Opposition opposes only one of the proposed amendments. To the motion that the Bill be now read a second time I move:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ‘whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading the House deplores the failure of the Government to abolish the seven day waiting period when introducing payment in arrears for unemployment benefit. ‘

I foreshadow that in the Committee stage of the debate the Opposition will be voting against clause 13 which concerns the payment of unem. ployment benefits for school leavers and those leaving tertiary education institutions. In dealing with the Bill I shall quickly refer to the proposed amendments. There is the extension of the eligibility for the handicapped child’s allowance to less severe cases where the family income is low and financial hardship would otherwise be suffered. The Opposition supports this but has slight reservations about the manner in which the Government has made the amendment and the method that is being used to increase the benefit, namely, the widening of the discretion of the Director-General of Social Security. The Bill gives no indication of how the handicapped child’s allowance will be applied or how the Director-General will decide whether a particular instance causes severe financial hardship to the family. Basically, we support the proposition that those families should be entitled to the allowance.

We support the extension of the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service to those who are not at present eligible. Provided they can benefit by the services I feel very strongly that the service should be extended. The only questions I have are: Are the facilities adequate? How many people are receiving rehabilitation treatment at present? How many people does the Government estimate will be entitled to the rehabilitation service when the guidelines are changed? I now turn to one of the more controversial sections of this legislation. I refer to the doublespeak of the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) representing the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) when giving the second reading speech he said:

Removal of a provision which discriminates against married women in relation to sickness benefit and bringing the income test for sickness benefit into line with that applying to unemployment benefit

That sounds very impressive. The Government is removing some discrimination against married women. Anybody who heard the Minister making his second reading speech would have assumed that there will be a benefit for married women. In fact, what the Government is introducing is the removal of the benefit which husbands, who would be entitled to sickness benefit on all grounds, except when their wives were working, receive at present. This benefit will now be removed in the case of husbands. So it is the removal of a benefit and not the granting of a benefit at all. Let me give an example of the sort of doublespeak to which I am referring. If the Government were to grant equal pay to women to fight discrimination and so on it would do that by reducing the male rate of pay.

The fourth item in the legislation gives effect to the Government’s decision to make it impossible for school leavers to receive unemployment benefit until the end of January or early February. Honourable members will recall that last year the Government made that decision believing, I assume, that it was entitled to make that decision. One case, the Karen Green case, was taken to the High Court and the High Court ruled that that decision could not be made in an arbitrary manner although it was possible to make that decision in individual cases if the cases did not satisfy the guidelines. Now the Government is to make this decision apply generally.

The Government is also introducing retrospective payments for unemployment benefit and argues that this was recommended by Dr Myers in his report on the payment of unemployment benefit. What Dr Myers actually recommended in his report was that retrospective payments should be introduced for unemployment benefit provided the waiting period of seven days is abolished. I quote from paragraph 4.1 1.7 where, referring to payment in arrears which I think is the official title, and the abolition of the waiting period, he said:

Indeed, the two measures fit hand in glove, as fortnightlypayment in arrears without the waiting period would cause hardship in the period before the first cheque was received.

This would be fairly obvious to most people who have had any experience with the majority of persons who become entitled to unemployment benefit. The changes in the procedure for the

Eayment of unemployment benefit which have een implemented from the beginning of November will create considerable hardship for those people registering after that date. People will register. They will return a form on about day 15. The Government, on day 21 or thereabouts, will pay a cheque for seven days benefit. Then, on day 34 or thereabouts there will be another cheque. So for the first month all persons entitled to receive unemployment benefit will have received only one cheque. They are being asked to cope for a month or more on only one week’s benefit.

The main reason given for this change from the current system of payment in advance is that the system has led to over-payments. These seem to have been largely as a result of staff shortages. The penalisation of the unemployed seems very harsh. The seven-day waiting period has been retained despite the recommendation of the Myers inquiry that it be abolished. If the Government were to accept the recommendation for the abolition of the waiting period the first cheque would then be for two weeks payment in arrears. This is what the Opposition would urge. The assumption behind the waiting period is that people actually apply for benefit as soon as they are unemployed and will therefore have some carry-on money. There seems to be evidence that people often avoid registering as unemployed because they hope to avoid the stigma of being on unemployment benefit, or on what the

Government calls the dole. These people therefore delay their application until they are running out of money.

For these people the new changes will be disastrous. The long wait for the receipt of their first fortnightly benefit will leave them completely penniless. They will not receive their first fortnightly benefit until the second month of unemployment. The current system, with the inevitable problems of bureaucracy, has already placed additional strains on many agencies which are having to assist people waiting for their first cheque. The change in the system can only make the load on these agencies even heavier. I am now speaking about voluntary agencies or some agencies funded or helped by State governments.

Let me state the Opposition’s position on the question of unemployment benefit. Our policy is to pay unemployment benefit for the first week of unemployment. It is imperative now that payment of unemployment benefit is made in arrears after production of an income statement. We accept that proposition, but we say that that should be done only provided the other part of the Myers suggestion is also accepted- the payment for the first week of unemployment. Without benefit being paid during the waiting period beneficiaries are forced to live for a month on one week’s income. It has been found by people who have looked at this situation that 67 per cent of the unemployed have less than $50 in savings. We cannot condone the hardship, the chaos and the strain on voluntary agencies without a national program of emergency aid.

The Opposition has put a question on notice in an attempt to find the cost of paying the first week’s unemployment benefits but, as far as I know, when I last looked for it, the answer has not been given.

I would like now to make a few comments on the Government’s announced intention, both by statement by the Minister for Social Security and by a foreshadowed amendment by the Minister for Health to amend this Bill in the Committee stage for the purpose of bringing in a lone father’s benefit similar to the supporting mothers’ benefit. The Opposition advocates this strongly. We announced some time ago that this was part of the Australian Labor Party’s policy for the forthcoming election. We all know that we are sitting here at present and will be sitting here for at least one and possibly two days next week, for purely cosmetic reasons as far as the Government is concerned.

The many promises that it made have not been carried out and it is trying to bring in some amendments and, as far as it can, it will try to introduce legislation covering the sorts of things the Opposition has promised. The Government has suddenly found that money is available after having said when the Opposition proposed the lone father’s benefit that it was impossible to do this sort of thing and that it was irresponsible. The honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) nods his head in agreement. I am glad to see that. He knows that the Government has previously told him that certain things could not be done. As I understand it, the Treasury was asked to cost the lone father’s benefit and the percentage range of its costing estimate was one of the widest ever. The Treasury estimated that the cost would be between $9m and $4Sm a year. That leaves a 400 per cent margin of error, which is quite considerable. It is one of the difficult things to cost because we do not know how many lone fathers will take advantage of it.

Inasmuch as many lone fathers at the present time may be working because they have no alternative, this benefit will make it possible for them to give up work, in some cases at least, and to look after their children. The children will obviously benefit. The family situation, such as it exists m those cases, will obviously benefit. There will be, at least in theory, a clawback because one assumes that the jobs which then will become vacant, because the lone fathers are leaving those jobs, will be taken by other people. The net cost to the Government at a time of very significant or very high unemployment is, of course, less than the actual cost because unemployment is reduced and some people are enabled to receive benefits at the same time. I assume that it was a combination of these factors, the fact that there is an election coming on and the fact that the Government expects unemployment to get much worse next year- I suppose those two go together- which finally convinced the Government overnight to bring in this legislation which had been foreshadowed by the Australian Labor Party.

I do not want to take up the full time allocated to me, but there is one other point I want to raise. It is related to school leavers. Perhaps it will shorten the debate in the Committee stage if I make what to me is an important point. I heard the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges), when this matter was debated before, arguing that parents ought to be able to look after their children; that they ought to take the responsibility for looking after their school leaver children for the six weeks over Christmas and

January because to look after their children is just one of the obligations that parents accept. This may or may not be so. It is much easier for the honourable member for Petrie to say that or for me to say that than it is for people in much worse economic circumstances. I have received complaints from my electorate, and I am sure that other people received them last year, from persons who were completely unable to look after their school leaver children at that time. They include pensioners and other parents. What I find particularly unpleasant is the fact that the family allowance stops when the child leaves school. In the case of pensioners the dependant benefit stops when school finishes; yet those children do not become eligible for anything else. That is fair enough if the child can find a job, but we all know that it will be very difficult this year, as it was last year- it will be even more difficult this year- for young people to find a job.

What does the woman who is on a widow’s pension do for six weeks to look after her child who is unable to find a job? It is all very well to say that she can apply for special benefit or perhaps that the Director-General of Social Services will accept her as a special case. It will take a long time to obtain that benefit. It takes a long time to get it at ordinary times; but Christmas, with all due respect to the Department of Social Security, is not one of the times when one obtains the fastest response from any government department. There may be the case of a widow, or any other person receiving social security benefits, whose children have been entitled to a benefit of, I think, $7.50. The children have been entitled to a family allowance, depending on their position in the family, of at least $3.50 per week. The allowance can be affected if there are a number of other children. The other children then move into other positions and the family allowance drops. There may be a sudden drop in income of $1 1 to $12 for that family, which is probably a very large proportion of the total income. That child then has the additional costs of trying to find a job- the costs of going to the Commonwealth Employment Service office, going to the office of the Department of Social Security, ringing up, buying newspapers which advertise jobs and that sort of thing. I hope that the Government at least will give instructions to the departmental officers to deal with applicants in a sensitive way and not to treat them in the way that this Government normally treats these people, since it no longer will be facing an election on 10 December. Hopefully, by then, the present Opposition will be in government and hopefully new instructions will be issued by a new Minister for Social Security.

The other point with which I have some difficulty is the proposition put by the Government that it will not pay unemployment benefit for school leavers until six weeks after the examination is due. I am not quite sure how that will be interpreted. Basically, it means that a school leaver will not be able to leave school before his or her final examination for the year. The same will apply to people with some tertiary training. I think this is a bit rough on a number of people. I know that the Director-General of Social Services is able to give this benefit for good and sufficient reasons, but I am not quite sure what these good and sufficient reasons would be. One of the other changes I would urge, with regard to this general question of unemployment and sickness benefits, is that they be bought into line with other payments as far as permissible income is concerned. The important point there, as those honourable members who try to claim such benefits for their constituents would be aware, is that, for example, in the case of a single pensioner the permissible income is $20 a week. In the case of a single person applying for unemployment or sickness benefit it is $3 a week. If that person earns more than $3 a week, or $6 a week in the case of a couple, there is a loss on a dollar for dollar basis. This means that only a very small income can be earned. People receiving unemployment or sickness benefit can get into strife very quickly.

Finally, I am not one of those who argue that women who become unemployed should be entitled to unemployment benefit when their husbands are employed. I know that this issue has been raised by a number of women, but I feel that it would be too difficult to police and too expensive. I cite the case of a family where both the husband and wife have been working and it would be a very low income family if only one person was working. With both the husband and wife earning something of the order of $150 a week, the total family income would be approximately $300 a week, and probably around $260 a week after taxation. This would be a quite reasonable income for that family. If the wife suddenly loses her job, that income falls to $ 1 40-odd a week. That is a hell of a blow for that family and I am sure that none of us could survive for any length of time on that sort of income without drawing on our capital resources. This is one of the questions that have to be raised. I realise that in some ways it contradicts some of my other arguments about school leavers, but I invite honourable members to compare the income of that family with the relatively high incomes of people such as ourselves who possibly have working wives. When one of the children reaches the age of 16 or 18 years and leaves school, and after a period of six weeks has not found a job, that family, provided the child is under 18 years, will receive $36 a week, and if the child is over 1 8 years the family will receive, I think, $49.30 a week even though there is a parental income of $500, $600 or $700 a week. Is this a fair way of doing it as far as means testing goes? When the boy or girl is still at home and is looking for a job the question of means testing is a very difficult one. We talk about the family unit in the sense of two spouses with a total income inasmuch as one or the other is entitled to a benefit, but the children are not taken into account.

I am not going to advocate a means test based on parental income which takes into account unemployment and sickness benefits for children. I want to emphasise that. Otherwise I will be quoted during the election campaign as saying that I was advocating that. I do not advocate it. But surely people here can see that possibily there is something wrong with our approach in the situation which I was talking about before, where a couple whose incomes drops suddenly from $260 or $280 a week to $140 is entitled to nothing, but the other family with no drop in income at all and with a boy or girl still at home, as he or she has been for the previous 18 years, will get from the state $49.30 a week I think it is, in unemployment benefits. I hope that whichever government is in power after 10 December will look at this for the purpose of possibly increasing the level of the means test for the unemployment benefit so that if a husband and wife really earn only a basic minimum income they still receive some subsidy when one or the other becomes unemployed. I commend to the House the amendment that I have moved. I emphasise again that we will be dividing on clause 13 of the Bill in the Committee stage.

Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:
Dr Jenkins

-Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Crean:

– I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

– I personally, and I believe this Government, have a vision of an Australia where social justice shall prevail and the needs of all underprivileged members of our community will sympathetically and effectively be cared for. I thirst for an era where poverty is eliminated, hardship and suffering are alleviated and all Australians shall not want for any of the basic fundamentals of human existence. Whilst I do not agree with all that the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) has said, I commend him for the obvious sincerity of his speech.

I believe that it can be fairly said that the present Federal Liberal-National Country Party Government has done more to bring social justice to the Australian community than any preceding government. Whilst I do not want to go through an exercise of comparing the behaviour of one government with that of another, I simply want to say that for the first time in the history of this country the pensioners of Australia now are able to live in a climate in which politics has been taken out of the area of pensions. It was this Government which legislated for automatic indexation of pensions. I believe that legislation did a service to the pensioners because it meant that it was not a matter for government to decide how much it would throw to the pensioners each Budget time. Our Government legislated for indexation and the pensioners have received increases in accordance with the movements in the consumer price index. On 10 November next the pension will again be increased as a direct result of the legislation we introduced. The single standard rate pension will rise by $2.20 to $49.30 a week and the combined married rate will rise by $3.70 to $82.20. 1 must in all fairness say that it was the previous Government which introduced the 6-monthly indexation of pensions, and our Government has fallen into that pattern of indexing pensions automatically at 6- monthly intervals. I still believe-I say this as no criticism of the Government- that where there is quarterly indexation of wages there should be quarterly indexation of pensions. I hope that at some time it will be possible for this to be effected.

One of the most interesting points is that as we continue to reduce inflation the need for indexation at more frequent intervals diminishes because in this situation where inflation actually is dropping the question of indexation on a 3- monthly or 6-monthly basis does tend to lose its relevance. Nevertheless, I contend that prima facie there should be no distinction between wages on the one hand and pensions on the other. While I am on that point I compliment the Government for resisting moves which were apparently put to it to do something in relation to Commonwealth superannuation. I know this is not strictly within the terms of this Bill but it was a move to change the indexation of Commonwealth superannuation pension payments from the consumer price index to average weekly earnings. I am delighted that the Government determined that it would not create a system of indexation in respect of one area of pensions and a different system of indexation in respect of another area of pensions.

When this Government came to power the pensions payable were $38.75 at the single standard rate and $64.50 at the married rate. We have increased those rates to $49.30 for the single rate and $82.20 for the married rate. I believe that is an achievement of which we can be proud. More than that, we have taken a step to remove from the backs of the Australian pensioners the hardship of the taxation which was imposed on them by the previous Government because it was the previous Government, the Whitlam Government, which will go down in history as the first government in this country to tax pensions.

Dr Klugman:

– Not true.

Mr HODGMAN:

– In 1974 your Government introduced taxation scales which were a bitter rip-off of the pensioners of Australia. I am proud to say that m this Budget of 1977 we have introduced tax reforms which will lift the yoke of taxation from 225,000 pensioners in this country. Also in our period in office we have abolished the property means test, as a direct result of which 155,000 pensioners in this country have received an increase in their pensions and many thousands of others who were previously ineligible are now in fact eligible for pensions. I do not know whether the honourable member for Prospect appreciates that as at 30 June this year this Commonwealth Government was paying benefits in age pensions, invalid pensions, wives’ pensions, sheltered employment allowances, widows’ pensions and supporting mothers’ benefits to 1,673,000 people. The cost to the Australian taxpayer of the unemployment benefit alone is $61 8m, that amount being the total of benefits paid to 250,000 people. That is an increase on the previous year in which the cost of the benefit for 1 88,000 people was $5 14m.

I hope that the honourable member for Prospect will be interested in some of these statistics I am about to give. Because of the time available we have limited debate on this matter and my remarks will not be continuing at any great length. I point out- the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) has pointed this out in the Parliament- that Australia has an aging population. The increase of pensioners as a percentage of the work force is quite dramatic. In 1968 pensioners as a percentage of the work force totalled approximately 17 per cent. Today the figure is 27 per cent. Pensioners as a percentage of the working age in 1968 was 12 per cent. Today it is 20 per cent. So the pension bill- I do not regret this but this is a fact of life that we will have to live with- will continue to rise because Australia has an aging population. At the present moment 78 per cent of our aged population in Australia, that is all male persons over 65 years and female persons over 60 years, receive a pension. I do not begrudge that situation; I am simply indicating that the number of persons over the age of 65 who are working has decreased. In 1968 the percentage receiving a pension was not 78 percent, the figure I have just quoted, but only 53 per cent. Therefore our commitment to those people will continue.

I draw attention to the fact that last year we had an increase of 10.4 per cent in the number of invalid pensions but the increase in the cost to revenue was 25.5 per cent. In the field of age pensions the increase was 4 per cent in the number of pensioners and 16.6 per cent in the cost to revenue. I could go on at some length. The number of people receiving sheltered unemployment allowances went up by 1 1 per cent and the cost by 41 per cent. The number of class A widows pensions went up 7.1 per cent and the number of class B widows pensions 8.4 per cent while the expenditure rose 13.8 per cent.

The only other category to which I want to refer relates to a matter for which the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) has earned the praise and gratitude of this Parliament and the nation. I refer to the campaign that he has successfully led for the introduction of supporting benefits for lone fathers. He did a magnificent job and the people of Australia recognise it. I do not overlook work done by any other honourable members in earlier years. I simply say that the credit for this victory properly rests on the shoulders of the honourable member for Franklin, an indefatigible fighter on behalf of the underprivileged of this nation. His efforts have been rewarded. The increase in unmarried mothers pensions was 9. 1 per cent last year. The increase in deserted wives pensions was 8.4 per cent. The increase in separated-de facto wives pensions was 14.2 per cent. The increase in the other categories, which included additional benefits for children, mothers allowances and supplementary assistance, was 25.7 per cent. I draw the attention of the House to these figures to indicate the enormity of the burden of the cost of social welfare to the community. We would all like to see pensions increased and we would all like to see benefits extended but when do we reach a situation when we have to say to the Australian taxpayer: ‘We will tax you higher to meet these benefits’?

I notice that my time is fast running out, so I come to my concluding remarks. I refer to the Karen Green case. I say very quickly that I, Karen Green and her family deplore the political purpose to which her case has been put. Her mother has telephoned me complaining that this girl is repeatedly being thrown up in the newspapers and repeatedly being used for political purposes when in fact she has been at work since March of this year. I want to say something about the right to work campaigners who latched onto the Karen Green case and used it for purely political purposes. I wish some of these people would get onto the schemes that we have going, such as the Community Youth Support scheme, the Special Youth Employment Training scheme, the Commonwealth Rebate Apprenticeship Full-Time scheme and all those other things, instead of using unemployment and one particular girl for political purposes.

I conclude by saying that as far as the honourable member for Franklin and I are concerned our consciences are clear on the question of unemployment in our areas. We have worked to alleviate unemployment. The figures show that the unemployment rate in Hobart is lower than in any other part of the State. We deplore people using the Karen Green case. We deplore the fact that she has been used for political purposes. This girl has been used malevolently. I would have hoped that members of the Labor Party would have adopted the sincere approach of the honourable member for Prospect rather than follow some of the publicity hunters who picked on a Tasmanian girl and decided to make her a national political pawn. I support the Bill and congratulate the Government. I congratulate the good Samaritan Minister for Social Security, Senator Guilfoyle, who is one of the unsung heroes of this Parliament. She is repeatedly bashed and too infrequently praised. I hope we do not see a return to the wicked Hayden days when the pensioners of Australia were taxed and used as a political football.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I suppose the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) had a few points to make but they were obscured with what I would call rather specious arguments. He is proud of the situation that has developed in social security. I point out that this Government is the inheritor of most of these systems. It has introduced no new initiatives at all so far as one can tell.

Mr Hodgman:

– What about the family allowances?

Mr BRYANT:

– There have been changes in quality in one way or another and changes in description. Family allowances, of course, are the direct descendants of such matters as child endowment and all the rest of it. There again are the distinctions without a difference upon which the honourable member thrives. He mentioned that more people are now on pensions and that a bigger proportion of people over 65 are now on pensions. He overlooked the rather important factor that the abolition of the means test for people over 70 years brought in a large number of extra pensioners. He used the term ‘the enormity of the burden’ and I will deal with that in a moment. He expressed the views of all of us, I would expect, when he said that he wants to see an Australia in which no human being will want for the substance of human existence. I think that is the objective of all of us. But we have watched him support consistently a government whose whole program has been to deprive the people at the lower end of the scale to the advantage of the people at the top end of the scale. I have not time this afternoon to debate that matter but the shift in the wealth of this nation back from the work force and the household to the business corporations has been quite dramatic in the last couple of years.

There is another fact that I think we should not ignore. The honourable member said that the percentage of the pension in relation to average weekly earnings was now higher than it was when, the Government came into office a couple of years ago. The fact is that the Government has adopted the policy- and it has had it enforced through the various tribunals which decide these matters- that the rise in the consumer price index will not be fully applied to people’s wages. So, there has been a fall in the relationship between the CPI and average weekly earnings whereas pensions have been indexed in full. Some of those arguments are not all that real either. An increase of 2 per cent on $200 a week is only the same in money terms as an increase of 2.6 per cent on $150 a week. I suppose that the lone fathers benefit is one of these things that is long overdue, but again it is a development of the system established in the past.

Mr Martyr:

– The honourable member for Franklin is a good Utile fellow.

Mr BRYANT:

-He would not have thought of it if there had not been an allowance for lone mothers.

Mr Fisher:

– You had three years in which to provide it.

Mr BRYANT:

-We did very well in three years. I do not have the time this afternoon to explain it all. I will write to the honourable member from here after the election. We support the handicapped childrens benefit. We support the extension of the rehabilitation scheme. I think the approach to the young people’s unemployment benefit is totally immoral, callous and insensitive. I believe that the approach to married women and sickness benefits, which is put in the Bill as a demonstration of non-discriminatory tactics on the pan of this Government, is a specious exercise.

I want to deal with the general principles of what we are talking about. Social security at this stage in Australia ought not to be just something to do with the deserving poor. It is a right, not a charity. It has taken a long while for the community to become accustomed to it. We are accustomed to it in most areas related to pension benefits. We are accustomed to it in a good number of areas related to invalid benefits and things of that nature. But we are still not accustomed to accepting it in relation to people who are unemployed. I regard the use of the term ‘dole’ as offensive. I regard the use of the term ‘dole bludger’ as even more offensive. So I hope that members of this Parliament at least will stop using it.

People who do not know any better cannot be blamed. I refer to those people who write for the Press and others but I think it is time we started to adopt an attitude’ which has been expressed for a long while in legislation passed by this place, namely, that there are people in the community who are entitled to a certain degree of support from the community. When such support is given, the terms upon which they receive it have to be couched in such a way that they retain their human dignity.

So our aim in this place should be to establish a reasonable standard of living for all Australians: We should, I suppose, examine the arithmetic of it for this year. I was calculating the figures only a moment ago, based on my own recent observations of statistics so I ask honourable members not to hold me to the arithmetic. What is the situation? I return to the statement of our friend, the honourable member for Denison, who referred to the enormity of the burden. There are some 14 million of us on this continent. About six and a half million are doing work of various kinds, and I suppose that includes us, all the people in the normal work force, all the people who are self-employed, and all the rest of us. That leaves perhaps six and a half million or seven million other people who have to live upon the production, services and goods supplied by those people.

I suppose two and a half million of the 14 million population are at school; half a million are at pre-school, I guess. I expect that two million people are living at home in various circumstancesin retirement or in circumstances of that nature. Perhaps one million married women are not active in the work force and half a million people are unemployed.

We have one of the wealthiest countries in the world, and we have at our disposal an enormous capacity to produce. We have accepted the principle that a great number of people ought to receive benefits without any means test being applied. We are accustomed to that situation. I suppose at this stage we should be looking at such techniques as a guaranteed minimum income, hardship supplements or benefits of that nature. But we still have a little way to go before we can drag such a scheme out of the great tangle of benefits which we provide at the present time.

Whenever we are talking about these things we should remember that a very large proportion of the Australian work force goes into retirement on community-supported meanstestfree income. We are a part of that group. I suppose that we pay more towards our pension or our superannuation, call it what you will, in proportion to our income than almost anybody else in the work force. I pay $2,500 per annum. I have been in the Parliament for 20 years. I do not know what my average contribution would be over those years but it is probably of the order of $2,000 per annum. On that basis I would have paid so far $40,000. But, of course, I was paying only £500 or £600-say $l,000-during the first years after I entered Parliament so I probably would have paid in total about $30,000. If the electors of the division of Wills exercise justice and retire me instead of exercising mercy, I will go out on a pension equivalent to three-quarters of our salary; that is, about $18,000. After 2V4 years I would be getting to the position where I had got back what I had paid in. We all accept that.

I was in the Victorian teaching service for 20 years. During that time I was paying into a pension scheme which would have provided me with substantial benefits upon retirement. Under that scheme it might have taken longer for me to get back the money I had paid in. I do not know what the figures would be, but there must be more than half a million people in Australia contributing to superannuation schemes of various government instrumentalities. There must be 100,000 people in the defence services and its subsidiaries. So we are talking about something like three-quarters of a million people at least who will receive a substantial means-test-free government-supported income. We should be applying ourselves continuously to the idea that the community should be able to provide that sort of benefit for the remainder of the work force, no matter how much it costs. I know that those people who put forward arguments about the means test are bedevilled by the sheer arithmetic of the situation. I do not claim to know the answer. All I ask is that on occasions such as this we do take time off to examine it.

I want to spend a moment or two dealing with the unemployment benefit. I am one of those people who from 1932 to 1935 was unemployed. I know what it is all about. I left school and did not get a job and there was no unemployment benefit. I think that the system which is being adopted here this afternoon is most callous, insensitive and mean. I hope that those spirited defenders of the freedom of the individual and of humanity, such as my friends from Tasmania, will support us in this regard. A young person leaving school today is going into a very tense personal family situation. To add this to it is to compound the misery we have imposed upon them collectively by not being able to solve the economic problems of the country. It is not an economic question; it is one of humanity.

Motion ( by Mr Bourchier) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The question now is: That the amendment be agreed to.

Dr Klugman:

– I should like it to be noted that although we do not call for a division on the question in relation to our amendment we would like our support for the amendment to be recorded.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Messages from the Governor-General recommending appropriations announced.

In Committee

Clauses 1 and 2- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Proposed new clause 2a.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– It is my intention to move for the insertion of a new clause relating to the means test. As the Committee will know, the present Government in its policy speech committed itself to the abolition of the means test. Indeed, I believe my friends in the Opposition have also been persuaded to adopt the same policy. It has been a little disappointing to the country that the Government has so far made no move towards implementing the policy which it has adopted. I believe it is fair to say in regard to the abolition of the means test that for many years I have been the prime mover, that is, apart from a former member, Sir Keith Wilson, who for the past 25 years and more has also been advocating this.

When I was a Minister I was able to persuade the Government of the day-that was the McMahon Government- to commit itself to the abolition of the means test. That has been the policy of the Government parties ever since. I believe that it is time now for that policy to be implemented. Something should be done about it. It is of no use the Government saying: ‘We do not have the finance to do it’. The amount of money is substantial, but it is not astronomical.

The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) earlier this afternoon quoted percentages of those who drew pensions. I think he gave a figure of 78 per cent. He was wrong, of course, because he did not allow for war pensions and other pensions of this character which considerably inflate that figure. Let us look properly at the figures and remember that pensions are taxable. In practically all cases those who would draw pensions if the means test were abolished but who do not draw them now would be paying tax at the rate of at least 33c in the dollar. Some would be paying more. The actual cost to the revenue is by no means as great as certain people have endeavoured to put about. I will not go into the merits of this reform now, as time is short. I move:

After clause 2, insert the following new clause: ‘2A. Section 28 of the principal Act is amended by omitting from sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (b) of sub-section (2AA) “70” and substituting”65-.

The amendment is a simple one. It would have the effect of abolishing the means test for everybody over 65 years of age.

Dr Klugman:

– Where is the money coming from?

Mr WENTWORTH:

-The money is there. I make no apology for saying that. The money is there already. There is a surplus in the revenue Budget. The trouble is that people are being taxed to pay for capital works. That is the reason for high rates of taxation in the community- this is one of the fundamental errors of the Treasurer (Mr Lynch)- and for the delay in the implementation of reforms such as the abolition of the means test, which is one of the Government’s planks for which a commitment was given in the last policy speech. I would have liked to have spoken to the amendment for half an hour. In view of the fact that honourable members want to get away, I will not go into the principles which I have explained over many years and on which I have been successful in carrying the Government parties with me. When I was Minister for Social Services I was able to force this policy on to the Government parties. That is no exaggeration. They have adopted it. They are committed to it specifically by the words of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in his policy speech prior to the last election. I hope that the amendment will be carried.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The amendment moved by the honourable member for Mackellar, which seeks to insert in the Bill a new clause 2A, has been examined. It has been found that the effect of the amendment would be to increase the appropriation recommended for the Bill. Therefore, I regret that the amendment is not admissible.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Mr Chairman, are you referring to Standing Order 292?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Yes.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Then I move:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would preclude the honourable member for Mackellar from now moving an amendment to the Social Services Amendment Bill 1 977 which would have the effect of abolishing the means test on anyone over 65 years of age.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I am afraid that the honourable member is out of order in moving for the suspension of Standing Orders.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I beg your pardon, Mr Chairman; I am perfectly in order.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member cannot move for the suspension of Standing Orders in Committee.

Mr HUNT:
Minister for Health · Gwydir · NCP/NP

-I move:

After clause 2, insert the following new clause: ‘2a. ( 1) Part IVAAA of the principal Act is repealed and the following Pan substituted:

“PART IVAAA-SUPPORTING PARENTS ‘ BENEFITS

83aaa. (1) In this Part, unless the contrary intention appears- ‘ beneficiary ‘ means a person in receipt of a benefit; ‘benefit’ means a benefit under this Part, and includes an allowance by way of supplementary assistance; ‘child’ means a child under the age of 16 years; ‘supporting father’ means a man (whether married of unmarried) who-

has the custody, care and control of a child who has attained the age of 6 months, being a child-

of whom that man is the father; or

ii) in the case of a man who is a married man living apart from his wife or a man who has ceased to live with a woman as her husband on a bona fide domestic basis although not legally married to her-who was an adopted child of, or in the custody, care and control of, that man on the relevant date;

is not living with, and for a period of at least 6 months has not been living with, a woman as her husband on a bona fide domestic basis although not legally married to her; and

in the case of a married man- is living apart from his wife and has been so living apart for a period of at least 6 months, but does not include a man who is qualified to receive a pension under Pan III, or a benefit under Part VII, of this Act, a service pension under the Repatriation Act 1920 or an allowance under the Tuberculosis Act 1948 or is in receipt of a benefit provided by a State that, in the opinion of the Director-General, is similar to a benefit provided by the State that is an approved benefit within the meaning of the States Grants (Deserted Wives) Act 1968; ‘supporting mother’ means a woman (whether married or unmarried) who-

a ) has the custody, care and control of a child who has attained the age of 6 months, being a child who-

was born of that woman; or

in the case of a woman who is a married woman living apart from her husband or a woman who has ceased to live with a man as his wife on a bona fide domestic basis although not legally married to him- was an adopted child of, or in the custody, care and control of, that woman on the relevant date;

is not living with, and for a period of at least 6 months has not been living with, a man as his wife on a bona fide domestic basis although not legally married to him; and

in the case of a married woman- is living apart from her husband and has been so living apart for a period of at least 6 months, but does not include a woman who is qualified to receive a pension under Part III or IV, or a benefit under Part VII, of this Act, a service pension under the Repatriation Act 1920 or an allowance under the Tuberculosis Act 1948 or is in receipt of a benefit provided by a State that is an approved benefit within the meaning of the States Grants (Deserted Wives) Act 1 968; ‘supporting parent’ means a person who is a supporting father or a supporting mother.

For the purposes of the definition of ‘supporting mother’ in sub-section ( 1 )-

the relevant date, in relation to a woman referred to in sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (a) of that definition, is whichever of the following dates is applicable to the woman or, if both dates so applicable, the later date:

the date on which the woman commenced to live apart from her husband;

the date on which the woman ceased, or last ceased, to live with a man as his wife on a bona fide domestic basis although not legally married to him; and

a woman shall be deemed not to be, or not to have been, living with a man as his wife on a bona fide domestic basis although not legally married to him, being a man who has been convicted of an offence, during any period during which the man is, or was, imprisoned in connexion with the offence, being a continuous period of not less than 6 months, whether or not the period commenced before the conviction.

For the purposes of the definition of ‘supporting father’ in sub-section ( 1 )-

the relevant date, in relation to a man referred to in sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (a) of that definition, is whichever of the following dates is applicable to the man, or if both dates are so applicable, the later date:

the date on which the man commenced to live apart from his wife;

the date on which the man ceased, or last ceased, to live with a woman as her husband on a bona fide domestic basis although not legally married to her, and

b) a man shall be deemed not to be, or not to have been, living with a woman as her husband on a bona fide domestic basis although not legally married to her, being a woman who has been convicted of an offence, during any period during which the woman is, or was, imprisoned in connexion with the offence, being a continuous period of not less than 6 months, whether or not the period commenced before the conviction.

For the purposes of this Part, a child who is being maintained by a person shall be deemed to be a child of whom the person has, and had at any time when the person was maintaining the child, the custody, care and control.

In this Part-

a reference to a woman who is living apart from her husband shall be read as a reference to a woman who is so living apart by reason that she and her husband are estranged; and

a reference to a man who is living apart from his wife shall be read as a reference to a man who is so living apart by reason that he and his wife are estranged.

For the purposes of the application of a provision of Part IV in relation to a supporting parent in accordance with section 83AAE or 83AAG that provision shall be read as if-

the benefit of the supporting parent were a pension under that Pan;

any reference to sub-section (4) of section 59 were a reference to sub-section (4) of this section;

any reference to section S9A were a reference to section 83AAB,’

any reference in section 61 to sub-section (1) of secdon 60 were a reference to section 83AAC;

any reference to a payment under Pan IV were a reference to a benefit; and

f) any reference to sub-section ( 5 ) of section 74 included a reference to section 83AAH.

A reference in this Pan to a period of residence in Australia shall be read as including a reference to a period of residence in an area that was, at the time of the residence, an external Territory, other than Norfolk Island. 83aab. Where a person (in this section referred to as ‘the dependant’) who is wholly or substantially dependent on another person (in this section referred to as ‘the parent’)-

has attained the age of 16 years;

b ) is receiving full-time education at a school, college or univesity; and

is not in receipt of an invalid pension under Part III, this Part applies in relation to the parent as if the dependent-

were a child;

were in the custody, care and control of the parent; and

had been in the custody, care and control of the parent at any time when the dependant was wholly or substantially dependent on the parent. 83aac. ( 1 ) Subject to this Part, a supporting parent is qualified to receive a benefit if the parent is residing in, and is physically present in, Australia on the date on which the supporting parent lodges a claim for the benefit and-

a ) in the case of a woman who is a supporting mother in relation to a child born of her- that child was born while she was residing in Australia;

in the case of a man who is a supporting father in relation to a child of whom he is the father- that child was born in Australia and that man was residing in Australia at the time of that birth;

in the case of a married person living apart from his or her spouse -the married person was residing in Australia immediately before he or she so commenced to live apart;

in the case of a woman who has ceased to live with a man as his wife on a bona fide domestic basis although not legally married to him- she was residing in Australia immediately before she so ceased or last so ceased;

in the case of a man who has ceased to live with a woman as her husband on a bona fide domestic basis although not legally married to her- he was residing in Australia immediately before he so ceased or last so ceased;

the supporting parent has been continuously resident in Australia for a period of not less than5 years immediately preceding the date on which the claim for the benefit is lodged; or

the supporting parent has, at any time, been continuously resident in Australia for a period of not less than 10 years.

A reference in paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e) of sub-section (1) to residence in Australia shall be read as including a reference to residence in an area that was, at the time of the residence, an external Territory, other than Norfolk Island. 83AAD. A benefit shall not be granted to a person who is a supporting parent unless the Director-General considers that it is reasonable that the supporting parent should have taken action to obtain maintenance from the person or persons who is or are the father or fathers, or the mother or mothers, as the case may be, of the child or children in relation to whom the first-mentioned person is the supporting parent and that that person has taken such action to obtain such maintenance as the Director-General considers reasonable. 83aae. The rate of a benefit is a rate equal to the rate of the pension (excluding supplementary assistance) that would be payable under Part IV to the supporting parent if the supporting parent were a class A widow for the purposes of that Part. 83aaf. Where a benefit is granted, it shall be paid from a date determined by the Director-General, but the date so determined shall not be prior to the date on which the claim for the benefit was lodged or later than the day that, for the purposes of Part III, is the first mentioned pay-day occurring after the date on which the claim was lodged, except where the determination of the claim has been delayed by neglect or default on behalf of the claimant, in which case the Director-General shall fix such later date of commencement as he considers reasonable in the circumstances. 83AAG. Section 61 and Divisions 3a, 4,5 (other than sec tion 68), 6 and 7 of Part IV apply in relation to a beneficiary as if the beneficiary were a widow for the purposes of that Part. 83AAH. In the event of-

a beneficiary, being a married person, ceasing to live apart from his or her spouse;

a beneficiary, being a woman, commencing to live with a man as his wife on a bona fide domestic basis although not legally married to him; or

a beneficiary, being a man commencing to live with a woman as her husband on a bona fide domestic basis although not legally married to her. the beneficiary shall, within 14 days after the occurrence of the event, notify a Director accordingly.

Penalty: $40.

A benefit in force under Part IVaaa of the Principal Act immediately before the commencement of thissection continues in force, after the commencement of this section, as if it had been granted under the Part substituted for that firstmentioned Pan by sub-section ( 1 ) of this section. ‘

The amendment seeks to add to the Bill provisions whereby the benefits currently available to supporting mothers are extended to supporting fathers. This is to be achieved by inserting a definition of supporting father. Because the new benefit will encompass both supporting mothers and supporting fathers, it will be renamed ‘supporting parent ‘s benefit. ‘ The new benefit will be payable to all fathers bringing up children on their own and will come into effect on the date the Bill received the royal assent. Fathers who have already been supporting their children for six months or more will become eligible immediately the Bill becomes law.

The rates of the new benefit and the income test will be the same as for the existing supporting mother’s benefit. A supporting father will be eligible for benefit of $49.30 a week plus $7.50 a week for each child, including a student child. In addition, a guardian’s allowance of $6 a week will be payable where he has the care of a child under six years of age, or an invalid child- $4 a week if the child is over six years but not an invalid. Thus a supporting father with two children, one of whom is under six years of age may receive, subject to the income test, a total benefit of $70.30 a week. In addition, he will be able to have a separate income of $32 a week without any effect on his benefit. Where rent is paid, supplementary assistance of up to $5 a week may also be payable. Eligible supporting fathers will also be entitled to the range of Commonwealth fringe benefits that are available to supporting mothers under existing conditions. These concessions are a reduced rental on their telephone, free hearing aid and funeral benefit.

The Government will be discussing the new benefit with the States to gain their acceptance of the inclusion of supporting fathers on the same terms as supporting mothers. Two States- Western Australia and South Australia- already provide assistance to this group. In the meantime, in those States in which State government assistance is not provided in the first six months, a supporting father will be eligible to claim special benefit which is paid at unemployment benefit rates and subject to the unemployment benefit income test. Due to the lack of data on supporting fathers- their number, the size of their families, their income distribution- and a lack of knowledge as to the number likely to seek assistance and the period for which they would seek it, it is not possible to estimate the exact cost of paying supporting fathers the same benefits as are available to supporting mothers. It is estimated, however, that the cost of a supporting father’s benefit would be of the order of $ 10m in a full year,and$6.5min 1977-78.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-I am most pleased that this new Part will be inserted. This matter goes back for nearly 10 years now, when I was Minister for Social Services. It is a matter which I urged then on the Government.

Mr James:

-You did.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Yes, without success. When the McMahon Government was defeated this matter was at the top of the list of priorities. In respect of each Budget since then I have protested at it not being included. I protested when I was in Opposition. I regret to say that at that time I did not get a great deal of support from my party in that regard. I protested when we were returned to office. I have previously described this matter as the greatest gap in our social services structure. I congratulate the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) who has been able to force this matter through. I think this is a great triumph. I know that the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) and other honourable members have been tremendously interested in it. As the person who, I think, was primarily responsible for putting this matter forward, I have the greatest pleasure now in supporting it. It gives me the greatest pleasure to note that the Government has seen fit to do this. My only regret is that it has taken so long to get a necessary, right and proper thing done.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I apologise to honourable members of the National Country Party, who obviously think they should have the call, for speaking in this place. After all, what right has an ordinary member of the Australian Labor Party to speak in the Parliament of Australia?

The CHAIRMAN:

– I suggest that the honourable member might get on with the subject matter.

Mr BRYANT:

-Let me give some of the history correctly. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) of course is correct. During his career as Minister for Social Services he carried out some advances, and during his period as a Government back bencher he also did the things which he mentioned today. The fact is that the real breakthrough was when the Labor Government put the supporting mother’s benefit in the book. We should congratulate those people who initiated the idea. The honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden), who was Minister for Social Security at the time, persuaded all the people involved that it ought to be done. There are so many difficulties of definition and technicalities that people dredge up at times like this. To arrive at the stage when this Parliament is prepared to accept the fact that people may be entitled to benefits of this nature, whether or not they live together and whether or not they have been legally married, is a great social advance. It has taken a long time.

From my own observations, one of the most disadvantaged groups in the community are the fathers, the men who have lost their wives, the supporter or other parent of their children. No matter what level of income they have or what status of employment they enjoy, it is tremendous hardship and a great blow. I hope we can take all these things a few steps further and make sure that we remove all such disabilities. I just say out of kindness to everybody here that all those people like the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) and all the other people who have taken part can exercise only a small amount of influence on the way the country is run. To those who will be leaving us as soon as the election is declared, I say that even if they feel that their contribution to the Parliament has all been very minimal, it has been for the nation, and that is a much bigger contribution than painting the back fence of the kindergarten on Saturday afternoon in a working bee.

Mr McVEIGH:
Darling Downs

-The National Country Party supports this innovation of the Liberal-National Country Party Government. We are delighted to be associated with it. I believe it is appropriate in a debate such as this to give real credit where it is due. Over a lifetime the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) has fought to ensure that an injustice would be corrected. In the twilight of his days in the House of Representatives he has had the opportunity to compliment the Government on implementing this notable reform in the area of social justice. I believe it is necessary to have recorded in Hansard the names of other people who have shown a vital and continued interest in the matter. Notwithstanding the statements of the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) we must remember that in October 1974 the present Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) moved an amendment to an Australian Labor Party Bill seeking to ensure that what is now being done would be done. That was three years ago. On that occasion we did not have the support of the Labor Party. Those are the facts, and no clouding of the issue can ever distort that truth. Let us be fair and honest.

Mr Fisher:

– The honourable member for Murray put this matter forward too.

Mr McVEIGH:

– My colleagues the honourable member for Mallee mentions the wonderful contribution of the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd). I recall- I am subject to correctionthat on at least three occasions in this Parliament, in his usual forthright and forceful style, he advocated non-discrimination against lone fathers. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), a man of compassion and concern for the underprivileged, is on record on many occasions advancing the proposition that, in justice, lone fathers should have the same entitlement as lone mothers. More recently several other people also have been advancing the proposition.

I believe it is appropriate to recall that over many years the people who I enumerated were pressing very strongly for this amendment which has now been moved by the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt). It is good to see that in this modern day and age the Government, a government which will move with the times, is prepared to change its emphasis in the light of social and demographic change. There are changes in the concept of the family. Greater responsibilities accrue because we now have working mothers. The family is under greater threat because of easier divorce laws. Too often the father is the person who is offended against. His situation is particularly difficult. Unless benefits such as lone father’s benefit are extended, it will be necessary for a lone father to work full time. What does he do with his children while they are waiting for him to come home from work? Unfortunately employers by and large have not extended to lone fathers the same consideration as they have been prepared to extend to lone mothers in the arrangement of shifts and working hours.

The Finer Committee in the United Kingdom did a great deal of analysis on the matter. It was found that a third of the lone fathers in the United Kingdom were leaving their children to their own devices at weekends and after school, leaving them to wait for their fathers to return home. It is absolutely necessary that the father be able to arrange his affairs so that he is a full time guardian and custodian of the family. Too often, because of the many and pressing calls on his time, both as the bread winner and as the person responsible for the upkeep of the home, he has been placed at very serious disadvantage. It is not possible for him to find the time to do the necessary repair jobs. It is not possible for him, as it is for the ordinary housewife, to look for the bargains and purchase the cheaper foods. Probably because he lacks culinary skills and it is impossible for him to cook good nourishing meals, he has to resort to easily prepared fast foods.

A lone father also has emotional problems with which to deal, particularly if he has teenage children. The problem is accentuated if the teenage child happens to be a daughter. It is not so easy for the lone father to mix in society. In effect, he tends to become socially isolated. That is a problem he can overcome if he has time on his hands to do the things he wants to do and he does not have to worry about being a full time employee. There has been a world-wide acceptance of the need for social benefits for lone fathers. Although I do not agree that South Australia is the most advanced State in Australia, it is good to note that on 1 July this year the South Australian Government extended to lone fathers of that State a lone father’s benefit. Denmark, Sweden, New Zealand and the United Kingdom also make special benefits available to fathers who unfortunately are placed in this position.

The amount of money involved will be quite large. A recent analysis indicated that there were at least 25,000 lone fathers in Australia who will be able to obtain this benefit. We of the National Country Party are delighted that the Government has seen fit to spread the umbrella of social justice to include people who have been discriminated against. It is unfortunate that the traditional standards of society have broken down and that so many fathers are placed in this situation. But it is not for us to criticise; we have to accept the position as it is and do what is possible to uphold the dignity of the people who are so afflicted. We are going to iron out the anomalies and give help where it is needed. Lone fathers can take some comfort from the fact that people have been pressing this need for them over a life-time. The voice of the honourable member for Mackellar was the lone voice crying out in the wilderness for many years. He was supported by the Prime Minister, the present Minister for Social Security, the honourable member for Murray and now by other newcomers in the Parliament, particularly the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck). What was an idea in the mind of one person originally has been taken, hammered and chiselled into shape so that in the final analysis justice will be done a most deserving sector of the community.

Mr GOODLUCK:
Franklin

– I support the Bill. I wish to congratulate the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) for. bringing in this very important legislation which will assist many lone fathers in Australia and in particular their children, which is the most important thing. I shall outline very briefly a few of the reasons why lone fathers were due for this support. Whilst we live and breathe politics every day and whilst sometimes one party may beat the other party to the punch, we cannot get away from the fact that the legislation will be passed and lone fathers will get their benefit. That is the important thing. I am a little disappointed with the remarks of one leader of the lone father; I think he is the president of the New South Western Lone Fathers Association. He said that he is only 50 per cent happy -

Mr Hodgman:

– Very ungrateful.

Mr GOODLUCK:

-I do not think he is ungrateful: I think that he just does not understand that political implications come into these sorts of decisions. The decision has now been made and the people in need will benefit. Also their children will benefit and that is the important thing. We could pick out members who have assisted so earnestly in the framing of this legislation, but why should we? I think everybody in this chamber has supported it. Now we have it before us: That is the main thing. All politicians should drive in the direction that will help the Australian public as a whole. I think everybody would agree that that too, is important.

I should like to read into Hansard part of an article which I wrote about nine months ago and which outlines my feelings and sentiments as to why lone fathers should get a benefit comparable with that of lone mothers. If we believe, as I do, that the family has the main responsibility for socialising the next generation, is an important agent for social control, and provides a unique opportunity for the satisfaction of emotional needs, it should be understood that an incomplete family is likely to find it more difficult to carry out these functions. Therefore, society is bound to be concerned, and concerned it should be. When a wife and mother is deserted or widowed and left without maintenance, the community, through welfare benefits, makes provision to take over the breadwinner’s role. This leaves the mother free to pursue her accepted role of homemaker if she chooses, though often under great difficulty and strain. When a father is left alone, the struggle to maintain a full time job while still providing for child minding during the time he is away outside school hours is extemely difficult. When a woman remarries she is still able to stay at home with her children. Concerned fathers have told me that they must think very carefully before remarrying and consider the compatibility of the children with their prospective new mother, as she will be the one with whom they will spend most of their time. It can thus be argued that if the community is prepared to take the responsibility of breadwinner for a single mother then it should also take the responsibility for the provision of a substitute mother when a father is prepared, at all costs, to keep his family together. The necessity for a lone parent on both roles may arise suddenly. The widowed must learn to cope with their grief; the divorced and unmarried with any doubts. Above all they must face the task of convincing themselves and their children that they can manage alone.

Invariably, tasks and responsibilities are given to children which are far too much for them. I can relate my own situation. Unfortunately two of my sisters grew up before their time because they were left with the burden of looking after their younger brother and sister. The point I make is that we have succeeded in a mammoth task of introducing legislation which is going to help not this generation, but other generations. As I mentioned before, we all believe in the family unit. I believe that as a result of this measure the family unit will be kept together, though perhaps not altogether satisfactorily and that this legislation is a move in the right direction.

Mr Groom:

- Mr Chairman, I seek your indulgence to raise one matter. Is there some way in which the Committee can formally move that the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) be commended for his tireless efforts for the lone fathers of Australia?

The CHAIRMAN:

-No, there is no way at all. It is not relevant to the Bill before the House.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-Mr Chairman, this has stirred me. This is ridiculous. Government supporters are trying to play up the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) and put on an act as though he really had something to do with this particular piece of legislation. Do not let us kid ourselves. This is benefit week for the Tasmanians.

Mr Groom:

-We did not see you outside meeting the lone fathers.

Dr KLUGMAN:

– All right, but the lone fathers are responsible for this legislation, not the honourable member for Franklin. He had nothing to do with it. There have been people trying to get this piece of legislation through for years. After the announcement about the election, we get the tearjerker that the honourable member for Franklin is responsible for getting this benefit for the lone fathers. He may get a few votes from the lone fathers of Franklin, but let me tell him that there are a lot of people unemployed through lack of work because of the things he and his Government have done. Those in his own electorate will vote against him. He will lose his seat.

The CHAIRMAN:

-The remarks of the honourable member for Prospect also are a little irrelevant to the subject matter of the Bill.

Proposed new clause agreed to.

Clauses 3 to 12- by leave- taken together.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– I do not suppose that the Minister has the figures available at the moment, but can he advise me what is the saving to the Government arising from the elimination of the sickness benefit for males whose spouses are working?

Mr HUNT:
Minister for Health · Gwydir · NCP/NP

– I do not have the figures here. I will take the question on notice and try to supply the information to the honourable member.

Clauses agreed to.

Clause 13 (Non-payment for 6 weeks of unemployment benefit in case of persons ceasing education)

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-I should like to state formally the Opposition’s objection to clause 13. Hopefully the people of this country, particularly those who have children leaving school this year, will remember when they are voting on 10 December that because of the niggardly behaviour of this Government their children will not be able to receive unemployment benefit for six weeks after their examinations are completed. We have the ridiculous provision in this legislation that tertiary students will not be able to obtain unemployment benefit for six weeks after their examinations if they do not complete their courses, unless the DirectorGeneral is satisfied that the cessation of their studies was not due to a voluntary act and that there was good and sufficient reason for it. We will have more people continuously asking questions, people who are already in strife because they cannot get jobs. Hundreds of thousands of people leaving school or tertiary institutions of some kind will now be deprived of six weeks unemployment benefit. In some cases it will be much more than six weeks unemployment benefit, because even if they leave earlier the Government can rule that they left without a good and sufficient reason, that they left by a voluntary act, the voluntary act being trying to find employment Under this Government, of course, trying to get a job is not a good and sufficient reason.

These people will not be able to receive the unemployment benefit until some time in February, no matter what time they leave after about August. I think this is a very unpleasant way of saving money and of pretending that the number of unemployed in this country is much less than it really is. The Opposition therefore opposes clause 13.

Mr HUNT:
Minister for Health · Gwydir · NCP/NP

– I would like to make some reply to the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) on my own behalf because I believe that he is missing a point, that is that when school leavers leave school they have been accustomed to receiving pocket money of some sort. Under the old arrangement they went straight on to unemployment benefit. In some instances parents have complained that this was not good so far as the attitude of the children was concerned. In the parents’ view, they were entitled to a social service unemployment benefit which tended to kill their desire or initiative to take a job. So I do not think there will be the objection that the honourable member for Prospect says there will be, because I have found that many parents were concerned that their children became eligible for unemployment benefit when they felt that the children should not be tempted in this way. I think that the honourable member will find that on 10 December the people will not be as sensitive to this issue or will not be as inclined to believe that the Australian Labor Party is the salvation that he believes it is.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-The Minister might as well argue that lone fathers should not be entitled to the benefit because it will take away their incentive for finding a spouse. This is ridiculous. The whole point of benefits is that if one qualifies for something specific one is entitled to receive it. This is a major discrimination against those families in the country who find it difficult to keep their children when they leave school and cannot find a job.

Mr Hunt:

– If they cannot keep them for another six weeks -

Dr KLUGMAN:

-I put to the Minister earlier that this is exactly the sort of contempt that rich graziers have for the people in the community. I would suggest that there are plenty of people in the Minister’s electorate- widows with children leaving school for example. They lose the family allowance for the child. They lose the pension benefit for their children once they leave school and they cannot receive unemployment benefit.

Mr Hunt:

– If there is hardship, they are entitled to special benefit.

Dr KLUGMAN:

-They will receive the special benefit sometime in January.

Question put:

That clause 13 be agreed to.

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

AYES: 58

NOES: 15

Majority……. 43

AYES

In division -

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Remainder of Bill- by leave- taken as a whole.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– I wish to raise a matter which is of specific importance and which affects a relatively small number of people. It really relates to the need for a provision in the Social Services Act for discretion in regard to the sections of the Act which relate to the payment of pensions outside Australia. I think all honourable members would agree that the specific case which I will put before the Committee indicates the need for the provision which I am suggesting. Some time ago I had cause to take up with the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) the case of a widow whose husband, prior to his death, had been an invalid pensioner, this entitling her to payment of the equivalent of the pension on the basis that she was the wife of a pensioner, but not as of right. When the husband of the woman concerned died her entitlement ceased, although she was not aware of this fact. The family decided that the husband should be interred in Italy and his wife accompanied the body to Italy without filling in an application for widow s pension prior to leaving Australia. The husband- had been dead for about four days when she left

Australia. She was under the impression, as was her family, that she was in fact in receipt of a pension. They did not understand the niceties of the payment of a wife’s allowance to the wife of a pensioner.

When her family inquired why she was not receiving the pension they were informed that she was not eligible because she had left Australia before establishing eligibility by making the necessary application for a widow’s pension. This is a matter of definition. I think it is just an oversight in the Act, although it may have been a deliberate oversight at the time. This is an area where, quite clearly, the Minister should have discretion to take action in order to allow the woman’s application to be received as if it had been made prior to her departure from Australia. This is a matter where hardship was caused. In order to obtain eligibility for a continuation of the payment she was already receiving- it is largely only a technicality of applying for a widow’s pension and receiving the same- she has to return to Australia or else be without that pension. I raise the matter because, although the Act will not be altered at this time, it ought to be altered at a subsequent time to give discretion to the Minister in cases where a quite clear hardship is created because of circumstances which do not arise very often but which should be able to be corrected when they do arise.

Mr HUNT:
Minister for Health · Gwydir · NCP/NP

– I will take note of the point raised by the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes), which essentially seeks to give discretion to the Minister. I will make sure that the request from the honourable member is passed on to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle). I think I have comprehended the desire of the honourable member to ensure that the legislation has a degree of flexibility to cater for serious cases that arise from time to time.

Remainder of Bill agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; report- by leave- adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Mr Hunt)-by leave- read a third time.

page 2922

TAXATION: FOREIGN COMPANIES

Ministerial Statement

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer · Stirling · LP

– by leave- At present, foreign company groups usually conduct their operations in Australia through a subsidiary company which is incorporated here and is thus resident in Australia for income tax purposes. These investors pay company tax of 46 per cent on their Australian taxable income, plus dividend withholding tax on dividends remitted to their home country. The basic rate of withholding tax is 30 per cent, and this is reduced to 15 per cent where the shareholder is resident in a country with which Australia has a comprehensive double tax agreement. Some foreign company groups conduct Australian operations through a branch of a company that is incorporated overseas, and, for tax purposes, resident in another country. The Australian taxable income of these branches is liable to company tax of 46 per cent, but remittances of branch profits to head office and dividends paid to foreign shareholders do not attract Australian tax additional to the primary company tax of 46 per cent.

The Government will correct the lack of balance by introducing a branch profits tax based on the Australian taxable income of foreign resident companies. The tax applicable to branch profits, which will be a broad substitute for the dividend withholding tax applicable to dividend remittances by subsidiaries, will be designed to ensure that the benefit Australia obtains from foreign investment by way of tax revenue is not reduced because of the form in which operations are conducted here. Other countries have branch profits taxes and the Asprey Committee recommended that one should be introduced in Australia. Consideration of imposing a branch profits tax began some time ago.

The tax that the Government has in mind will be related to taxable income of non-resident companies, as distinct from a tax based on remittances of branch profits. As branches, unlike subsidiaries, are taxed on dividend income, it is not intended to apply the branch profits tax to the part of taxable income referable to such income; nor is it envisaged that it will apply to other income of non-residents taxed under special provisions of the income tax law, namely, film royalties, shipping profits, or insurance premiums. The tax, when introduced under Legislation to be brought forward in the autumn, will apply to income of the 1977-78 income year and subsequent years and, like company tax, will be due for payment in the year following the year in which the income is derived. I present the following paper.

Branch profit tax on foreign companies not operating in Australia through a resident subsidiary- Ministerial Statement, 4 November 1977.

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

– I move:

That the House take note of the paper.

The Opposition did not have a chance to look at this document. I am grateful to the Opposition for allowing the Government to introduce this document this afternoon without the usual two hours notice.

Debate (on motion by Dr Klugman) adjourned.

page 2923

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests:

Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1977.

Commonwealth Electoral (Redistribution) Bill 1977.

Public Service (Permanent Head- Dual Appointment) Bill 1977.

Coal Research Assistance Bill 1977.

Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1977.

States Grants (Coal Mining Industry Long Service Leave) Amendment Bill 1977.

page 2923

ADJOURNMENT

Fraser Ministry: Pecuniary Interests of Treasurer

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr E G Whitlam:
Leader of the Opposition · WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– For the last two weeks I have been using such procedures as are open to members of this Parliament to clarify the role of the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) in land dealings in or near his electorate of Flinders. My inquiries have been based on evidence given before the commission inquiring -

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker- Mr P. H. Drummond)

AYES: 58

NOES: 17

Majority……. 41

AYES

NOES

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 4.33 p.m. until 11 a.m., Monday, 7 November 1977

page 2924

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Appointment of Charges d’Affaires (Question No. 80)

Private Health Funds, Tasmania: Governing Boards (Question No. 1100)

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 Tasmania.
  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 by contributors to the fund.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Associated Pulp and Paper Makers’ Council Medical Benefits Fund/Associated Pulp and Paper Makers’ Council Hospital Benefits Fund

    1. T. O’Hern; A. Dykstra; L. Flemming; G. A. .Spinks; R. Emin; K. T. Dawkins; E. H. Newman; B. R. Bugg; A. Keygan; B. Douglas; L. T. Nutting; T. J. Keating; E. Wilson; A. C. Haberle; R. Burns; K. A. McKercher; E. R. Mitchell; G. Bin; K. O. Gabbedy; V. W. Breaden; B. A. Polden D. A. French; B. R. Fraser, L. Bloom; D. I. Bissett.

Coats Patons Employees’ Mutual Benefit Society and Hospital and Medical Benefit Association

G. Lohrey; R. Bartel; A. Woolston; W. Williams; K. Dixon; L. Knowles; J. Wallace; P. Jetson; G. Brumby; J. Bevis; A. Emerson; Z. Anderson.

Druids Friendly Society of Tasmania

R. J. Hosie; B. V. Ockerby; R. B. Ralph; C. A. Towell P. T. C. Hutchings.

Electrolytic Zinc Employees’ Medical Union/Electrolytic Zinc Employees’ Hospital Fund

W. Wise; H. P. Quinn; H. Daniels; M. Jury; G. G. Hean C. L. Parsons; F. Heaney M. Dann; R. J. Minty; C. H. Woodward; E. C. Molross; L. Archell; T. Francis; T. Scanlon; J. R. Clemmett; C. Millington; D. Cooper, D. Green; E. Silcock; J. Errey; O. G. Woodward.

Health Insurance Commission (Medibank Private)

G. Howells (Chairman); R. H. Kronborg (Deputy Chairman); A. E. Hartshorn; R. G. Williams (General Manager); C. R. Wilcox; Sister Paulina Pilkington; H. West

Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Limited

  1. L. Amies; W. H. Collins; A. K. Lavis; D. P. Rowe; A. H. Braby; R. S. Day; J. F. Lee; N. L. Sherwood; D. Braham; H. H Gibson; J. H. McDowell; W. F. Simmons;
  2. A. Brown; J. M. Gosper; J. P. McPhee; D. J. Walters; H. Budd; G. L. Howe; H. Stuart Patterson; J. W. C. Wyett; R. S. Cohen; A. M. Johnson; A. H. Pollard; A. W. 0. Young.

Queenstown Medical Union Ancillary Benefits Fund/Queenstown Medical Union Hospital Benefits Fund

  1. L. Bugg; D. Sturgess; P. Reyolds; M. K. McGuinness; G. Hartley; E. N. Challen; L. J. Jacobs; M. B. Giles; R.V.Stubbs.

Rosebery Hospital and Medical Benefits Society

  1. Freeman; G. B. Kremmer; J. M. Fisher; J. G. Druett; B. Randall; R. J. Purvis; G. L. Gillies; K. C. McDonald; J.
  2. McMeekin.

St Luke’s Medical and Hospital Benefits Association

A. T. Sorrell; R. E. Ward; A. F. Matson; R. S. Newman; T. E. Brain; D. Jones; D. A. Green; G. A. Calver; D. Henshaw; L. N. Gollan.

Tasmanian Government Insurance Office Medical Benefits Plan/Tasmanian Government Insurance Office Hospital Benefits Plan

  1. G. Murdoch; K. J. Binns E. Coulter; S. W. Caffin (members appointed by State Government).

    1. State Law

Companies Act

Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Limited (Foreign Company)

St Luke’s Medical and Hospital Benefits Association.

Friendly Societies Act

Associated Pulp and Paper Makers’ Council Medical Benefits Fund/Associated Pulp and Paper Makers’ Council Hospital Benefits Fund.

Coats Patons Employees’ Mutual Benefits Society and Hospital and Medical Benefits Association.

Druids Friendly Society of Tasmania.

Electrolytic Zinc Employees’ Medical Union/Electrolytic Zinc Employees ‘ Hospital Fund.

Rosebery Hospital and Medical Benefits Society.

Tasmanian Government Insurance Act 1 9 1 9- 1 970

Tasmanian Government Insurance Office Medical Benefits Plan/Tasmanian Government Insurance Office Hospital Benefits Plan

Commonwealth Law

Health Insurance Commission Act 1973

Health Insurance Commission (Medibank Private).

The health funds operated by the Queenstown Medical Union are not registered or incorporated under State Law.

  1. Neither Commonwealth law nor the relevant State legislation makes provision for the election of governing boards by contributors to the fund.

With regard to the above organisations registered under the Friendly Societies Act all these organisations are of an industrial nature except the Druids Friendly Society. The position for the Druids is similar to that for non-industrial friendly societies in other States where 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 directorate. Contributors to such funds are not required to be members of the societies.

The following sets out the position regarding those organisations which make some provision for the election of governing boards by contributors, whether by way of their Rules, Constitution, Memorandum and Articles of Association or otherwise:

Associated Pulp and Paper Makers’ Council Medical Benefits Fund/Associated Pulp and Paper Makers’ Council Hospital Benefits Fund

The medical and hospital funds are governed by a council of twenty-five members- twenty-one elected by contributors and four appointed by the company.

Coats Pawns Employees’ Mutual Benefit Society and Hospital and Medical Benefit Association

The medical and hospital funds are governed by a Committee of twelve members- eight elected by contributors and four appointed by the company.

Electrolytic Zinc Employees’ Medical Union/Electrolytic Zinc Employees’ Hospital Fund

The medical and hospital funds are governed by a council of twenty-one members- fourteen elected by contributors and seven appointed by the company.

Queenstown Medical Union Ancillary Benefits Fund/Queenstown Medical Union Hospital Benefits Fund

The constitution of the ‘Queenstown Medical Union’ provides for a governing body of nine members comprising eight members elected by the contributors and one member appointed by the company.

Rosebery Hospital and Medical Benefits Society (Medical Fund only)

The rules of the organisation provide that the management committee shall consist of not less than six members or more than ten members appointed from the Board of Management of the Montagu Medical Union. Members of the Montagu Medical Union which comprise a high proportion of the contributors of the Medical Fund are entitled to vote for the Board of Management.

St Luke’s Medical and Hospital Benefits Association

Under the organisation’s Memorandum and Articles of Association any financial member of the association is entitled to vote on nomination for director at the annual general meeting. The board consists of ten members.

Quarantine Surveillance: Staff Limitations (Question No. 1122)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 16 August 1 977:

  1. 1 ) Have staff limitations made it difficult to maintain adequate quarantine surveillance at many ports of entry.
  2. Have particular problems arisen at (a) Sydney Airport, (b) Tullamarine Airport and (c) ports along north-west Australia.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. However, my Department has reviewed the problem areas in an endeavour to make the best use of available resources and to identify essential additional staffing needs. It is proceeding to recruit more staff for this purpose.
  2. (a) The increasing requirement for quarantine services at Sydney Airport (Kingsford Smith) has presented particular problems. A recent increase in staff together with a rearrangement of shift conditions has enabled the work to be performed with only minimal delays. Heavy overtime commitments are still necessary on a regular basis.

    1. The quarantine workload at Melbourne Airport (Tullamarine) occurs primarily in the early morning and is adequately serviced by a morning shift Aircraft arriving later are dealt with by a skeleton staff supplemented by morning shift workers on rostered overtime. Because of staff limitations the number of staff on the afternoon and night shifts has not been brought up to a level which would be necessary to avoid this routine overtime commitment
    2. Because of increases in shipping movements in the north-west additional full time quarantine positions have been established in the ports of Geraldton, Dampier and Port Walcott to improve surveillance in the region. Special measures have been initiated to cope with landings by foreign fishing vessels and Vietnamese vessels along the north-west coastline.

Quadrant: Literature Board Subsidy (Question No. 1274)

Mr Baume:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in the Arts, upon notice, on 24 August 1977:

  1. What subsidy per issue does the Literature Board of Australia give to the monthly magazine Quadrant, to which I am a regular contributor.
  2. What subsidy per issue does the Board give to the other literary magazines.
  3. How many times do these magazines appear per year.
  4. Does this mean that Quadrant, which appears 12 times a year, is receiving far less per issue in federal subsidy than other literary magazines.
  5. If so, why is Quadrant being discriminated against.
  6. Would the Government prefer Quadrant to appear less frequently.
Mr Staley:
Minister for the Capital Territory · CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. 1 ) The present per issue subsidy for Quadrant is $ 1 ,600.
  2. and (3) Other literary magazines which are or have been subsidised on a regular per issue basis and their frequency of publication are:
  1. Quadrant is receiving less per issue than other comparable journals although most of those journals are published on a quarterly basis.
  2. 5) See answer to (4) above.
  3. 1 believe Quadrant is an admirable publication but the number of appearances for Quadrant is for Quadrant to determine.

Quadrant: Literature Board Subsidy (Question No. 1293)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in the Arts, upon notice, on 25 August 1977:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to question No. 1274 which indicates that the honourable member for Macarthur is a regular contributor to Quadrant.
  2. If so, is he able to say what payment the honourable member receives per 1000 words of contribution.
  3. Is he also able to say whether the New South Wales Liberal M.L.A., Mr Peter Coleman, is the editor of Quadrant.
  4. Can he say what payment the editor receives.
  5. What subsidy did Quadrant receive from the Literature Board of Australia during 1 976-77.
Mr Staley:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question as follows: ()Yes.

  1. No. That is a matter for the journal and its contributors to determine.
  2. 3 ) Yes. Mr Peter Coleman is the editor of Quadrant.
  3. No. That is also a matter for the journal to determine.
  4. The total amount provided by the Literature Board of the Australia Council was $ 1 5,200.

Department of Business and Consumer Affairs: Libraries (Question No. 1372)

Mr Bungey:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 6 September 1977:

  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) 975-76 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 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 Fife:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: 1 (a) Three libraries- Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne. 1 (b) The main purpose of all the libraries is to service the research and general working needs of the Department. 2 (a) See tables land 2.

Canberra: Major staffing changes have occurred in the past three years, however, the up-grading of the library officer grade I position (to a grade II) is under review.

Sydney: Prior to November 1976 there was an extra library officer grade I and a typist As a result of the transfer of the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories to the Department of Science these positions were abolished. No major staffing changes are contemplated.

Melbourne: In 1976 a Clerical Assistant Grade 3 position was created within the Library establishments organisation. No major staffing changes are contemplated.

  1. Canberra: The purpose and services of the library system are under constant review/examination by the Librarian.

Sydney: A review of the library was completed during August 1977 by the department However, at this stage recommendations have not been finalised.

Melbourne: A review of the library was carried out in December 1975 by the Organisation and Systems Review Section of the Department Major considerations included:

  1. 1 ) Consolidation of the library service including an emphasis on administrative factors- recommended
  2. Split of the library service between Customs and the Analytical Laboratories-not recommended
  3. Relocation of the library to an area of at least 160 square metres- recommended
  4. Creation of a position at Clerical Assistant 3 level to overcome backlogs and to assist in providing improved day to day service- recommended.
  5. The libraries are open to the public on a restricted basis. The extent of public usage is minimal.

Oil Industry (Question No. 1396)

Mr Jacobi:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 8 September 1977:

  1. 1 ) In view of the Prime Minister’s recent commitment to support small business, does he endorse the views expressed by bis predecessor in a Press statement on 31 May 1977 relating to the retail side of the oil industry.
  2. Does he also endorse his predecessor’s commitment that, while rejecting the establishment of an oil industry agency recommended by the Royal Commission on Petroleum, it was basic to the philosophy of the Government that as far as possible the economy operated according to market forces.
  3. Has his attention been drawn to an article in the Adelaide Advertiser of 27 June 1977 regarding Adelaide petrol resellers. If so, does it accurately summarise the abuses and injustices currently pervading the industry.
  4. Is it considered by the Government that there is a need for urgent action in this area.
  5. Does the Government recognise the apparent need for such companies as Southern Cross Petroleum Pty Ltd which offers some protection to these dealers.
  6. With reference to the ruling by the Trade Practices Commission that tenant dealers have the right to buy 50 per cent of their supplies from other than the company to which they are tied, will he provide legal protection to tenant dealers, by way of access to arbitration, in respect of disputes with the oil companies.
  7. What action has been taken on these matters raised in my question No. 152 of9 March 1977.
  8. Do current industry statistics show that average service station volumes have not altered during the last 3 years.
  9. Has every independent review of the oil industry shown, that the ownership, control and operation of retail petrol outlets have been manipulated to maximise benefits to the oil majors at the expense of consumers, lessee dealers and independent dealers.
  10. 10) If so, and if the oil companies rationalise their selling outlets as they desire, will this end price cutting and thus place the motorist at the mercy of the oil companies.
  11. Does the Government intend to re-introduce the Rural Price Equalisation Scheme or will this area be left to market forces.
  12. Does his Department have information on how many of the recently closed petrol outlets sold less than 5,000 gallons a month and conformed to the Royal Commission on Petroleum’s description of many previously closed outlets as pumps of convenience in yards, factories and business sites, where economics in terms of distribution costs, pump utilisation and maintenance became too unfavourable to De persisted in. If so, what are the details.
  13. Can he supply the following for each State: (a) what Federal Government departments, authorities or commissions buy bulk supplies of petroleum, (b) what price do they pay, (c) from which oil company or companies do they purchase petrol, (d) what is the wholesale price of petrol as charged to lessee petrol resellers by lack of these companies in the States concerned and, do these figures reveal any evidence of price discrimination.
  14. 14) What action does he propose to ensure that the price discrimination practised by oil companies is prohibited in accordance with the price discrimination provisions in the Trade Practices Act
  15. 1 5 ) In view of the Government ‘s decision not to establish an oil industry agency, what action does the Government propose in the following areas where the Royal Commission suggested that attention was required: (a) the monitoring of landed costs and transfer prices, (b) the establishment of a program of crude oil conservation, (c) a restructuring of the pricing system, (d) regulation of dealer-company relationships, (e) the standardisation of lease agreements between oil companies and their dealers, and the establishment of a suitable degree of contractural independence for dealers and ( f) the determination of prices of all petroleum products.
Mr Fife:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. My attention has been drawn to an article in the Adelaide Advertiser of 27 July 1977 regarding Adelaide petrol sellers. The article canvasses some of the complaints made about the petroleum industry.
  4. The Government does not intend to continue an examination of the oil industry in particular but matters such as the place of small retail outlets and dealer arrangements in the industry are being considered in the context of the Government’s general monitoring of small business and of the effects of the Trade Practices Act.
  5. 5 ) The Government has given support to collective acquisition schemes by its recent amendments to the Trade Practices Act which place these schemes in a more favourable position than formerly. In making these amendments, the Government acknowledged that the schemes may play an important role in protecting the position of small businesses such as those in the petroleum retail industry.
  6. The Trade Practices Act provides remedies for individuals who suffer as a result of contraventions of the Act. Legal aid may also be available for those individuals. Any disputes between individual dealers and oil companies would be a matter for the parties concerned.
  7. The honourable member has mentioned the Press statement of 3 1 May by my predecessor. In order to monitor future developments in the petroleum industry, the Government has established an Oil Industry Marketing Consultative Committee to provide a continuing source of information to the Government on marketing aspects of the Oil Industry and on 19 October I announced the initial membership of that Committee.
  8. I am advised that current industry statistics indicate a steady rise in average service station volumes during the last three years.
  9. and (10) I am not aware of the findings of every independent review of the industry.
  10. The Government is giving present consideration to this matter.
  11. No.
  12. No. Such information is not centrally recorded.
  13. 14) The Trade Practices Act already prohibits forms of price discrimination that have or are likely to have, the effect of substantially lessening competition. The administration of the Act is vested in the Trade Practices Commission which, as an independent authority, has a discretion to institute proceedings in relation to contraventions of the Act
  14. 15) I refer the honourable member to the statement on crude oil policy made in this House by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for National Resources on 16 August 1977. The measures outlined in that statement the establishment of the Oil industry Marketing Consultative Committee, and the recent amendments to the Trade Practices Act are major initiatives taken by the Government regarding the petroleum industry.

Genetic Engineering: Institutes and Laboratories (Question No. 1478)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 14 September 1977:

  1. What institutes and laboratories under the control of the Commonwealth Government are carrying out research in genetic engineering.
  2. What are the topics of research being carried out
  3. What safeguards are employed in each of these institutes to prevent contamination by genetically altered material.
  4. What mechanism does the Government have to ensure that it has complete knowledge of all of these projects.
Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

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

By way of introduction, it may be useful to state that expression ‘genetic engineering’ is taken to refer to research with artificially recombined molecules of DNA, the molecules carrying the hereditary message in cells.

The answers to the specific questions are as follows:

Under my portfolio, the CSIRO Division of Plant Industry.

Three projects have been approved by the Australian Academy of Science Standing Committee on Recombinant DNA and are being carried out under the biological and physical containment procedures recommended by the Academy.

Construction of molecular vectors for plant cells.

Chromosomal mapping of ribosomal DNA sequences.

Function of chloroplast DNA.

The CSIRO projects fall into categories of experiments that may be carried out in standard microbiological laboratories, subject to the adoption of specified safeguards. It so happens that each of the three experiments mentioned above is subject to different safeguards, as recommended by the Academy, and details can be provided if the honourable member so desires. The laboratories in the Division of Plant Industry where the experiments are carried out are supervised by personnel trained in sound microbiological practices, including correct use of general and specialised equipment inactivation of biological material, and procedures for emergencies.

The main channel of advice is the Academy’s Standing Committee mentioned above. The Academy took the initiative in establishing that Committee to exercise control of genetic engineering experiments, when Australian scientists first expressed interest in conducting them. It reviews proposals for research and makes recommendations on appropriate procedures and safeguards according to guidelines developed by British and United States scientists in cooperation with the governments of their countries. CSIRO, in conjunction with all universities and Commonwealth and State research laboratories, has agreed to submit all proposed projects involving recombinant DNA molecules to the Standing Committee and to observe its recommendations. The Department of Health maintains close liaison with the Standing Committee and is currently reviewing this overall mechanism of control of genetic engineering experimentation in co-operation with the Department of Science and CSIRO.

Current Affairs Bulletin: Grant-in-Aid (Question No. 1578)

Mr Hurford:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 4 October 1977:

  1. Is the grant-in-aid to the Current Affairs Bulletin published by the University of Sydney to be reduced from $20,000 to $ 1 5,000. If so, why.
  2. Does the Government intend phasing this grant out completely in 1978-79.
Mr Viner:
LP

– The Minister for Education has provided the following reply to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Yes. The decision was made as part of a general review by the Government of the level of grants-in-aid in 1 977- 78, having in mind the need for economic restraint
  2. ) No decision has been made with respect to the grant in

1978- 79.

Death of Mr Steven Biko (Question No. 1586)

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

am asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 4 October, 1 977:

  1. On what date and in what form has the Australian Government joined with other governments in expressing its concern to the South African Government as the United Kingdom and United States Governments have done, over the death of the leader of the South African Black People’s Convention while under police detention without trial.
  2. Can he say whether this was the twentieth death in South African jails in similar circumstances during 1976 and 1977.
  3. Has consideration been given to the Prime Minister writing to the Prime Minister of South Africa, as Prime Minister Menzies wrote to the then Prime Minister of South Africa after the massacre at Sharpeville and as the Prime Minister has recently written to the Prime Minister of India after the attacks on Indian diplomats in Australia.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. and (3) The Government considers that the attendance at the funeral of Mr Steven Biko on 25 September of an officer from the Australian Embassy in South Africa was the most fitting manner to express Australian feeling on this occasion.
  2. I understand that the number of deaths, whilst in custody, of persons detained by the South African police in connection with alleged offences of a political nature since early 1 976 is of the order mentioned by the honourable member.

Stevedoring Companies and Farm Machinery Manufacturers: Charges (Question No. 1701)

Mr Lloyd:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 6 October 1977:

  1. What evidence is there that stevedoring companies and farm machinery manufacturers have reduced their charges or the cost of spare parts as recommended by the Prices Justification Tribunal.
  2. Has one major farm machinery manufacturer replaced its reduced spare parts price schedule with another one at least as high as that criticised by the Tribunal.
Mr Fife:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Prices Justification Act requires companies which have been taken to inquiry by the Tribunal to notify the Tribunal within 14 days of receiving its report of the prices they are charging or propose to charge in the light of the Tribunal’s findings. The stevedoring and farm machinery spare parts manufacturing companies covered by the Tribunal’s inquiries notified the Tribunal that they had accepted its findings in regard to the charges and prices found to be justified by the Tribunal.
  2. A number of the manufacturers of farm machinery spare parts subsequently notified the Prices Justification Tribunal of proposed increased prices. The Tribunal found these increases to be justified in terms of the increased costs incurred by the companies.

Oil Industry (Question No. 1724)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1977:

  1. Further to his statement on 31 May 1977, what other decisions has the Government taken on recommendations of the 4th Report of the Royal Commission on Petroleum.
  2. In particular, will he now provide answers to question No. 162, parts (4) and (5).
  3. Are major oil companies extending their control over all marketing operations as illustrated by the fact that all major Shelll outlets that have been convened to self-serve are now operated by commissioned agents and through this system the company controls the entire trading arrangements; if so, what does the Government intend to do about this vertical integration of oil company operations.
Mr Fife:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) Please see my answer to question No. 1396.

Navy and Army Work Boats: Tenders (Question No. 1730)

Dr Richardson:
TANGNEY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1977:

Since the contract for fifteen Navy work boats and seven Army work boats, for which tenders were sought in any of four materials, wood, steel, fibreglass or aluminium, has been won by North Queensland Engineers and Agents Pry Ltd for $4.7m. will he give full reasons why the tender was considered superior to a tender by a joint-venture from Western Australian Marine Services Association, at approximately $2.3m.

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

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

A contract worth about $3.4m for these craft has been awarded to North Queensland Engineers and Agents for the supply of 22 work boats; the $4.7m quoted represents the total project cost of introducing these boats into service.

In April 1976 Australian and New Zealand firms in tendering for the supply of work boats were invited to register interest covering three options, namely: to a naval design package commercial design unaltered slightly modified commercial design and incorporating Navy supplied engines.

Tenders were clearly advised that proposals submitted on the basis of a commercial design would be evaluated against proposals received for the supply of craft to the Naval design in aluminium.

Tenderers were also advised that direct price comparison, economy of operation and other cost effective factors would all be considered in making a selection.

Following an exhaustive evaluation of all tenders received covering all options it was decided that the offer by North Queensland Engineers and Agents would provide the Navy and Army with craft which met all requirements and particularly would be the most suitable for operating in the arduous service environment.

The approach adopted sought the widest possible response from tenderers and did exclude consideration of any design or construction material.

Navy’s past experience with small GRP (fibreglass) boats indicated that it is not the most suitable material for the arduous duties planned for the twelve metre craft. However, by not excluding GRP from the tender schedule the possibility of Navy benefiting from technological development in the field was retained.

None of the GRP designs offered had qualities which met the Navy requirements for hull construction.

Naval Patrol Boats (Question No. 1731)

Dr Richardson:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1977:

In accepting the untried British Brooke-Marine 42m vessel with an unknown speed capability, rather than the proven 45m German Luerssen Went vessel with a known capability of at least 30 knots for the fourteen new naval patrol boats to be built in Australia, has the Government decided to adopt a simpler fishing protection vessel, rather than a comprehensive Naval patrol boat.

Mr Killen:
LP

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

Following an exhaustive examination of all available options the Government commissioned a project definition study of two proven patrol craft to determine the one which would satisfy the Royal Australian Navy’s requirement for coastal patrol and surveillance work.

Both craft meet the Navy’s requirements for speed and endurance and have superior speed, range and seakeeping qualities to the existing Attack class vessel which they will eventually replace. The RAN’s capability for coastal patrol will be considerably enhanced and will not in any way be confined to a surveillance role only.

Naval Patrol Boats (Question No. 1735)

Dr Richardson:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 12 October 1977:

  1. Did the original tender documents for the 14 new Royal Australian Navy patrol boats to be built in Australia ask for a proven vessel. If so, is it considered that an untried, adapted 42m version of a 37.5m vessel is a proven vessel.
  2. If the tender documents did not ask for a proven vessel, what was the reason.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The requirement for a proven vessel was stated when tenders were invited for new patrol craft for the Royal Australian Navy.

Brooke-Marine’s offer of a close variant of their proven 37.5m design meets this requirement.

Tasmania: Transport Subsidies (Question No. 1738)

Mr Groom:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 12 October 1977:

  1. What was the total amount paid by the Commonwealth to all companies, commissions or individuals by way of subsidy, assistance or otherwise for transport operations to or from Tasmania during each of the years from 1973-74 to 1976- 77 inclusive and what is the proposed expenditure for

1977- 78.

  1. Will he provide a detailed breakdown of the expenditure or proposed expenditure referred to in part ( 1 ).
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

Pharmaceutical Benefits Prescriptions (Question No. 1744)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 12 October 1977:

What action has been taken, or is proposed, to remove the present anomaly whereby a person requiring a pharmaceutical benefit prescription must pay $2 for each item if he presents it to a private chemist and nothing if he presents it to an approved hospital outpatient dispensary.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

It is not within the power of the Government to direct State governments to collect patient contributions for pharmaceuticals dispensed at recognised hospital outpatient departments. However, I have instructed my Department to undertake, in collaboration with State Government health authorities, an examination of the issues and implications involved in recognised hospital pharmacy dispensing, and to report to me.

It is also relevant to note that in three States and the Australian Capital Territory, privately insured persons who attend a recognised hospital outpatient unit are charged an outpatient fee. The Government will adopt an attitude of full co-operation with the other State governments should they also wish to introduce outpatients charges for insured persons.

Broken Mill Proprietary Co. Ltd: Prices Justification Tribunal (Question No. 1753)

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

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

  1. 1 ) Did the Prices Justification Tribunal report on 28 July 1975 that a price increase for steel was justified after hearing argument by BHP that a price increase was needed to provide funds to finance capital investment.
  2. What investment programs in steel has BHP subsequently undertaken.
  3. Has the retiring Chairman of the Prices Justification Tribunal stated, as reported in the Age of 8 October 1977, that in the present economic conditions he thinks the Tribunal would have come to a different decision.
Mr Fife:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. However, the Tribunal’s decision was not given conditionally on the company undertaking new investment.
  2. I am informed that, in the period 1 June 1975 (BHP’s financial year ends on 31 May) to 30 September 1977, capital expenditure at the company’s steelworks amounted to about $ 150m, of which about $ 130m was authorised before June 1975.

I am further informed that from June 1975 to 26 October 1 977, about $ 1 30m has been authorised for capital expenditure on major projects at the various steelworks, of which about $20m has already been spent.

  1. I am informed that the reported statement is substantially correct.

Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (Question No. 1774)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 13 October 1977:

  1. 1 ) On which pharmaceutical benefit scheme items did the Pricing Bureau obtain price reductions and grant price increases during 1976-77.
  2. On each of these items how much is the estimated annual saving or cost to the Government and what is the name of the company manufacturing each of them.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. and (2) During 1976-77 the Pharmaceutical Benefits Pricing Bureau agreed to price increases which will increase Government expenditure by $7.43m for a full year. Price reductions obtained will reduce Government expenditure by $1.29m fora full year

The price increases were agreed to for 725 benefit items and in each case up to 12 different manufacturers’ brands of the item had the price increased. The price reductions related to six benefit items.

The detailed information requested by the honourable member would require considerable resources to compile and the information would occupy something approaching 100 pages. I am not prepared to allocate resources for preparation of such a detailed reply, but should the honourable member be interested in some particular drugs I would be pleased to see what information can be readily supplied.

Commonwealth Funding of Education Projects in Queensland (Question No. 1787)

Mr Braithwaite:
DAWSON, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 13 October 1977:

  1. 1 ) What was the amount of expenditure through the Department of Education on capital works within the electoral divisions of Leichhardt, Herbert, Kennedy and Dawson during each of the years 1973-74 to 1976-77, inclusive.
  2. What was the total expenditure by theDepartmen during the same years.
Mr Viner:
LP

– The Minister for Education has provided the following reply to the honourable member’s question:

The Department of Education has not had any expenditure on capital works within the Electoral Divisions of Leichhardt, Herbert, Kennedy and Dawson during each of the years 1973-74 to 1976-77, inclusive. I have not included funds which may have been made available through the education commissions.

I draw the honourable member’s attention to the answer given by my colleague the Minister for Construction to Question No. 1793.

Commonwealth Funding of Science Projects in Queensland (Question No. 1795)

Mr Braithwaite:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science the following question on notice on 1 3 October 1 977.

  1. 1 ) What was the amount of expenditure through the Department of Science on capital works within the electoral divisions of Leichhardt, Herbert, Kennedy and Dawson during each of the years 1973-74 to 1976-77, inclusive.
  2. What was the total expenditure by the Department during the same years.
Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

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

I refer the honourable member to the Minister for Construction’s reply to House of Representatives question No. 1793 (House of Representatives Hansard, 27 October 1977, page 2579).

Mr JohnBracey (Question No. 1895)

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

am asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 25 October 1977:

Why will the Minister not answer question No. 1 556 about Mr John Bracey as promptly as the Minister for National Resources answered question No. 1554 about him (Hansard, 180ctoberl977,page2126).

Mr Viner:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to my answer to question No. 1556 ( Hansard, 26 October 1977, page 2462).

Uranium: Public Debate (Question No. 838)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 5 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) Did he state in a reply to a question without notice on 10 March 1977 that he had sent some of his staff to some of the more important public arenas to hear what is being said in the uranium debate.
  2. If so, were the staff referred to members of his personal staff or were they departmental staff.
  3. Who were these staff, and what positions do they hold.
  4. When and where were these debates held, and who organised them.
  5. What action had he taken to publicise the papers and views presented at these and other public debates either attended by staff or monitored by his Department.
  6. If he has taken no action, will he arrange for the information gained by his staff and the departmental monitoring system to be made available to further the debate and inform the public.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. My personal staff.
  1. Mr A. W. Ashford, Senior Private Secretary and Mr G. Henderson, Private Secretary.
  2. My staff attended a number of debates in most States of Australia.
  3. and (6) Most of the debates attended by my staff were adequately reported by the media. In addition the Government has given wide coverage to all of the issues involved in the uranium question.

Hospital Patients: Classifications (Question No. 1188)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 17 August 1977:

How many patient bed-days were classified as (a) hospital patients and (b) private patients, or the corresponding classifications before the Medibank hospital agreements, in each State and Territory during each of the last 5 years.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

In the following table figures in respect of periods prior to the introduction of the hospitals cost-sharing arrangements in 1975-76 relate to public hospitals. Figures for 1975-76 and 1976-77 are in respect of those public hospitals recognised for the purposes of the cost-sharing arrangements. Prior to these arrangements, patients were generally classified according to the type of ward in which they were accommodated. Under the cost-sharing arrangements, patients are classified as hospital patients or private patients irrespective of the ward in which they are accommodated.

The sources of the figures are as follows: 1972- 73- Figures published by the Commonwealth Department of Health, September 1975, in ‘Public and Private Hospitals Statistical Summary 1971-72 and 1972-73’. 1973- 74 and 1974-75-Figures provided to the Commonwealth Department and of Health by respective States and Territories. 1975- 76- Figures based on information submitted by recognised hospitals to the Health Insurance Commission under the cost-sharing arrangements and for the period of 1975-76 during which those arrangements were operative. The dates of entry of the States and Territories into the cost-sharing arrangements were as follows:

New South Wales- 1 October 1975

Victoria- 1 August 1975

Queensland- 1 October 1975

South Australia- 1 July 1975

Western Australia- 1 August 1975

Tasmania- 1 July 1975

Australian Capital Territory- 1 July 1975

Northern Territory- 1 July 1975. 1976- 77- Figures based on information submitted by recognised hospitals to the Health Insurance Commission.

Ballarat College of Advanced Education (Question No. 1194)

Mr Short:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 17 August 1977:

  1. What sum has been spent on earthworks at Ballarat College of Advanced Education in each of the last 5 financial years.
  2. ) How many of these jobs were tendered for, how many firms tendered for the jobs and which were the firms.
  3. How many of these contracts have been over-run in costs and by how much.
  4. On what dates were these contracts for earthworks advertised, and in which papers.
  5. If the earthworks were not tendered for, what method of allocating the contracts was used in these cases.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. I am advised that the amounts spent on earthworks projects, including projects with a major earthworks component, at the Mt Helen Campus by the Council of the Ballarat College of Advanced Education (prior to July 1976, the Ballarat Institute of Advanced Education) from its allocations of funds for Siteworks and for other Works and Services have been:
  1. to (5) The administration of minor contracts of this nature is a matter for the responsible institutional authorities.

Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations: News Releases (Question No. 1312)

Mr Garrick:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 25 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) Does he send a copy or multiple copies of every news release he issues to every office and section of his Department.
  2. If so, could this action be seen as not only informing the Department of ministerial decisions on legislation and policy, but also as a means to present an exclusive political view to public servants.
  3. Should a Minister’s paramount role be to administer his department, and should attempts to politicise it be out of order.
  4. Did he authorise the sending of copies of News Release 44/77 headed ALP NATIONAL CONFERENCE to all officers of the Commonwealth Employment Service.
  5. How many copies of this news release were sent to offices and sections of the Department.
  6. Was the content of News Release 44/77 of the nature of policy information.
  7. Has his attention been drawn to reports that many CES officers regard it as a purely political statement, and resent receiving these press statements on the grounds that they are only exposed to one standpoint via these means.
  8. Did one of his news releases contain the following statement: ‘You can’t teach an old dog new tricks, and from the ALP kennels in Perth, there are certainly no new acts. As Mr Hawke said at the ALP National Conference yesterday, ‘the eyes of Australia are on them’. But it is crystal clear that the Labor Party is persisting with its old policies which put this country in the worst economic depression for decades, and for which we are now all paying dearly. After the first day of their Conference, the ALP has shown that it has learned little from its disastrous term in Government. It has shown itself clearly to be a direct and continuing threat to Australia’s future.
  9. If so, is it important that officers of his Department are acquainted with these views.
  10. Has his attention been drawn to accusations that as their origins are ministerial news releases, they are tantamount to indoctrination, and represent a misuse of public money.
  11. 1 1 ) If so, what action will be take to either avoid such criticism in the future, or enable opposite points of view to be disseminated to public servants.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) to ( 1 1 ) It has been established practice for ministerial releases to be available throughout all levels of the DepartmentCentral Office, Regional Offices and Offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service. This enables officers to be aware of the views expressed by the Minister which may bear on the Department’s area of responsibility and ensures that releases are available for reference by interested persons outside the Department who would not normally receive copies. It is, of course, inevitable that since releases cover a wide range of issues, particular releases may be directly relevant only to the work of a limited number of officers.

Industries Assistance Commission: Industry Retrenchments (Question No. 1336)

Mr FitzPatrick:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 6 September 1977:

  1. 1 ) How many Australians have been retrenched due to the Government adopting Industries Assistance Commission recommendations.
  2. What was the total length of time these persons remained out of work.
  3. How many IAC Commissioners have been sent overseas at the taxpayers expense, and how many will travel overseas in 1977-78.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) Many factors, including reduced demand and rising wage costs, have contributed to retrenchments in industries which have been the subject of inquiries by the Industries Assistance Commission. I am not aware of any available information which indicates that retrenchments could be solely attributed to recommendations of the IAC which the Government has adopted.
  2. I understand that the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs has advised that: ‘Since the Commission was established on 1 January 1974, three Commissioners and two Associate Commissioners have travelled overseas. The Commissioners program for 1977-78 does not include any overseas travel by Commissioners or Associate Commissioners’.

Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration: Implementation of Recommendations (Question No. 1511)

Mr Willis:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 20 September 1977:

  1. 1 ) On how many of the 78 recommendations of the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration, which were referred to the Public Service Board and on which the Board reported to the Prime Minister on 30 November 1976, have decisions been made.
  2. How many and which of these decisions have been made public
  3. Will decisions on other recommendations be announced.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

The Public Service Board has informed me: (1), (2) and (3) In a statement issued on 13 December 1976 the Public Service Board has already announced its views on recommendations of the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration which had been referred to it by the Government. The following statement indicates action that has since been taken in respect of the items that were listed by the Board in its earlier statement

Research Bureau (R. 29)- Guidelines against which organisation proposals relating to research activities can be considered are being drafted by the Board.

Meetings of Statutory Bodies (R. 31)-In its statement of 13 December 1976 the Board indicated that it would convene such meetings from time to time as the need arose.

Classification and Control of Ministerial Staff (R. 56 & 57)- These are to be considered by Government in the context of recommendations 219 and 220 relating to the procedures for appointment and employment arrangements to apply to ministerial staff.

Guidelines for Community Contacts (R. 93)- The need for guidelines is being considered by the Board in the light of comments by Ministers on related recommendations 91 and 92 dealing with contacts between community groups and departments. - Departmental Information Services (R. 304)- Consideration of this recommendation has been finalised and the Board indicated in its statement of 13 December 1976 that organisational arrangements would continue to be examined in relation to the particular needs of individual departments.

Delegation of Authority within Departments (R. 96(a) )- Project assistance in this area will be provided by the Board to departments. The nature and extent of delegations within “ departments (especially to counter staff) will be explored as a matter of course during programmed review activity, for example organisation, joint management and staff utilisation reviews.

Use of State Officers (R. 108, 109 and U2)-The Board has consulted Permanent Heads and is considering possible approaches towards the greater use of State officers in the performance of Commonwealth functions.

Management Services (R. 241 and 242)- The Board has undertaken examination of some management services functions and is identifying further areas which might be suitable for such studies.

ADP Co-ordination (R. 302)- Work is being carried forward on the development of a rotation scheme for the staffing of the Board ‘s ADP function.

Experimentation in Organisation and Personnel Practice (R. 11)- Consideration of this recommendation has been finalised and in its statement of 13 December 1976 the ° Board said that it was already undertaking activities in this’ area and proposed to emphasise this part of its overall role.

Information for Accountable Management (R. 12- 13)-Under examination.

Chief Officers (R. 20 and 21)-The Board has consulted Permanent Heads and is giving further attention to the recommendations.

Individual Work Plans (R. 204)-A number of measures are being sponsored by the Board towards achieving the Commission’s aims, including assisting staff to relate their work more closely to goals and objectives of the organisation and to improve their communication with supervisors. The Board has issued guidelines on staff appraisal schemes which particularly emphasise the provision of opportunities for supervisor and staff discussion of job performance. A Joint Council sub-committee has been considering staff development counselling and its draft report stresses the importance of improved communication on work performance. Draft guidelines issued recently to departments concerning staff utilisation reviews direct attention to review of objectives and goals; other measures aimed at strengthening supervisory effectiveness are under consideration including further encouragement of small scale objective setting techniques.

Management Consultancy Group (R. 327)- Under consideration.

Staff Rotation/Exchanges (R. 94, 114, 330, and 33 1 )- The views of Permanent Heads and details of existing rotation schemes have been examined. The Board has decided to introduce an Interchange Program to foster the exchange of staff between the Service and the private sector and several placements of public servants in private companies have occurred. Agreement has been reached on facilitating appropriate exchanges of staff with each State Public Service and several exchanges have already occurred. Discussions with local government organisations on possible exchanges are under way. The Board has given departments the authority to arrange permanent transfers of staff where the department and officer is in agreement. The Board has suggested that departments adopt a liberal attitude towards the release of staff on transfer.

Interviewing Procedures (R. 126)- A training manual on staff selection has been completed and distributed to departments. Guidelines for the formation and operation of staff selection committees have been prepared. The Board will continue to monitor selection processes within departments.

Recruitment: Role of the PSB vis a vis Departments (R. 127)- In its statement of 13 December 1976 the Board said that it was in broad agreement with the thrust of the Commission’s recommendations. The Board is examining further possibilities of delegation of recruitment activities.

Lateral Recruitment (R. 128)-The Board is taking action to improve further selection procedures. Guidelines for the formation and operation of staff selection committees are being issued to departments. A consideration of Board requirements in respect of recommendations for permanent appointment will also be issued. The Board has decided that staff organisations should not be represented on selection panels where applicants from outside the Service are involved since adequate protection of the interests of permanent officers is provided through the Board’s role in the selection process. The Board is prepared to advise staff organisations of the composition of selection committees, the criteria employed and the reasons for the selection of any outside applicant.

Educational Qualifications (R. 130-133)-The Board’s media release of 13 December 1976 indicated that it did not favour delegation of its powers to set minimum educational qualifications; it wishes to ensure that such qualifications as are set are relevant to current needs and would keep them under continual review having particular regard to the Commission’s proposals concerning abolition of the divisional structure.

The Board agrees in principle that in certain circumstances experience should be taken into account in lieu of or in conjunction with formal qualifications and is considering the means whereby such arrangements might be implemented.

Eligibility for Study Assistance (R. 1 S4)-The Joint Council sub-committee reviewing study assistance submitted its final recommendations to Joint Council’s 57th meeting in June 1 977. On behalf of Joint Council, the Board is obtaining further views from departments and staff organisations on this report for consideration at the November/December 1 977 meeting of Joint Council.

Staff Assessment (R. 156-159)- In its statement of 13 December 1976 the Board agreed with the thrust of the Commission’s recommendations. The Board’s guidelines on staff appraisal were endorsed by Joint Council at its June 1977 meeting. They have since been distributed to departments and staff organisations with a request from the Chairman that departments give serious consideration to the development or review of schemes appropriate to departmental needs and consistent with the guidelines.

Promotion Appeals (R. 165, 166, 168, 169, 171-175)- These recommendations are now being considered along with R. 161, 163 and 167 which require Government consideration Members of Joint Council have provided comments on a draft paper describing a possible promotion process. These comments are currently being considered by the Board.

Advertising of Vacancies (R. 170)- In its statement of 13 December 1976 the Board regarded it as appropriate that the existing discretions concerning advertisement of vacancies for promotion or transfer remain. This question is also being considered in the context of the Joint Council review of promotion and promotion appeal processes.

Annulment of Probationary Appointments (R. 176)- The Board indicated in its statement of 13 December 1976 that it favoured the proposed devolution of responsibility to departments subject to safeguards to be considered in the current overall review of grievance processes.

The Toomer Case (R. 181)- An inquiry as recommended by the Commission is in progress.

Information on the Rights of Staff (R.182, 185 and 187)- In its statement of 13 December 1976 the Board indicated that it supported the tenor of these recommendations and would continue to seek ways of improving the knowledge of staff in these areas. The Board will arrange special publicity on revised disciplinary and grievance processes when they are introduced. Existing documentation, for example the Board’s General Orders includes information on the rights of staff.

Complaints re Discrimination (R. 183)- This recommendation is being examined along with recommendations 176 and 187 and others in the current review of overall grievance processes, which are to be considered further by the Government.

Pre-retirement Training (R.184)-In its statement of 13 December 1976 the Board said it favoured all employing authorities engaging in pre-retirement planning activities. A guide for pre-retirement seminars, ‘Planning for Retirement’, developed in consultation with the ACT Council on the Ageing, has been endorsed by Joint Council and will be issued to departments and others shortly.

Senior Executive Staffing (R.239-240)-The Government has decided that vacancies for senior positions should be advertised at least within the Service, agreed that senior officers should not normally remain in one position for more than 5-7 years and that a policy of staff rotation should be flexibly administered. The Board is proceeding with its examination of staffing arrangements for the Service and will report to the Government as soon as possible.

Potential Candidates for Senior Government Appointments (R.329)- The Government has considered this recommendation and has agreed that, in addition to existing practices, the Board should supplement existing biographic information on senior staff by regular confidential discussions with relevant parties and that liaison and consultation on any particular vacancy should be as full as circumstances permit, including contacts outside government employment.

Conditions of Employment in Relation to Staff Dispersal and Decentralisation of Government Functions (R.97)- In its statement of 13 December 1976, the Board said that in view of developments which have occurred since the Council of Australian Government Employees’ Organisations (CAGEO) submitted a proposal on this topic, no further action was necessary.

Restoration of Benefit Entitlements after Break of Service (R.129)-The Board is studying the Commission’s recommendation having particular regard to the implications for staff mobility.

Discretionary Salary Increments (R. 149)- The recommendation was discussed at the December 1976 meeting of the Joint Council, where it was noted that there appeared to be practical difficulties in implementing it Reservations were expressed by both staff side and departmental representatives and the Board subsequently decided that no further action should be taken at this stage.

Personal Classification (R.148 and 150)-Areas where there may be future scope for orienting grading systems to the level of contribution of the individual are being kept under notice. A review of the grading system applying to Research Scientists in the Department of Defence will provide up-to-date experience in possible approaches to personal classification.

Research into Career Patterns (R.153)- As already indicated in its statement on 13 December 1976, the Board has done a considerable amount of work along the lines recommended. This work is continuing.

Review of Technical/ Professional Areas (R.206)- Reviews into areas of professional/sub-professional overlap are being or have been conducted in the Departments of Defence, Transport, National Resources and Science.

Clerk and Clerical Assistant Structures (R.207)- This recommendation is now being considered in the context of the Commission’s recommendation concerning the abolition of the Divisional Structure, which is to be further considered by the Government

Other Lower-level Career Structure Aspects (R.151 and 152) and Other Structural Aspects (R.155)-These recommendations are now being considered in the context of the Commission’s recommendations concerning the abolition of the Divisional Structure which is to be considered further by the Government

Re-establishment of Classification Committees (R.203)- Joint Council has decided to set up a sub-committee to examine and report on the Commission’s recommendation.

Staff Association Participation in Reviews of Occupational Groups (R.208)-The Board’s statement of 13 December 1976 indicated that while the Board accepted fully the need for continued consultation as appropriate and was prepared to consider any relevant staff organisation proposals, the Board does not think it desirable to lay down inflexible rules for the conduct of reviews. The statement also said that the release of any particular review report would be considered within the context of all aspects of the review including the nature of staff organisations participation.

Standards on Amenities and Physical Working Conditions (R.256)- The Royal Commission recommended that the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations and the Board establish a joint committee to develop a code of

Centralised Electrification Systems in Asian-Pacific Region Countries (Question No. 1727) Mr Uren asked the Minister for Foreign standards on amenities and physical working conditions for Commonwealth employees, which should be binding on management These matters are receiving consideration within the framework of the Joint Council which is a joint management/staff body.

Flexible Working Hours (R.259)-The Board has conducted a study of departmental evaluations of flexible working hours schemes and has concluded that they can now be accepted as a permanent feature of employment in the Service.

Establishment of Overseas Service Advisory Council (R.228)- Discussions with departments with major overseas representation are proceeding as a matter of priority.

Overseas Conditions of Service (R.229)- A preliminary study has been undertaken on the feasibility of indexing overseas allowances.

Employment and Conditions of Service for Locally Engaged Staff Overseas (R.230-232)-In its statement of 13 December 1976 the Board said that in relation to salaries it favoured the existing approach whereby salaries are, wherever possible, adjusted automatically by posts between the two yearly Board inspections, and the Board reviews the salaries and conditions of service at the time of each inspection. Specific proposals by departments for better career

S respects for locally engaged staff are considered by theoard on their merits.

Inspection of Overseas Posts (R.236)- This matter is now being considered in the light of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure report on Australia’s overseas representation.

Introduction of the Range of Recommendations included in a Report prepared for the Commission by Mr Justice Sharp (R.237 )-Still under consideration.

Dairy Products: Export to Iran and New Guinea (Question No. 1696)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice, on 6 October 1977:

  1. Is the New Zealand Dairy Board achieving greater success in selling that country’s dairy products in Iran and New Guinea than is the Australian Dairy Corporation.
  2. What is the present market share of imported dairy products in those countries held by ( a) New Zealand and ( b) Australia.
Mr Anthony:
Deputy Prime Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) No. Australia has no dairy products surplus to existing domestic and export requirements on hand at the moment because of the reduced level of production. It cannot be said that we are losing markets through lack of marketing effort.
  2. The market shares of imported dairy products for the years indicated (the latest available) are:

Affairs, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1977:

With reference to the Australian role in the provision of equipment technical assistance and training for the extension of centralised electrification systems m Asian-Pacific

region countries, (a) what has been the distribution of assistance, by countries, for equipment assistance and personnel training; (b) what sums from the equipment assistance grants have been contracted to companies operating in Australia and (c) what is the current status for these aid plans and especially the S12m electrification scheme for Indonesia.

Mr Peacock:
LP

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

In the Asian-Pacific region Australia has been involved in projects related to electricity generation and distribution in the following countries:

Cook Islands- Northern Islands Power Study. Commenced 1977 report expected in November 1977.

Fiji- -Viti Levu Hydro Electric Development Study. Completed 1976-77.

Indonesia- -Cimanuk Irrigation Project. Commenced 1975. The study also identified hydro power potential. Tender documents to be completed early in 1 978.

Power Distribution Networks. Commenced 1977. Material now being procured.

Malaysia-Trengganu Hydro Electric Development Feasibility Study and Design. Commenced 1974. Completion expected 1978.

Fergau Hydro Electric Development Study. Commenced 1968. Original study now being reviewed in light of current costs.

Batang Ai Hydro Electric Development Study. Commenced 1977. Feasibility Study in progress.

Thailand- Lignite Mining Study. Commenced 1976. Investigations to establish feasibility of further extraction of lignite for power generation.

Quai Noi Hydro Electric Development Study. Commenced 1973. Final feasibility study report completed 1977.

Vietnam- Rural Electrification. Commenced 1972. Suspended 1975. Balance of equipment shipped in 1977.

Western Samoa- Diesel Generators. Commenced 1 977. Contracts placed for generators.

A short description of each project is included in the publication ‘Bilateral Project Aid 1977-78’ by the Development Assistance Bureau of my Department

  1. b ) Equipment assistance grants form a part of the following projects and the amount of contracts already let in Australia is shown:

Indonesia- Electric Power Distribution Networks- $2. 5m;

Vietnam- Rural Electrification-$ 1.047m;

Western Samoa- Electric Power Generators- $86,474.

  1. The projects will be completed in accordance with the notes in the publication mentioned in paragraph (a) above. Regarding the Indonesian Electric Power Distribution Networks, tenders are about to be called in Australia and the five ASEAN countries for the balance of the materials required.

Health Maintenance Organisations (Question No. 1771)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 13 October 1977:

What progress is being made with the development of health maintenance organisations on an experimental basis.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

In line with the Government’s policy of encouraging the establishment of Health Maintenance Organisations (HMOs) on an experimental basis, a working party on HMOs was formed early in 1 976 within my Department.

Guidelines have been developed to assist planners wishing to establish an HMO to meet the requirements of the National Health Act in regard to the present universal insurance arrangements. These guidelines are available in handbook form from my Department.

Discussions have been held with the Australian Medical Association (AMA). In January this year, following a report by the Federal Treasurer of the AMA on a brief study tour of HMOs in the United States of America, the SecretaryGeneral of the AMA announced that the AMA is willing to co-operate with the Government or other interested parties in any pilot study to evaluate prepaid health programs (Le. HMOs) and that the Federal Council of the AMA has adopted no fixed policy for or against prepaid health plans at this stage.

In Adelaide, the South Australian Branch of the AMA is conducting a feasibility study of HMOs as they might apply to Australia. This study is supported by the Commonwealth with funds made available under its Health Services Planning and Research Program.

I have written to State Health Ministers informing them of developments and of the Government’s interest in seeing that HMOs are given a trial in this country; all have expressed interest in the HMO concept

State health authorities have been made aware of developments.

In response to enquiries, my Department has prepared an information kit comprising copies of selected papers for HMOs, an extensive bibliography and the handbook of guidelines mentioned earlier. This kit is supplied to persons or organisations who write to the Department expressing a genuine interest in HMOs.

To date, these kits have been given to about thirty inquirers and at least two feasibility studies are under way with the aim of developing an operational plan.

Aboriginal Co-operative Housing Societies (Question No. 1791)

Mr Braithwaite:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 13 October 1977:

What sums have been made available to the Aboriginal Co-operative Housing Societies in the electoral divisions of Leichhardt, Kennedy, Herbert and Dawson, giving a detailed list of those expenditures, since the formation of the Societies.

Mr Viner:
LP

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

The information sought by the honourable member was provided in answer to Senate Questions Nos 896-909, Hansard, 17 August 1977, pages 2 12-41.

North West Shelf Gas Fields (Question No. 1828)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for National Resources, upon notice, on 19 October 1977:

  1. 1 ) Is the transcontinental natural gas pipeline proposal a viable option to the development of the North West Shelf gas field on an export basis.
  2. Does the pipeline proposal better serve Australia’s interest in terms of the projected shortfall of natural gas in the eastern States around 1 990, than does the export option.
  3. Will he make available a cost benefit analysis that examines these two options.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) The matters raised by the honourable member’s questions were covered in my statement to the House on 24 August 1977 on ‘The Development of the North West Shelf Gas Fields’.

Defence Service Homes Scheme (Question No. 1867)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 20 October 1977:

  1. What expenditure has been incurred, and what repayments have been made, under the Defence Service Homes Act since its inception.
  2. What is the present waiting period for loans.
  3. What is the average loan.
  4. What is the average period of repayment.
Mr Garland:
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs · CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

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

  1. From the inception of the Defence Service Homes Scheme to 30 June 1977, total capital expenditure was $2,0 10.5m and total repayments of principal and interest amounted to $l,596.7m.
  2. Eleven months in respect of loans for the purchase of new or previously occupied homes; this was introduced from 1 August 1975. There is no waiting period for loans for the construction of homes.
  3. A survey of applicants during the June quarter of 1977 revealed that the average loan was$ 1 4, 1 73.
  4. Between 14 and 15 years.

Invalid Pensioners (Question No. 1877)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 20 October 1977:

  1. Has there been a rapid increase in the number of invalid pensioners in the 16 to 20 year age group in recent years.
  2. If so, what are the figures for each of the last 5 years for which records are available, and what is the percentage of the total of invalid pensioners for each of those years.
  3. Is it considered that greater incentives should be provided for this age group to encourage them to lead as useful a life as possible by requiring stricter rehabilitation assessment and /or the deferment of a permanent pension until a further assessment at a later age.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) Statistical information is not available for each of the last 5 years on the number of invalid pensioners aged 16 to 20 years. However, information is available in respect of invalid pensioners aged 16 to 19 years.

The following table shows that there has not been a rapid increase in the number of invalid pensioners aged 16 to 19 years in the last five years.

During the period 1974-75 to 1976-77 some residentially qualified invalid pensioners’ reaching age pension age were not transferred to age pensions. Therefore, in calculating me above proportions all invalid pensioners of age pension age have been excluded from the totals so that meaningful comparisons could be made between individual years.

  1. The Department already has in operation a rehabilitation assessment procedure which requires that all invalid pension applicants be assessed for rehabilitation suitability prior to the granting of an invalid pension. Even after a person has been granted an invalid pension, a post-grant referral procedure ensures that certain categories of pensioners, particularly those in the younger age groups, are reviewed periodically for rehabilitation purposes. These procedures ensure that every possible action is taken to assess a person for rehabilitation before he is deemed a permanent pensioner.

The Department has, over recent years, been endeavouring to increase the range of rehabilitation programs available to younger handicapped people, particularly those with an intellectual handicap. This has led to the development of two pilot Work Preparation Centres, which are designed to assist intellectually handicapped people, mainly in the 16-20 age group, achieve independent living status, including placement in open employment where possible. The Department is being assisted in the development of these programs by the Monash and Macquarie universities. Because of the success of these two pilot centres the Department is currently engaged in examining the extension of these programs against the particular needs of other communities.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 4 November 1977, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1977/19771104_reps_30_hor107/>.