House of Representatives
12 November 1974

29th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 29th Parliament
  3. 1974

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. F. Cope) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 3297

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Uranium

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

That whereas uranium found in vast quantities in Australia is the raw material for the nuclear fission reaction,

And whereas presently assured reserves of uranium in Australia represent a potential production of over 540,000 kilograms of Plutonium 239 if utilized in Light Water Reactors overseas,

And whereas the Maximum Permissible Inhalation of Plutonium 239 is 0.00000025 gram,

And whereas Plutonium 239 is one of the most dangerous substances human society has ever created, causing mutations and cancers,

And whereas there are no methods of safely and absolutely confining Plutonium from the biosphere for the requisite quarter of a million years,

And whereas Plutonium coming in contact with the air forms an aerosol cloud of micron-sized particles, its most dangerous form,

And whereas the export of uranium may return to us an import of Plutonium panicles dispersed in the global environment via the circulation of the atmosphere,

And whereas there are no sure safeguards against the military use of nuclear fission, and the nuclear proliferation represents a prime environmental threat to all forms of life on the only earth available to us,

And that it is therefore an act of self-preservation to demand a halt to all exports of uranium except for bio-medical uses,

Your petitioners humbly pray that the members, in the House assembled, will take the most urgent steps to ensure:

  1. That further mining and export of uranium from Australia except for bio-medical purposes be banned,
  2. That the Australian Atomic Energy Commission be transformed by the rewriting of its charter into an Australian Energy Commission to further the understanding of energy flows through our society and to promote national economic independence and self-sufficiency.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Cass, Mr Clayton and Mr Dawkins.

Petitions received.

Metric System

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

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

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

That the traditional weights and measures are eminently satisfactory.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

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

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

Petition received.

Taxation: Education Expenses

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

That the reduction of the allowable deduction of education expenses under Section 82 J of the Income Tax Assessment Act from $400 to $1 50 is $50 below the 1 956/57 figure.

That this reduction will impose hardships on many parents who have children attending school, whether nongovernment or government; and particularly on parents with more than one child at school.

That this reduction will further restrict the freedom available to parents to make a choice of school for their children.

That some parents who have chosen to send their children to a non-government school will have to withdraw their children and send them to government schools already overcrowded and under-staffed.

That the parents to benefit most relatively from educational income tax deductions, in the past and even more in the future, are the parents of children in government schools and this has a divisive effect in the Australian community.

That parents should be encouraged by the Australian government to exercise freedom of choice of the type of school they wish for their children. The proposed reduction means an additional financial penalty is imposed on parents who try to exercise this choice and discourages them from making an important financial contribution to Australian education over and above what they contribute through taxation.

That an alternative system, a tax rebate system, could be adopted as being more equitable for all parents with children at school.

To compensate for the losses that will follow from the proposed reduction and to help meet escalating educational costs faced by all families your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should take immediate steps to restore educational benefits to parents, at least at the 1973/ 1974 level either by increasing taxation deductions or through taxation rebates.

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

Petition received.

Marriage

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

  1. 1 ) That the whole principle of the Family Law Bill 1974 is aimed at destroying the entire concept of marriage as traditionally recognized in Australia, with its special obligations between husband and wife and between parents and children.
  2. ) That the bill fails to recognize or provide for the equal rights and responsibilities of both parties to a marriage, such as are provided for in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including the rights of parents to choose the type of education they desire for their children.
  3. That this bill appears to express the desires of only a minority of Australians.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should not admit into the law of this land the principle that marriage is only temporary and the family no longer the fundamental unit of society.

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

Petition received.

Baltic States

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

That Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have been independent states and members of the predecessor of the United Nations to wit the League of Nations;

That Hitler and Stalin on 23 August and 28 September 1939 in a secret deal plotted to deprive Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania of their statehood and sovereignty;

That subsequently to this secret deal between Stalin and Hitler the Soviet Union occupied Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania by force of arms and incorporated these three Baltic States into the Soviet Union;

That such an occupation by force of arms is illegal under international law and cannot become a prescriptive right with passing of time.

Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament revoke the decision of the Australian Government to recognize de jure the illegal occupation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

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

Petition received.

National Health Scheme

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 proposed ‘ free ‘ national health scheme is not free at all and will cost four out of live Australians more than the present scheme.

That the proposed scheme is discriminatory and a further erosion of the civil liberties of Australian citizens, particularly working wives and single persons.

That the proposed scheme is in fact a plan for nationalised medicine which will lead to gross waste and inefficiencies in medical services and will ultimately remove an individual’s right to choose his/her own doctor.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take no measures to interfere with the basic principles of the existing health scheme which functions efficiently and economically.

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

Petition received.

Child Endowment

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:

Child Endowment received by families has declined relative to average earnings so that today it is about 20 per cent of its value in 1949.

The Interim Report of the Australian Government ‘s Commission into Poverty recommended a substantial increase in Child Endowment as a way of alleviating poverty.

This report pointed out that increased Child Endowment deserved priority and would be advantageous to the community in the long run.

It specifically recommended increasing child endowment- from 50 cents to $ 1 . 50 for the first child; from $ 1 . 00 cents to $2.00 for the second child; from $2.00 cents to $4.00 for the third child; from $2.25 cents to $7.00 for the fourth child; and to $8.00 for subsequent children.

Your petitioners humbly request that the Government increase Child Endowment in the September Budget.

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

Petition received.

Petroleum Products: Taxes and Excise

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-

  1. That the need for the Government of New South Wales to raise additional revenue by way of Business Franchise Licences Petroleum Act will impose an unwarranted additional burden on New South Wales residents
  2. That the Premier of New South Wales has given a solemn undertaking that his Government will withdraw its harsh Petrol Tax immediately he can be assured of an equivalent additional revenue from Commonwealth Funds raised from New South Wales residents
  3. That such additional revenue can be provided by Australian Government if it returns to the New South Wales Government all moneys raised by way of taxes and excise on petroleum products consumed in New South Wales.
  4. That the New South Wales Government has available to it sufficient skilled personnel and equipment to undertake a continuing intensive program of highway construction but is unable to fully use these resources through a lack of adequate funds.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government will forthwith do all things necessary to return to the States of the Commonwealth all moneys raised by way of taxes and excise on petroleum products.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O’Keefe.

Petition received.

page 3299

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

I inform the House that the Minister for Overseas Trade, Dr Jim Cairns, who left Australia on 1 November to attend the Council of Ministers of the International Bauxite Association in Georgetown, will return on 16 November; that the Foreign Minister, Senator Don Willesee, who left on 3 1 October to attend a meeting of iron-ore producing countries in Geneva and the 9th meeting of the Ministerial Conference for the Economic Development of South-East Asia in Manila, will return on 17 November: and that the Minister for the Environment and Conservation, Dr Moss Cass, who left on 1 November to attend a ministerial meeting of the O.E.C.D. Environment Committee in Paris, will return on 1 7 November.

In the absence of these Ministers I shall act as Foreign Minister, the Special Minister of State, Mr Lionel Bowen, will act as Minister for Overseas Trade and represent the Minister for Customs and Excise in this House, and the Minister for Health, Dr Doug Everingham, will act as Minister for the Environment and Conservation.

page 3299

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 3299

QUESTION

WHITLAM MINISTRY

Mr SNEDDEN:
BRUCE, VICTORIA

-I ask the Prime Minister Is it correct that he said a fortnight ago words to this effect: ‘I will not pick on Mr Crean or anybody else. He has the responsibility in these matters, but I think he has been picked on far too much, quite obscenely.’? Presumably ‘these matters’ were the highest inflation for 20 years and the highest unemployment for 25 years. Did the Prime Minister add words to this effect: ‘I will give no assurances or denials on this matter. There is nothing I have done or said that would justify speculation that Crean is going’? Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to state unequivocally his confidence in his Treasurer? Will he do so to end the uncertainty caused by continual reports of his bungling attempt to make the honourable member for Melbourne Ports, the Treasurer, the scapegoat for the economic disaster for which he, the Prime Minister, predominantly and the rest of the Cabinet must bear full responsibility?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-The quotations that the honourable gentleman has made are accurate. They stand and I have nothing to add to them.

page 3299

QUESTION

SUGAR

Mr FULTON:
LEICHHARDT, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for Northern Development. Is it a fact that growing pressure and even criticism from overseas are being directed at Australia for not taking more positive steps to expand the production of sugar in Australia, particularly in view of the serious world shortage of sugar and the inability of some of the poorer importing countries to pay the current high world prices?

Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Northern Development · DAWSON, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– It is a fact that the price of sugar on the world market has reached such heights that sugar is now being compared with gold. The price of sugar is, of course, quite unrealistic, whatever critieria one likes to use. This situation has been caused purely by the function of demand and supply. There is a world shortage of sugar. I regret to say that the price of sugar will go even higher and this will cause further disruption throughout the world’s producing and exporting countries. The problem is that the amount of sugar traded on the world market in a so-called free market is relatively small. It is probably less than 10,000,000 tons. Consequently any relatively small variations in world supply can cause violent price movements to the degree that the price of sugar 6 or 7 or even 10 years ago reached £Stgl2 a ton, whereas today it is over $A1,000 a ton. Following our inability to get economic provisions put into the International Sugar Agreement at Geneva last year, I stated to various growers’ meetings on my return to Australia that I thought we should increase production moderately within existing mill areas as distinct from a major expansion involving tremendous amounts of capital investment in new mills, railways, bulk storage facilities, etc. I must state however, that this matter of production within the State is the right of, is in the hands of, the Queensland Government, not the Australian Government. I am happy to say that the Queensland Government has now decided that there should be an increase in, I think, existing mill areas. I believe this should have been done some time ago because it will be 1976 before the first fruits of increased production are borne. I assure the honourable member that the Australian Government fully supports an increase in production within existing mill areas at the present time to overcome this very serious shortage on the world sugar scene.

page 3300

QUESTION

WHITLAM MINISTRY

Mr SNEDDEN:

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Because of the hedging answer he has just given I ask the Prime Minister for the second and final time to take this opportunity now to state unequivocally his confidence in the honourable member for Melbourne Ports as Treasurer and to say whether or not the Treasurer will be replaced. With unemployment at record levels and confidence at rock bottom, does he expect Australia to endure another week of indecision as to the future of the Treasurer? Is it a case of waiting until the Deputy Prime Minister returns to Australia so that he can be sworn in as Treasurer?

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-My answer to the right honourable gentleman’s first question was clear. I have nothing to add to it.

page 3300

QUESTION

TAXATION DEDUCTIONS

Mr JACOBI:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Can the Treasurer assure the House that the taxation deductions for gifts to charitable institutions and other prescribed causes will continue?

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA · ALP

-I shall shortly be introducing into this House a Bill which will contain all the amendments to the income tax legislation in respect of the period ending 30 June 197S. There is no variation whatever in the provision about gifts. I want to take the opportunity to say that neither I nor any other Treasurer can give assurances into the future as to whether any particular deduction will remain as it is, be abolished or be varied. It would be completely irresponsible to do so. One can only judge the position as it is now and as it will be to 30 June 1975 by the legislation that will be introduced. There will be no variation in respect of gifts.

page 3300

QUESTION

STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER ON THE ECONOMY

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct a question to the Prime Minister. I ask: Will he be making a statement on the economy? There have been many newspaper reports of such a statement. Will he make such a statement because he no longer has confidence in the Treasurer and the Treasurer will not have the responsibility for such a statement?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– As the Treasurer stated on Sunday night, I aim to make a statement at 8 o’clock tonight. I will be seeking leave at that time to make it. I will be making the statement because it covers responsibilities of several Ministers. The Treasurer, of course, will later be introducing any legislation or making any supplementary statements which fall within his portfolio.

page 3300

QUESTION

RADIATION LABORATORY

Mr McKenzie:
Diamond Valley · ALP

-I address a question to the Minister for Health. The Minister will be aware of the report tabled in the House recently of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works concerning the proposed radiation laboratory. He will be aware also of the concern felt by some of my constituents about the project. Can he inform the House whether there has been an evaluation of the suggestions which I have made regarding the siting of the laboratory? If so, what has been the outcome of that consideration?

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Minister for Health · CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– The honourable member for Diamond Valley has made representations to me concerning this matter. He will be aware of a Press release on the subject which pointed out that the siting was discussed by an all-Party committee of this House- the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. That Committee conducted extensive investigations of the proposal, including public hearings on 12 and 13 September last. The departments concerned gave evidence, as did other interested parties- for example, the Heidelberg City Council and the Yallambie Progress Association. It has been proposed, for example, that it could be sited on a less settled, less inhabited side of Tullamarine Airport, but the Committee had to consider things such as public road access, public transport and the distance from tertiary education institutions and also from the hospitals in Melbourne which use the products of the laboratory. I can assure those who have expressed concern about this siting that the danger will be even less than it is with the present siting of the laboratories in several different buildings situated around Melbourne. There will be no risk of any significant level. In fact, the risk will be of the order of thousands of times less than that recommended as permissible by world organisations, even to a person who stood continuously at the boundary fence of the new site day and night

page 3300

QUESTION

WHITLAM MINISTRY

Mr SINCLAIR:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Treasurer. In the light of my confidence in the Treasurer- as a man if not as Treasurer- in view of the uncertainties created by the responses given this morning by the Prime Minister will he advise the House whether he has any intention of resigning bis portfolio or resigning from his seat of Melbourne Ports? If he has an intention of doing either, why has he developed that intention?

Mr CREAN:
ALP

– I can give a very brief answer No.

page 3301

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN PRESS

Mr MARTIN:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Media. Has the Minister noted the biased reporting, particularly in the headlines, which unjustly reflects on the performance of this Government? Can the Minister confirm that this biased reporting is really an abuse of what is loosely called freedom of the Press? Can the Minister confirm also that most national, country and suburban newspapers are controlled by 4 newspaper barons? In view of this situation, can the Minister hold out any hope for the production of a national newspaper in competition with these 4 press barons which could give an unbiased political view for the benefit of all Australians?

Mr MORRISON:
Minister for Science · ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Somebody once observed that freedom of the Press constitutes a situation where a millionaire owns 10 newspapers and a million people own none. I believe there is cause for concern by the general public at the type of reporting that occasionally takes place. But I believe that this Government conforms very strongly to the concept of freedom of the Press. Honourable members will be aware also that the platform of the Labor Party calls for the establishment of a newspaper commission. I understand this is being considered by my colleague, the Minister for the Media. I will undertake to advise the honourable gentleman on the progress of that consideration.

page 3301

QUESTION

WHITLAM MINISTRY

Mr LYNCH:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister and follows earlier questions addressed to the Prime Minister concerning the position of the Treasurer. I ask the honourable gentleman specifically: Has he or, on his behalf, one of his intermediaries offered the Treasurer an alternative portfolio? Has he offered the Treasurer a non-parliamentary appointment?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– No; no.

page 3301

QUESTION

WHITLAM MINISTRY

Mr GARLAND:
CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I address my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the economic crisis in Australia- mounting unemployment and price rises, with worse in sight- and his admitted lack of expertise in economic matters, and as the Prime Minister has often prided himself on being a good Australian, will he now serve the best interests of the country by stepping down as Prime Minister to make way for the Deputy Prime Minister, Dr J. F. Cairns, the only Labor Minister who takes a close and consistent interest in the critical economic areas of government responsibility?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-This question catches me by surprise. I ask that it be put on notice.

page 3301

QUESTION

COMPANY TAX

Mr REYNOLDS:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

-My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Will companies experiencing liquidity problems or difficult trading conditions be entitled to apply for deferment of their quarterly tax commitments now due? If so, will companies granted such concession be liable for any penalty for such deferment?

Mr CREAN:
ALP

– Companies like any other taxpayers, individuals or businesses, can apply for an extension of time for payment of any liability. I repeat that the quarterly instalment for company tax is legally due and payable, and in many cases the assessments have already issued. As I indicated here the other day, if any company experiences difficulty it can apply for an extension of time which, at the discretion of the Commissioner of Taxation, may or may not be granted with or without penalty.

page 3301

QUESTION

WORLD FOOD SHORTAGE

Mr KING:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

– My question to the Prime Minister follows upon a statement made by him recently to the United Nations to the effect that Australia would do all possible to help in easing the present world food shortage. I ask the Prime Minister Has the Australian Government made to needy countries any offers of assistance in the form of meat or meat products that appear to be surplus to our present requirements both at home and on the recognised export markets? If it has not made any such offers of assistance, can he inform the House of the reasons?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– In addressing the General Assembly of the United Nations I did refer to the food situation facing so many vast areas in the world. I also discussed the matter in Washington, amongst others with the new President who had himself raised the matter in addressing the General Assembly. The honourable gentleman mentioned the position of meat in particular. The Government has considered this question. However, there are great difficulties in providing meat to these countries. First, there has to be an appropriate means of transport between Australia and the countries concerned. Secondly, there has to be an appropriate means of handling the meatrefrigeration, storage and distribution- when it gets to the countries concerned. Unfortunately it is true that there are no regular transport links in respect of meat between Australia and the countries facing famine and drought.

The handling of meat is clearly a very specialised problem and whereas for generations, for over 100 years, we have had such provision for transporting meat between Australia and Britain and for the last decade or so for transporting meat between Australia and North America or Japan, those being the largest export markets by tradition or by expectation, we do not have such means of transport with the countries affected by drought and famine and they do not have, the means for storage and distribution of meat.

The Government is able to make arrangements for transporting and distributing other foodstuffs which are not so specialised in the forms of handling and distribution- in particular grains. The Government has done a great deal in this respect already, as I expect the honourable gentleman is already aware. We have a regular Food Aid Convention commitment of 225,000 tonnes which is valued in excess of $30m. Our allocation to the world food program is $950,000. From the $40m committed to the United Nations Special Program we have allocated 100,000 tonnes of wheat with freight paid worth approximately $20m. Part of these freight charges may be paid by the United Nations Special Program, in which case the saving will be devoted to further purchases of wheat. In all, we expect in this financial year to give approximately 375,000 tonnes of food aid.

In his speech to the World Food Conference in Rome last week, the Minister for Agriculture, Senator Ken Wriedt, told the conference of Australia’s recognition that the world food situation is extremely difficult and will require cooperative action from both food exporters and other developed countries. Senator Wriedt on behalf of the Government committed Australia to making provision comparable to that being made by Canada, West Germany and Sweden. Senator Wriedt assured the Food Conference that Australia would play its part in meeting the food crisis. The details of allocation of this commitment are still under study.

page 3302

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE

Mr SCHOLES:
CORIO, VICTORIA

-Has the Prime Minister given consideration to proposals for an 8 per cent across-the-board reduction in all forms of government expenditure? Have the Premiers of Western Australia, New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland indicated their support for such cuts in allocations to the States which represent close to 40 per cent of Commonwealth expenditure? What effect would such cuts have on areas such as education, social services, and health, as well as the inflationary situation of the State Budgets?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– The Government, of course, regularly considers the effect of government expenditure which it undertakes in its own right or which it undertakes through the States or local government. The honourable member correctly points out that the increase in government expenditure by the States is very much greater than the increase in government expenditure by the Australian Government, the respective percentages being somewhere about 39 per cent and 32 per cent in the present financial year. There are very many persons who claim that Australian government expenditure should be reduced or should not grow as fast as it is, and among the persons who make that assertion are some State Premiers. They never make the same claim as regards their own expenditures or each other’s expenditures. The fact is that any reduction in government expenditure, particularly in the fields which the honourable gentleman mentions, would in fact have a very great impact on private expenditure, investment and employment. It is the last thing which any government should be contemplating at the present moment. If there were any reductions in the programs which this Government has initiated and with which it is pressing forward in education, health centres, transport and in general respect to urban and regional development, the people who would be hit most would be the people providing the supplies and services for those government expenditures which my Government has initiated.

page 3302

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Dr FORBES:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address my question to the Prime Minister. Has he said that a Labor Government would never deliberately create unemployment as an instrument of economic policy? Is his Government presiding over by far the highest rate of unemployment for more than 30 years? Does he believe that the army of unemployed men and women will be consoled by the fact that they have been thrown out of work as a result of the incompetence and economic mismanagement of his Government rather than as a deliberate act of policy?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-The people in the community for whom the honourable gentleman is showing such solicitude will be consoled, and he himself undoubtedly will be frustrated, when they hear my statement at 8 o ‘clock tonight.

page 3303

QUESTION

QUEENSLAND ELECTIONS

Mr YOUNG:
PORT ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-The Minister for Services and Property would be aware that the senior partner of the Queensland coalition Government received 19 per cent of the votes in the last Queensland election. Could the Minister inform the House whether the same system, which denies both the Liberal Party and the Australian Labor Party a proper say in that State, will survive for the next elections?

Mr DALY:
Minister for Services and Property · GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr Speaker, before I answer the question I seek the indulgence of the House for a few moments to thank you, members from both sides of the Parliament, members of various staffs and officials for the condolences sent to me in respect of my recent unfortunate accident. I extend my thanks particularly to the honourable member for Moreton who, one night very late when I was struggling against the effects of a sleeping drug, endeavoured to include me in the recent National Compensation Bill which was before the House. His consoling and cultured voice sent me off much quicker than the sleeping drug. I thank him for his good wishes.

In answer to the honourable member for Port Adelaide let me say that it is true that the Queensland Premier survives on 19 per cent of the votes of the guided democracy known as Queensland. I understand that on the last occasion both the Liberal Party and the Labor Party got more votes than the Country Party but obtained less seats. The Labor Party, with more votes than any of the other parties, got less seats than the other parties combined. I know that great democrat who leads Queensland hopes that his 1 9 per cent of the vote will continue. Undoubtedly he is quite confident of success because even a most unskilled politician ought to be able to win if he requires only 19 per cent of the votes. Any person who administers a system which allows a person to survive as Premier of a State on that basis undoubtedly would want a continuation of that state of affairs as well as another election. I am quite confident that the Queensland people have awakened to the fact that they are governed by a minority and will flock overwhelmingly to the cause of Labor. I can assure them that under the democratic proposals of the present Whitlam Government such a state of affairs will never happen in the Federal arena where people will have to get the majority of the votes to get the results that are necessary in any democracy, and that is democratic majority rule.

page 3303

QUESTION

CANNED MEAT

Mr ANTHONY:

-My question, which is directed to the Prime Minister, is supplementary to the question asked by the honourable member for Wimmera. The Prime Minister pointed out correctly that meat was a difficult commodity for food aid because it required refrigeration. I ask the Prime Minister whether his Government will give consideration to allowing canned meat and brine processed meat to be part of food aid. I ask this question because in many meatworks around Australia today low quality meat cuts are now going into meat meal. It seems a shocking situation that, in a country which is a great food producer of protein, meat of this type is going into meat meal processes when people around the world desperately need the meat. If the Government could give consideration to helping finance the canning process as well as aiding export sales it would be of considerable help.

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I certainly will have consideration given to the right honourable gentleman’s suggestion.

page 3303

QUESTION

MINERALS: EXPORT PRICES

Mr MORRIS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Minister for Minerals and Energy: What has been the effect on State Government finances of the Australian Government’s action in obtaining higher export prices for minerals such as coal? Further, has there been an increased demand for employees in the extracted mineral industries?

Mr CONNOR:
Minister for Minerals and Energy · CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The position is that in Queensland from 1 January 1973 to the end of September last the additional price obtained for exports of coal will have been of the order of $ 1,860m. In the case of New South Wales it has been much less than that, but very substantial indeed. I can only repeat what I said in the House quite recently: In future Australia rides not on the sheep’s back but on the coal truck. With regard to the future, we have had clear indications from Japanese consumers not only of an increase in the demand for coking coal but also for a commencing and growing demand for steaming coal. I am in touch at present with the Joint Coal Board and also the appropriate mining unions to see what can be done in the way of a substantial increase in the labour force in the coal industry. We know clearly where we are going. We know that we can plan and we can organise systematically to ensure that Australia, at least in respect of coal exports and within the limits of its known reserves, can make a very notable contribution to the welfare and the prosperity of Japan and quite a number of countries in Europe.

page 3304

QUESTION

ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES

Mr HOWARD:
BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Services and Property and is supplementary to that asked by the honourable member for Port Adelaide. Can the Minister assure the House that in view of his emphatic endorsement of the principle of properly drawn electoral boundaries his Government will dissociate itself from the submission lodged with the New South Wales Electoral Commissioners by the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labor Party and which if implemented would produce, on the basis of the 1 974 election results, 29 ALP seats out of 45 in New South Wales and, in percentage terms, 64 per cent of the seats in New South Wales although that Party in the May election polled a mere 52 per cent to 53 per cent of the primary votes? (Honourable members interjecting)-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! This is a very serious matter.

Mr DALY:
ALP

– As the honourable member has stated, a redistribution is under consideration in all States except Western Australia. In accordance with the Act any individual, Party or organisation is permitted to make submissions to the Electoral Commissioners in respect of what they think the changes should be or whether there should be any changes at all. I understand that the time for submissions closed about a fortnight ago and comments are now invited on them. Any person is quite free to make any kind of submission, which will be considered.

The honourable member has given an analysis, he said, of the submission by the Australian Labor Party. I do not accept his analysis because I know it to be completely inaccurate and false in every way and consequently ultimately without basis. I know that the Liberal Party made a submission that would give it 26 or 27 seats in New South Wales, two or three of them at the expense of its coalition partner, including the seat of the honourable member for Hume. I have looked at the proposal. In the Liberal Party’s endeavour to bring in a gerrymander it went quite outside the scope of the Commonwealth Electoral Act and endeavoured to divide New South Wales into regions to suit the Liberal Party’s point of view. Anybody who knows the Commonwealth Electoral Act knows that under the Commonwealth Electoral Act the Commissioners do not go by regions; they must divide the State into 45 divisions. The Labor Party’s policy, endorsed by a Joint Sitting of this Parliament, supports the principle of one vote one value and the submissions made by the Australian Labor Party are on that basis.

The fact that the Liberal members opposite and members of the Liberal Party seek to falsify the submissions does not do them any credit. Comments are invited on these matters and they will not doubt be made public in due course. But I have enough confidence in the integrity of the Commissioners to know that they will decide justly and properly in accordance with the high standard of their responsibilities and without being influenced even by infamous suggestions made by the Liberal Party.

page 3304

QUESTION

RAILWAY ROLLING-STOCK

Mr MATHEWS:
CASEY, VICTORIA

-Is the Minister for Transport aware of the enormous number of would-be railway passengers who are being turned away from Australian railways by the antiquated conditions of passenger rolling-stock? Can he give the would-be passengers any encouragement in the form of a progress report on the development of the Australian passenger train? Can he say when this train is likely to come into service and whether its development has been supported by all State Ministers for Transport?

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Transport · NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-The Government is concerned with the standard of public transport in capital cities and cities with a population in excess of 100,000. For this reason we have already committed $138m to finance programs which will total $207m. The money has been allocated to carry out all sorts of improvements to the transport system. We are now experimenting with the development of an Australian urban passenger train which will incorporate all the latest modern train techniques. A mock-up of the interior of a carriage has been displayed in Adelaide, Perth, and Melbourne and is in Sydney at the moment. It will shortly be displayed in Brisbane. Approximately 300,000 people have already inspected this mock-up. Numerous people have expressed their opinions of the various configurations. This is part of the market research we are doing to determine just what sort of carriage should be developed.

Up to this point, all the State Ministers for Transport have co-operated. In every city where the display has been set up, we have had to seek and have obtained their co-operation and assistance in setting it up for public inspection. The carriage was built at the Islington railway workshops in Adelaide. Stage 1 has been approved by all the Ministers. Stage 2 is under consideration. I reaffirm that the State Ministers are co-operating in the development and the investigations that are taking place.

page 3305

QUESTION

THALIDOMIDE CHILDREN

Mr DRURY:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Treasurer. I refer to representations made to the Treasurer on behalf of the parents of thalidomide children in Australia requesting exemption from income tax in respect of income from trust funds set up for children seriously affected by the use of this drug. I ask the Treasurer whether this matter is under active consideration and whether he is in a position to indicate when a decision may be reached?

Mr CREAN:
ALP

– The matter is under active consideration. I think I indicated previously that there were some technical difficulties. Compensation paid in a lump sum is not taxable, but traditionally compensation paid on a weekly basis has been taxable. There are some difficulties in isolating one particular occurrence. I have indicated to the House that I have every sympathy with that particular case and I have undertaken investigation of it in the Department. I shall shortly be receiving a deputation from the trust of which I think Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson is the chairman. I hope that after that meeting it will be possible to make a statement.

page 3305

QUESTION

SUGAR AGREEMENT

Mr HURFORD:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I direct my question to the Minister for Northern Development. What are the present prospects of a long term sugar agreement with the United Kingdom? Has the Minister noted a report that those negotiating on behalf of the United Kingdom Government were uncertain as to the quantities of sugar that may be available from Australia and as to the price of that sugar? What truth is there in those reports?

Dr PATTERSON:
ALP

– Many statements have been made in recent days in the United Kingdom as well as on the Continent regarding the possibility of a long term sugar agreement between either the European Economic Community and Australia or between the United Kingdom as a member of the EEC and Australia. The position at the present time as we know from British Government sources is that there are proposals for the EEC itself to buy sugar possibly on the world market, and then within the provisions of the common agricultural policy of the EEC to provide that sugar to the member countries of the EEC. I am aware of statements made by the British Prime Minister. I am also aware of the very serious problems facing the refineries in the United Kingdom- Tate and Lyle in particularwith respect to the refining of raw sugar inported into Britain. All of these matters are under consideration at the present time. It is quite clear, to my mind anyhow, that the EEC will have to get sugar from some country. Australia, of course, is one of the few countries that is able to supply sugar. The actual price, terms and conditions, as always, are confidential between the contracting parties.

page 3305

QUESTION

AID FOR BEEF PRODUCERS

Mr SINCLAIR:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture: Can he advise the House what progress has been made in the consideration of critical help by the provision of short term finance to meet the increasingly tight liquidity position of people in the beef industry? Has he considered the provision of aid to the rural credits section or department of the Reserve Bank? What other form of aid has the Minister considered and when does he expect to be in a position to make a statement to the House, considering the fairly critical position that many beef men are now in?

Dr PATTERSON:
ALP

-As the Deputy Leader of the Country Party knows, these are policy aspects which are primarily in the hands of the Minister for Agriculture. These matters certainly are being given very serious consideration, liquidity being recognised as the most important of the pressing problems at this point of time. I can give the honourable member details in respect of the cattle industry in the Northern Territory. There will be a very important meeting within a week between representatives of the cattle industry and the Departments of the Northern Territory and Northern Development and, I believe, Agriculture to consider the possibility of a stabilisation scheme with provisions in respect of maximum and minimum prices to provide the beef producers with a degree of liquidity. The Government is looking at whether this scheme is capable, within the Constitution, of extension to the States.

In regard to the Northern Territory, there is the Primary Producers Board, of course, and this is being looked at as a possible medium for expansion of credit. The Government is giving sympathetic consideration under the various Acts that it administers, such as the Brigalow Lands Act, to the terms of payment of interest and principle. The Brigalow Lands Act, of course, applies to Queensland. In regard to the Northern Territory, I have instructed my Department to give sympathetic consideration to those companies, properties or individuals who are experiencing financial problems in paying their rent or whatever repayment it might be to the Government, such as meeting interest payments on borrowings or making payments to the Primary Producers Board. However, I will take this point up as a matter of urgency with the Minister for Agriculture to see what progress has been made.

page 3306

ADDRESS TO THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

-For the information of honourable members I present the text of the address made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Monday, 7 October 1974, and a short statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on his visit.

Mr PEACOCK:
KOOYONG, VICTORIA

-I seek leave to make a statement on the speech tabled by the Prime Minister.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr WHITLAM:

– No.

Mr PEACOCK:

-Is leave not granted? When are we going to have a debate? Can we have a debate on foreign affairs this week?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Leave is not granted. There will be no debate now.

page 3306

STATES GRANTS (PRE-SCHOOL TEACHERS COLLEGES) ACT

Mr BEAZLEY:
Minister for Education · Fremantle · ALP

– Pursuant to section 9 of the States Grants (Pre-School Teachers Colleges) Act 1968-1972, I present a statement of payments authorised under the Act during the financial year 1973-74 and projects in relation to which the payments have been authorised.

page 3306

BILINGUAL EDUCATION IN THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

Mr BEAZLEY:
ALP

-(Fremantle-Minister for Education)- For the information of honourable members I present a report prepared for the Department of Education entitled: ‘Recommendations Concerning Bilingual Education in the Northern Territory’.

page 3306

STATES GRANTS (SCHOOLS) ACT

Mr BEAZLEY:
Minister for Education · Fremantle · ALP

– Pursuant to section 10 of the States Grants (Schools) Act 1972-73 I present a statement of payments authorised under the Act during the financial year 1973-74 and projects in relation to which the payments have been authorised.

page 3306

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Special Minister of State · KingsfordSmithSpecial Minister of State · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present two reports of the Industries Assistance Commission entitled ‘Textile and Apparel Machinery etc., and Paper Making and Printing Machinery etc.’, dated 23 July 1974, and ‘Mattresses, Quilts, Eiderdowns and Cushions’, dated 23 August 1974, which were forwarded to the Prime Minister on 15 August 1974 and 5 September 1974 respectively.

page 3306

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Transport · Newcastle · ALP

– I present a report on the working and administration of the Department of Transport including those matters on which the Minister for Transport is required to report pursuant to section 29 of the Air Navigation Act 1920-1971.

page 3306

ABORIGINAL MEDICAL SERVICES

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Minister for Health · Capricornia · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present a report prepared by the Australian Department of Health entitled ‘Workshop on Aboriginal Medical Services; Albury, New South Wales, 5-7 July 1974’.

page 3306

DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY

Mr ENDERBY:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · Canberra · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present 3 reports prepared for the Department of Supply entitled: ‘Central Studies Establishment Annual Report 1973-1974’; ‘Defence Standards Laboratories Annual Report 1973-1974’; and ‘Aeronautical Research Laboratories Annual Report 1973-74’.

page 3306

DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE ON WILLS

Mr ENDERBY:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · Canberra · ALP

– For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Australian Delegation to the Diplomatic Conference on Wills held in Washington D.C. on 16-26 October 1973.

page 3306

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Repatriation Acts Amendment Bill 1974.

Social Services Bill (No. 3) 1974.

page 3307

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE PECUNIARY INTERESTS OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

Mr SPEAKER:

– I wish to inform the House of the following nominations of senators and members to be members of the Joint Committee on the Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament: Mr Keating, Mr Martin and Mr Riordan have been nominated by the Prime Minister; Mr Nixon and Mr E. L. Robinson have been nominated by the Leader of the Opposition; Senators Georges and James McClelland have been nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate; Senator Marriott has been nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate; Senator Webster has been nominated by the Leader of the Australian Country Party in that House.

page 3307

UNEMPLOYMENT

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The tragic and unnecessary human suffering and national setback resulting from record and rising unemployment caused by the Government and its failure to adopt the correct policies to cure it.

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

Mr SNEDDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Bruce

- Mr Speaker, unemployment has reached out to 3 per cent of the Australian work force, and that is at a minimum. One hundred and ninety thousand people are the certain victims of a leaderless, incompetent, insensitive, smug and crippled government. Thousands more are not registered: Women, juniors, executives, salesmen, typists, clerks have yet to register. Their pride will wilt as their personal position worsens. These people and the 190,000 people of whom I have spoken who are unemployed are destined to be followed by tens of thousands more unemployed over the next months. The awful tragedy is that this should never have happened. The social and economic scars yet to be etched on the face of this Government will disfigure its reputation for generations.

Three times in the past 40 years Australia has been struck by employment of the magnitude we are facing today. Some still remember the massive unemployment of the late 1920s and the early 1930s- the great depression. That was under a Labor Government. More remember the great unemployment of the immediate post- Second World War years and the accompanying controls and constraints on the individual. That was under a Labor Government. Now we have record and rising unemployment today, again under a Labor Government. The Australian Labor Party is sinking for the third time under the weight of its own unemployment-causing policies. Historically it has confirmed itself as the Party of unemployment in Australia. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard Press Statement No. 26 of 1974 from the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) entitled ‘Provisional Commonwealth Employment Service Statistics October 1974’ and the attached tables.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

The labor market continued to deteriorate during October. The rate at which unemployment increased accelerated sharply and there were indications that a wider range of industry was affected than in previous months.

As in August and September the increase was more marked in metropolitan than in non-metropolitan areas.

In seasonally adjusted terms the total number of persons registered for employment at the end of October was 169,542. These are provisional figures and exclude schoolleavers. The actual number of school-leavers registered for employment at the end of October was 3,678.

However, it is now possible to give a seasonally adjusted figure for school-leavers according to the new adjustment factors for the school-leaver component which has been made available by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. This figure at the end of October was 19,704, giving a seasonally adjusted total (including school-leavers) of 1 89,246.

This is the first time that we have been able to provide figures based upon this new seasonal adjustment factor for the school-leaver component and in future, these will be used to give a total seasonally adjusted figure.

In actual, as distinct from seasonally adjusted terms, the number of persons registered for employment at the end of October increased by 28,742 (23.8 per cent) to 149,701 or 2.52 per cent of the estimated labor force. This includes the 3,678 school-leavers actually registered for employment.

Seasonally adjusted unfilled vacancies declined by 4,966 (12.1 per cent) to 36,236 as against falls of 6,984 ( 14.5 per cent) in September and 12,739 (20.9 per cent) in August.

Actual unfilled vacancies declined by 1,2 17 (3.0 per cent) to 40,036.

Seasonally adjusted average hours of overtime worked per employee in the Department’s Monthly Survey declined from 3.3 hours in August to 3. 1 hours in September.

At end-October, there were 430 persons employed on projects commenced under the RED Scheme. The numbers in each State were New South Wales 168, Victoria 119, Queensland 65, South Australia 16, Western Australia 40, and Tasmania 22. As more than 400 proposals under the Scheme have now been approved at an estimated total cost of more than $10m, it can be expected that the numbers of employed on projects will increase markedly in the months ahead.

The attached tables show the actual and seasonally adjusted statistics of total unemployed, unemployed excluding school-leavers, unemployed school-leavers and unfilled vacancies for Australia as a whole for each month since January 1974. More detailed tables for Australia and each of the six States will be included in my Department’s Monthly Review of the Employment Situation to be released on Monday 18 November 1974.

Mr SNEDDEN:

-Those are the official figures only. Last month, when the official figures revealed that 130,000 Australians were out of work in September, we had estimates by trade union leaders, business leaders and private employment firms that an extra 70,000 people were unemployed and that the true unemployment figure was closer to 200,000. We can assume on the same test that the real figure today of the number of people unemployed in Australia is a quarter of a million. We do not know the present situation in precise numbers but we do know that it is the worst for 30 years. We do know that the unemployment situation is going to become much worse in the months ahead. We do know that throughout Australia young men and women have already begun leaving schools and universities and are now coming onto the labour market Those young people will have their careers cut off before they begin. Many will bear the scars for the remainder of their lives. With their careers unfulfilled, bitterness and resentment will characterise their view of the system within which they live.

The official figures released by the Minister for Labor and Immigration for September show that 36 per cent of those out of work were under the age of 21 years. There were 43,000 unemployed under the age of 21 years compared with 23,000 in September 1973, 28,000 in September 1972 and 20,000 in September 197 1. The same figures show that 48 per cent of the unemployed females are under the age of 2 1 years. There were 2 1 ,000 of those young women. Already reports from youth organisations suggest that some students are deliberately not sitting for their final examinations so that they can be first in the job queue. In one inner suburban employment office in Melbourne the number of registered unemployed under 2 1 years of age has increased by 400 per cent in the last year. The Government should apologise abjectly. Tragically we need REDregional employment development- projects for the relief of the unemployed youth in the urban areas. That is vitally urgent. The Opposition wants this action to be taken to help the young Australians who will not be able to find a job when they leave school and those young Australians who have been already thrown out of their jobs in such numbers by the deliberate policies of the Government.

It is appalling to think of those people and to recall the words of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) 2 weeks ago when he said:

It is quite clear that the figures for the next quarter- on things like prices and unemployment- will be no improvement on those that have come out in the last couple of weeks. And the quarter after that there may be no great improvement.

That is committing us, as Australian people, to 6 months of this hellish situation. The Prime Minister has abdicated. He says that nothing can be done for 6 months. That is a policy of defeat and despair which the Liberal-Country Parties completely reject.

During its inglorious term of office the Government had made countless errors. There have been 4 great errors of policy which have led directly and inevitably to the unemployment crisis. They are: Firstly, the explosion of Government spending, beginning in the first half of 1 973 and continuing through 2 Budgets. That was to win the young voters. Secondly, the explosion of wage rises triggered by its adoption of the pacesetter principle in the Commonwealth Public Service. That was to win union votes. Thirdly, there was the 25 per cent across-the-board tariff cut. That was to win the consumer votes. Fourthly, there was the savage and prolonged credit squeeze. That was to win contempt for ever more from those who are unemployed. By those 4 home-grown deliberate acts the Government has created the twin tragedies of mass unemployment and uncontrolled inflation. In a short 23 months it has achieved stagflation in Australia.

Mr Chipp:

– It is not easy to do.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– It is not easy to do. One wonders whether is would have been able to do it if it had deliberately set out to try to achieve it. It has all happened simply because ideology has commanded them. The 4 decisions were taken by the Cabinet in the face of opposite advice. It is no use at the eleventh hour trying to offer the Treasurer as the scapegoat and the human sacrifice. There can be no doubt that the Treasurer has been a tragi-comic figure, but to make him the scapegoat is cowardice on the part of the Ministry.

On 27 July the Treasurer was asked this question:

Is there going to be unemployment in Australia in the next few months?

Mr Crean replied:

I don’t think there 11 be unemployment of any substantial numbers.

Is a quarter of a million not a substantial number? Compare this with the statement made on 21 April, before the last election, by the Minister for Labor and Immigration, Mr Cameron. He said:

The Labor Government not only espouses full employmem as a cardinal act of policy but practices this policy.

Yet one month after the election Mr Cameron was angering the Prime Minister by predicting rising unemployment. Dr Cairns, the Deputy Prime Minister, said in September-

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– May I take a point of order? It is a cardinal rule of the Parliament and of the Standing Orders that an honourable gentleman must not refer to another member by name. I am the Minister for Labor and Industry and Dr Cairns is the Minister for Overseas Trade.

Mr SPEAKER:

-It is true that there are 2 ‘Mr Camerons’ in the House and they might be confused.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The honourable gentleman does not even know the title of his own portfolio. Dr Cairns, the Deputy Prime Minister, said in September

Action by the Government to slow inflation will produce unemployment.

He got into trouble for that statement. So, 2 days later, having his 2 bob each way and being all things to all men, he then said:

Inflation can be attacked without resorting to unemployment.

That was when he was making his run for the position of Treasurer. But we have had the unemployment and it will last

The Government cannot pretend that it had no warning of the consequences of its decisions. In October last year I warned the Government that continuation of the credit squeeze would result in recession by mid- 1 974. 1 ask for leave to incorporate in Hansard a Press statement that I released on 3 1 October 1973.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

page 3310

QUESTION

OPPOSITION LEADER WARNS OF POSSIBLE RECESSION

The Federal Opposition Leader, Mr Snedden warned tonight of a possible recession in Australia next year.

He said he expected that Australia would be faced with rising unemployment. ‘If there is also a rise in imports as a result of Labor’s tariff cuts there could well be a recession’, Mr Snedden said.

He said he would not estimate the potential number of unemployed because he did not want to make the irresponsible sort of projections made by the Minister for Labour at the end of last year, which turned out to be so wrong.

Mr Snedden said the economic situation in December 1972 was one of relatively stable prices and declining unemployment. ‘During the whole of 1972, the Consumer Price Index had risen by 4.5 per cent, ‘ Mr Snedden said. ‘Prices are now rising, after 1 1 months of Labor Government, at a rate exceeding 1 4 per cent a year ‘. ‘They have risen at a rate of 10.6 per cent between the September quarter of last year and the September quarter of this year’, he said.

He said that by the middle of this year it was becoming quite apparent that inflation was rapidly accelerating and that remedial measures were needed- the Government’s top economic advisers had told it so. “They told the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, and all the Ministers that a responsible budget was required. ‘ “The Ministers then totally ignored that advice and budgeted for a record 1 9 per cent increase in government spending.’ ‘Faced with this the Government’s advisers then told the Ministers that because this would mean a huge increase in the public sector’s demand on resources they would have to * take measures to cut back private sector demand, ‘ he said.

Mr Snedden said there were two ways of doing this.

One was to increase tax rates. ‘Mr Whitlam increased some tax rates in the budget, but as they were taxes on petrol and tobacco, they simply added to price increases.’ ‘Dr Coombs, his personal economic adviser, has advised him to increase income tax rates, as well. ‘

The Prime Minister has not yet done that, but he has refused to give an assurance that he won’t, although in his policy speech he promised not to increase any tax rates,’ Mr Snedden said.

He said the second way to go about hitting the private sector was through monetary policies- by increasing interest rates. ‘This the Government has done on a massive scale,’ Mr Snedden said. ‘The long-term bond rate is now 8.5 per cent- up about 2.5 per cent in the last 7 months. ‘ ‘The overdraft rate is 9.5 per cent, and the borrowing rate for business investment in factories, plant and equipment is even higher, ‘ he said.

He said shortages are occurring throughout the economy and supplies, where they are available, are cripplingly expensive. ‘When interest rates rise by this much they make it more expensive for people to borrow and they savagely decrease the value of holdings of ‘financial’ assets,’ he said.

The Reserve Bank, on October 19th, told the private banks to cut back on their lending activities-until it hurts’.

Mr Snedden said the likely result of these measures was that the Government sector would continue to expand- but that there could be a rapid and sudden cut back in the rate of growth of the money supply. ‘In other words, people are going to be forced to reduce their spending, ‘ Mr Snedden said.

Mr Snedden said that if unemployment was to be avoided the rate of expansion of liquidity, or the money supply, needed to be gradually reduced. ‘Massive rises in interest rates are not the way to go about this’, he said. ‘At the first opportunity then, we would cut interest rates’, he said.

He also urged cut backs in the rate at which the Government’s financial transactions were adding to the money supply. ‘The Government appears to be toying with the idea of further tax increases ‘, he said. ‘We would reduce the level of government spending, and we would cut spending on such subjects as natural gas pipelines’, he said. ‘This is a project for the private sector’.

Mr Snedden said the Liberal Party would bring in a responsible, overall programme of economic management. ‘We would supplement that programme with a temporary freeze on prices and incomes. ‘ ‘ We agree with the unanimous opinion of economists that permanent controls over prices and incomes cannot control inflation,’ Mr Snedden said. ‘ What is needed is a proper demand management policy ‘. ‘We would call a national conference of the State Governments, the unions and employers to get agreement on the guidelines for the right anti-inflation programme,’ Mr Snedden said.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I thank the House. For the first half of this year Ministers were denying that a credit squeeze even existed. Unemployment therefore has directly resulted from Government policy errors- errors born of the Government’s obsession with raping the private sector to satiate the public sector and to create the socialist Utopia. The restoration of full employment can be successful only if the Government gets the private sector going again- gets companies investing again, get builders building again and small businesses back into full operation. This will require measures by the Government to stimulate the private sector- measures to restore incentives to work, to restore incentives to invest and to restore confidence. It will require a supplementary Budget which takes the steps which I have explained tune after time for nearly a year. These include a reduction in the growth of Government spending by at least $ 1,000m and a reduction in income tax by $ 1,000m, supplemented by reductions in some indirect taxes. It would provide a tax cut for the average weekly earner of 20 per cent of his tax.

The Budget strategy- to use the downturn in the private sector to transfer resources to the Government- must be reversed. The introduction in investment incentives to encourage private sector investment in new plant and equipment will be required. The restoration of full employment will require also the resuscitation of the housing industry which has been brought to its knees with a shortage of 50,000 homes by the end of this year. The social and economic impact of that will live with us for many, many years to come. It will require a complete review of the activities of the Prices Justification Tribunal which must understand that profit is honourable and a dynamic force, the Industries Assistance Commission, which needs to understand the depth of social problems when it takes decisions, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Prices and the Trade Practices Commission, all of whose activities affect business decisions.

The real tragedy is that measures of this type were not taken 6 months ago. Instead, nothing was done. Recently relaxation of the statutory reserve deposits requirement has not eased liquidity. The credit squeeze must be ended and interest rates must be slashed so that people can obtain finance to build their houses. Those members of the Government who have shown concern at the effects of the 25 per cent across the board tariff cut decision have been ridiculed as ‘nervous Nellies’ and ‘pedlars of lies’ by the Prime Minister. We have heard much from the Government about lags in economic policy. The Prime Minister has said that the situation cannot improve for 6 months. Why was the economy allowed to deteriorate to this point when the Department of Labor and Immigration has been estimating for months that unemployment would rise as much as it has. Why was no action taken when the Minister for Labor and Immigration wrote to the Treasurer urging a change of course? Why was no action taken when the Minister for Social Security, Mr Hayden, warned that the Government was presiding over the destruction of the Australian economy? Nowadays he could not get a single vote in the Caucus because he spoke out at that time.

This Government did nothing until the unemployment figures became so bad that the trade unions threatened to withdraw their support from the Party. How sickening it is to read in the Press of a trade union secretary saying: ‘Last year we gave $30,000 to Labor Party funds. Unless it does what we tell it to do, we will not give it a razoo next year’. The Government has done nothing until the unions have threatened them. At the weekend we were even treated to the spectacle of the Prime Minister of this country going to the home of the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. He debased the office. He was like Arthur Calwell waiting in the bushes outside the Hotel Kingston. The Prime Minister is the man who asked in June:

Does anyone really believe that the Australian Labor Party, which owes it existence and survival to wage and salary earners, would pursue policies designed to put those people out of work?

This is the man who described income tax cuts as economic vandalism. It is he who stands condemned and discredited, pandered to only by the sycophants who surround him. He cannot even knife his Treasurer cleanly. That is a bloody mess. The Prime Minister’s days will be haunted by job queues and disguised dole payments. This is a Government and a Leader of Government failed.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I always admire the sense of drama of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) and how he can work himself into a state of false dignity- or should I say false indignation rather than false dignity because his dignity, I think, is perhaps not as false as his indignation. What the House has been told by the right honourable gentleman is that the Government deliberately set about to create unemployment. That, as everyone knows, is just not true. Of all the Parties that operate in Australia, the Australian Labor Party is the one which is dedicated to the objective of full employment. It always has been and it always will be. No other Party has such a firm commitment to full employment as does the Australian Labor Party.

The fact of the situation is that in all industrialised nations of the Western world the same problem that we face- rising inflation and rising unemployment- is being faced. No country knows the answer to this problem. If any country does, it has kept that answer from even itself. No industrialised country in the Western world has discovered how to provide for a situation in which unemployment and inflation are rising.

Dr Forbes:

– We did.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-I will explain, at this point, although it is out of the order of my speaking -

Mr Snedden:

- Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Has it come to your attention that there are only 6 Labor Party members in the chamber?

Mr SPEAKER:

– That is not a point of order, as the right honourable member knows.

Dr Forbes:

– There are a quarter of a million unemployed.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honourable member for Barker will remain silent. I remind the Opposition that the Leader of the Opposition was heard in complete silence.

Mr Howard:

– But he talked a lot of sense.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I will demand that the Minister for Labor and Immigration be heard in complete silence. If he is not, I will take appropriate action.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-I was talking about the problem that faces the whole of the industrialised Western world. Like all these other countries, Australia has been caught in the twin delemma of rising inflation and rising unemployment. This is reflected in the recent statement by the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund who said that the world is facing the most difficult combination of economic policy decisions since the reconstruction period following World War II. The problem we have is world-wide, namely, an accelerating rate of inflation due to factors outside the control of individual governments, and which has tended to become accelerated through sequential but accelerating wage costs.

Put in another way, all efforts to combat inflation and hold it to a reasonable level, let alone pull it back, have in one way or another an unfavourable effect on the level of economic activity and on employment itself. In essence, all countries in the Western world are engaged in a juggling act. Obviously we have attempted to curb inflation with as Little effect as possible on employment. In anticipation that some unemployment could occur we have tried to devise and to implement suitable manpower programs to provide appropriate relief for those unfortunate people who have had to be laid off. Unfortunately these measures with respect to inflation take time and often there is an impatience among observers when the effect of these measures is not instant.

I want to contrast the philosphy of the present Government with the position of the Leader of the Opposition, who has just spoken, and his Party. When Liberal and Country Party governments in the past were faced with high inflation, as in 1951-52, 1960-61 and 1971-72, their response was deliberately to induce unemployment. The Leader of the Opposition has, of course, denied that his policies included the creation of unemployment but I can prove, as I will do in a moment, that this is precisely what his policies deliberately set out to do. Fortunately we are able to assess his now hollow promise of attempting to look after unemployment and his promises of what can be expected from a Liberal-Country Party government, because we ought to remember- I want honourable members to take special notice of the date- that on 15 April 1971, just before the horror Budget of 1971, the right honourable gentleman is on record as saying:

Every country which has created or permitted unemployment as a weapon against inflation has failed miserably. We take full employment as a cardinal act of political faith and we will not resort to unemployment to achieve our objective.

In the interests of open government I propose to read from a minute that was sent to my immediate predecessor, Mr Lynch, who was then the

Minister for Labour and National Service. This minute to the then Minister was about the Budget proposals that were then being put forward by the government. It stated:

The second and more implicit assumption is that an easing in the labour market-

That means unemployment-

Mr Chipp:

- Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not know what is in the minute and I rise before the Minister reads it to establish a point of principle. Has the Minister obtained the permission of the honourable member for Flinders to disclose the contents of this minute to the House before so disclosing them?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The answer is that

I have obtained the permission-

Mr SPEAKER:

-It is not a matter for the Chair to decide.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– That is right. I give the assurance that I have obtained the permission of the Minister for Labor and Immigration to quote this minute. He happens to be the person in charge of these records just now.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– I rise on a point of order. May I take it that when we return to power shortly all the private correspondence between present Ministers will be available to us for tabling in the Parliament?

Mr SPEAKER:

– That is not a point of order; it is a point of view.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The minute states:

The second and more implicit assumption is that an easing in the labour market would not be undesirable because of its beneficial effects on inflationary psychology, industrial unrest and the willingness of employers to grant wage increases . . . Our view is that the Budget is more deflationary than was necessary.

It is our view that this overshoots the mark and that the labour market will ease significantly -

This means unemployment will get very much worse- especially in the second half of the year.

That was the second half of 1971-72. It continues:

If you are asked a question about the possible effects of the Budget on the level of unemployment in the next 12 months or so, I would suggest a reply along the following lines: ‘The Government should be judged on its record. For the last 7 or 8 years the Australian economy has maintained a steady rate of economic growth with rates of unemployment (1 to 11/4 per cent) which are the envy of many industrialised countries. I am confident that we can maintain our good record. However I am not prepared to forecast to a precise decimal point what proportion of the labour force will be registered as unemployed a year from now. (The current figure is 1.2 per cent actual or 1.3 per cent seasonally adjusted). Even with the finest economic management in the world, it is not possible to make such precise prognostications. ‘

While the Department of Labour and National Service was giving that advice to its Minister, the present Leader of the Opposition, who was then the Treasurer, 9 months later in reviewing his disastrous 1971 Budget and the dismal unemployment figures, which then showed 120,574 people registered for employment- that is actual numbers- proudly declared:

We have achieved what we set out to do in that we have created an environment in which over-award payments are depressed.

It is clear that the Opposition parties believe in deliberately setting out to achieve unemployment as a means of dealing with inflation.

Part of the cure that the Opposition now puts forward for the present situation is that the Government should drastically cut, or cut by 8 per cent which is a drastic cut, government expenditure; but it studiously avoids telling the country which areas of government expenditure should suffer the axe. Is the Opposition going to cut health costs? Does it intend to cut the amounts that the Government has budgeted for in social service payments? Does it intend to cut the amounts we have budgeted for in education? Is it going to cut State grants? Is it going to cut the amounts we have set aside for housing? Is it going to cut the amounts we have budgeted for with respect to roads, shipping and transport generally? Does it intend to cut urban and regional development expenses? Is it going to reduce the Public Service and cut the wages of public servants? It has direct power under the law to do this. Is it going to reduce repatriation benefits? Until the Opposition comes clean on the precise areas in which it proposes to exercise a cut in expenditure every area is entitled to assume that it will be the one that will suffer a cut. Until the Opposition says what total savings will be made by those cuts every one in the community is entitled to assume that what it is proposing is an amount that will be either infinitesimal or else disastrously large to a point where people who have now become accustomed to receiving social security benefits and the kind of government support which I think they are now coming to expect, will no longer be able to get this support.

The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) will make an economic statement to the Parliament tonight. It will be one of the most profound statements ever delivered in this Parliament. It will have an electrifying effect upon the economy. It will cause great distress to members of the Opposition Parties because the thing that the Opposition wants least of all is an upswing in the economy; the thing that it wants least of all is an improvement in the employment position. Nothing gives the Opposition greater joy than to discover an increase in the unemployment figures released each month. Members of the Opposition do not care. It does not worry them that when one talks of statistics one is talking about people. It does not worry them when the unemployment figures go up we are concerned not only with statistics but also with human beings who are being made to suffer.

Mr Wentworth:

– I rise on a point of order. The Minister is attributing to the Opposition the motives which activated him when he was in Opposition.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr Wentworth:

– We are not like you.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– That is a dastardly thing to say.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Far too many frivolous points of order are being taken. The honourable member for Mackellar has been a member of this place for 25 years and he knows that what he has just raised is not a point of order but is a point of view. He knows that he does not have the right to take such a frivolous point of order.

Mr Wentworth:

– I apologise, Mr Speaker. My feelings got the better of me.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Unemployment is rising all over the industrial Western world. It was reported in the stop press of this morning’s ‘Canberra Times’ that some 30,000 people were sacked only yesterday in the car industry in the United States. West Germany is closing down its car plants. The United Kingdom is closing down its motor car plants. Even in Spain the manufacturers of motor cars have been forced to close down. Unemployment is increasing and is continuing to increase all around the world and inflation is going with it. At least we are trying desperately to find the answer. We are not deliberately planning unemployment as the Opposition Parties did when they were in Government.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Mr ANTHONY:
Leader of the Australian Country Party · Richmond

– We have been listening to the high priest of the Australian Labor Party who is responsible for the highest rate of unemployment that this country has seen since the depression. He pontificates in a manner which must be disturbing to every unemployed person in Australia as well as to the members of this Parliament. He is quite unmoved and quite unashamed of what the Government has done to this country during the last 20 months. We on this side of the House believe in full employment. We have demonstrated during a long period that we know how to manage the economy, that we know the delicate balances that are required to give a free enterprise economy stimulus, to give it confidence and to give job opportunities to the people. But this Government, with all its new petty, new-fangled ideas and ideologies had created the greatest confusion in government administration that this country has seen. The Government is made up of people who are nothing more than a lot of wild Indians galloping in all directions causing the greatest cavalcade of confusion that the country has seen. This situation will not be corrected until some basic guidelines are put down in every area of administration that industry desperately wants.

The Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) is the Minister who not so many months ago was saying that wages do not increase prices. It appears to me that the penny has dropped all of a sudden because now he is starting to recognise that it is inflation, it is the cost-push coming from increased wages that is depriving businesses of the opportunity to employ people. He has finally realised that wages have outstripped productivity and that there has to be a bit of sanity and a realisation of the basic economic facts. The Labor Party, which claims to look after the ordinary working man and woman of this country, has betrayed them. It is quite insensitive now to the action it has taken. .

One action taken by the Government which has caused unemployment was the revaluation of the currency. The Opposition criticised the Government on 3 occasions last year for taking this action. But the Government went ahead and revalued the currency and made it difficult for industries to compete against imports. Then, in a most academic way the Government cut tariffs across the board. The Government did not discriminate and did not ascertain what the impact would be on the motor industry or the textile industry. Instead it was quite happy to take this step because it thought that this was the way to curb private investment and the private sector of the economy. Of course, the Government has not curbed its reckless spending which has been made on the basis that the sky is the limit. There has been no realisation that ultimately there is a time of judgment and that inflation basically stems from the Government’s attitude to spending. The Government has taken steps to dampen down the private sector of the economy and to stimulate the public sector. But what has this done? It has completely dashed confidence in an area in which people are now holding back or are incapable of being able to invest to create more job opportunities.

The Government has indulged in a slanging match in respect of foreign investment, multinational companies, farmers and the mining industry. But now we have the almost absurd and ludicrous situation of the Deputy Prime Minister (Dr J. F. Cairns) going overseas cap in hand to beg the Arab countries of all people to invest money here. He is even asking the great Japanese multi-national motor car companies to come in and take over Chrysler. What hypocrisy we are seeing from this Government. It just shows you how insincere it is at election time when it peddles emotive issues knowing full well that it is only living for the moment. But ultimately there will be a time of judgment and the time of judgment is coming because Australia is now suffering severe unemployment which will get worse as time goes on. At the moment on a seasonally adjusted basis 190,000 people or 3.2 per cent of the work force are unemployed. But we know that the real figure is vastly greater than that because the figure I have just mentioned does not include people such as women who are out of the work force or people who are waiting for a job or new school leavers who have not been able to register. It is anticipated that 350,000 people, or about 6 per cent of the Australian work force, will be out of a job by January. Such a level of unemployment is quite intolerable in this country. We have never heard of such a level. This Government ought to resign. This Minister who claims to have a close liaison with the trade unions and who says that he can manage the trade union movement ought to resign. He is certainly showing little sympathy for the unemployed people across this country.

There are areas in my own electorate which already have unemployment rates higher than 6 per cent. The September figures show that the employment rate for Casino is 7.8 per cent and that the rate in Lismore is 6 per cent. This rate is going up daily as businesses find that as a result of the tight liquidity situation and inflation they have to tighten down and they just cannot employ people. What the Government must realise is that if there is to be confidence in the private sector there has to be a capacity to make a profit. There is nothing wrong with profit, although this Government seems to have a hang-up on this question. There is nothing wrong or illegal about profit. The whole situation is made ludicrous by the way in which the Government is sooling on the Prices Justification Tribunal to ensure that businesses make a very minimum of profit. Big business cannot continue to re-invest unless it enjoys a degree of profit. When Broken Hill Pry Co. Ltd has to go begging to the Tribunal 4 times in a year to try to get a reasonable profit, how can it manage to continue an investment program which is absolutely vital for this country? I read in the Press today that Kraft Foods Ltd went to the Tribunal early this year and received an increase of 4 per cent. Today, all of a sudden and for some unknown reason, the Prices Justification Tribunal is to give it a 1 3.4 per cent increase.

There are other factors apart from this. I refer to the Industries Assistance Commission, which is a complete misnomer- it should be called by other names- which the Prime Minister has been backing to the hilt. The organisation does not seem to recognise that one of its main charters is the protection of Australian industry to create job opportunities for people. It does not need to give over protection, but it should give reasonable protection. Because of the way this organisation is working, most of the industries in country areas are suffering. Examples are the textile industry, which is in a panic situation, and the clothing industry. A big firm like Email Ltd does not know where it stands with the production of compressors, yet it employs 500 people. Somehow or other confidence has to be instilled into the community again. But confidence is not instilled in the community when the Prime Minister, in a most undignified manner, goes down and confers with the head of the trade union movement in Australia, Mr Hawke, to find out what he ought to do. Goodness me, where is the leadership of this country? Where are the government departments which are the respositories of all wisdom and all knowledge as to how to manage the country?

Of course the Prime Minister completely ignores the Treasurer (Mr Crean) and overrides the Treasury. He thinks they do not know. The Caucus will not acept Treasury advice. It is little wonder that we get into a state of economic chaos when we have a government which is not prepared to take the proper advice that is given to it. We see the RED scheme- the regional employment development scheme- brought forward as a means of soaking up some of the unemployment. It is a worthy scheme but it is second best. The best is permanent employment with people in regular jobs where they have a bit of dignity and where they do not have to go out to do manual jobs. How do women get a job under the RED scheme? Are they supposed to go out and start digging in the claypits or sweeping the streets? They cannot do so. This scheme is a secondary method of coping with the situation.

We have a terrible inconsistency with the retrenchment scheme where people are given an entitlement of 6 months government allowance equivalent to their salary, including overtime, for the past 6 months. We have the situation now where people who are still employed in factories will be getting less wages for 6 months than those who were put off.

Why should only a few people in the community be privileged when hundreds of thousands are now unemployed and all they receive is the unemployment benefit? The whole situation is gyrating. Nobody knows where we are going. But worst of all people are being hurt very severely because they are unemployed and unable to sustain their families in a dignified and decent way of living.

Mr RIORDAN:
Phillip

-This proposition is steeped in sham, duplicity, humbug and hypocrisy. The Opposition is attempting -

Mr Snedden:

– Are you saying there is no unemployment?

Mr RIORDAN:

– I will deal with the right honourable member in a minute. The Opposition is trying to ride on the backs of the unemployed of this country. Let me deal with the argument put forward by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden). I was amazed this morning to hear him, of all people, make such a grave and irresponsible statement as to suggest that the real figure of unemployment at present is 250,000. That is the height of irresponsibility. As a person who has been elected to a position of leadership in Australia and as as a member of this Parliament, he should be ashamed to overstate a serious proposition so grossly and improperly. In fact it is grossly untrue for him to state that. He has absolutely no evidence to justify the statement. He cannot justify it. The decent thing for him to do, for the benefit of the community as a whole, would be to stand up and withdraw that statement and apologise for ever having made it.

The humbug of members of the Opposition who claim that confidence is sagging, that we need to build confidence and that the Government should attempt to build confidence in the economy of Australia, is that at every opportunity they try to downgrade that confidence and to destroy it. I refer to the Leader of the Country Party (Mr Anthony). What gross irresponsibility, what humbug was his statement -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes)Order! the terms ‘humbug’ and ‘irresponsibility’ cannot be used in the House.

Mr RIORDAN:

-The Leader of the Country Party said there was a vastly greater number than 190,000 unemployed. He said 350,000 would be out of work by January. What is the basis for that statement- his opinion, which is that 350,000 will be out of work by January. I reject it, and I am sure that most other people who can read figures will reject it utterly and completely. He has no basis for saying that, any more than he has a basis for saying that there are in fact 190,000 out of work at present. The actual figure is less than 150,000. That is merely, of course, 40,000 here or there. He knows, as well as do other members of this House, that the figure he is quoting is the seasonally adjusted figure.

In March of this year 82,564 people were registered as actually unemployed. At the same time there were 87,552 registered vacancies for employees. In April 76,865 persons were registered as unemployed and there 8 1,258 registered vacancies. At present, of course, there are unfilled vacancies exceeding 40,000 jobs. There are 40,000 vacant jobs in the community waiting for somebody to fill them. The responsibility for the fact that there are unemployed persons who cannot get those jobs rests squarely on the guilty men who sit opposite, the men who for a quarter of a century refused to introduce into Australia any scheme for the training of employees. They found it beyond them to engage in employment planning or any form of manpower scheme whatsoever, except the conscription of our youth. The basic difference between them and a Labor government is that whereas the Government initiates economic activity, they react to whatever happens to occur and whatever may be the wishes of their rich and powerful friends.

There has been an appreciable slowing in the rate of reduction of unfilled vacancies. For example, in both June and July of this year the number of unfilled vacancies reduced by more than 11,600 a month. That was very serious cause for concern. But in October the number of unfilled vacancies reduced by just over 1,200. That is cause for some confidence. That is cause to take the view that the decline in employment opportunities is bottoming out. It is also cause to take the view that there has been less turnover of labour, because when there is a rapid turnover of labour there is this increase in unfilled vacancies. Talk of insecurity destroys confidence and causes unemployment. If members of the Opposition expect anybody to believe that their effort here today is designed to try in some way to overcome the problems for those who are unemployed I ask them to consider one thing: What did they suggest as a means of overcoming it? Members of the Opposition heard something last night and they will hear something more tonight which will show beyond doubt that this Government and this Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) are not committed in any way, shape or form to unemployment. They reject it completely.

Members of the Opposition want to attack this Minister for Labor because there is unemployment, but I say to them that in 23 years they never had a Minister for Labor with the courage of the present Minister to try to retrain the Australian work force. The Opposition is jealous and envious of his record and that is why he is attacked. Perhaps the real reason emerged from both the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Australian Country Party. They let the cat out of the bag when both of them launched a bitter, miserable and contemptuous attack on the Prices Justification Tribunal. The Leader of the Opposition said that the Prices Justification Tribunal must understand that profit is honourable. The Leader of the Australian Country Party said that nothing is wrong with profit and that the Government is sooling the Prices Justification Tribunal to make profit the very minimum. Those statements are false. I refer the honourable gentleman to the first annual report of the Prices Justification Tribunal. At page 52, in relation to profits, it states:

It is useful to pay regard to profits from three points of view, namely in their relationship to the goals

efficient resource allocation and optimum growth;

price stabilisation; and

equitable income distribution.

I suggest to the honourable gentlemen opposite who are apparently labouring under this false view that it might do them well to read the report.

What they really mean is that they do not want a situation where there is some regulation against excess profitability. They do not want a tribunal. They do not want a scheme of things which prevents profit maximisation and prices maximisation. Their real view, the view dictated to them by the outside interests that control them, is that profits must be at their maximum level all the time and that prices must be fixed on the criterion that they shall be the maximum amount that the consumer can be forced to stand. That is their attitude. Let it be clear from their speeches here today that they will denude the Prices Justification Tribunal of power. They will make it a toothless tiger. If they have their way we will see a situation in which when goods and services are in short supply the supplier will have the right to charge the price at the greatest level that the unfortunate consumer can be forced to pay.

The Liberal and Country Parties when in government used unemployment as an economic weapon. They used it skilfully in 1951, in 1961 and in 1971. Every 10 years they introduced a short, sharp burst of unemployment to wave the stick at the employee to get him back into line. At the end of each of those 10-year periods- 1951, 1 96 1 , and 1971 -the Liberal and Country Parties created a short, sharp burst of unemployment. It is dishonest to say that the great depression was the result of the action of a Labor government or that the unemployment that came after World War II was caused by a Labor government. That is the implication of what the Leader of the Opposition had to say. That argument is hardly worth answering because it is so ludicrous as to be laughable. The Liberal and Country Parties are the parties in Australia which have used unemployment as an economic weapon. The Australian Labor Party has always believed and always will believe that it is undignified and immoral to use unemployment as an economic weapon.

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

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Wannon

– The honourable member for Phillip (Mr Riordan) has today spoken beneath himself and beneath his usual integrity in this Parliament. He knows full well that the people outside this place will not believe what he has said in relation to the policies pursued by our Government over a long period of years. The honourable member for Phillip knows full well and I think it would be reasonable to say that in his own heart every member of this Parliament is committed to a policy of full employment. It is the mismanagement, the bungling and the stupidity of this Government that we condemn. We do not impute evil motives and the honourable member for Phillip does himself a disservice when he imputes evil motives to us. At the same time I think the honourable member for Phillip deceives himself, or is he like the Minister for Overseas Trade (Dr J. F. Cairns) who suggests that unemployment under Labor is educative, that it is good, that it is only short term, and that it allows for a process of indoctrination and retraining?

This is an odd view to take. The honourable member took heart from the fact that unfilled vacancies had fallen from 90,000 to 40,000 over a period of less than a year. Is that something of which the honourable member for Phillip can be proud? Is he proud of the fact that 63,000 people, seasonally adjusted, are on unemployment benefits- the largest figure for many years? These are people, therefore, who have been unemployed for a considerable period. Is that a cause for confidence? He said that the fall in vacancies was less than it had been. There is certainly less labour turnover because of the circumstances that have been created through bungling and mismanagement People are fearful for their jobs where they ought not to have been fearful for their jobs. If someone is working and wants to continue to work, as most Australians do, he would stay put in the present circumstances. So a suggestion that the slackening in the rate of notification of vacancies is a good sign is a misreading of the circumstances.

The Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) started his speech with a falsehood. He blamed the world. He said that unemployment is rising everywhere. But if it were not for the fall in meat prices inflation in Australia would now be measured at 26 per cent and not at 20 per cent. So world events which have led to unemployment elsewhere have helped the Government in Australia; they have not hindered it. World events which have damaged the Japanese, European and United States economies, with oil prices rising from US$2 to US$8 a barrel, have hardly touched Australia. If rising oil prices had touched Australia as they have Japan, the level of inflation would have been more than 35 per cent today, and the Minister well knows that that is so.

What has happened in Australia is as a result of the Government’s tariff decisions, the wage policies followed earlier by the Minister for Labor and Immigration, the unreasonable growth in Government expenditure and the Government’s foolish and incompetent policies in trying to overcome the difficulties that were created by its own mismanagement. No amount of explanation will persuade the Australian people that that is not so. In the last 5 years before 1974 the months of September and October showed a generally good trend in employment. The number of people registered for employment fell during those 2 months; in some years the numbers fell quite significantly- by 4,000 in 1969 and by 7,000 in 1973. In 1974 in those same 2 months the number of people registered for employment, excluding school leavers, increased by about 42,000. So the trend we have is not only bad in itself; it is against the normal trend for this period of the year. That only indicates that the situation is more serious than the bare figures would themselves reveal. It ought to be pointed out that the Minister’s new definition of school leavers very much understates the position compared with the figures used under the old definition. The difference represents about 15,000 or 16,000 people in the total unemployment figures. The Ministerrefuses to count somebody who wants to leave school but stays at school merely because he cannot get a job. Such a person was counted in our time in government. If the old definition were used and applied the seasonally adjusted total number of unemployed now would be about 210,000. But the Minister does not want evidence of this sort to be made available. He has therefore instructed his Department to cease collecting information on the basis of the old definition of school leavers and including those figures in the number of seasonally adjusted unemployed. This was done in every month up to the present month. It will not be done henceforth. The new method, which shows a very favourable position from the Government’s point of view, will be used. So that needs to be taken into account also when looking at unemployment figures.

I would hope that every member of this Parliament is concerned about the tens of thousands of people who are being grievously hurt by the mismanagement of the Government, the Treasurer (Mr Crean) and the Minister for Labor, and whether the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) has confidence in them or not, one thing is clear: The people of Australia and this Parliament do not have confidence in them. If a secret ballot were conducted among the people of Australia or the members of this Parliament on the question the result would be plain. We know quite well that the Opposition would have the Prime Minister’s vote in a secret ballot on that question in this Parliament, and I think it would also have the vote of the Minister for Labor. Does the Minister for Labor, the Treasurer or even the Prime Minister want to be in a government running a country in which at the end of January 150,000 school leavers will be wandering around the streets of Australia unable to get a job? That is the proud record they will have. The first Labor Minister for Labor for 23 years will have the great achievement of having supported policies that created more unemployment than this country has seen since the great depression. That is the way the Minister for Labor will be known and remembered unless he takes some action. There are plenty of things he can do. He can cease to support policies which are foolish in their application and their effect on Australia. He can walk away from the Government, the fat cats and his big black car about which he is so critical in respect of other people, but he will not do that. He would sooner carry the burden of having on his back the brand of 150,000 unemployed school leavers, whom he would not even count among the unemployed up to this month, than stand for the principle of full employment in a way that really meant something and in a way that the people of Australia might be able to see and understand.

There is a record of bungling in the introduction of the national employment and training scheme for which the Minister and his Department had had over a year to prepare. Were payments under the scheme to be taxable? The Minister thought they were, the head of his Department thought they were, but the rest of his Department thought they were not. We have had no explanation of how that variation in understanding of the scheme could occur. If a widow on $3 1 a week qualifies under the NEAT scheme she gets $93 a week taxable and loses the widow’s pension. Somebody with an income of $20,000 a year, driving to the retraining centre in a Mercedes or a Bentley, would receive the full training allowance in the same way as the widow who loses her widow’s pension on receipt of the training allowance. What justice or reason is there in that?

The Government has created the regional employment development program. In the electorate of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) attempts have been made to get regional employment projects under way, but unemployed people prefer unemployment benefits to work under the RED program. The Minister for Labor has said twice in the last 9 months that he will crack down on people who abuse the system. How will he crack down on them? Owing to the Government’s mismanagement he does not have sufficient staff in his Department to administer the normal Commonwealth Employment Service programs and the NEAT program, much less staff to chase up people abusing the system. His Department has even had to rob the specialist institutional help provided to those private institutions that help the handicapped because it is short of staff and cannot handle the work load that has been placed on it as a result of the present Government’s policies.

It is virtually a certainty that 350,000 people will be unemployed in January and February next year. The figure could be much higher than that. If in the next 3 months unemployment increases at the rate at which it has increased for the last month another 120,000, excluding school leavers, will be added to the list. The figure will approach 300,000, excluding school leavers. The Government needs policies that will re-establish confidence in the Australian community. If it introduces such policies it will have Opposition support. But the Government’s taking one element of Opposition policy out of context and applying it will not have the effect which we say our total policies would have in bringing confidence and good sense back into the government of Australia.

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

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– I agree with one statement by the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser). Every member on both sides of the House is committed to the policy of full employment. I think occasionally we should ask ourselves what full employment means. I say that it means a job all the time, but it does not necessarily mean the same job all the time. I disagree with the honourable member for Wannon on another matter.

Mr Lusher:

– The new economics.

Mr CREAN:

-Well, occasionally the honourable member for Hume does not even know the old economics. The honourable member for Wannon suggested that had meat prices not fallen, then the cost of living would have shown an increase of, I think, 26 per cent instead of 20 per cent. What he does not acknowledge is that had it not been for the rise of meat prices in 1973-74, inflation would have been running at only 7 per cent instead of 14 per cent. I think this simply shows that one can use statistics to suit oneself, but it is not facing up to the situation.

Honourable members on the other side of the House claim to believe in the system called free enterprise or private enterprise. I direct attention to 2 aspects of free enterprise: Production is organised by what are described as market forces and enterprises to varying degrees are able to fix the prices of the things that they sell. They acknowledge also that free enterprise can not exist unless it employs people. Those who are employed are entitled to organise themselves to maintain and to improve their standards of living or their wage. It seems to me that they are the 2 poles of a private enterprise system. In the mixed economy in Australia, it still accounts for something like 75 per cent of total employment.

I shall cite some figures that show changes that have taken place within the private enterprise system in the distribution of what is produced in the non-farm sector, because the farm sector is subject to volatile influences. In 1969-70, which was when the now Opposition was in government, in the non-farm sector, wages, salaries and supplements as the statistician describes them, were 62.2 per cent of the total. The gross operating surplus was divided in this way: Companies, 18.4 per cent; unincorporated enterprise, 9.9 per cent; and others, which include a number of statistical compilations, 9.S per cent. It can be argued that in 1969-70 the share going to wages and salaries etc. was far too low and that perhaps the share going to companies was far too high. By the June quarter of 1973-74- the last quarter for which figures are available- the wages, salaries and supplements share had increased from 62.2 per cent to 70.2 per cent, an increase of 8 per cent. Companies’ share had declined from 18.4 per cent to 13.1 per cent. The share of unincorporated businesses had declined from 9.9 per cent to 8.6 per cent, and the other categories’ share had declined from 9.5 per cent to 8.1 per cent. That would suggest that perhaps there has been a squeeze on profits over the last year or two.

When it suits honourable members opposite, they pose the question: What is a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work? Neither side of that syllogism is very easy to define accurately. Equally, there may be arguments as to what is a reasonable rate of return upon capital employed in a particular private enterprise. I suggest that we should get down to looking at that sort of question rather than trying to score according to whether a particular index like the consumer price index has risen. As I said on one occasion, I think the Opposition is almost gleeful when the index shows an increase rather than expressing any concern as to why it has increased. Equally, the Opposition can score a lot from unemployment figures being higher than they were.

Mr Hunt:

– What is a reasonable rate of unemployment and inflation?

Mr CREAN:

– I am not going to try to define it, but I would suggest that the problem will not be solved until employers and employees have sensible discussions with each other and recognise that each is an essential part of the process and that therefore there should be some general agreement as to what is fair on either side. The question of prices involves the question of profits, and private enterprise is not in the game primarily to serve the public, although it will not exist long if it does not. Private enterprise is there basically to earn a profit, and if it finds the rate of profit unsatisfactory then it is not likely to expand its capacity, and I would suggest that that is the big central point at the moment which is being overlooked in the general economic debate. It is not only a question of unemployment, it is a question of unemployment and inflation. And there is a third leg in the economic trianglethe decline in fixed capital investment. In a private enterprise economy, which this economy basically still is- I do not deny that- the majority of employment opportunities can be found only if there is expansion in the private sector. There are a number of limiting factors at the moment as to why the private sector is not expanding. Inflation is one of the central issues, and inflation is bound up with industry. Industry does not regard the wage as the standard of living of the worker so much as it regards it as a cost in production, and again we get caught in this endless debate as to whether, when prices have risen, unless wages rise too the real wage standard has declined. On the other side, if wages have increased then those who employ labour in considerable numbers say that they have to adjust their prices. That is the heart of the economy in Western industrialised societies.

There is not a definable, reasonable rate of return on profits and there is not a definable fair share of the total that ought to go to wages as against the rest, and until we get down to that kind of fundamental examination I suppose the Opposition every time a particular statistic goes a certain way will use the opportunity to exploit it. But it does not solve the problem. Unemployment in Australia will not decrease this side of 1975 and everybody on both sides of the House knows that. It is humbug to suggest that the numbers are going to come down. As we all know, December and January are the sterile months.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Scholes)Order! the honourable gentleman’s time has expired. The discussion is concluded.

page 3320

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION BILL (No. 2) 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 3 October, on motion by Dr Cass:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr MORRISON:
Minister for Science · St George · ALP

– May I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation. Before the debate is resumed on this Bill I should like to suggest that it might suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill, the Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Bill and the Television Stations Licence Fees Bill, as they are related measures. Separate questions will of course be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest, therefore, that the House permit the subject matter of the 3 Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering these measures? It is so ordered.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

-As the Minister for Science (Mr Morrison) just explained, there are 3 Bills before the House for its consideration. Two of them need not delay us long. These are the 2 Bills dealing with fees relating to television stations and fees relating to broadcasting stations. It is the third Bill that should invite the attention of all honourable gentlemen and, I would hope, the attention of the country. It is a Bill to amend the Broadcasting and Television Act. There are 2 views which may be taken of the amending Bill. There is the view which the Minister for the Environment and Conservation (Dr Cass), who introduced the Bill, has invited us to take, and there is the view which the Bill demands that we should take. I say at once that if there is any coincidence between the two, any resemblance, it is a startling display of coincidence, and it is a matter of high congratulations if any similarity at all is found between what the Minister said was in the Bill and what the Bill says is in the Bill.

I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Bill was introduced into this House. I should have thought that the Minister for the Media (Senator Douglas McClelland), who has the ultimate control of and responsibility for the Bill, would have been the logical person to present the Bill to the Parliament. But no, this Bill comes in here, no doubt on the basis of the assurance of numbers, and no matter what blemishes we may find in the Bill the numbers will prevail, the Bill will go through and go on its way to the Senate. If it there meets what I would encourage honourable gentleman to accept as being a proper fate, the Bill will be defeated and will come back into this chamber at some time in the future. So, therefore, the primary observation on this Bill is that it is part of the machinery for another double dissolution, and that is the way in which the Government regards the Bill.

The Minister for the Environment and Conservation during the course of his speech said that the majority of people in Australia believed that certain powers sought in this Bill were already in the Act. I must acknowledge the novelty of that argument. If the people believe there is something in an Act, and it is not in an Act, you legislate to put it into an Act! If people have a view of a certain set of circumstances and that is in effect a facade, you legislate to bring something into touch with their reality! Just think how grateful the generations of the time of Christopher Columbus would be that they were spared the Minister legislating in accordance with the beliefs of those days. The Minister for the Media, however, has gone into the public forum and presented a view by saying: ‘These powers are not needed for the purposes of controlling private television. We do not propose to disturb in any shape or form private television companies.’ Again, I acknowledge the novelty of that argument. If a man builds a large dog kennel in the backyard with no intention of putting a dog into it and puts alongside it a massive electric motor with no intention of using the motor, I suppose on one view one could regard that behaviour as picturesque. I would submit that a more realistic approach to it would be that it was a delightful display of eccentricity. A sharper and even more realistic view would be that it was an exquisite piece of absurdity.

If the Minister does not propose to use the power which this amending Bill seeks, why seek it? That is the question. Let me say at once to all honourable gentlemen who may have succumbed to the notion that this Bill is concerned with television standards qua standards that it is concerned with nothing of the sort. I say to all people in the country who may have an attitude of mind regarding lasciviousness or salaciousness in any sort of activity that this Bill in no way whatsoever seeks to trammel or to control such behaviour or such expression. I say further for the Opposition Parties that we are as concerned as any other section of the community about community standards. That is our attitude and we do not propose to see those standards in any way broken down. But this Bill is concerned with power. It is concerned with the power to direct, power to control and power, if need be, to destroy. This power which is sought to be put into this Act, if used by an authority or by a government, would be sufficient to control completely all private television throughout Australia.

This is not to gild the lily at all. This Bill points to building up the power already in the Act for the Board to give determinations. There are 3 bases upon which the Board can give determinations. There is the power pursuant to section 16 under which the Board can write to a particular station and say: ‘Do this’. There is the power under section 17 of the Act whereby the Board makes orders, and there is the power under section 134 of the Act whereby the Board makes regulations. Let us take the last two-mentioned; that is to say, section 17 dealing with orders and section 134 dealing with regulations. Under both of these provisions any order or any regulation made is subject to the scrutiny of Parliament. The fact that it is subject to the scrutiny of Parliament is the whole centre of this matter. But a determination made under section 16 of the Act is in no way subject to the scrutiny of Parliament. I would suggest that it is a pretty good test of the good faith of the Government in this matter to inquire: Why not put under the regulation making power the powers you seek under section 16, so that the Parliament has an opportunity of considering the ramifications of any regulation which may come down and so that at the same time Parliament will have the opportunity of pronouncing, and properly so, on any discriminatory attitude adopted by the Board?

Let me draw the particular attention of the House to the question of standards. The popular view to which the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) has lent his weight and which one or two honourable gentlemen opposite have sought to encourage in the community is that this BUI is concerned only with standards. A more refined piece of nonsense I have never listened to. I have here a copy of the television program standards compiled by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board and published in 1970. It deals with the whole question of standards. Where did the Board get this power to produce these standards? It did not get it out of thin air. The Board gets its power to produce standards and to pass them on for observance in the television industry from the Act as it stands now. Take the case of a letter written by the Board on 10 October this year dealing with guidelines and the use of violence in early evening television drama programs. Does the Board simply whistle this up with no authority to back it at all? Do not say that the letter of 10 October of this year is something which stands in prospect of being out of date. It is just a matter of a few days ago. One wonders why there is the need for these powers- powers about which I will deal in a more definitive way in a moment.

The other thesis which is being vamped by the Prime Minister, the Minister for the Media and one or two other honourable gentlemen is that the Australian Broadcasting Control Board today is virtually without any power or authority whatsoever. The picture is built up that standing this massive juggernaut, the private television stations, is this dear, resolute, timid but nevertheless ineffectual little body, the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. Again what nonsense some people resort to in order to sustain an argument. The Act as it now stands has an amplitude of power- the power to suspend a licence, the power to revoke a licence. What greater power could be given to any Board, to any authority, to any government than the power to revoke a licence, the power to suspend a licence? If a private television station engaged in behaviour which the Board adjudged to be unacceptable behaviour the Board has the power at its disposal to deal with the matter. So the argument which is being belted up by the Prime Minister and by the Minister for the Media that the Board is powerless is an argument which is not merely unattractive; it is an argument which has no substance in it whatsoever.

But beyond that the Minister for the Media has gone out of his way with a singular sense of dedication to build up the argument a little further. He says: ‘Well, there has been challenge after challenge after challenge to the authority of the Board’. That is interesting. The records do not show that to be the case. When a Minister of the Crown speaks about an expression of defiance, a matter of challenge, I for my part would expect that there would be some record available. There have been 2 judicial challenges to the power of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board since television was introduced in 1956. One of the cases was in 1963 and the other was in 1966. Both of them dealt not with programming as such but dealt, in one instance, with the tracing of ownership and the provisions which related to that aspect under the Act, and the other challenge dealt with the question of tying conditions to the granting of a licence. What further nonsense is it to say that for a person to question an edict given by a government authority represents a challenge. Surely that is to be regarded as a rather immature approach to the problem. These have been the 2 major challenges to the authority of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. Another one, which was a matter of opinion given by counsel, dealt with Sunday programs. But to describe that as a violent challenge to the Board is to resort to fantasy yet again. These have been the 3 areas in which the Board has been challenged. There were the two court challenges dealing with ownership and with the tying of conditions and there has been the other one which dealt with Sunday programs.

So one wonders precisely what is the purpose of this Bill. I submit that if honourable members look at clause 6 of the Bill they will find out exactly what this is all about, because this clause deals with section 16 of the Act. It is of utmost importance that this clause be understood. It deals with the section of the Act under which there can be no parliamentary review, no parliamentary scrutiny, no parliamentary challenge to any of the determinations given by the Board. Clause 6 of the Bill reads:

The Authority -

As it is to be called, not the ‘ Board ‘ - shall have power to do all such things as are necessary for the effective exercise of the functions of the Authority and, in particular, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the authority shall have power -

That is the preamble to the proposed new section. Then it goes on to recite the provisions. A more plenary power I could not imagine being made available under any Act. The clause goes on to deal with what sort of controls can be exercised. The Authority can issue a determination on programs containing matter of any class or character specified in the determination. I want honourable members to reflect upon the consequence of that Under that power it would be possible for the Authority, as it is proposed to be called- an expression in paranoia itself is the fact that the name has to be changed from ‘Board ‘ to ‘Authority’, but one may have an opportunity of observing something about that later- to say to a particular television station: ‘You will run at a particular time- say between 6 and 8 o’clock at night- a particular character of program ‘.

The principle involved here is as old a principle as one could apprehend in the struggle by free men and women to achieve their liberties and to protect them. What self-respecting newspaper editor in this country would countenance for one moment being told by a government authority where he is to place his leader page and what he is to place on his leader page, and do so without the slightest whimper? That is precisely what is involved here. It is a matter of commercial judgment that many television stations today screen their news programs at 6 o’clock at night. What would happen if the Board were to take the view that they should screen their news programs at 7 o’clock at night to coincide with the Australian Broadcasting Commission? There is no tribunal to which television stations can appeal to challenge the direction or determination made by the Board. Why are these powers sought?

The clause goes on to deal with the determining of the rules and standards to be observed by a licensee. I have already dealt with that. I invite the Minister or any honourable gentleman opposite to point in specie- not in the wide generality to which the Minister has resorted- and to name the time, the television station concerned and the incident concerned when standards were not observed by a television station. Give us the details. We will all be interested to know on how many occasions this has in fact taken place. Then the clause goes on further to give to the Authority power to make rules which shall be observed by all television stations. Finally the clause goes on to make such provision for any other person as the Authority considers appropriate to go along and argue the case about the continuation of a licence. The Minister for the Media, who is a member of the other place, said that the other class of person to go long would be those who may possibly have some affinity with trade unions. I should have thought that the arbitral tribunals we have in this country today would be for all practical purposes quite satisfying without inviting the creation of further bodies to which people can go either to ventilate their grievance or seek to improve their lot.

The other major alteration to which I propose to refer, albeit briefly, is that which gives the power to the Board to grant the restoration of a licence for a period of 3 months. I ask honourable gentlemen: What sort of programming could be done on the basis of the grant of a licence for 3 months? What arrangements could be made, for example, to have film prepared? What type of person with any sense of business enterprise would be prepared to invest a tremendous amount of capital in an enterprise of this nature if he knew that it could be suddenly cut off at the expiration of 3 months? The proposition is so desperately divorced from all reasonableness.

At 8 o’clock tonight we will find out what the Government is going to do about trying to revive the fortunes of this country. It will walk to Canossa tonight on the matter of the economy. Are we to await some further example of contrition by the Government in relation to this matter? It is not enough to say: ‘If a channel misbehaves itself, is contumacious or refuses to bow to a reasonable request we cannot do anything about it as we have no power’. As I have said, a more absurd picture drawing I could not contemplate. The fact is that the Board has ample power. It has the power to suspend and to revoke a licence. If those powers are not enough, I do not know what is.

I would like to recapitulate on this one pointOrders can be given under section 17 of the Act. If the Minister for the Media takes the view that these powers are so urgently needed, why does he not put them under that section? Why does he not put them under the regulation-making section and give the power to the Parliament to have its voice heard as the occasion may arise? The Minister for the Media knows perfectly well that the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations is, in its corporate sense, more than prepared to negotiate with him, to cooperate with him and to observe any standards which may be regarded as reasonable. But no self-respecting body of people could be expected to capitulate to the daily caprice of governments or of Ministers. It is not of the nature of political authority, whether political authority on that side of the House or on this side of the House, for it to be benevolent. Political authority has no instinct for benevolence. Institutions must be raised between those who wield power and those against whom power is wielded. The only institution that can be raised in this instance is the authority of Parliament. I appeal to the Minister and to the honourable gentlemen who sit behind the Government- with varying degrees of enthusiasm, admittedly- to remember that they are dealing here with as basic a principle as can be found m the long, ancient and inspiring struggle by our people to assert liberty and to maintain it.

Sitting suspended from 12.58 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr SHERRY:
Franklin

-Prior to the suspension of the sitting, the honourable and learned member for Moreton (Mr Killen) made one or two observations on this legislation. I do not intend to canvass some of the points that he made, but, towards the end of his speech, the honourable member did express some concernI accept his observations- about one important aspect of this matter which he used the word ‘power’ to describe. This is the whole object of the exercise in my view. I do not think anybody in this House would ever deny the claim or contest the view that in dealing with television one is concerning oneself with perhaps the most dramatic and impactive communication technique yet devised by man. Therefore, I think it follows that any responsible government must accept its responsibility to make certain that this power is never abused.

I wish to refer briefly to the enormous effect that the abuse of power in the communications medium can have on individuals or an individual. I think the classic case- I hope that the honourable member for Moreton will accept this- of the uncontrolled power of television concerns its use to destroy a President of the United States of America. I would not want to see that sort of situation in this country; nor indeed do I suggest that it would occur. Nonetheless, this is a very real difficulty that one faces. The honourable gentleman also commented on the change of name from the ‘Australian Broadcasting Control Board’ to ‘Australian Broadcasting Authority’. I would have thought that in semantic terms Broadcasting Authority would be far more attractive to him than Broadcasting Control Board.

As the Minister for Science (Mr Morrison) proposed, this is a cognate debate in which 3 separate Bills are being considered together. In the main I wish to concentrate on the legal powers or the absence of legal powers of the proposed Broadcasting Authority, particularly as this affects the programming question. I believe that we in this House have a duty to engage ourselves in a rational and intelligent debate on this question. It is a question which loads a government and an Opposition equally with great responsibility. Government certainly has to respond to that responsibility.

I am always intrigued by the reaction of some sections of the Press and, indeed, the Opposition when the Government makes any announcement that it intends to amend a particular piece of legislation. There has been no more emotive reaction than the announcement by the Government that it intended to make amendments to the Broadcasting and Television Act. Indeed, no less an authority on the media than the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) made his attitude quite plain. But I will deal with the right honourable gentleman later.

Section 1 6 ( 1 ) of the Act which deals with the functions of the Board provides in paragraph (c) : … to ensure that adequate and comprehensive programs are provided by commercial broadcasting stations and commercial television stations to serve the best interests of the general public.

Section 99 ( 1 ) of the Act says that a licensee shall provide programs and shall supervise the broadcasting or televising of programs from his station in such a manner as to ensure as far as practicable that the programs are in accordance with standards determined by the Board. In 1948, the ‘Board’ was substituted for the ‘Minister’. In 1956, because this section was being amended to incorporate television stations, the opportunity was taken to substitute ‘standards by the Board’ for ‘to the satisfaction of the Board’. I think it is necessary to deal with the historical background of the powers of the Board. It seems quite clear that it was always the intention that wide discretionary powers should reside in the Board with regard to programming.

I refer in this respect to extracts from the secong reading speech of the then PostmasterGeneral, Mr Davidson as he then was, when he introduced the 1956 amendments to the Act. I remind the House that he was PostmasterGeneral in a Liberal-Country Party Government. He said:

It will be remembered that there are certain difficulties and particular problems that the Board has to face at this moment.

He said further

It seems clear that it was always the intention that wide discretionary power should reside in the Board.

In introducing the 1956 amending Bill, he went on to say:

Clause 40 also prescribes, in Division 4 of Part III, the conditions to be observed by the licensees of commercial stationsboth television and broadcasting- in relation to their programs.

The Minister continued:

I invite the attention of the House specially to the latter provisions because ever since there has been talk of the introduction of television into Australia, genuine fear has been expressed by large sections of the community that the introduction of television would have unfortunate effects on some sections of the population, particularly children.

Mr Davidson went on: … it is essential to ensure that television programs are of a proper standard.

These were the words of a Minister in a LiberalCountry Party Government- not a Labor Minister. I repeat the words of Mr Davidson: … it is essential to ensure that television programs are of a proper standard. I do not want to leave any possibility of misunderstanding here. The responsibility for ensuring that television programs are of a proper standard is being imposed on the Australian Broadcasting Control Board which recently was strengthened with this objective in view.

Mr Davidson continued: . . . this Government expects the Board to discharge its duties in this field fearlessly.

He added: … I wish to make it clear that the Government will stand behind the Board in its administration and will not tolerate any abuse of the new medium by licensees or advertisers . . .

Those were the words of the then Mr Davidson in 1956.

It can be seen that a member of the then Liberal-Country Party Government had very strong views, with which I agree, on this issue regarding the legal position of the Board. The legal position has never been clearly clarified to the entire satisfaction of this Parliament or, I would suggest, of the industry itself. The Board has regarded the substitution of the words ‘programs are in accordance with standards determined by the Board’ for ‘programs are to the satisfaction of the Board’ to be quite inadequate to enable it to carry out its functions.

It must be remembered that this issue was crystalised, as the honourable member for Moreton suggested earlier today, with the problem of Sunday morning programs. I would suggest to the House that there is no point at all in having an authority or a board, whichever it is, in existence if its powers and legal position are not quite clearly defined by this Parliament. I do not think anybody in the Opposition would accept that situation. I do not think anybody on the Opposition side would accept the proposal that the Board ought to be disbanded. I would be fascinated if any honourable member opposite would agree that that ought to be done.

If we want standards in programming- I think we all do want standards in programming- we must clothe the Board with the necessary powers to make certain that those standards are achieved. In this respect I refer to a statement made on 7 April 1972 by the then Acting Postmaster-General, Senator Cotton. The amendments that this Government has introduced are being interpreted in the Press and by some members of the Opposition as quite radical and quite new. In fact, they are not. With respect to the proposals made by Senator Cotton, on 7 April 1 972 he said:

The Government will be asked to consider an amendment to the legislation to clarify the powers of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to regulate programs on Sunday mornings.

On 28 April 1972 it was suggested that the Government would legislate on television standards. Senator Cotton said:

The Government will legislate to make clear the powers of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board.

He said that he considered the situation had arisen as a result of the challenge to the powers of the Board by station GTV9 in Melbourne. This is not a new approach. In our proposals we are using the guidelines set out by the Acting Postmaster-General in 1972, Senator Cotton. So I would suggest that what we are proposing is not terribly radical.

Let us look at the situation in other countriesfor example, the United Kingdom and Canada. In the United Kingdom the Television Act 1954-63 provides, in section 1 (4):

It shall be the duty of the Authority-

to ensure that the programmes broadcast by the Authority in each area maintain a high general standard in all respects, and in particular in respect of their content and quality, and a proper balance and wide range in their subject-matter, having regard both to the programmes as a whole and also to the days of the week on which, and the times of the day at which, the programmes are broadcast . . .

That,briefly, is the situation in the United Kingdom and I would suggest it is not an intolerable one. The Canadian Broadcasting Act 1968 in section 2 provides:

The programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system should be varied and comprehensive and should provide reasonable balanced opportunity for the expression of different views on matters of public concern, and the programming provided by each broadcaster should be of high standard, using predominantly Canadian creative and other resources.

That Act goes on to provide fairly stringent guarantees that the interpretation and the letter of that Act will be carried out. It can be seen that both the United Kingdom and Canada are accepting, and in fact have laid down, the sorts of guidelines and rules that we are putting forward in this particular series of amendments. It is simply not good enough for the Leader of the Opposition constantly to declare his opposition to these amendments when, as I have pointed out and illustrated, they were proposed by bis Party when in government a couple of years ago. I repeat that it is an absurd and ludicrous situation where the Board does not know what its powers are, where it can move and where it cannot move.

From time to time reference has been made to a lack of appeal and there was a suggestion that the right of appeal had been taken away. I should have thought that honourable members opposite would have known that one cannot remove something that was never there. There never has been a right of appeal. I think, and I am sure that most people would agree, that it will be in the interests of the industry to know clearly and precisely what its functions and responsibilities are with regard to this matter.

I turn now to some of the emotive statements of the Leader of the Opposition. When these amendments were first announced he ran to the Press, as is his normal custom, and made quite emotionally charged statements about interference with the electronic media. I suggest to the right honourable gentleman that he has a very short memory about interference with the electronic media because on Friday, 7 December 1973, he sent a telex and a telegram to the commercial management of station 7HO in Hobart demanding that certain commercials being played on that station be discontinued. He further demanded that the Liberal Party receive free time to broadcast its own advertisements. I questioned him on this matter in the House and asked him whether at any time he made his protest through the proper channel-through the

Australian.’Broadcasting Control Board. I also asked him whether the whole tone of his telex and telegram , messages to the management of 7HO was of a threatening nature. He refused to answer and I was not surprised, because this was a very grave’ situation indeed. What happened was that the Leader of the Opposition went directly to a commercial management and told it how to run its business. Yet he has the temerity, both in this House and outside, to say that this Government is interfering with the electronic medial He says one thing when it suits him and quite the opposite the next day. This is the man who, as I said, quite deliberately and blatantly interfered in the internal management of a commercial broadcasting station. He has never answered the charge and I would be interested to see whether he is prepared to do so.

I am often fascinated by the Liberal Party’s proclamation that it is the protector of the individual. I do not wish to take up the time of the House in this debate with my own personal experience of this great Liberal freedom for the individual. I could take up half an hour of this debate indicating the treatment I received from the Liberal Party when, as a former member of the media, I indicated that I was going to enter politics.

I think the amendments which the Government is to introduce are sensible, timely, and very necessary, and I believe that in the long term they will be beneficial to the television industry itself. There is also a great deal of public community support for these propositions. I do not take the view that we ought to impose on the electronic media industry any more burdensome regulations than are absolutely necessary and I do not think the Government does either. The plain fact is that the Government does have a responsibility in this area through its agent, the Broadcasting Authority as it is to be known, and I think it is only right and proper that that authority should know precisely where it stands and what it can and cannot do. The areas of indecision and uncertainty that have continued over the years have not helped the industry and I do not think they have helped anybody in particular. I suggest that the amendments which the Minister will introduce at a later stage ought to be accepted by this House in the interests of the industry as a whole.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-A number of simple truisms have been stated concerning this legislation. The Broadcasting and Television Bill (No. 2) is about power and, quite obviously, the use and dissemination of that power. It is for that ultimate reason the Opposition takes the attitude it does. As people of commonsense, the Opposition has to look with great suspicion upon the proposed use of this power and there are good reasons for its doing that. After all, the media in general in many ways constitute one of the most sensitive areas of Australian life. They have a capacity to influence Australian life which may now be rivalled by no other institution and no other organisation. In many ways the media have reached into this chamber and some have sought to dominate it. Insofar as this cnamber, this Parliament, is concerned with power and is concerned with information, it has to express a view about these matters. My view is quite clear- that any more authority given to governments to be able to traffic directly or indirectly in the dissemination of information ought to be resisted very strongly indeed.

It was Talleyrand, a diplomat, if I may term him in that way, of another nation and of another day who said that no nation had the right to traffic in the independence of small nations. I put that proposition gently to the Minister for Science (Mr Morrison) in respect of the Baltic States. But it is a fact that no great.power has the right to traffic in the independence of small nations. Transmitted to the area we are now discussing, no government or no authority ought to take it upon itself the right to traffic in the freedom of information and I believe that that freedom -

Mr Morrison:

– We will leave it to your Press baron friends, presumably?

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The Minister must be referring to the ‘Sandgate Echo’? No government ought to take unto itself the right to traffic in those areas. I believe that for those reasons this Bill ought to be resisted. Those statements are not made in a vacuum or out of peevishness. Probably the most authoritative speech on the possibilities of the misuse of power in this area was made by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) himself. He delivered a speech to the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s staff- they were his friends then- at Sydney on Friday afternoon, 4 June 1971. At the time he was still a candidate for the leadership of a government in this country. Some of the contents of that speech can be appropriately considered in the context of power. It will be recollected that in the administration of authority by the Australian Broadcasting Commission the guiding principle as to the information disseminated by the Commission and the other media in this country was the principle of balance of information. The Prime Minister said on that occasion quite clearly in respect of that principle:

I say quite simply, ladies and gentlemen, and I say directly to you, Sir Robert -

That was the Chairman at that time- the formula -

That is of balance- is unworkable and deservedly unworkable.

In another part of the speech the Prime Minister said that the principle was in fact a Trojan horse and ought to be rejected. The Prime Minister made important comments on page 16 of the speech which referred to the ultimate areas and the ultimate authorities to which this Bill proposes to hand over authority with respect to the dissemination of information not within the ABC but within the whole gamut of the electronic media in Australia. He had this to say:

Yet it would be dishonest for me to assert that the ABC would be free of criticism, free of pressure under a Labor Government.

The next sentence is important:

I confess that there is an authoritarian streak in my party as strong as exists among my opponents.

I ask honourable members to forget about politics. The Prime Minister acknowledged the existence of an authoritarian streak with respect to power in relation to the electronic media in Australia. For those reasons, which I think are cogent and sensible reasons, one ought to look very carefully, even a trifle suspiciously, at the legislation before us.

It may be drawing a long bow, but the extent to which the misuse of the right to propagandise can be utilised is made quite clear by the first minister for the media in the 20th Century. I refer to the late Dr Goebbels and I merely indicate the power that is involved. After he was appointed as Minister for Propaganda he had this to say:

There ought to be nothing mystifying about propaganda. We openly admit that we want to influence the people. This is the proper way to do it.

On 16 March 1933 he added:

A government such as ours which has to take such farreaching measures . . . must make propagandistic preparations in order to draw the people on its side . . . Public enlightenment is essentially passive; propaganda is active . . . We are determined to work on the masses until they have fallen to us.

That is an extreme position but it is a statement of the ultimate authority that lies in this area. It is a statement of an ultimate authority that could lie in this area if utilised by a Minister armed with the amendments which the Government wishes to make to the Broadcasting and Television Act.

For these reasons again, one should say: ‘Pause and think carefully’. To support my suspicion I refer to what happened in the chamber just before the sitting was suspended for lunch. At that time the Opposition was putting its case and expressing its concern in these areas. Even while the case was being presented and after the Opposition had circulated its proposed amendments to the Bill the Government circulated proposed new amendments. This was done while the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen), who is leading for the Opposition on this legislation, was talking and after the Opposition had committed itself So quite clearly it was proposed that the Opposition would be given little time for reflection or analysis in its consideration of the Bill.

Mr Killen:

– I had to break lunch to have a look at them. The Minister did not even express any sympathy.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– That is just a little short of tragic. I understand the position in which the honourable member was placed. Nevertheless those matters ought to be looked at and borne in mind when this Bill is being considered. The principle of balance applying in the most significant medium in Australia was denigrated by the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister denigrated the right to information, the potential right to balanced information, within the ABC. I believe that the principle of a plurality of interests or a plurality of a controlling interest is likely to be, and will be, prejudiced if the Government’s amendments to the legislation are passed. So unrelenting suspicion has to be and ought to be exercised in respect of these areas. There are 3 areas in precise detail in which this Bill proposes to alter the Act. One area is with respect to short term licences. It is proposed that the licences be given for periods from 6 months to 3 years. This proposal would prove very difficult for licensees. Alterations are proposed with respect to powers to be exercised by the Authority, again with the authority of the Minister and outside the purview of the Parliament.

In respect of the award of licences clause 6 (f) sets out that the authority can now consult ‘such other persons as the Authority considers appropriate’. What does that mean? It means that a station, a licensee who has functioned quite creditably and quite well and who wants either to obtain a licence or to have a licence renewed, can have appearing before the Authority perhaps Mr Carmichael of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union, whose connection with the licensee can be the fact that some fitters and turners or electricians who are engaged under awards concerning his union may work on the station. Mr Halfpenny, for example, could be consulted by the Authority, the members of which are appointed by the Government itself. The vicious circle of the control and power begins to close. Therefore I would suggest that when we come to the committee stage of this debate an amendment be introduced which would allow the Authority to consult such other persons as are directly associated with the administration of the licence- not an outside authority stretching to an executive far removed from the direct administration of the licence. That would give at least some guarantee of objectivity with respect to these areas.

There are other matters in regard to this legislation on which one could speak. But again one returns to the first principles. A power sought will be a power utilised. That is common sense. It is not beyond common sense. If a power is sought it is appropriate to ask for what purposes it can be . utilised. I will be very interested to see the attitude of the Government to the amendments which have been proposed by the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen), so that regulations made under the powers for the clarification of standards can be scrutinised by the Parliament itself. After all, in respect of the electronic media in Australia, the Minister has more direct authority and is more involved than is a similar Minister in other nations- certainly in Canada and the United States of America. Insofar as he is more directly concerned, barriers, cushions and safety fences ought to be erected between the Minister and the exercise of that power.

This comes to perhaps the crux of the whole debate- the attitude to the proposed amendments in respect of the development of these standards. We want those standards to be scrutinised ultimately, and able to be scrutinised ultimately, by this Parliament. The Royal Commission on Broadcasting in Canada made it clear that the authority ought always to revert to the Parliament. If that is applied with respect to the United States, why is it not intended that it apply in respect of Australia? This is of great significance for recent events which were often misreported but which it was possible at least to bring about. I refer to a reported attempted- I believe the matter was incorrectly reported in many respects- acquisition of a television station by a political party. I have to express very great concern at the first proposition that a political party should even be able to have a television licence. If one is concerned with the dissemination of power such a licence held by a political party runs too close to the principle of trafficking in information. When I say that I bear in mind very much that the Royal Commission on Television more than 20 years ago made it quite clear that no political party ought to have a television licence. That was made quite explicit in the 1953 report of the Royal Commission.

A little later, in the late 1950s, when an attempt was made to acquire a licence on behalf of the Labor Party in Sydney- the late Dr Evatt was counsel for his Party in this respect- once again the Board in making its recommendation quite sensibly said that even though there will be difficulties in respect of information transmitted by the media and even though there may be concern that appropriate balance is not developed in the transmission of that information, the direct acquisition by a political party and the ability of a political party to be able to obtain television licences ought to be rejected for so long and so far as a limited number of licences are able to be conferred in any one area.

Again it is the right of information and it is the dissemination of the authority to transmit that information which is the substance at point and which is the substance of the case of the Opposition in respect of this authority. I take it a little further. I do not think it is drawing too long a bow to say that if a political party has its members in government and as a government is appointing members of a broadcasting authority which can then award a licence to that political party or a chain of licences to a political party to run the media, we are in a very dangerous situation indeed. That circle is almost closed, but one can take it further. Add to that principle the activities of the Prices Justification Tribunal. Bearing in mind that advertising expenditure is the lifeblood of the media, there is the propensity for that government to appoint members of the Tribunal who in fact determine what is legitimate advertising expenditure, which in fact is the lifeblood of the media in many cases and which may be awarded to the political party whose members are in government.

When one bears in mind the words of the present Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) that there is within his own Party an authoritarian streak which he fears, surely that fact and those facts ought not to be ignored. That is the philosophy, I believe, of the Opposition’s case with respect to this matter. It depends upon the 3 precise amendments of substance that are proposed to the Bill. They are the amendments with respect to the short term licences; they are the amendments with respect to the definition of standards under the authority of the Minister and not to be scrutinised by this Parliament in terms of regulations; and in determining licences the ability of the authority on the Board to consult whomsoever it would directly or indirectly associated with the licence, the licensee or the broadcasting or television station. I do not believe that that ought to be on. In the Australian context where the Minister is directly concerned in this area, as he is, the Opposition is justified in saying that it opposes this Bill and opposes the substance of it. I look with some alacrity at the attitude of the Government to the amendments which are proposed by the Opposition. They are amendments which could be supported with the words of the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Sherry). I hope they will be supported with his vote.

Mr MATHEWS:
Casey

-The honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) began his speech with a quotation from Talleyrand. Let me match it with another from the same source. The honourable gentleman has learnt nothing and forgotten nothing. His speech was rich with allusions to the past. He drew few conclusions from them. The evils he deplored are all around us in the field on which discussion centres today. The misuse of the right to propagandise to which he referred is with us. It is not hypothetical. It is not something which might happen. It is something which is perpetuated every day. Similarly the situation in which a political party might gain a measure of ownership of the media, which he purported to deplore, is in fact with us already. I think Birkenhead said once that in Britain the Anglican Church was the Tory Party at prayer. In Australia the media as we know it is the Liberal Party on the air.

Honourable members on this side of the House believe there is a touch of the crocodile in the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen), who began this debate. It may be that the forebears of the honourable gentleman shared his taste for swimming naked in the Condamine and some connection occurred there. When the honourable gentleman addresses the House as he did this morning with tears in his eyes and a catch in his throat about the plight of the weak and innocent television licensee who finds himself confronted with an overbearing broadcasting authority, it is hard to remain unmoved. Unfortunately the honourable gentleman gave us this morning a travesty of the truth. The commerical television interests of this country are not Davids threatened by a Goliath of government creation but offshoots of an oligopolised communications industry which prompted Senator Kennelly to say as long ago as 1964-1 quote him because then the development of the television industry was relatively in its infancy:

One feature of television which has always worried me is the great strength of this medium in forming opinion. Unfortunately the principal television stations in Australia are virtually in the hands of 3 or 4 men who also control the Press and the principal radio stations. Therefore, the media of communication in Australia are in the hands of a very few people. This is bad from a national point of view irrespective of who the people may be.

If the honourable gentlemen opposite have any doubts on that point I draw their attention to reports published annually by the authority we are discussing today, which set out in some detail the enormous extent to which ownership of the Australian media is concentrated in a very few hands. By and large it is the people who own the great newspapers of this country who also own the television stations and the radio stations.

Honourable gentlemen who spoke out this morning in praise and in defence of human freedom not only have lived with this situation of the monopolisation of communication in Australia ever since they came to power in 1949; they have actively abetted the process by which consolidation increased. All too often freedom of the media, as honourable gentlemen opposite use the term, means no more- I am indebted to the Minister for Science (Mr Morrison) for the phrase- than the freedom of a millionaire to own 10 newspapers and one million people to own none.

The honourable member for Moreton this morning made great play of the fact that the Broadcasting Control Board has the power available to suspend or revoke a licence. The honourable gentleman knows very well the fallacy of the argument that he put. He knows very well that thermo-nuclear weapons are notoriously ineffective as a means of dealing with brush fire wars. He knows, and indeed the people who sent our forebears to this country knew, that hanging was a very poor deterrent for petty theft. In just that same way, threats to suspend or to revoke licences are a very poor way of dealing with the constant and insidious abuse of standards in which commercial television managements excel.

The enormity and finality of the power are sufficient to ensure that it will never be invoked. What government authority would contemplate putting out of business the enormous accumulation of capital, putting out of work the very great body of people employed, or depriving the large listening audience associated with a major television station of its entertainment by exercising that sanction in the face of the sort of infringement in which commercial television managements excel? In equipping the Australian Broadcasting Control Board with this ultimate weapon our predecessors in this place simply made the Board weaponless. They created a pitiful giant.

Adult audiences in Australia, I think it can be fairly argued, should be able to look after themselves. We would expect, and indeed it is the policy of this Government, that adults should have the uttermost freedom of choice in what they see, hear or read.

But there is one group in this community that is peculiarly defenceless and exploited. I speak of the children of this community for whom the Broadcasting Control Board has laid down specific standards of protection much more widely honoured by commercial managements in the breach than in the observance.

I draw to the attention of the House some of the guidelines which have been laid down by the Board in this area. Honourable members, including the honourable member for Moreton, will know from their own experience the discrepancy which exists between these standards and what is presented to our children day in day out through their television screens. The Board states:

It is recommended that there should be regular sessions for children, designed:

to impart a broader knowledge of Australian history and potentialities, and of current affairs;

to foster an appreciation of such cultural pursuits as music, paintings, ballet, theatre and literature;

to encourage interest and active participation in simple scientific investigations such as botanical, geological and other pursuits;

d ) to cater for children ‘s propensities for sport, and hobbies such as handicrafts and the care of animals; and

by the use of the great examples from the Bible, and from history, biography and literature, to impart a real appreciation of the spiritual values and of the qualities of courage, honour and integrity which are essential to the full development of the individual and of national greatness.

One can cavil at the language which the Board has employed without doubting that the Board’s intention is one which should be enshrined at the heart of national television policy. Would any member of this House seriously disagree that our performance in meeting the ideal falls lamentably short? Pity the poor child who is nightly brutalised by the violence, bemused by the banality and corrupted by the commercialism of what passes by a master stroke of cynicism as children’s television. Honourable members will recall that the phrase ‘the banality of evil’ was coined to describe the outlook brought to bear on the processes of genocide by leaders of the Nazi Parry. It is equally applicable to the outlook that not only commercial interests but sometimes our national stations bring to television for children.

We have a situation in which the bodies of our children are sacrosanct but their minds are at the mercy of anybody who has enough money to finance the preparation of an elaborate submission to back up his application for a licence, enough gall to suggest that his programs will in some way serve the public interest- and enough bullying bravado, the amount of which needed to overawe a Broadcasting Control Board which is in fact impotent, is not very great. We would prosecute with the utmost rigour of the law anybody who inflicted physically on our children the sort of harm they suffer throughout the period of their childhood from their television screens. When the honourable member for Moreton invites us to water down the legislation which is currently before us, he asks us to prefer the exploitation of our children to the regulation of commercial interests which are profiting from what has been described as a community conferred licence to print money. It is this exploitation that the Government has in mind when it brings forward these amendments to the legislation which has now so thoroughly and through so much experience, been proved to be ineffectual in promoting proper standards of television in this country.

In his speech this morning the honourable member for Moreton challenged members on this side of the House to produce instances in which the authority which he asserted the Australian Broadcasting Control Board possessed had been challenged by commercial broadcasting interests. The honourable gentleman could have satisfied himself on this point by reference to any one of the reports of the Board tabled annually in this Parliament Every year the Board itemised in its report the matters over which difficulty has arisen in the preceding 12 months. But since the honourable gentleman raises the point, I give him some examples. In January 1973, not so long ago, I think, as to tax the honourable gentleman’s memory, the Broadcasting Control Board pointed out to the chairman of the board of Channel 10 in Sydney that in the period of a week beginning 22 January several gross excesses had been observed in the advertising content televised by the station. In one case the station had telecast 5 minutes more advertising in one hour than allowed by the Board. This was one of a series of examples of breaches of the Board’s standards that had been occurring in the television industry for years. Until that breach, no action had been taken by the Board against the offender stations. In the instances to which I referred the Minister for the Media (Senator Douglas McClelland) decided that he would try to see that something was done. In fact, he threatened to invoke the power to revoke the station’s licence.

If the honourable gentleman wants a further instance, I refer him to the so-called editorials that were telecast by Channel 9 in the period of the 1972 general election. They were not Party political telecasts as authorised under the legislation, but a blatant exercise of proprietorial influence. The Chairman of the Board drew to the attention of the proprietor concerned the fact that the telecasts were illegal.

Mr Morrison:

– Who was the proprietor?

Mr MATHEWS:

-The gentleman’s name was Packer. The station took no remedial action because it knew the Board was in a weak situation. I could go on itemising and elaborating examples of this kind indefinitely, but they are all on the public record in the reports tabled by the Board in this Parliament on a regular basis. The Government, in bringing forward these amendments to the legislation, does not seek to exercise a narrow or constrictive influence on the television industry in this country; on the contrary, nothing could be more narrow or confining than the constraints and conventions the industry imposes on itself. What this Government would hope to see from the Australian television industry is something of a renaissance, a new flowing of creativity in that industry which would match in its flavour the new aspirations flowing in our community as a whole. We do not have to have the public airways prostituted in the manner in which they have been prostituted for as long as most of us can remember. The public airways represent a great national asset. They should be developed as such for the benefit of all Australians.

Mr KATTER:
Kennedy

– I commend the honourable member for Casey (Mr Mathews) for his honesty. The speeches that were made with regard to this Bill prior to his making his contribution endeavoured to explain away the fact that this legislation is an arrogant attempt to do what is being done in so many spheres of activity by this Government. He let the cat out of the bag when he fired a broadside at the Anglicans, for some reason best known to himself, by saying something about Anglicans being Tories at prayer. He then mentioned something about the media being the Tories of the air.

That remark is a little bit poetic but very honestly exposed his attitude. He clearly indicated- in fact he left nothing in doubt-that the object of this Bill is to institute a situation whereby people who are not of his political belief are to be brought under control. It is as simple as that. So I thank him for being honest at least. We all now know where we stand.

He also went on at great length about the speech of the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen). I was not in the chamber for all of the speech of the honourable member for Moreton, but what I did not hear in this chamber I heard on the broadcasting system. I do not know whether the honourable member for Casey was referring to a speech that the honourable member for Moreton had given on a previous occasion, but he completely distorted the speech made by the honourable member for Moreton. The keynote, the clear and precise message that the honourable member for Moreton wanted to get across- it is obvious to anybody- was that these matters should come under the scrutiny of this House. He does not want the authority of this Parliament to be decimated, diluted and made completely unacceptable to the Australian people by being whittled away and being placed outside this Parliament. That, of course, is the philosophy of this Government and it is a philosophy that the people of Australia are recognising very clearly and precisely. Honourable members opposite do not want me to remind them of the election results in the Northern Territory, where 17 Liberal and Country Party candidates were elected to a Parliament of nineteen. No Labor members were elected.

I will speak to this Bill on 2 bases. One refers to the very essence of the controls which are being taken over by this Australian Government in the short time left to it. The other is the authority of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board or the Australian Broadcasting Authority as we are to know it in future. The Labor Government loves that word ‘authority’ because the whole concept of the Australian Labor Party is one of regimentation. The Government says: ‘Mate, if you want to like a thing, you like it our way. If you want to have your programs authorised by a control board, you will like the programs we tell you to like’. That is the whole essence of that word ‘authority’. So this is to be one of the changes. I think in that one word ‘authority’ comes the message loud and clear that what should be a completely independent board will obviously come under the steel grip of the Australian Labor Party. I notice that the honourable member for Casey talked about millionaires with controlling interests in 10 newspapers. It has always been a source of wonder to me that in Queensland the Australian Labor Party owns radio station 4KQ that earns tremendous money for them. It tried to get channel 7 and fell flat on its face. One of its stars did not do so well on channel 7 either but we will not talk about that. The honourable member for Casey talks about a millionaire owning 10 newspaper companies. One of the fascinating things is that the advertising over 4KQ is advertising by those same millionaires. I am sure that when the salesmen from 4KQ get around the country and the city of Brisbane, they do not express any antagonism, but it is rather a contradiction and I wanted to make that point.

The honourable member for Moreton and the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) have dealt with the Bill in their clinical manner. They have dealt with the dangers of it; they have dealt with the more legal side of it. I should like to take advantage of the reference to the phrase ‘to regulate appropriately the programs of commercial broadcasting and television stations’ used by the Minister in his second reading speech. Before I make this point, I would like to commend the Australian Broadcasting Commission for its magnificent presentation of programs, and I am not talking about program content but presentation. I had the opportunity when I was in New York for 4 months to see very top quality programs of a similar nature to “This Day Tonight’, and I think we are head and shoulders above the lot of them. Some of the ABC productions such as ‘Seven Little Australians ‘ are quite superb.

The Australian Broadcasting Control Board is composed of a group of bureaucrats who sit in Melbourne, although they do have boards established throughout the country. However, it occurs to me that those boards can submit recommendations which are very rarely heeded. But we are talking about programming, and some of the programming is quite unbelievable. Last Sunday afternoon while driving over some pretty dusty roads I had the thrilling pleasure of listening to various sonatas and symphonies. I can imagine a group of ringers sitting behind the cowshed in a heat of 1 10 degrees in the shade absolutely jumping with glee and being wildly excited about Beethoven’s Sonata in B. Sunday afternoon, for God ‘s sake !

Mr Killen:

– Just like Slim Dusty.

Mr KATTER:

-We get that gentleman in person; we do not have to accept any substitute at all. If the Broadcasting Control Board is so dedicated to correct programming it might look to adequate and suitable programming, programming which is oriented to people and to areas where it is most acceptable. Why interfere with the commercial stations? Forgive me for being a little suspicious, but I rather think that when the axe falls it is going to be mainly on provincial radio and television stations.

Mr Duthie:

– That is your suspicious mind.

Mr KATTER:

– Yes. This morning there was a great tirade by the Government against the people here in the Press Gallery, and this has become quite prevalent lately. I can almost see the cartoons we used to see a few years ago of the capitalist Press. No one complained when morning after morning Mr Chamberlain gave tremendous blasts in favour of the Australian Labor Party. No one complained when editorials were written telling the people of Australia that it was high time they had a change. Not a word came from the other side of the House. Now, of course, the members of the Press with their habitual honesty and power of evaluation- these are men of discernment- have evaluated the position, and perhaps they have been influenced a little by the results of the elections that have been held around the country. It is understood that the Press likes to serve to the people of Australia the sort of thing they like to read. When one sees eleven out of eleven Australian Labor Party members being defeated in the council elections in Broken Hill and seventeen out of nineteen seats in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly being won by the National Liberal Party and the other 2 seats going to Independents and when one sees the Australian Labor Party vote in the Australian Capital Territory being reduced from 5 1 to 24 per cent, the Press is beginning to appreciate that the people of Australia do not need to be guided in these matters, that they are waking up to the regimentation that the Labor Party is inflicting on them.

We have the extraordinary situation where this morning two or three speakers- not speaking on this Bill, strange to say, but in the process of other discussions- made rather unkind cracks at the Press Gallery. The Minister for Science (Mr Morrison) was one of those who got up today and accused the Press of complete bias and so on. Here is an indication of what the future would hold if this Bill were allowed to go through in this particular form, and the honourable member for Casey (Mr Mathews) projected this as clearly and as precisely as anyone could. He talked about the Anglican prayer as the Tory prayer and then he talked about the millionaires. He indicated clearly that he is sensitive to the fact that this mob have gone off with it long enough. I do not know where he gets this impression from, because no one could say that the Opposition has had an easy go with the media.

Let me revert to the type of program controlling that one would expect from the Australian Broadcasting Authority, as it will become.

I want to refer to the phrase ‘such other persons’, which is appearing in a lot of Bills presented lately by this Government. In this Bill there is provision for delegating authority to such other persons as the Authority considers appropriate. The Petroleum and Minerals Authority can delegate to some individual an all embracing authority. The Government will do this in a Bill that is to come before the House within the next week or two, the Bill to stabilise land prices in the Northern Territory, and it has done it here. This provision gives absolutely unbridled control over the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, or Authority, as it is proposed to be called. The whole thing is fraught with danger.

Reference has been made to establishing standards and to regulating appropriately the programs of commercial broadcasting and television stations. Who is going to say what is appropriate and what is not appropriate? We know from experience the philosophy of this Government, and if honourable members do not know it they should come out to my city of Mount Isa and talk to the various groups there who have fled from other countries where they saw this same pattern taking place and where the gradual grasping of control of things like the media led eventually to complete and utter regimentation. One could not possibly permit this Government, and it could be an even worse government- I do not know whether that is possible, but you never know what the future holds -

Mr Morrison:

– The Liberals could be.

Mr KATTER:

– It could be a worse government; I cannot imagine it, but who knows? Gough Whitlam might be gone and Jim Cairns might be there. So we could go from bad to worse. Things can alway get a little worse. One could not permit this sort of authority to be placed in the hands of people like this. The Bill says quite clearly and concisely ‘to regulate appropriately’- appropriately according to their standards, which we do not accept.

I sum up my 2 points. Power would be given to this Government, and particularly to the Minister, who may then delegate authority to people of his own choosing. I do not like to use the term ‘jobs for the boys’ but, after all, Mr Grassby was defeated at the elections, and Normie Foster was defeated. I believe Mr Grassby gets $26,000 a year and has a staff of 52. We miss Normie Foster in the House. The House is almost sane these days, but we miss him. He has got a job, though I do not know what he gets. We have got Mr Menadue -

Or Gun- A point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a bit of a disappointment to some members of the House that not all of them who would wish to can participate in the debate, but I fail to see why members should be denied the right to participate when they have to listen to the irrelevant material being presented by the honourable member for Kennedy. I would suggest that he be required to debate the Bill before the House.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I think the honourable gentleman does touch on the Bill now and again.

Mr KATTER:

– In your wisdom, Mr Speaker, you realise that I am referring to a matter of delegating authority to people who are not sufficiently qualified by experience or by contribution in the particular sphere of activity. I could go on and talk about Mr Doyle, who was defeated, and about Mr Hansen, who was defeated and who I believe is earning $22,000 a year. All of these people are being appointed to these sorts of positions. Is it not logical to think that, if absolute authority is to be delegated to an individual under the terms of this Act in establishing this Australian Broadcasting Authority to replace the Broadcasting Control Board as we know it today, there is this danger of these people being appointed to this particular job? The Australian people will have no part of it. They well and truly know what is going on. So I would most certainly add my voice to those of the various honourable members on this side of the House who have spoken in the debate. We want no part of the contents of the Bill. We will oppose it. We hope that there are sufficient reasonable men on the other side of the House who at least see the light and who will join us in our approach to the Bill.

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. J. F. Cope)

AYES: 59

NOES: 52

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker- Hon. J. F. Cope)

AYES: 59

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 3- by leave- taken together.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

-I ask the Minister for Science (Mr Morrison), who is in charge of this Bill: Why change the title of the organisation from the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to the Australian Broadcasting Authority? Who conceived that idea? What is the reason for it? I still remain one of those who take the view that all actions are inspired by some reason.

Mr MORRISON:
Minister for Science · St George · ALP

– I think that the reason is fairly obvious. Several Opposition speakers today pointed out their concern about control by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. We felt that ‘Australian Broadcasting Authority’ was a much more apt title. I am sure that the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) will agree that any organisation which is called a ‘control board’ is not the sort of organisation to which he would like to place his name. So the concept of an authority is much more neutral than the concept of a control board. I should have thought that the honourable member for Moreton would have been the first to praise us for this decision.

Clauses agreed to.

Clause 4 (Australian Broadcasting Authority).

Mr RUDDOCK:
Parramatta

– I wish to address my comments to clause 4 as this deals with the continued existence of the present Australian Broadcasting Control Board. The clause seeks to substitute a new name for that body. It is to be known as the Australian Broadcasting Authority. I wish to make some comments in relation to this body which has had a continuing existence but whose existence is to continue now under a new name. The Government proposes a scheme in which a number of changes follow as a consequence of the initial change in the name of that body resulting in a completely different organisation. In his second reading speech, the Minister for Science (Mr Morrison) indicated that these were urgent matters which required amendment. By the very nature of the amendments, they do not seem to be urgent. At this time, the proposals seem to me to be of a temporary nature designed to achieve certain objectives. I would see in these amendments certain sinister objectives which are introduced preparatory to a more detailed scheme and proposals being worked out before reconstituting at a later date the existing authority or organisation.

The Australian Broadcasting Control Board which is not to be made subject to controls by this Parliament and the decisions of which are not to be subject to appeal is to have taken from it certain powers in a most underhand way by this Government. I refer in particular to the statements by the Minister for the Media (Senator Douglas McClelland), and specifically to the comments made by the Minister, which were reported in my local newspapers, in relation to the establishment of a radio station to serve the western suburbs of Sydney. The Australian Broadcasting Control Board advised that a station could be allocated in that area and that frequencies were available. The Minister subsequently said that he would be inviting applications as soon as the Board had decided the exact technical specifications. Representatives of the Board made frequent visits to the electorate of Parramatta and adjoining electorates and on the occasion -

Mr Morrison:

- Mr Chairman, I fail to see the relevance of the observations by the honourable member for Parramatta to the clause under consideration.

Mr RUDDOCK:

– My remarks are relevant particularly to the authority of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board or of the new Authority that this Bill seeks to establish. This Bill seeks to continue in existence the present Board. The point that I propose to make is that the Government by its own action is denigrating the authority of this Board as it is now or the Authority as it is to be created, by taking away from it functions which the Government now alleges that it will have and which will be of a continuing nature. What I wish to draw to your attention is the action of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) in referring this decision on the establishment of a western suburbs radio station, after it was made, to the Priorities Review Staff. The Prime Minister has taken away from the residents of the western suburbs of Sydney the right to their own radio station by reversing the decision and referring the whole matter to the Priorities Review Staff. We know, by way of a letter addressed to me, after inquiries to the Minister for the Media, that the authority of the Board has been taken away and that this matter has been left in limbo in terms of a report which is in the hands of the Prime Minister and is available only to him and a number of Ministers who have the authority to receive it. I refer specifically to the Ministers for -

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

-Order! I think the honourable gentleman is getting fairly wide of the terms of this clause which repeals section 7 of the principal Act which relates to the body to which he refers. It does not give any powers at all to any Authority.

Mr RUDDOCK:

– I do not wish to dispute your ruling in any way, Mr Chairman. But I point out that proposed new section 7(1) provides with respect to the body corporate established:

  1. continues in existence by force of this subsection as a body corporate under the name ‘Australian Broadcasting Authority’, but so that the corporate identity of the body corporate shall not be affected -

That is what I am speaking to; it is the very continuing existence of this -

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! May I interrupt the honourable gentleman. The honourable gentleman is not speaking to that at all. He is speaking to a specific reference to the Board. That will not be affected in any way by this clause. It is not part of this clause. This debate concerns the Committee stages of the Bill; it is not a second reading debate.

Mr RUDDOCK:

-I appreciate that. But you will appreciate also that the second reading debate was called to an end by the Government. So, matters like this were not -

The CHAIRMAN:

– It is not the Chair’s prerogative to overrule a decision of the House.

Mr RUDDOCK:

– I appreciate that you are quite entitled to sit me down so that these matters will not be canvassed in full. I appreciate that there may be some reasons for that action, not on your part but with respect to the person who took a point of order.

Mr CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I suggest to the honourable gentleman that, if he wishes to continue to speak at all, he will not reflect on the motives of the Chair. It is my responsibility to make sure that the debate takes place within the Standing Orders, irrespective of what the honourable member may seek to speak about.

Mr RUDDOCK:

-I appreciate that. The very point that I wanted to make and that I was making is quite explicit. I trust that you will call me to order if I infringe your ruling in any way. The point I am making is that the body which this legislation purports to continue in existence as a corporate organisation is a body corporate in which the Government places its confidence but one whose authority has been brought into question by the actions and the conduct of the Government. I am somewhat surprised that the Government has not sought to substitute a new clause in some other form by which this organisation is not continued as it has shown itself to have no confidence in that body because of its actions in realtion to the very decisions to which I have referred. That is the essence of the point that I am endeavouring to make. I think it is quite clearly related to the clause which purports to continue this body in existence. I wish to elaborate on that point by referring specifically to the letter from the Minister for the Media to me on 27 August in which the Minister states that since the announcement was made by him at an earlier date, the Prime Minister had referred to the Government’s Priorities Review Staff for consideration -

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I remind the honourable gentleman that this is not part of the clause. I think the honourable gentleman is as well aware of that as I am. He is debating a specific reference to the Board. That has nothing to do with this Bill. The debate in the Committee stages concerns the clauses of the Bill.

Mr RUDDOCK:

– Yes. But the Board that is being -

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! May I point out to the honourable member that the adoption or defeat of this clause or of any amendment which may be before the Chair at the moment would not alter in any way the matter that he is debating. It is not related to the Committee debate.

Mr RUDDOCK:

-It may not be relevant to the extent to which the Board itself continues in existence. I am not suggesting that the Board should not continue in existence. What I saying is that the Government has confidence in the Board and shows that by the very nature of this clause, but it is not demonstrating that confidence by the action which it has taken. Having made that point, I will conclude my remarks and allow others to explore this matter further.

Clause agreed to.

Clause S agreed to.

Clause 6.

  1. Section 1 6 of the Principal Act is amended-

    1. by omitting from sub-section (3) the words “The Board shall have power’ and substituting the words ‘The Authority shall have power to do all such things as are necessary for the effective exercise of the functions of the Authority and, in particular, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Authority shall have power ‘;
    2. by inserting in paragraph (c) of sub-section (3), after the word ‘programs’, the words ‘, or programs containing matter of any class or character specified in the determination,’;
    3. by omitting from paragraph (d) of sub-section (3) the word ‘and’;
    4. by inserting after paragraph (d) of sub-section (3) the following paragraph:- ‘(e) to determine rules and standards to be observed by licensees in relation to the broadcasting of programs from commercial broadcasting stations or to be observed by licensees in relation to the televising of programs from commercial television stations, including rules or standards with respect to the nature and content of programs; and’;
    5. by inserting after sub-section (3) the following subsection: ‘(3a) Rules determined by the Authority in pursuance of paragraph (e) of sub-section (3) may include requirements, being requirements approved by the Minister, with respect to the broadcasting of programs or with respect to the televising of programs that are, as denned in the determination, programs of Australian origin.’; and
    6. by adding at the end of sub-section (4) the words ‘and such other persons as the Authority considers appropriate.’.
Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

-Mr Chairman, I move:

Omit the clause, substitute the following clause: ‘6. Section 16 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting paragraphs (c) and (d) of sub-section (3).’.

I may in a very short compass explain to the Committee why this amendment is moved. I observed in the course of my second reading speech today that there were 3 powers given in the Act whereby the Board could seek to act. These are section 16 under which determinations could be made, section 17 under which orders could be made, and the regulation making power, section 134. We in the Opposition parties take the view that great powers such as are proposed should at least- I want to add some emphasis to that- be subject to the scrutiny of the Parliament. The purpose of this first amendment is to take these provisions out of section 16 and, as will be observed, later to reintroduce them in section 134. Obviously our good faith cannot be challenged. We are not seeking to take something from the Act simpliciter and to say that the Board should have no powers; we are seeking so to rearrange the powers of the Board that the Parliament can exercise a general superintendence.

I do not propose to divide the Committee on every one of these amendments because that would be a grievous waste of time. Clause 6 of the Bill is what I may describe, without disrespect to the draftsman, as the powerhouse of the Bill. I want to ensure that the powerhouse has the right sort of control over it. I do not want it to be used in some mischievous or wanton fashion. I am left almost with the impression that the Minister for Science (Mr Morrison) has succumbed to such blandishment power as I may command and is even tempted to agree in general principle to the Opposition’s suggestion that these powers should be transferred to the regulation making section of the Act. That, as I said, is the purpose behind the amendment. I excuse myself from more detailed comment. Some honourable members looking at this amendment may ask: ‘Why on earth seek to take these provisions out of section 16? What is the purpose of it?’ The purpose is to take them out and reinsert them, pursuant to a further amendment, under the regulation making powers whereby those who sit in this Parliament can have a say about what goes on.

Mr MORRISON:
Minister for Science (3.57 · St George · ALP

– May I make a general observation about the amendments that have been moved by the honourable member for Moreton.

Dr Gun:

– Is the Minister closing the debate?

The CHAIRMAN:

– No. The Minister can speak at any time during the Committee stage.

Mr MORRISON:

– The honourable member for Moreton is aware that I had to ask him for a copy of his amendments.

Mr Killen:

– Before I made my second reading speech. I did not know that this Minister was in charge of this Bill.

Mr MORRISON:

– The Government has not had what might be regarded as reasonable time in which to consider these rather detailed amendments. I make the general observation that the points raised by the honourable member for Moreton relate- I accept the proposition- to the overall responsibility of the Parliament in matters of this nature. The Government is prepared to consider amendments which would require the tabling in the Parliament of the rules and standards drawn up by the Authority under the provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act and the regulations made thereunder.

I am sure that the honourable member for Moreton and honourable gentlemen opposite realise that there are many ways of coming to the same sort of result. However it is the responsibility of the Government to decide which of the particular ways to an end should be accepted. I make this observation in general terms because, since we have not had full time to consider the proposals put forward, the Government will vote against the amendments moved by the honourable member for Moreton. They will, however, be given full consideration before this Bill goes to the other place. The Government will oppose the deletion of paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (3) of section 16 of the principal Act.

Mr BOURCHIER:
Bendigo

-As the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) clearly pointed out, clause 6 of this Bill is the powerhouse provision of the Bill. It obviously is a direct attack, as is usual by a socialist government, on the private enterprise section of the community. As in every Bill proposed by the socialist elements, this Bill is an attempt to nationalise sections of industry. However, it will flounder for want of support in the other place. This Bill sets out to nationalise, or totally to control, the private enterprise section of the broadcasting industry. It will be noticed that the Australian Broadcasting Commission has been given licence to control its own destiny and to exercise its own powers but, as can be seen from the speech of the Minister for the Environment and Conservation (Dr Cass) in introducing this Bill, clause 6 provides that the Board shall have power to determine rules and standards to be observed by licencees in relation to commercial broadcasting and television programs. It specifically provides power for the Board to determine, subject to the Minister’s approval, requirements with regard to programming. As the honourable member for Moreton mentioned, obviously there must be certain regulations and powers with respect to all organisations in order to protect the public, but the point is that in this Bill there is no way whereby the private enterprise sector can appeal against a decision that is made.

Mr Morrison:

– There never was.

Mr BOURCHIER:

– The point is that under the existing powers of the Board standards have been laid down and have been adhered to. The television industry accepted the points system and the requirements concerning Australian content. It accepted all the other determinations of the Board. But now the Goverenment is trying to provide for a socialist takeover of the whole industry. That is what this boils down to; it is nothing else. It is amazing that every time the socialists introduce a clause of this nature they say: ‘We do not intend to use this power. The power is there purely and simply as a means’. A means to what? Of course the power will be used, and used effectively, by the socialist Government at the earliest opportunity. The honourable member for Franklin (Mr Sherry), in supporting the Bill, talked about standards. He said what a great thing it was that we should have standards. We do not deny that there should be standards. We support such a proposition. However, he went on to say that power is an evil thing. He instanced how power was misused in the United States of America to bring about the downfall of a President. Good Lord, that is exactly what will happen here: This socialist government will provide the Authority with the power to bring about the downfall of private enterprise in the television and broadcasting industry. Let there be no doubt about that; that is exactly what this clause is all about. The honourable member for Casey (Mr Mathews), that eloquent or -

The CHAIRMAN:

-I suggest that the honourable member would do well not to revive the second reading debate. He should deal only with the clause.

Mr BOURCHIER:

– Thank you, Mr Chairman. As I mentioned before, clause 6 is the powerhouse provision of this Bill. The powers proposed are unlimited and undefined and will result in total control by the authority without there being conferred on the licencees any right of appeal against decisions of the Authority. The Australian Broadcasting Commission has independence which has been confirmed and guaranteed by the Government, but such independance is to be taken away from the private sector of the industry. Surely this is an imbalance. I only hope that the Minister for Science will take note of the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Moreton. He said he would look at it. I sincerely hope that he removes from the Bill as presently drawn the severe control which the Authority will be able to exercise but which so many socialists say would not be used. Of course the powers will be used. I do not believe that any government, a socialist government or in the near future when there is a change of government that government, should have such power over the private section of the industry. I trust that the Government will give due consideration to the proposal, will delete this clause, and accept the other amendments proposed by the honourable member for Moreton.

Dr GUN:
Kingston

-Before saying what I intended to say I would just like to respond to some of the remarks made by the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Bourchier). I think that perhaps those following the debate might not be aware of the fact that we are discussing an amendment moved by the honourable member for Moreton that will not only amend the Bill before the chamber but will also amend the original Act. What the honourable member for Moreton is proposing is that sub-sections (3) (c) and (3) (d) of section 16 of the principal Act be omitted from the Act. The honourable member for Bendigo is saying that these sub-sections must be taken out of the Act because if they were allowed to remain they would constitute nationalisation and socialisation of the commercial television industry. I would personally not be opposed to the nationalisation and socialisation of the television industry. I would like to see nothing more than all the communications industry placed in the power of the people of Australia and not in the hands of a few private monopolists.

But the point is that these sub-sections were put in the Act by a Liberal-Country Party Government. They have been in the Act for many years. If this is the case how can the honourable member support the proposition that it is a socialist measure? What is proposed under the amendment of the honourable member for Moreton is that these measures which have been in the Act for many years and which were put there by a previous Liberal-Country Party Government should now be taken out of the Act. How can the Opposition therefore validly assert that the Government is trying to insert a socialist measure into the Act? I ask the Minister for Science (Mr Morrison) to look very carefully at the amendments put forward by the honourable member for Moreton because I believe that under what might be a legitimate smokescreen, a prima facie legitimate measure, to provide parliamentary scrutiny for the operation of the Authority, we have really a diabolical attempt not only to emasculate completely the Bill before the Committee but also to emasculate the already rather weak Broadcasting and Television Act that has been in force in this country for many years.

What he is proposing to do is to give an unrepresentative handful of individuals completely undiluted power over the air waves. The amendment proposed by the honourable member for Moreton seeks to take out of the Act sub-section (3) (c) whereby the Authority has power to determine the hours during which programs may be broadcast or televised and sub-section ( 3 ) ( d ) whereby the Authority shall have power to determine the conditions subject to which advertisements may be broadcast or televised by licensees. The Opposition’s amendment seeks to delete from the Act that power of the Board, or the Authority as it will become.

The honourable member for Moreton has tried to persuade us to the view that all would be well if we accepted his subsequent amendment. I suppose, Mr Chairman, it would be in order for me to refer to other foreshadowed amendments of the honourable member for Moreton because I think they are important. The honourable member has tried to tell us that this matter will be adequately covered under regulations which will subsequently be put down. But if we have a look at the subsequent regulations suggested by the honourable member for Moreton we find that he has not suggested that these regulations will provide for directions to be made by the Authority on determining the hours during which programs may be broadcast or televised, or to determine the conditions subject to which advertisements may be broadcast or televised by licensees. The honourable member for Moreton does not talk about directions on hours or about programs in his foreshadowed amendment to clause 6. He refers to times when certain programs may be televised. He talks about directions with respect to matters affecting certain things. I ask the honourable member for Moreton where in his proposals he gives the Authority or anybody powers to make regulations to set down standards under which the commercial television stations will operate. I put it to the Committee and to the honourable member for Moreton that nowhere in the foreshadowed amendments is any power set out whereby the Broadcasting Authority can lay down standards for commercial television stations.

The honourable member for Moreton has also foreshadowed an amendment to clause 16 to insert new clause 16a. He wants to insert the following sub-section ( 1a):

The Regulations empowering the giving of a direction referred to in paragraph 1 (ca) shall prescribe the criteria to be observed by the Authority . . .

That is the only mention of the word ‘criteria’. I would suggest that the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Moreton is designed to take specific powers away from the Authority that have been there for many years. Although he has told us that he proposes to provide for these powers to be reinstated but with parliamentary scrutiny, I believe that if we examine the wording of the foreshadowed amendments it will be seen that there will not be any valid powers that will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I believe all that one would find is confusion and obfuscation.

I ask the honourable member for Moreton again to say where in his foreshadowed amendments the Authority will have the power to direct rules and standards. This is a matter of very great importance. We are discussing the power to regulate television advertising, particularly the type of advertising that takes place during children’s programs. We are also discussing the power to regulate the degree and amount of violence which might occur during children’s programs. I think that this is something of critical importance. I am disappointed that a lot of people regard this matter very cynically. Many people say that the Liberal Party is in the pockets of the people who control the media. I believe that the evidence here is quite specific.

The Opposition it trying to emasculate this legislation just as we have seen the Opposition in the Senate trying to emasculate completely the

Australian Film Commission Bill which is a similar measure to enable proper and responsible programs to be produced for the benefit of Australian children. Only yesterday I was discussing this proposed measure with a local association of school welfare clubs of various primary schools in my electorate and the neighbouring electorate of Barker. Regrettably the honourable member for Barker (Dr Forbes) who was approached by that association declined to make any response to it. But in response to a letter I arranged to meet the school welfare clubs for a discussion and an exchange of views on the question of children’s television, particularly in regard to the advertising that takes place. At the meeting yesterday I pointed out the need for control over advertising. The powers in the Act at the moment are not very specific and therefore we are trying to strengthen them. I told the women representing the welfare clubs not to underestimate the power of commercial television operators to put pressure on certain people to prevent teeth being put into this legislation. I feel vindicated in being able to come here today and to point out what the honourable member for Moreton is trying to put over us. To take a charitable view, it is possible, of course, that he is only making an innocent mistake. If that be the case we might be able to find some suitable formula for bis amendments. But I am disappointed to see time and again the Liberal Party coming in and supporting the vested interests and people who control the media because after all the air waves should belong to all the people of Australia.

Mr RUDDOCK:
Parramatta

-Mr Chairman -

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Amendment negatived.

Mr MORRISON:
Minister for Science · St George · ALP

– The Committee is still considering clause 6, which reads:

Section 1 6 of the Principal Act is amended-

by omitting from sub-section (3) the words ‘The Board shall have power’ and substituting the words ‘The Authority shall have power to do all such things as are necessary for the effective exercise of the functions of the Authority and, in particular, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Authority shall have power’;

by inserting in paragraph (c) of sub-section (3), after the word ‘programs’, the words ‘, or programs containing matter of any class or character specified in the determination,’;

by omitting from paragraph (d) of sub-section (3) the word ‘and’;

by inserting after paragraph (d) of sub-section (3) the following paragraph: ‘(e) to determine rules and standards to be observed by licensees in relation to the broadcasting of programs from commercial broadcasting stations or to be observed by licensees in relation to the televising of programs from commercial television stations, including rules or standards with respect to the nature and content of programs; and’;

by inserting after sub-section (3) the following subsection: ‘(3a) Rules determined by the Authority in pursuance of paragraph (e) of sub-section (3) may incluide requirements, being requirements approved by the Minister, with respect to the broadcasting of programs or with respect to the televising of programs that are, as denned in the determination, programs of Australian origin, ‘; and (0 by adding at the end of sub-section (4) the words ‘and such other persons as the Authority considers appropriate.’.

I move:

In paragraph (e), after proposed sub-section (3a) insert the following sub-section: - ‘ “(3b) Rules and standards determined by the Authority in pursuance of paragraph (e) of sub-section (3) shall be of general application and shall not be expressed to apply to a particular commercial broadcasting station or particular commercial broadcasting stations, or to a particular commercial television station or particular television stations, but rules that include requirements of a kind referred to in sub-section (3a)-

may authorize the Authority to exempt, in whole or in part and unconditionally or subject to conditions specified by the Authority, any station that has been established for less than 3 years from any requirement of that kind; and

may specify requirements that differ according to the different locations of stations, but so that different requirements shall not be specified with respect to stations in the metropolitan area of a capital city of a State, that is to say, an area prescribed as the metropolitan area of that capital city.” ‘

Some concern has been expressed at the Bill in the sense that it may involve a discrimination against individual stations or even individual programs. That is drawing a long bow in the interpretation of the amendments which we have introduced and which are the subject of the consideration at the moment. In order to ensure that the clarity was above exception we have introduced this amendment. Its purpose is to make quite clear that the Authority cannot discriminate against stations. I think there was, for example, a fear that the Authority could direct a television station in a particular area to televise Bugs Bunny when another television station was televising a high rating news service. This sort of fear is quite unfounded. We have sought in this amendment to make the matter even more obvious than we had thought it to be.

Honourable members will notice also that we have introduced a new sub-section (3b) (a) which continues a practice and gives the Authority permission to exempt a television station from the Australian content requirement for the first 3 years of its operation. The reason for subsection (3b) (b) is that the Authority’s Australian content requirement provides that stations in a single market area are not eligible for full points value for programs which are obtained from other sources. Similarly, in the case of Perth stations where 2 stations have access to the output of 3 major metropolitan program networks the stations are not eligible for the full points value in respect of the programs so purchased. That amendment covers those eventualities. I note, for instance, that the amendments are very close in content and certainly in purport to the amendment introduced by the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) in relation to section 134. 1 presume, seeing that we both have the same objective and the phrasing has a certain similarity, that this amendment will be agreed to by the Opposition.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

-The Minister has a most insinuating manner, but I am bound to tell him in simple candour that he has not captured me as yet. By way of brief explanation to the Committee on this point I say that I consciously try to avoid discourtesy to everyone. I was not being discourteous to the Minister for Science (Mr Morrison) in the circulation of my amendments. It was not until I found out today that the Minister who introduced this Bill was abroad for eminently proper reasons that I knew that my friend the Minister for Science was in charge of the Bill. I tell him that the amendments were handed personally to the Minister for the Media (Senator Douglas McClelland) at 9 p.m. on 31 October in the year of our Grace 1974. 1 hope that matter is settled because the Government had possession of these amendments 12 days ago. The amendment which the Minister has adverted to is an improvement on things as they stand. But it is rather like being sentenced to 12 months gaol and the judge saying to the poor culprit: ‘Look, you can make an application to get out after the eleventh month’. It is an improvement, but the simple fact of life is that it does not relieve the position at all.

I say, not by way of fierce controversy, to the honourable member for Kingston (Dr Gun) that the honourable gentleman has never given me the impression that there is anything wrong with his cerebral processes, until this afternoon. The honourable gentleman can read and he can see, but plainly he has difficulty in understanding. The charge that he made against me almost came to the stage of offending and upsetting me, and that would be an accomplishment indeed. If the honourable gentleman had done me the simple honour of reading on he would have seen the link in rules and standards to clause 6 of this Bill. Whatever motives the honourable member can impute to me I am not going to sit down and sob about them. Turn over the page my dear chap. I am glad he has got there at long last. The next page sets out the rules and standards to be observed by licensees in relation to the broadcasting of programs from commercial stations. This is the whole gist of the thing. I do not for one moment deny the fact that I certainly would not approve of giving to the Board the power to control programs as is proposed in clause 6.

That brings me to what I describe as the centre of this Bill. Under clause 6 (b) of the Bill power is being given to the Board or the Authority, call it what you will- I do not think in terms of eternity it counts for tuppence- to control programs containing matter of any class or character specified in the determination. The Authority makes the determination and it writes the letter. It cannot be reviewed by anybody at all. It is all very fine for the Minister to say that one station will be told to put on Bugs Bunny while some arresting news matter of political controversy is going on in a nearby channel. This is the power, nevertheless, that is available. I come back to the eminently sensible point made by my friend the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Bourchier): Why ask for a power if you do not propose to use it? That is my objection to clause 6 (b). I do not want to delay the Committee as I know other honourable gentlemen have some observations to make. I hope that the Minister, before we abandon or take to our heels from clause 6, will explain to us exactly what the Government has in mind in relation to clause 6 (f) which states: …. and such other persons as the Authority considers appropriate.

I am sure that the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) has a useful amendment to that. I am sure, if he presses with his charismatic charm upon the Minister, he may even have a win. I wish him well. What has the Government in mind and what has the Minister in mind in the phrase: ‘And such other persons as the Authority considers appropriate’?

Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa

-There is very deep concern in the minds of people with regard to the powers that are suggested in clause 6 of the Bill to amend the Broadcasting and Television Act. Delegates to the convention of the Federation of Australian Broadcasters, which includes some Labor Party controlled stations, unanimously affirmed their determination to support the principles that the public is best served by the continuance of the freedom of the commercial broadcasting industry to program their stations in accordance with the demonstrable interests of the communities which they serve. That is part of a resolution passed by the Federation of Australian Broadcasters. The resolution went on to say that while accepting the desirability of broad national program standards, which already exist, the Australian commercial broadcasters consider that legislative moves to provide dictatorship by the Government through the Australian Broadcasting Control Board in respect of what shall be presented to the public could assuredly result in repression of the opportunity of the public to hear free expression of program material of community interest. The deep concern of the broadcasters in respect of these matters as related to the proposals contained -

Mr Morrison:

– I take a point of order. I am sure that the honourable member will realise that what he is saying has no direct relevance to the clause that is now under consideration.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

-I rule that it is relevant

Mr CORBETT:

-Thank you, Mr Chairman. I appreciate your ruling because the clause clearly conveys the matter of programming. The deep concern of the broadcasters in respect of these matters as related to the proposals contained in the amendments to the Broadcasting and Television Act which in essence give to the Government’s appointed Board control over programming, news services and advertising functions of commercial broadcasters, is for the serious implications in continuing to provide to the community an acceptable free enterprise service which they have enjoyed in the past. In the light of the foregoing, member stations unanimously approved immediate action to protect broadcasting against unfair political attacks from any party.

I suggest that this is a severe condemnation by the Federation of Australian Broadcasters of the legislation now under consideration. Let me repeat that delegates to that convention included delegates from stations which are under control of the Australian Labor Party. So one cannot say it is just some group that has the power. I refer to that for the sake of those speakers who were saying that all the power is in the hands of a few people. It is a fact that some of the media come under the control of the Australian Labor Party. I do not want to take up undue time on this clause but I suggest that powers contained in this Bill to amend the Broadcasting and Television Act are such as to cause very serious concern. The position as I see it- it has been stated by other speakers in this debate- is that a government is not entitled to take on powers under the guise that it will not use the powers. This is the crux of the situation as I see it.

If a government introduces into an Act powers which it will be able to use at some time in the future obviously this would be senseless unless there was some intention to use them. I am very concerned about the situation which will confront Australian broadcasters if this Bill is passed. I am strongly opposed to it. I believe that the action of the Opposition in drawing attention to the dangers that exist in the Bill is serving not only the Australian Federation of Broadcasters but also the Australian community. As far as it is within the power of an Opposition to ensure that there is a desirable freedom, we are trying to ensure that this freedom is available. If that freedom is not available to the media a limitation exists which is contrary to the democractic principles of Australia. I should like to conclude by updating a famous quotation of Thomas Jefferson, who said that our liberty depends upon the freedom of the media and that cannot be limited without being lost.

Mr SHERRY:
Franklin

-I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee. I just want to make a comment on the point raised by the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Corbett). It is historically true that the argument the honourable member has used this afternoon was used in 1948, when the setting up of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board was described by a then leading member of the Liberal Opposition, the late Sir Eric Harrison, as something that would strangle and eliminate all commercial radio stations throughout the country. With all due respect to the honourable member for Maranoa and others who think like him in talking to clause 6, that was said in 1948; we are now in 1974. 1 have seen no diminution of commercial radio stations or commercial television stations.

Mr Graham:

– You had not been in government; that is why.

Mr SHERRY:

-The honourable gentleman from North Sydney who interjects would be well aware that when he was in government I moved in this chamber two or three amendments dealing with the freedom of the individual as it related to the Board and the accessibility to tapes and video tape recordings. I was still waiting when the previous Government went out of office for it to accept that point of individual freedom.

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I move:

It has intrigued me why in its amendment the Government added the words ‘that the Authority shall consult such other persons as the Authority considers appropriate’. That is an incredibly wide proposition that the Government is putting, especially as it relates to the powers and the functions of the Board under section 16 of the present Act. It means that, under Part IV of the present Act, in the examination of licences, the advertising activities of licensees and so on if, for example, a television station had given a news broadcast that was inimical to people on strike or perhaps to Mr Laurie Carmichael or Mr Halfpenny the Authority could consult those people concerning its exercise of powers under section 16 and there is no way in which that can be prevented. While I concede at present that the Authority can consult representatives of the stations they are presumed to be the representatives of the commercial television organisations. That has been the case.

The new amendment puts forward a very wide set of propositions. I believe that the Government may have made them wider than it intended them to be. It may be that the Government would like to have consulted those who are concerned directly in the administration of the stations even though such persons may not be construed to be representatives of the stations. So the Government amendment proposes that the Board or the Authority can consult persons who may not be construed to be representatives but such persons as are concerned directly in the conduct and the administration of the licence. I believe that this goes half way between what the Government intended and what the present situation entails. The proposal by the Government is wider than one would reasonably like to see. For example, if in the conduct of a station the Government wants to consult the executive of the Builders Labourers Federation to establish some kind of connection between that body, its members and the television station, that would not necessarily be eliminated. Mr Norm Gallagher could be consulted. I do not think that is an appropriate set of circumstances. I do not think that is what the Government intends or has ever been intended to operate under the Act and under the authority of the Board to consult with others. I hope the Minister for Science is looking at the proposed amendment carefully. He had a smile on his face a little earlier. I hope that was a smile of approval. It would not be a smile of cynicism. I hope that on this occasion he uses his reason and is not subject to the Government’s discipline.

Mr MORRISON:
Minister for Science · St George · ALP

– I hate to disappoint my worthy friend from Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns), but the Government opposes the amendment that he has moved. The Board, or the Authority as it is to be known, does of course canvass opinion outside the very restricted gentlemen’s club that was operative under the Liberal Party in which were only representatives of the stations. It always seems to me rather odd that when one brings in the concept of consultation and the fulfilment of democratic processes, members of the LiberalCountry Party Opposition are the first to oppose it. There is nothing tremendously exciting in the proposition that we have put forward, apart from the fact that the Authority should be empowered to consult with those organisations and interest groups that have some relevance. Obviously they will have some relevance to the television and broadcasting industry, otherwise the Authority would not be interested in them. We see no reason why we should limit the power of the Authority just to talk to people that the Opposition may have in mind. What we are seeking to do is to broaden the contact and formalise the relationship under the Act for the Authority to contact and talk with people.

I want to make one point very clear. The honourable member for Lilley is not correct in what he said. The section of the principal Act to which the amendment relates is section 16 in division 2. Subsection (4) very specifically uses the words: ‘In exercising its functions and powers under this section ‘. I would just like to spell out in words of one syllable that this section does not include licensing. I think that once that point gets across to the honourable member for Lilley he probably will not be so anxious to protect his station friends, because this bit of protection is not necessary in relation to licensing. What we are seeking is a broadening of the democratic process. I know that my colleague the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) will be only too anxious to support the broadening of democratic processes.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The Minister for Science (Mr Morrison) regrettably suggested, not by innuendo but by clear statement, that the motivation of my friend the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) was a desire to protect his television station friends. I think it is a pity that the Government sees the Opposition as simply being motivated by endeavours to protect a certain sector. Regrettably the Government’s whole thinking is sectionalised and filled with class hatred and differences. But what I would like to bring to the attention of the Committee and the Minister is the fact that we on this side of the chamber have reason for concern. In my own city of Brisbane, the Australian Labor Party already has control of a radio station. It is not unfair or unrealistic for those in Opposition to look at the manner in which the Labor Party administers its radio station in Brisbane, and say that probably that is the manner in which it will administer this Act and control the media. I draw to the Minister’s attention and leave recorded in Hansard for ever the fact that during the last Federal election campaign the Australian Labor Party radio station in Brisbane, which by law is supposed to accept all forms of advertisements -

Dr Gun:

– What has this to do with the amendment?

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I suggest to the honourable member for Kingston that he sit down and wait a moment. Oh! My friend from the Australian Broadcasting Commission is about to stand up and address the Committee in his best voice.

Mr Sherry:

- Mr Chairman, I rise on a point of order. With the greatest respect to the honourable member for Griffith, I ask: To what clause is the honourable member addressing himself?

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Clause 6.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honourable member appears to be addressing himself to the Bill.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I am speaking to the amendment to clause 6 put forward by my friend, the honourable member for Lilley.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I suggest that the honourable gentleman should address himself to clause 6 if he wants to stay relevant.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I will try to do that. The honourable member for Lilley expressed concern that the Bill refers to ‘such other persons as the Authority considers appropriate ‘. The point I am trying to make is that this is dangerous. As far as I am concerned, even the amendment suggested by the honourable member for

Lilley would not eliminate my point of concern. I return to the fact that the Labor Party station 4KQ refused to accept three or four of my advertisements. One of them went something like this: Once a Labor Lord Mayor stood for Federal Parliament. He tried to take Don Cameron’s seat but the electors of Griffith -

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I think the honourable gentleman’s self-advertising is getting a little outside the clause of the Bill.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

- Mr Chairman, I am just giving to you information that you could not have acquired by listening to 4KQ, the Labor station. There was nothing offensive in the tune and I am sorry I am not allowed to finish it because it is most interesting. The Labor Party station would not allow me as an individual to advertise in the way that I wanted to. Yet the Australian Labor Party Government, the big brother of the ALP, in Queensland, is proposing a Bill which will place in its hands controls which in the future could enable it- my friend the honourable member for Moreton might clarify this for me- to forbid all commercial stations throughout Australia to accept Liberal Party advertising in any form. This is dangerous. I do not intend to speak for long but I felt that we could not let the occasion pass without my drawing this to the attention of the Committee. Perhaps the Minister when he winds up the debate on this clause, will explain to me why the ALP radio station in Brisbane would not accept advertising from me in the last Federal election. The Labor Party talks about democracy but its words are very empty when I can cite here in this chamber an example such as that I spoke of a moment ago.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-The honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) has made a very valid point.

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Amendment negatived.

Question put:

That the clause, as amended, be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 57

NOES: 54

Majority……. 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

-I move-

After clause 6, insert the following new clause:- “6a. Section 17 of the Principal Act is amended by omit ting sub-section (1) and substituting the following subsection: “( 1 ) For the purpose of exercising its powers and func tions the Authority, subject to this Act and the regulations in force by virtue of this Act, shall have power to make such orders, give such directions and do all such things as it thinks fit.”.

This is a formal amendment and is consequential upon an amendment which, regrettably did not meet the fate it deserved. Pursuant to the undertaking given by the Minister that- to use language that has got a fragrance all of its own- the Government proposes to take another look at what the Opposition has proposed this afternoon, it may well be that at some time in the future the Minister will have to take into account the virtue of the second amendment which I have moved.

Mr MORRISON:
Minister for Science · St George · ALP

-For the benefit of the honourable member for Moreton, the Government will be opposing this amendment.

Br GUN (Kingston) (4.52)-Once again I would ask the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) to respond to the question that I asked him before. The honourable member had the good grace to suggest that there was nothing wrong with my cerebral processes. From what he said before, I do not think there is anything wrong with his. I suspect that he is perfectly well aware of the fact that what he proposes is a very significant watering down of the present legislation. Let us look at the Act as it is at the moment. Section 1 7, sub-section ( 1 ) says:

For the purpose of exercising its powers and functions under this Act, the Board shall have power to make such orders, give such directions and do all such other things as it thinks fit.

The Bill that we are now discussing does not propose any amendment to this sub-section, but the honourable member for Moreton wants to alter it by adding a provision to make this power subject to regulations. I would have no quarrel with that if the regulation making power enabled the Authority to make the appropriate regulations to allow the Board to determine the standards observed by the commercial television stations. I repeat the point I made before, that if one looks at the regulation making power foreshadowed by the later amendment of the honourable member for Moreton, those powers at present in the Act are not conferred by regulations. Section 16 in its present form provides that the Board shall have power to determine the hours during which programs may be broadcast or televised. Under the proposal of the honourable member for Moreton the power will not be there to determine. All he says is ‘empowering the Authority to give or issue a direction’, and then later: . . . directions with respect to matters affecting the hours during which programs may be broadcast’. In other words, rather than power to determine the hours, the amendment provides that the Authority will now, subject only to regulation, have power to determine directions with respect to ‘matters affecting,’ and I would suggest that there is a very wide difference between the power to determine such matters and the power to determine with respect to matters affecting those matters.

The honourable member for Moreton and I have served together on a committee of the Constitution Convention. He may recall that a very long debate took place in that committee in relation to the final paragraph of section 128 of the Constitution. If I could use this as an analogy, the honourable member will recall that that paragraph relates to alterations ‘diminishing the proportionate representation of any State in either House of the Parliament, or the minimum number of representatives of a State in the House of Representatives, or increasing, diminishing or otherwise altering the limits of the State’. It then goes on to say: ‘or in any manner affecting the provisions of the Constitution in relation thereto’. In other words, provisions affecting the preceding clauses, which is a completely different matter from the clauses themselves. I would suggest that the same distinction must be drawn here in the amendment suggested by the honourable member for Moreton where he proposes that the regulation making power will no longer enable the Authority to have power to determine those matters at present in clause 16, sub-section (3) (c) and (d), of the existing Act. That power will be taken away. The only residual power will be power to give directions with respect to matters affecting those mentioned. Therefore I would suggest as strongly as I can that when the Minister and the Government consider what sort of suitable amendment might be made to this proposition they reject the proposals of the honourable member for Moreton. I believe that the honourable member for Moreton is perfectly aware of the situation and that he has taken a conscious decision on the matter. When he rose to speak earlier I think he did say that he did not favour allowing the Authority to have those powers to determine directly those matters which it has had power to determine in the past. I would say that this is not just a question of syntax; this is a very important question of philosophical difference between the 2 sides of the Committee. I ask the Government to bear this in mind when considering the proposed amendment of the honourable member for Moreton.

Mr GILES:
Angas

-Mr Chairman -

Motion (by Mr Nicholls) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Clauses 7 to 10- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 11

  1. 1 ) Section 84 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting paragraph (b) and substituting the following paragraph:- “(b) in the case of a licence granted by way of the renewal of the licence- for a period commencing on the day after the expiration of the last previous licence in respect of the station and ending on the expiration of such period (being a period of not less than 3 months and not more than 3 years), as is specified in the licence.”.
Mr MORRISON:
Minister for Science · St George · ALP

– I move:

In sub-clause (1), proposed new paragraph (b), omit ‘3 months ‘, insert ‘ 6 months ‘.

Honourable gentlemen will be aware that my colleague in another place has had discussions with interested groups. The viewpoint was put during those discussions that the period of 3 months created difficulties for them. Therefore we are quite happy to introduce this amendment which in fact is the amendment which was brought in previously by a Liberal-Country Party Government. This amendment was introduced in 1972 and it flows from a recommendation in the second interim report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts which indicated that the Board should be empowered to recommend greater renewal periods to the Minister. In introducing the Bill into the Senate at that stage Senator Cotton pointed out that licences may be renewed for a period of not less than 6 months or more than 3 years on the basis that the period of a normal licence would be 3 years instead of 1 year after the initial introductory period following the approval of the new provisions. I might mention that the reasoning behind this proposal is that there are now something over 200 licences in existence. Many of them are translator licences. There is a great burden on the Broadcasting Authority to handle the licensing arrangements, and the purpose of the renewal amendment that we have introduced is to allow the Authority to operate in a much more effective way by bringing together the licensing of the major or parent station and the licensing of the translators. This amendment, as I have said, is identical with an amendment introduced by the previous Government. In those circumstances I am sure that it will meet with the applause of the Opposition.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

– I am sorry to disappoint my friend, the Minister for Science (Mr Morrison). I find myself not in the slightest moved to applaud what he has had to say. The fact of life is, however, that the amendment is an improvement, albeit a marginal one. When a licence is terminated- I use the word ‘terminated’ in terms of time- and a renewal has been granted, I want to put it to the honourable gentleman that it is an absurdity to imagine that a licensee would be prepared to continue to operate the management of that licence for a period of but 6 months. I observed during the course of the second reading debate that because of the enormous amount of capital invested and because the licensee is faced with the task of programming, 3 months was a palpable absurdity. Six months is an improvement. That was why the Opposition sought to have the words ‘3 months’ deleted from the amendment contained in the amending Bill. The Opposition will not seek to divide the Committee upon the Minister’s first amendment but, as a consequence of the attitude which I have expressed on behalf of the Opposition, I would seek to divide the Committee on the amendment which proposes that the words’ 6 months’ replace the words ‘3 months’. I mention that so that the Minister will know precisely the attitude we are taking. I say to the honourable gentleman that I would hope that the Government will reflect upon what is involved here.

Mr MORRISON:
Minister for Science · St George · ALP

– Perhaps I could recall for the benefit of the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) the views expressed on precisely the point that he has raised by bis colleague, Senator Greenwood, in another place on 7 March 1972 in his capacity as Minister representing the Postmaster-General. On that occasion he said:

If any honourable senator examines the case put forward in support of that proposition -

That is, a 6 months to 3 years licence renewal period - . . . he cannot but be impressed -

I am sure that the honourable member for Moreton cannot but be impressed - with the fact that there is merit in getting rid of the one-year renewal period. There is the problem, of course, that certain stations may be in some form of technical breach at the time when their licence next comes up for renewal at the end of the year and it is advantageous for the licence to be renewed for a short period, say 6 months, on the condition that there will be a longer renewal if the omissions are repaired.

I make the observation for the honourable gentleman opposite that this was a statement made by Senator Greenwood who at that stage was representing the Postmaster-General. This is one of the very few points on which I find myself in agreement with the honourable gentleman.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

-By way of very brief rejoinder may I say that we all are entitled to have second thoughts about the matter. I am sure today that Senator Greenwood, having listened to the arguments that I have pressed upon him, would immediately say: ‘Yes I see considerable substance in the point of view you have taken’. Who knows, the Minister himself one of these days may have second thoughts to his advantage.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

-Order!-As the honourable member for Moreton also has an amendment to exactly the same place in the same clause of the Bill, I shall put the question in 2 parts. I shall put first of all that the figure and word stand part of the clause.

Mr Killen:

– Which one are you taking first, Mr Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN:

– I am taking the Minister’s amendment. I will be putting the question in 2 parts. The first part of the question is: ‘That the figure and word proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause’. If that question is negated then I shall put the question: ‘That the figure and word proposed to be inserted be so inserted ‘.

Mr Killen:

– Which one will then proceed?

The CHAIRMAN:

– The Minister’s amendment will proceed.

Mr Killen:

– That is the one on which I want to divide the Committee.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question is: ‘That the figure and word proposed to be omitted stand part of the proposed new paragraph’.

Question resolved in the negative.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question now is: “That the figure and word proposed to be inserted be inserted ‘.

Question put:

The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 59

NOES: 54

Majority……. 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12.

Section 85 of the Principal Act is amended-

Mr MORRISON:
Minister for Science · St George · ALP

– I move:

In paragraph (a), omit ‘or less’.

This amendment is consequential on the one just approved of by the Committee. I think it will appeal to the logic of the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen), as we have now amended the provision by taking out the figure and word 3 months’ and replaced them with the figure and word ‘6 months’, that there is therefore no necessity for the words ‘or less ‘. It is purely a consequential amendment to the last amendment passed by the Committee.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

– I want to say to the Minister for Science (Mr Morrison) that he has had a win at last. The logic appeals to me. It is rather like a person being caught without any trousers on. He has to do something about it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13.

Section 99 of the Principal Act is amended-

  1. by omitting from sub-section (1) the words ‘standards determined by the Board’ and substituting the words ‘determinations made by the Authority under sub-section (3) of section 16’; and

  2. by omitting sub-section (2) and substituting the following sub-section:-

    1. If the programs broadcast from a commercial broadcasting station or televised from a commercial television station are not, in whole or in part, in accordance with determinations made by the Authority under sub-section (3) of section 16, the licensee shall, if so directed by the Authority, vary the programs so that they do so conform. ‘.
Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

-I move:

Omit the clause.

The argument with respect to this amendment has already been canvassed. I would not seek to inflict any further distress upon the Committee by repeating it.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 14 (Advertisements).

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

-The Opposition is opposed to the proposal by the Government to omit the words ‘on a Sunday’. I explain to the Committee that the existing provision provides in sub-section (5) of section 100 that a licensee shall not broadcast or televise advertisements on a Sunday except in such manner and in accordance with such conditions as the Board determines. The Government is seeking to omit from sub-section (5) of section 100 the words ‘on a Sunday’. That means that the Board would have complete control at all times over what advertisements are broadcast ot televised and in what manner they are presented. They will have to be in accordance with such conditions as the Board determines. The effect of the amendment proposed by the Government is this: The Board would have for all purposes at all times complete control over the entire advertising activities relating to broadcasting and television. I hark back to the robust observation made by the honourable member for Kingston (Dr Gun) during this debate when he said: ‘Speaking for myself, I certainly would like to see the entire television industry nationalised and socialised’. A very swift way of doing it is simply to control the advertising of all the broadcasting and television stations for all purposes at all times. That is the reason why the Opposition is objecting to the Government’s proposal.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

-There is in fact no amendment. The Opposition is voting against the clause.

Mr KILLEN:

– That is so.

Question put:

That clause 14 be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 59

NOES: 54

Majority……. 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to.

Proposed new clause 16a.

Mr KILLEN:
More ton

-Mr Chairman, I move:

After clause 1 6, insert the following new clause: -

Section 1 34 of the Principal Act is amended- by inserting after paragraph (c) of sub-section ( 1 ) the following paragraph: - (ca) empowering the Authority to give or issue a direction to all or any of the persons holding licences under this Act being directions with respect to matters affecting-

the hours during which programs or programs containing matter of any class or character specified in the regulation may be broadcast or televised;

the conditions subject to which advertisements may be broadcast or televised by licensees; and

rules and standards to be observed in licensees in relation to the broadcasting of programs from commercial broadcasting stations or to be observed by licensees in relation to the televising of programs from commercial television stations, including rules or standards with respect to the nature and content of programs; ‘;

by inserting after sub-section ( 1 ) the following subsection: “( 1a) The Regulations empowering the giving of a direction referred to in paragraph 1 (ca) shall prescribe the criteria to be observed by the Authority and shall not authorize the giving of directions which discriminate unfairly in favour of or against any holder of a licence under Part IV of this Act. “; and

by omitting from sub-section (2) “the last preceding sub-section “and substituting “sub-section (1)”.’.

This is the last amendment standing in my name. I do not seek to recapitulate the argument which I sought to press upon the Committee from the very beginning of this debate. I content myself with saying this: I have a very deep conviction that the only shield that people have from great powers is that those powers should be narrowly defined. The Government has been reluctant and unwilling to define those powers narrowly. The Government has been reluctant and unwilling to use that system of parliamentary superintendence which I have sought to contend during the course of today’s debate has great virtue. I have lost the argument because the Government has the splendid comfort of the numbers. But the time will come, I say to the Minister for Science (Mr Morrison), when the wheel will turn full circle. When this happens, we will be able to reverse some of the melancholy amendments which the honourable gentleman has introduced into this Act.

Mr MORRISON:
Minister for Science · St George · ALP

– I must say that it is encouraging to see that the honourable gentleman from Moreton (Mr Killen) has put that proposition on this legislation. I must say also that on the first occasion when the Opposition’s spokesman on the media was asked to comment on this legislation, her argument was that television stations should practise their own ethics without government enforced standards. Of course, this becomes the whole crunch. I think that Senator Guilfoyle was not expressing her own point of view. I have far too great an estimate of her ability and also her attitude to such matters. What she really was doing was expressing the viewpoint of those whom the Opposition parties represent. Therefore it was refreshing when the honourable member for Moreton put forward a series of proposals. As I have already indicated, we understand the general intent of what he is seeking to achieve. Unfortunately we did not have sufficient time to consider his amendments in detail but, as I also said earlier, the Government will give his suggestions consideration when the matter is taken up in the other place.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

-May I say briefly that I am sure Senator Guilfoyle will be flattered indeed to hear of the observations made by the Minister for Science. The views she expressed on that occasion are the views of the entire Opposition. What right does any statutory body gain to have a judgment in relation to community standards which is superior to that of the community itself? This, of course, is a point of contention between honourable gentlemen opposite and those of us who sit on this side. I represent no vested interest whatever. I represent no television interest whatever. But I have a sense of conviction about the operation of statutory bodies and that is, briefly, that their operations should be subject to the maximum of parliamentary scrutiny. That was the argument we sought to impress upon the Government today. I think the Minister has moved a little but he still has a long way to travel before he reaches what we would regard as the desideratum in this matter. The views expressed by Senator Guilfoyle were expressed with characteristic frankness and with a characteristic sense of perception.

Proposed new clause negatived.

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

Bill reported with amendments; report- by leave- adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 3351

BROADCASTING STATIONS LICENCE FEES BILL 1974

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 3 October on motion by Dr Cass:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 3351

TELEVISION STATIONS LICENCE FEES BILL 1974

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 3 October on motion by Dr Cass:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 3351

LOANS (AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AIRLINES COMMISSION) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 26 September on motion by Mr Crean:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr MORRISON:
Minister for Science · St George · ALP

- Mr Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procudure on this legislation. Before the debate is resumed on this Bill I should like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill, the loans (Qantas Airways Ltd) Bill and the Airline Equipment (Loan Guarantee) Bill as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest, therefore, Mr Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of the 3 Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering these 3 measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr NIXON:
Gippsland

-These 3 Bills are to enable borrowings to be made on behalf of Qantas Airways Ltd, Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia for new aircraft. In the case of Qantas, the Export-Import Bank of the United States of America has agreed to finance 30 per cent of the cost of the tenth Boeing 747 aircraft and has agreed to Australia obtaining finance for a further 10 per cent from a private export funding corporation. The remainder of the finance for the 3 aircraft involved has to be met by the Australian Government borrowing on behalf of Qantas. With respect to TAA, Export-Import Bank facilities are not available on this occasion and consequently the Australian Government will borrow the entire amount and will act as intermediary in the arrangements. The third Bill, which is traditionally introduced at the same time as the Loans (Australian National Airlines Commission) Bill, is the Airline Equipment (Loan Guarantee) Bill which provides a Government guarantee for a $ 19m loan to be raised by Ansett Airlines for the purchase of two more Boeing 727 aircraft.

The Opposition does not oppose these arrangments or the aircraft involved. The acquisition of three additional Boeing 747 aircraft brings to eleven the Qantas fleet of these aircraft. The procurement decisions of Qantas must be dictated by market requirements. This is a critical time for world airlines which are experiencing the combined effects of greatly increased fuel costs and a dramatic slow-down in passenger growth. Recently one international aviation executive said that the world would come to realise that the golden age of air transport- an era of increasing services and decreasing fares- was over. British Airways is in a serious financial position. Pan American Airways and Trans World Airlines are contemplating merger. Qantas is relatively well placed, due in no small part to the effect on its profitability of the introduction of Boeing 747 aircraft which are being phased in as the older Boeing 707 aircraft are being phased out.

In addition, Australia is self-sufficient in aviation kerosene. This has helped to reduce fuel costs. This brings me to the extraordinary actions of the Government in respect of fuel prices. Recently we read that the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor), in his usual bumble-footed fashion, had decided to increase the price of aviation fuel to overseas airlines, including Qantas, from 1 5c per gallon to 35c per gallon. We read of a $25m windfall being created for oil producers including, of course, the so-called multinational corporations. We have not been told whether the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones), who is sitting at the table, was party to this but it all came out of the charge that overseas airlines somehow were taking on board more fuel than they needed because of the lower price.

The fact that unilateral action by any government is contrary to the International Air Transport Association agreement- an international agreement- seems not to bother this Government one whit and whatever its failings LATA does bring some rationalisation into the international airways industry and is, therefore, deserving of proper consideration. The upshot of the whole affair has been to cause the SecretaryGeneral of LATA to come to Australia to prevent the collapse of the international agreement because of the stupidity of the Australian Government acting in haste. As a result of his visit we now read that the price of aviation fuel had not been increased after all. What is the truth of the matter? Perhaps the Minister at the table might care to tell us. One thing is certain; the whole episode is another example of this Government’s shooting from the hip and not hitting any target.

One result of the world increase in fuel prices is that the prospects for the Concorde look increasingly bleak as this aircraft is not only extremely expensive but is also a large user of fuel and has a limited pay load of about only 110 seats. Because of range restrictions its effective time to London is a little less than that made possible by the new long-range Boeing 747 SPs. Both Ansett Airlines of Australia and Trans- Australia Airlines under this legislation are seeking to purchase 2 additional 727-200 series tri-jets The airlines apparently believe that these are very suitable aircraft for the present traffic on domestic routes. However, the domestic airlines are being pressed by the Minister for Transport to move beyond these aircraft into the new generation of wide bodies- aircraft such as the DC 10, the Lockheed TriStar or the Air Bus A300. The advantage of these aircraft is said to be their relative quietness due to the new technology engines they use. But clearly there is argument in the industry as to the truth on this matter. Exactly how much quieter they really are than the latest versions of the Boeing 727s is a matter of some debate. Tests so far show that the new Boeing 727-200 model is at least the equal of the wide bodied aircraft.

The problem as far as the airlines are concerned is that these are very large capacity aircraft. Given a limited market growth estimated to be no more than 4 per cent per annum and the impact on operating costs of new Government charges, the effects of the introduction of a 300-seat airbus such as the Lockheed TriStar on airline profitability are obvious. In addition, there is the added problem of the time required and the expenses involved in introducing a new aircraft type with the need for orderly and planned development of airport, terminal area and engineering support facilities. The decision on what aircraft to purchase will be, as far as the domestic airlines are concerned, the aviation decision of the decade. Each aircraft will cost in the vicinity of A$20m. In the case of the wide bodies, I do not believe that the Minister should be too aggressive in insisting upon a premature introduction of these aircraft. I know that the Minister hopes the introduction of wide-bodied jets will solve the problems of overcrowding at Sydney Airport. But there are other complex problems involved in their introduction and it would not be in the interests of anyone if the result was an increase in air fares, uneconomic airlines and a reduction in the ability of the Australian public to have access to air travel. Above all, what is urgently needed from the Minister for Transport is some indication of what noise standards he is specifically seeking. Something more specific is required than the Minister’s cupping his ear under the aircraft at Mascot. Some scientifically valid noise requirement guidelines should be published.

Australia has the unenviable reputation of having the highest government charges in the world applicable to its airline industry. I seek leave to include in Hansard- and I am sorry that I was not able to give these figures to the Minister earlier but he was not in the House at the timefigures from Qantas Airways Ltd showing landing charges at different ports around the world. They show as of 16 August 1973 that for a Boeing 747 the landing fees at Sydney are $2,538 or 250 per cent greater than Auckland, and in most cases around the world the variation is even greater. For example, the charge in London is $815 compared to $2,538 in Sydney, $453 in Honolulu and $830 in Singapore. These figures will have changed with alterations to currency values and also because of increases in cost but doubtless the relativities are much the same.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Berinson)Order! Does the honourable member seek leave to have this material incorporated in Hansard?

Mr NIXON:

– Yes.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Charles Jones:

– If I might just seek the indulgence of the House for one second, whilst I have no objection to this material being incorporated in Hansard I think it should be clearly understood that in the United States of America, for example, there are many other charges -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! It is not possible for the Minister to make that point at this time. The Minister will have the right of reply later.

Mr Charles Jones:

– It gives a false impression.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr NIXON:

-The Minister made the point in his second reading speech. He may refer back to the matter I have just raised when he is replying to the other charges. Nevertheless the fact remains that Australia has the unenviable reputation of having the highest government charges in the world applicable to its airline industry. In Australia the stated policy of the Government is for airline passengers to pay their own way by raising government navigation and landing charges as a charge on air fares. This policy of self-sufficiency is further illustrated by the decision taken in the 1973-74 Budget to phase out government financial support for rural air services. That decision, coupled with increased aviation charges in the 1974-75 Budget, has hit very hard at the Australian aviation industry. If the Australian airline passenger, whether he flies the main trunk routes or the less popular rural routes, is expected the meet the full cost of ground facilities, it should be asked why the road user is not expected to pay through tollway charges, the cost of road transport. Similarly, there would be no reason if that logic were carried through why the taxpayer should support in any way railways by providing funds for the construction of railway lines, or shipping by providing funds for port construction. Obviously one’s attitude depends very much on whether one regards airline travel as purely an economic proposition or as a public service.

To a large extent I believe that rural services should be considered a public service to be supported by the Government because of their valuable social role. In the same sense the Post Office does not insist on charging rural users the full cost of every service because of the social importance of communication to isolated Australians.

Yet the Government’s decisions will mean the deathknell for many rural airline services. Higher landing fees, rental for hangars, and air navigation charges are threatening many local services throughout Australia. In looking at international comparisions it is worth asking why our Government charges are so high in relation to other countries. It is also wothwhile asking whether, if airlines had a choice in the government services they are paying for, they would choose the same airport facilities as are provided. The Department of Transport is in the position of the monopoly supplier of airport facilities to customers who have no choice but to pay. The Department is a monopoly supplier but it is certainly not satisfying either the public or those engaged in the industry about its attitude towards aviation and especially general aviation which provides so much of the necessary back-up services throughout this vast nation.

Last year the Government increased general aviation charges by 100 per cent with a 15 per cent increase in air navigation charges. This year there is a further impost of 50 per cent for general aviation on aircraft under 9,000 kilograms and a further increase of 1 5 per cent in air navigation charges. Blind Freddie can see that increases of this magnitude at a time when there is a severe downturn in the economy will have serious repercussions within general aviation. Of course, it is true to say that the policy of recovery of costs was adopted by an earlier Liberal-Country Party government, but we were not so stupid in Government as to force industry into bankruptcy through trying to increase government charges at a destructive rate. To increase charges in such a fashion is inflationary in terms of costs and at the same time it is endangering the viability of the industry. Some estimates are that 75,000 jobs are in jeopardy throughout general aviation. The Minister should have been much more sympathetic and understanding about the problems of general aviation and the important role it has in providing specialist services throughout Australia. This lack of understanding is explainable if what I have read is correct The Minister can tell me the truth of it I read that the Minister has refused to listen to submissions from the General Aviation Association. The Minister should take the Association into consultation, especially before he continues his arbitrary and dangerous policy about the downgrading of certain airports and their services.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Berinson)Order! I think the honourable member is ranging very far wide of these Bills. All 3 Bills relate to loans for various types of equipment. For the honourable member to spread bis remarks to the areas with which he is now dealing is stretching it a bit far.

Mr NIXON:

– I appreciate your concern, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I shall stay with the Bill. To finish this one point I should like to say that I understand that the industry sent a telegram to the Minister pointing out that there are 3 times as many people per aircraft employed by the Department of Transport in this country as there are by the Federal aviation authority in the United States and that vast economies could be achieved if there were consultation with the general aviation industry. I think that matter is relevant, with great respect, Sir, because how can one divorce the administrative side of the airport industry from the practical side?

The Minister places great stress in his speech on the efforts being undertaken to achieve economies in the civil aviation area. He has pointed out as an example that flight service units have been withdrawn from Flinders Island, Woomera and Mangalore at a saving of about $60,000 a year. In addition fire services have been withdrawn from Mangalore, Derby, Narromine and Broken Hill at a saving of about $100,000. The Minister goes on to point out:

The gap is being narrowed from the cost side. The Australian community will no longer have to bear the cost of inefficient allocation of resources.

Let me repeat those last words:

The Australian community will no longer have to bear the cost of inefficient allocation of resources.

I do not know how the Minister can measure safety in civil aviation in such terms. Whilst the

Minister has named only 4 airports that are to lose fire services, a great number of other airports are in line for a similar fate. I refer to the minutes of a meeting held between the Air Transport Group and the unions affected by the cuts. These minutes state quite clearly that the withdrawal of fire services is under consideration for Archerfield in Queensland; Bankstown, Dubbo, Camden and Tamworth in New South Wales; Moorabbin in Victoria; Parafield in South Australia; Jandakot and Geraldton in Western Australia; and Devonport or Wynyard in Tasmania. Other airports which have heavy seasonal requirements, such as Cooma, are also under consideration. The estimated saving per annum for all these airports is only about $530,000. Some of these airports have very heavy regular traffic. Clearly the charge that the maintenance of fire services is an inefficient allocation of resources is a dangerous one. The Minister has a clear obligation and indeed duty to reconsider his decision.

Australia has the world’s best record in civil aviation. This has been achieved only by patient and careful attention to every aspect of pilot training, to areodromes, the aircraft involved and in setting high safety standards throughout the whole industry. Now, in the so-called interest of efficient use of resources, these safety standards are to be lowered. Safety cannot be measured just in terms of efficient use of resources. I have here a copy of an article that has been sent to me by Mr Rex Banks, the Director of Public Affairs for Qantas Airways Ltd. The headline states: ‘Safety is no Accident’. In the whole of this article he goes to extreme lengths to point out how it is that Qantas has such a high safety record. Certainly safety is no accident so far as Qantas is concerned. I suggest to the Minister that safety is no accident so far as civil aviation in Australia is concerned. Once we start lowering our sights and flittering away the edges by removal of fire services and other facilities I believe that the civil aviation industry is heading for trouble. I ask the Minister to reconsider what he is doing in that regard. Indeed, on that very same subject -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! Before proceeding on that very same subject I ask the honourable member to deal with the subject of these Bills, as he undertook to do a little while ago.

Mr NIXON:

-Thank you. The point I am making, of course, is that these Bills are for the purpose of buying new aircraft. It is pointless buying new aircraft for Australian industry, for Qantas or for anybody else if we are going to endanger those who fly in them by frittering away the safety services. I think I have a valid point to make in respect of the number of aerodromes that the Minister is presently attacking. So, I make my point. I recognise that these are narrowly drawn Bills, but there has to be a relationship between the Bills and the purposes of the Bills to buy aircraft, the use of the aircraft and the facilities around them.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Nonetheless, the honourable member has extended the area far enough. Will he please come back to the Bill.

Mr NIXON:

– Thank you. I will do my best. If I could just finish that one point about Dubbo -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I would prefer you not to finish that point about Dubbo. That was the line you took 10 minutes ago. I think you should come back to the specific items with which we are now dealing, namely, loans for aircraft and equipment.

Mr NIXON:

– You are making it very hard indeed for me, Sir.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– You are making it much harder for me.

Mr NIXON:

– There are several other matters to which I want to draw attention. I thought the title of this Bill would permit me to do so. If you are to rule me out of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, it will be most difficult. The matter is not related to the Air Navigation Charges Bill. For example, there has been a dispute about the pay rise given to Qantas pilots. Can I touch on that?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– No. I do not think you can.

Mr NIXON:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, are you going to confine me strictly to the severe limits of 3 loan Bills?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The honourable member can hardly claim to have been severely restricted. I am asking him, in a general way, to restrict himself to some extent.

Mr NIXON:

-I was talking about the loan Bills and what would be the purpose of purchasing 3 Boeing 747s if the pilots will not fly them. So, can I enter into a discussion about the Qantas pay dispute? I seek a ruling from the chair.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I rule that that is beyond the scope of these Bills.

Mr Martin:

– It is a pretty narrow Bill.

Mr NIXON:

-It must be narrow all right. All I am allowed to talk about is the 3 loan Bills. What we are doing is raising money overseas to buy 3 Qantas aircraft. We are raising money for TransAustralia Airlines to buy 2 Boeing 727-200s and for Ansett Airlines of Australia to buy 2 Boeing 727-200s. Jolly good luck to all of them. It is quite obvious that, under the tide of this Bill, I am not allowed to discuss any of the important peripheral matters which are of great concern to the civil aviation industry in Australia. I hope that when the Air Navigation Charges Bill, on which I have a lot to say, comes into the House next week, I will be allowed some tolerance on the Bill to raise matters of general aviation. With great respect, Sir, when I was Minister for Transport a couple of years ago the present Minister used to take great liberties on Bills, but quite clearly I am not going to be permitted to do so. So, all I can say is we do not oppose the Bills, we are delighted to see the 3 Bills come in together and the Opposition therefore has little else to say.

Mr MARTIN:
Banks

-After listening to the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon) speaking for, I think, some 23V4 minutes, of which about 1 minute was spent debating the Bills, I think it probably would be advisable for the sake of the Hansard record to show which Bills we are debating. Three Bills are now being debated in the House. The first is the Loans (Australian National Airlines Commission) Bill. The second is the Loans (Qantas Airways Limited) Bill. The third is the Airline Equipment (Loan Guarantee) Bill.

It is important not only for the record but also for members of this House to know just what each of these 3 Bills is all about. The Loans (Australian National Airlines Commission) Bill seeks the approval of Parliament for Australia to borrow an amount not exceeding the equivalent of $US19m or $A14.5m to assist the Australian National Airlines Commission, which is TAA, in financing the purchase of its fifth and sixth Boeing 727-200 jet aircraft, spare parts and related equipment at an estimated cost of approximately $US24.5m or $A1 8.72m. I mention those figures in the Bill just to make sure that following speakers know what the Bills are about.

The second Bill, the Loans (Qantas Airways Limited) Bill 1974, seeks the approval of Parliament for borrowings by Australia not exceeding the equivalent of $US91m or $A69.5m to assist Qantas Airways Limited in financing the purchase of its ninth, tenth and eleventh Boeing 747 aircraft, spare parts and related equipment at an estimated cost of approximately $US145m or $A87.5m. The third Bill now being debated in the House is the Airline Equipment (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1974. The main purpose of this Bill is to seek authority of the Treasurer to guarantee on behalf of the Australian Government loans raised by Ansett Transport Industries

Ltd to finance the purchase of 2 Boeing 727-200 aircraft. Fundamentally, what this Government is doing in reality is a continuation of the past practices of previous governments and in keeping with the 2-airline agreement in relation to our own domestic airlines, as the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) and the Treasurer (Mr Crean) have set out in their second reading speeches.

I point out as regards what I shall call the TAA loan Bill that the legislation is to authorise the raising a loan of US$ 1 9m, which is 80 per cent of the purchase price of the airline’s fifth and sixth Boeing 727-200 aircraft. The balance of the purchase price is being arranged by TAA from its own resources. TAA will raise the US$1 9m on the international capital market at an interest rate which would be more favourable than if the money were raised on the Australian market. As was pointed out by the Minister in his second reading speech, unfortunately the facilities of the Export-Import Bank of the United States of America could not be availed of on this occasion. The reason for this is that firm orders for the Boeing aircraft had been placed before the recent Government decision to revert to making use of overseas sources of finance for the purchase of capital equipment by Government transport authorities in Australia.

I also point out that the funds as set out in this Bill are to be used for the Boeing 727-200s which I think are commonly known in the trade as the stretched Boeing, and this applies to purchases both by TAA and by Ansett of these Boeing aircraft. In other words, Ansett is getting two 727-200s and so is TAA. Thus they will still maintain their aircraft fleet at the same number, and the same numbers of various aircraft. I commend the action of TAA and of Ansett in acquiring these Boeings, for several reasons. I understand from authoritative sources that the 727-200s have a much lower noise level and are noticeably quieter than the Boeing 727- 100s which are currently being used by both domestic airlines. This Government is very conscious of noise levels, particularly of aircraft. It is conscious of noise levels everywhere. There are noise levels going around the country even at this stage but on various subjects. But this Government is very conscious of noise levels of aircraft, particularly as they affect the lives of people living close to airports. For this reason I commend both airlines for acquiring the 727-200s which have a noticeably lower noise level.

There is another aspect of the acquisition of these Boeing 727-200s which in the running of a domestic or an international airline is of great value, that is, the carrying capacity of the aircraft. I understand that the Boeing 727-200s have an approximate increase of 30 per cent in passenger loading capacity compared to the 727- 100s. Consequently, there should be and there will be a saving in fuel requirements per passenger mile or passenger kilometre as is now used. This will be a saving not only to the operators; it will also be a cost saving for Australia itself. As members of this House recognise and realise not only Australia but the whole of the world is going through a fuel and energy crisis and if the aircraft that are being acquired by Qantas, TAA and Ansett have a higher carrying capacity it should be possible for fewer trips to be made or fewer schedules to be operated as between say, the major capital cities- Melbourne to Brisbane, Melbourne to Sydney, Sydney to Melbourne and so on. If those air schedules are reduced by the greater carrying capacity of these aircraft- I am informed that that is the situationit would mean that instead of having parallel schedules as we have now we could have more competitive schedules and more reasonable schedules between the major capital cities and fewer planes flying to carry the same number of people. This Will not only save costs but it will also help the operators, Ansett and TAA. Also the lower number of aircraft in the air at any one time should be a real benefit to the people who live adjacent to airports because of the reduction of noise nuisance. Also the cost saving by the acquisition of these 727-200 aircraft should have the effect of stabilising the rate of any future domestic airline fare increases. I would not think it will lead to a lowering in the existing air fares because with the costs going up I think that would be a wild dream at the moment. The utilisation of aircraft of this type, whether they are called stretched Boeing aircraft or air buses, could have the effect of stabilising the present rise in the cost of running aircraft.

I think that Ansett Transport Industries has much to gain from the provisions of the Airline Equipment (Loan Guarantee) Bill. It is a big thing for any company, including Ansett, to have the benefit of a Government guaranteed loan on the international market. This is what Ansett Transport Industries will receive. In the past the same arrangements have been made for Ansett Transport Industries and I understand that the guaranteed loans of Ansett Transport Industries at present still exceed $35m. I think that gives the lie to various statements which are made in the House and outside the House that this Australian Labor Party Government is out to wreck Ansett

Transport Industries and will have only one airline, a Government controlled one. When this Government guarantees loans for Ansett Transport Industries it gives the lie to those oftrepeated statements that this Government will have only a Government monopoly airline.

I am very pleased to see that in the acquisition of these 727-200 aircraft offset arrangements have been made with Boeing on the basis of 10 per cent of the purchase price being utilised in such offset arrangements. It is very important to have firm arrangements in these days when we have so many problems. There are problems, and it is no use hiding them. We have problems in our aircraft industry in Australia. In reality, as far as I know, only one type of aircraft is currently being manufactured profitably in Australia, and that is the Nomad. I think it is most important that we make firm arrangements, and preferably make more generous offset arrangements, in the future when purchasing aircraft to make sure that as a country we get adequate offset arrangements. It is important to maintain the manufacturing side of the aircraft industry. I realise that on a volume basis and on a competitive basis it is extremely difficult for us to match overseas manufacturers’ prices.

I commend to the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) the thought that in future arrangements for the acquisition of aircraft from overseas he should press for an offset arrangement equivalent to more than the 10 per cent provided for in the Airline Equipment (Loan Guarantee) Bill.

I do not intend to take up the time of the House because I know that there is plenty of business which members will want to discuss, but I would like to comment upon the Loans (Qantas Airways Ltd) Bill. The Export-Import Bank of the United States of America is providing 30 per cent of the purchase price of the aircraft at a fixed interest rate of 7 per cent over a 10-year period. In current times that is a pretty generous arrangement. The Private Export Funding Corporation of the United States of America will provide 10 per cent of the purchase price. That will also be at a fixed rate but the higher rate of 9% per cent. Qantas will provide 20 per cent of the purchase price from its own resources. It is anticipated that the remaining 40 per cent of the finance required by Qantas will be raised on the international capital market in Europe at an interest rate which would be more favourable than if the money were raised in Australia at the present time.

I agree with the principles as set out in the Bills and I commend both Ministers- the Treasurer who is handling 2 Bills and the Minister for Transport who is handling the other- for the manner in which they have put thought, effort and, I think, wisdom into the decision making which led up to the presentation of the 3 Bills before us today. I commend each of the 3 Bills to the House.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

-I was most interested to hear the honourable member for Banks (Mr Martin), who has just resumed his seat, defending the 2-airline policy and pledging his support to that policy. It is a great relief to us to hear that all members on the Government side are not dedicated to the destruction of private enterprise absolutely. I can only say that I think it was courageous of the honourable member for Banks to speak in this way because I think it may be in contravention of the received doctrine in the Australian Labor Party platform. He may indeed have endangered his preselection at the hands of the moguls of the ALP by giving vent to sentiments which, however commendable, seem to me to be at variance with the platform of the ALP. But I let that pass, simply saying that I was happy to hear the remarks of the honourable member for Banks. I think it was courageous of him to take a line which is an heretical line, if I may so call it, in relation to the platform of his own Party. There is rejoicing on this side of the House at even one lost lamb coming over to the Opposition side and seeing the light.

Honourable members speaking to this legislation have tended to concentrate on the technicalities of the airline. I intend to say something rather about the substance of the legislation itself and the technicalities not so much of the airline as of the raising of finance in a way which this legislation authorises and indeed which is the object of this legislation. First, I ask the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) a question: How does this procedure fit in with the Loan Council arrangements and the Financial Agreement with the States? I have no doubt that the Treasury has looked at this aspect very carefully and I have no doubt that the provisions of the agreement are being kept, but I would just like to know- I would like the Minister to tell me specifically- how this legislation fits in with the Financial Agreement and the obligations of the Commonwealth Government in respect of the Loan Council.

This virtually is an agreement or a proposal for raising debenture money overseas. As such I think it is to be commended at the present juncture, because there is no doubt that the Government by its refusal up to now to allow such money to come in has been responsible for the credit squeeze and responsible therefore for the tragic unemployment we are experiencing in the community. I do not want to say that the Government planned this unemployment directly. I do not know whether it did or did not. It may be that the Government is talking with 2 voices and really meant to cause unemployment in order to control the economy in the Labor way. I do not charge this directly against the Government because it may not be so. It may be that the credit squeeze and the unemployment which has followed have simply occurred because the Government was incompetent; that members of the Government were fools and not evil doers; that they did not understand the consequences of their actions and for that reason we have been faced in Australia with a massive wave of unemployment, the worst which we have ever had. It is no good for the Government to say: ‘We did not mean to do it. Labor never wants to have unemployment’. The plain brute fact is that by its mishandling of the financial situation, which comes right back to what is contained in this legislation, the Government has created in Australia the greatest wave of unemployment that we have ever had.

Sitting suspended from 6.14 to 8 p.m.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– When the House rose for dinner I was speaking on the Loans (Australian National Airlines Commission) Bill. I have now been asked to defer the rest of my remarks so that the Prime Minister may make a statement and it is my intention in a moment to do so. I believe the Prime Minister should be given an opportunity to apologise to Australia for his gross deception at the May elections when he promised full employment, reasonable interest rates and stabilising prices. I believe the Prime Minister -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! That is not relevant to the Bill before the House. The Bill before the House deals with airlines and I ask the honourable gentleman to confine his remarks to the Bill, otherwise I will ask him to resume has seat.

Mr WENTWORTH:

- Mr Speaker, I was speaking on the airlines Bill and I have -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I listened to the honourable gentleman before the suspension of the sitting. He was speaking on the Bill then, but he is not now.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-I was speaking before the suspension on the airlines Bill, and if the House would like me to continue my remarks for a quarter of an hour I shall do so. But in deference to the Prime Minister I would be happy to defer to him. After all, he should be given an opportunity to announce the retreat from Moscow.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I shall ask the honourable gentleman to resume his seat if he does not intend to speak to the Bill before the Chair. If the honourable gentleman continues to refuse to obey the Chair I will ask him to resume his seat.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-I am only trying to meet the wishes of the Prime Minister.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! For the last time, if the honourable gentleman refuses to obey the Chair I will ask him to resume his seat.

Mr WENTWORTH:

- Sir, I agree with you. I am just trying to give the Prime Minister a chance to apologise. I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later hour this evening.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 3359

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Ministerial Statement

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP

- Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a statement on the economy.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr WHITLAM:

-Introducing the Budget in September the Treasurer (Mr Crean) emphasised the importance of maintaining the utmost flexibility in responding to economic developments. (Opposition members interjecting)-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The House will come to order. The honourable member for Barker will remain silent.

Mr WHITLAM:

– The Treasurer stated:

Should the need arise, we stand ready during the year to take action on the expenditure or the revenue side of the Budget to give a quick stimulus to demand and employment.

Our underlying purpose is to create conditions for co-operation and restraint. The measures I shall announce tonight are designed to further that aim. The Australian economy is beset by the twin problems of rapid inflation and rising unemployment. We share these problems with all comparable countries. (Opposition members interjecting)-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I intend to take action if the House does not cease this rowdyism. If members of the Opposition continue to carry on in this way I will take the appropriate action immediately. I have issued the last warning.

Mr WHITLAM:

-The two problems are universal but their concurrence is unique in modern times. The Australian Government, therefore, like the Governments of all comparable countries, faces problems of economic management of unparalleled complexity, uncertainty and difficulty. For all governments and for most nations these are testing times. In the final analysis the test concerns not the basic strength of national economies- and Australia’s basic strength is indisputable- but the strength of nerve and will on the part of governments and people alike.

It is essential therefore that the people of Australia should understand what is happening and why. Concern- real and genuine concernmust not give way to despair, for the situation is difficult and changes are occurring with unprecedented speed. They are not beyond control. The problems of the rapid rise in unemployment and continuing steep rise in prices and costs are interlocked. The rate of wage and salary increases has easily outstripped the rate of increase in prices. The consequential squeeze on profits has been sharp. This has in turn led to a loss of confidence by business in its ability to obtain an adequate return on capital in an inflationary environment

Employees can price themselves out of the market as effectively as business can. There are signs that this is happening. As the Treasurer said recently, in current circumstances: ‘One man’s larger paypacket may mean another man’s job.’ Employers are economising on labour, scaling down their operations and their investment and hence the employment opportunities they provide. The rapid increase in wage costs which businesses have experienced introduces an element of uncertainty in business calculations which greatly increases the risk involved in making new investments.

The Government’s immediate concern must be to stop and reverse the downturn. The decline in employment and overtime now evident will reflect itself in a weakening of demand in the near future. If unchecked, the downturn would begin feeding on itself. The Government has decided therefore to provide a further demand stimulus to the economy. The Government also intends to take action which strikes at the root of the cause of the present downturn, the high rate of inflation and the decline in business profitability. What is needed is a stimulus to the economy which increases demand whilst at the same time abating cost pressures and enhancing private profitability.

The Government has already taken a number of decisions on the exchange rate and on the supply of money- the most recent of which were announced on Sunday by the Treasurer- which will substantially lift business confidence. These measures add up to a very substantial relaxation of monetary policy, and financial conditions can be expected to become a good deal easier in the months ahead than they have been in the recent past. In the past week the Governor of the Reserve Bank has written to the banks requesting them to increase appreciably their rate of new lending and I would expect to see a prompt response by the banks. Some savings banks are already stepping up the rate of their housing loan approvals.

The new measures I announce tonight are designed firstly, to maintain consumer demand through a substantial reduction in personal income tax; secondly, to attack inflation by reducing the pressure for wage increases through a substantial improvement in after tax take home pay next year and specifically to break the wageprice spiral by giving business a breathing space in wage demands based on price increases in the December quarter; thirdly, to enhance profitability by a reduction in company tax, by requesting the Prices Justification Tribunal to give particular consideration to the adequacy of return on capital and by urgently investigating the implications of rapid inflation for the taxation of companies; and fourthly, to support particular industries where special problems are emerging.

The proposed measures together with the announcement made by the Treasurer on Sunday night represent decisive action to stimulate demand and employment, to contain the growth in money wages and to restore business confidence.

Personal Income Tax

The Government has decided to reduce further personal income tax. Honourable members will recall that in the 1974-75 Budget it was proposed that the rate scale be restructured to reduce income tax payable by $370m on a full year basis. We now propose to restructure the rate scale to apply to 1974-75 income in order to reduce income tax payable by an additional $650m. In total, then, the rate scale now to apply to 1974-75 incomes involves a tax cut of over $ 1,000m.

Additional tax relief was provided in the Budget in the form of a rebate of dependants’ allowances for low income families and deductibility of mortgage interest payments. These will cost the revenue close to $200m per annum. My announcement tonight thus brings the personal income tax cuts provided for by the Government this year to about $ 1 ,200m.

The new restructuring of the rate scale I am announcing tonight will have the effect of increasing the take home pay of most full time employees earning up to average weekly earnings by about 3 per cent. There will be lesser reductions at higher incomes. The precise details of the new rate scale are being made available separately.

As a consequence of the changes to the rate scale announced in the Budget as further modified by my announcement tonight, there will be very large reductions in tax payable by the average wage earner. Let me give 2 examples, both relating to a taxpayer with a dependent wife and 2 children and with other concessional deductions equal to 10 per cent of annual income. Such a taxpayer, earning $100 a week, would be liable for an annual tax of $568 on the basis of the 1973-74 rate scale. The new rate scale and the low income rebate will reduce this liability by $304 to $264, or by 54 per cent. His after-tax pay will be about 6Vi per cent more than it would have been without the tax cuts. The tax reductions will have raised his take-home pay by as much as an increase of 8 per cent in his income would have done. A taxpayer in similar family circumstances earning about $ 1 40 a week would be liable for an annual tax of $1,160 on the basis of the 1973-74 scale- the Liberal scale. The new rate scale will reduce this liability by $283 to $877, or by 24 per cent. His after-tax pay will be over 4.5 per cent greater than it would have been without the tax cuts. The effect of the tax reductions in his take-home pay will be equivalent to an increase of 5.75 per cent in his gross income.

It is proposed that the new rate scale announced tonight will be reflected in pay-as-you-earn deductions on pay days after 1 January 1975. PAYE deductions made from January on to the end of the financial year will be set at levels designed as far as possible to give the taxpayer the whole of the new tax reduction in respect of income year 1974-75 in the January-June halfyear. There will be, in consequence, an even more substantial percentage increase in takehome pay for most employees.

Housing Loan Interest: PAYE Deductions

The scheme of housing interest deductions for income tax purposes is to apply in respect of interest payments after 1 July 1974 as announced in the Treasurer’s Budget Speech. It is intended that as from the first pay day after 1 January 1975 employees will be able to arrange with their employers for adjustment of payasyouearn instalments to allow for the effect of the interest deduction. This will reinforce the impact of the general tax reduction by providing a further boost in take-home pay.

page 3361

QUESTION

INFLATION

These measures are designed to achieve the first objective I mentioned earlier, namely the maintenance of consumer demand. The substantial reduction in personal income tax, however, bears directly upon the second objective- the attack on inflation by reducing wage pressures. At present, applications are before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for the introduction of wage indexation- in other words, the automatic adjustment of wages to price increases. The Australian Government will play an active and positive role in these proceedings to support wage indexation on the basis of full compensation for price increases on a percentage basis up to the level of average weekly earnings, with a flat rate adjustment for higher incomes.

The recent level of increases in wages and salaries, both in terms of award and over-award rates, has been due in part to the need for trade unions to protect their members against substantial future price increases. A system of wage indexation would have the advantage of protecting the real purchasing power of wages and salaries generally. The hearing of claims coming from the Australian Council of Trade Unions and other employee organisations is to proceed during this month and in December, and the Government is hopeful for a decision from the Commission at the earliest possible date.

The Government is aware that there may be an understandable feeling amongst employees that too long a period will pass before the Commission is able to announce its decision. The Government will, therefore, make submissions before the Arbitration Commission to the effect that the changes in the rate of income tax, announced in my statement tonight, should be regarded by the Commission as compensation for the increase in the cost of living which is expected for the December quarter 1974. In other words, the Australian Government will be submitting to the Commission, in connection with the most appropriate date of the introduction of cost of living adjustments, that the anticipated increase in the consumer price index for the 3 months October, November and December 1 974, will be compensated for by the increases in take-home pay resulting directly from the reduction in personal income tax announced this evening.

The Government expects that the trade union movement, in the interests of its members, will co-operate with it by seeking the introduction of wage indexation in a way that will minimise inflationary pressures and avoid unjustified wage claims. Increases based on price movements in the December quarter, whether by arbitrated decision or by agreement would, in the Government’s view, not be justified. Present trends suggest that the commencement of a system of wage indexation would be fair and reasonable if it began with the consumer price index figure for the March quarter 1975.

The Australian Government will put to the Commission that it should take particular account of the tax reductions which are designed to protect the take-home pay of employees. To introduce cost of living adjustment on the basis of price increases in the present quarter would involve double counting- it would continue the dangerous cost and price increase harmful not only to the whole community but to the employment prospects of wage and salary earners.

Inflation must be restrained- to protect jobs as much as anything else. We will be making it clear wherever possible that money wage restraint is essential. Employees and their representatives will be fortified in the knowledge that steps are being taken in other areas to maintain and to advance real living standards. The re-introduction of cost of living adjustments would ensure that the real wages of employees are protected in the years ahead. In the transition period the Government tax cuts will preserve the value of their take-home pay.

The Budget tax cuts took effect in PAYE deductions this month and January pay packets will in addition reflect broadly double the cut we have now made in the rates announced in the Budget. Those employees arranging with thenemployers for adjustment of PAYE instalments to allow for the effect of housing interest payments will enjoy a further increase in take-home pay.

These benefits, and the submission to be made to the Arbitration Commission about the appropriate date for commencing cost of living adjustments, are actions and proposals which essentially go hand in hand and are meant to be related to each other. They will give the business community a breathing space from wage claims whilst ensuring that real wages are more than maintained. We have to break the vicious circle of prices chasing wages and wages chasing prices.

The Government is concerned that all employee organisations, all of Australia’s employees, should understand and be fully informed of the Government’s policy on pay fixation and related issues. The policies outlined in the Budget and the new measures announced tonight will improve the real wages of employees and are in this sense an alternative to wage claims. This approach will be discussed with employee organisations of all types and needs to be explained to all trade union members. In looking at the Government ‘s proposal to offer a tax cut in compensation for the cost of living changes for October, November and December of this year, it must not be overlooked that under this Labor Government wages and salaries have, in fact, more than kept pace with price increases.

The past year has been a year in which very substantial wage claims have been granted. In the 12 months to August 1974, the average award rate has risen by 43 per cent for adult females and by 27 per cent for adult males. The latest consumer price index figures available show an increase in prices of 16 per cent in the year to the September quarter 1974. The important fact is that, despite a period of rising prices, wage earners have had a good increase in their standard of living in that time.

I intend to encourage a program of visits by Ministers and Government members of Parliament to speak at trade union forums. They will outline the policies and objectives of the Government. This program of visits is in keeping with the principle of consultation and discussion which trade union organisations have often emphasised as being desirable.

The visits to trade union organisations will be a two-way process, with Ministers or Labor members of Parliament also receiving comments and questions on matters of interest and concern. It is expected that visits will be made to a variety of employee organisations including trades and labour councils in each State, white collar and Public Service organisations, annual conference of trade unions, Federal and State executive meetings, and also meetings of rank and file members during factory lunch-time periods etc Members of this Government have, of course, addressed many such gatherings.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for Stirling will remain silent.

Mr Viner:

– Well, I think it is important.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I warn the honourable member for Stirling.

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-The opportunity which the Government’s new proposals gives us to break the wage-price spiral requires a more systematic effort in the area of contact and consultation with trade union organisations.

The Private Sector

The third objective I stated earlier is to restore business confidence by enhancing profitability. The Government’s decision to cut personal taxes for some wage increases is particularly significant for the private sector, both in terms of costs and demand.

Business profits are being adversely affected by flagging demand and by the effects of inflation on cash flows and the replacement costs of assets. One consequence of declining profitability of business generally has been that the capacity and willingness of business to undertake new investment have been eroded.

The Government recognises these problems and is determined to correct them. The measures I have already announced should adequately deal with the decline in demand, even if, as is always the case, their full impact will be felt only after a lag. However, ultimately these measures will be ineffective unless they are accompanied by restored business confidence and profitability. It is an essential part of the Government’s present strategy that we should stop the profits slide, restore confidence and encourage renewed private investment.

The Treasurer announced in his Budget Speech that the rate of tax on both public and private companies in 1974-75, in respect of 1973-74, was to be 47 Vi per cent. The public company rate was already at that level and, as foreshadowed in the 1973-74 Budget, the private company rate was to be increased from 45 to 4716 per cent to bring the private and company rates together.

The Government has now decided that the rate on public and private companies in respect of 1973-74 income will be 45 per cent instead of 47 Vi per cent. The public company rate will therefore be reduced to Vh per cent below last year’s level, and the proposed increase in the private company rate will not take place. The Budget proposal would have applied a common rate to public and private companies; that will still occur, but the common rate will be 45 per cent and not 47 Vi per cent- the Liberal rate. A consequential reduction will be made to the rate on 1974-75 income of a superannuation fund that does not observe the 30-20 rule. The 1974-75 financial year rate for taxable income of cooperative and non-profit companies in excess of $10,000 will be 45 per cent in lieu of 47 per cent.

Prices Justification Tribunal

I now turn to the continuing role of the Prices Justification Tribunal. Since the Tribunal came into operation in August 1973, it has played an important part in our efforts to curb inflation. I believe that it has been very effective in concentrating the attention of companies on the need to restrain cost and price increases. Companies with wage and other cost increases in the pipeline are now finding that these increases are being examined more critically than they may have expected. There can be doubt that the Tribunal has been successful in restraining prices below the level to which they would have risen if the Government had not established the Tribunal.

The inflationary problem is now more complex than when the Tribunal was established. Rapid inflation is now accompanied by rising unemployment and a falling away in the private investment on which economic growth and our continued prosperity greatly depend.

One of the problems is that, in considering new investment projects, business is concerned about the prospects of maintaining worthwhile returns, not just in the immediate future, but over the whole economic life of the investments concerned, subject, of course, to normal market risks. The rapid inflation that we have experienced has added to the uncertainties.

I am therefore writing to the Prices Justification Tribunal to indicate the Government’s view that, in the present economic circumstances, it should now give particular attention to the problems of sustaining and stimulating an adequate level of private investment and of maintaining rates of return on capital which will induce the new investment required to maintain economic growth and employment.

The Tribunal will, of course, continue to act in accordance with its statutory responsibilities to ensure that prices are not set at levels which are higher than are properly justifiable and that companies are not passing on in prices avoidable increases in costs.

Tax Inquiry

It is well known that rapid inflation has a distorting effect on the taxation paid by persons and, in some circumstances, companies. The Government recognises that companies can be adversely affected by taxation treatment of depreciation and stock valuations. The tax measures I have announced tonight are directed towards meeting a particular situation but, in the longer run, it is important that attention in depth be paid to the question of whether there ought to be any changes in our taxation system to take account of the effects of inflation. Accordingly, the Government proposes to appoint a panel to report, by May 197S, on questions relating to the effects of inflation on taxation paid by persons and companies. Membership of the panel and the detailed terms of reference will be announced at a later date.

The fourth group of measures which I wish to mention this evening involves support for particular industries where special problems are emerging. The Government is concerned to preserve employment opportunities whilst ensuring that these interests are balanced against the nation’s longer term economic interests.

Housing

The Government has decided to increase further the availability of finance for housing. I mention that the Government has already approved no less than $3 10m for welfare housing purposes in 1974-75 and, after carefully reviewing the situation in Queensland, we have now agreed to provide a further $8m for welfare housing in that State.

Opposition supporters- -Oooh

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

-These funds, which include $127m to be channelled primarily through terminating building societies, are over 40 per cent more than those made available last year.

In the private sector considerable scope for increased lending for housing by the savings banks was provided in early September with the amendments to the Banking (Savings Banks) Regulations. At the same time the savings banks were requested to increase their loan approvals for housing. These amendments have enabled the savings banks to increase substantially thenlending for housing and, on present indications, loan approvals by the banks in the December quarter could be as much as 50 per cent higher than in the September quarter.

In addition to the stimulus being provided to housing activity in both the public and private sectors by these measures, we consider there is a need to supplement further the flow of finance for housing. Accordingly, we now intend to introduce legislation at an early date to appropriate $150m to the savings banks for lending for housing. The detailed arrangements will be discussed with the savings banks but the funds will be provided directly to them by the Government on terms and conditions to be agreed with the banks. They will be lent by the savings banks on the same terms and conditions as apply to normal savings bank loans financed by the banks from their own sources. They will be available to men and women for the acquisition or erection of homes and for extensions to existing homes.

I should make it clear that we gave careful consideration to the possibility of channelling some of these funds through the permanent building societies. However, in view of the more even geographic spread of savings banks and for ease of administration, we have decided to limit the scheme to the savings banks. The permanent building society movement has the Government’s full support in the role it is playing in providing home finance and we hope that societies will be able to expand lending from their own resources.

The purpose of the additional $ 1 50m is to provide an additional quick-acting stimulus to activity and employment in the home building industry. The funds made available to them under this measure will be used by the savings banks to increase further their rate of housing lending beyond the increased rate they have already been asked to achieve following the recent amendments to the Banking (Savings Banks) Regulations. The measure will provide an appropriate additional stimulus to the building industry at this time. It is a short-term measture geared to current circumstances. The Government is determined, however, to avoid a return to the boom conditions which were beneficial neither to the community nor to the industry. Home builders can plan ahead with confidence that the Government intends to ensure that loans will be available to home purchasers and that the significant increase in take-home pay, particularly from home interest tax deductibility, will enable purchasers to service their loans.

Motor Vehicles

The Government has been considering the long-term future of the motor vehicle industry for many months. The public debate and inquiry have been more open and intensive than any other industrial decision making process.

I am pleased to announce that the Government has approved in principle a long-term motor vehicle policy. In essence, the existing motor vehicle plans will be replaced by a single, simplified, lower content plan which will encourage longer production runs by both vehicle manufacturers and component producers. In addition, the Japanese motor vehicle industry has been invited to examine the new policy with a view to expanding its operations in Australia. As part of the long run policy and also because of the very high level of car imports, comprising over 40 per cent of registrations, relevant import duties will be generally increased by 10 per cent. These duties will be lowered again when imports fall to or below 20 per cent of registrations over a designated period. Details of the proposals will be announced in a separate statement. This decision should have an immediate effect but I wish to emphasise that this effect will occur within the context of a long-term plan for the development and rationalisation of the industry.

Textiles

The Government has paid particular attention to the present difficulties of the textile industry. It has established the Textiles Authority within the Industries Assistance Commission to examine cases, under the GATT arrangenment regarding international trade in textiles, for restraints by countries exporting textiles to Australia. Following the Authority’s first report in July, restraints have been negotiated for a wide range of knitted and woven apparel. I have just received the Authority’s second report covering yarns, knitted fabrics and towelling and will announce action on this in the very near future. I expect to refer further textiles matters to the Authority later this week. At the same time the Commission is reviewing the whole of the long-term protective requirements of the Australian clothing industry. The textiles industry is, of course, vitally important to the economy of a number of country areas and the Government has recently announced a scheme of special assistance, including the direct payment of subsidies, to firms which have been affected by certain Government decisions.

Beef

Another industry in which there is very great uncertainty at the present time is the cattle industry. We are aware of the very severe problems which have been caused by the closing off of many overseas markets. We are examining as a matter of urgency representations we have received from the industry seeking help for those producers who have been hardest hit by these developments. Any such assistance of course needs to be administratively feasible and directed to those least able to meet current problems.

Loan Guarantees

The Government’s adjustment assistance program is designed to assist firms to restructure their activities from uneconomic to economic areas of production. Loan guarantees are an integral part of the structural adjustment assistance measures announced on 23 April 1974. Like the Government’s other structural adjustment measures, they are available to firms adversely affected by prescribed structural changes under the criteria announced on 23 April 1 974. It was the Government’s original intention to introduce legislation providing for loan guarantees with the legislation to establish a Structural Adjustment Board. However, rather than wait for the legislation to establish the Board, which will take some time to prepare, the Government has decided to introduce separate legislation providing for loan guarantees in the current ses.sional period

Conclusion

The Australian Government fully recognises the crucial importance of the private sector in the development of Australia.

Opposition supporters- Hooray!

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– It is not just the importance we attach to the private sector as the greatest source of employment.

Mr Calder:

– How does the Left Wing take that?

Mr Connor:

– Shut them up, for God ‘s sake!

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr Anthony:

– What are you going to call yourself when you go overseas now- a -

Mr Connor:

– They ought to be ashamed of themselves. Louts!

Mr Calder:

-The Strangler!

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr Calder:

-You have strangled everything else; don’t tell me you are going to strangle Parliament too.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for the Northern Territory will cease interjecting.

Mr Calder:

-He has strangled the mining industry.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I warn the honourable member for the Northern Territory.

Mr Katter:

– He has raped Australian industry.

Mr Calder:

– Come on, Strangler -

Mr SPEAKER:

– I warn the honourable member for the Northern Territory.

Mr WHITLAM:

– We are deeply aware that in a mixed economy such as ours the prosperity of the private sector is basic to the Government’s social objectives. The program of social reform embarked upon by the present Government cannot be achieved without a strong and growing private sector. Nothing could be further from the truth than that we are anti-business or hostile to business.

Opposition supporters- Oh!

Mr WHITLAM:

– We recognise the interdependence of all sectors of the economy. (Opposition supporters interjecting)-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I do not know whether Opposition members intend to allow this speech to go on or whether they intend to indulge in rowdyism all the time? What is the position?

Mr Snedden:

- Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

– What is the position? I call the right honourable Leader of the Opposition. Do you intend to allow your Opposition to go on like this all the time or do you want me to take action?

Mr Snedden:

- Mr Speaker, you have asked me a question.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Do you want me to use the sanctions?

Mr Snedden:

– Do you wish me to answer your question?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Yes.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

- Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under what part of the Standing Orders does any honourable member have the right, while some other honourable member is speaking, to rise and ask a question?

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr Snedden:

- Mr Speaker, the Opposition will hear the remainder of this death bed confession in silence.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I take a point of order. The right honourable member has no right even to be called while another honourable member has the call.

Mr Snedden:

– It was Mr Speaker who called me.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! In all my experience of 1 9Vi years in this House I have never seen such an exhibition of rowdyism during a statement by a Prime Minister. In 19V£ years I have never seen such an experience of rowdyism.

Mr Nixon:

– You must have been away a lot.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! This would appear to me to be a deliberate attempt at rowdyism- to try deliberately to ridicule the statement being made by the Prime Minister.

Mr Snedden:

– Stop remonstrating and let us get on with the statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! You try to control your members. If you want me to take action I will take action.

Mr WHITLAM:

-Everybody knows that the Leader of the Opposition is a pompous figurehead who controls nobody in either House.

Mr Anthony:

- Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. The Prime Minister should withdraw that remark.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Country Party will resume his seat. The Prime Minister will resume his speech and the House will come to order.

Mr Anthony:

– The Prime Minister should withdraw the remark.

Mr Snedden:

– I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has made a statement that ought to be withdrawn. If he withdraws the statement, which ought properly to be withdrawn, the remainder of his statement will be heard in silence.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I did not hear what the Prime Minister said.

Mr Nixon:

– You must be the only one in the Parliament who did not hear him.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I did not hear what the Prime Minister said at all, but if the Prime Minister said anything offensive I ask him to withdrawn.

Mr WHITLAM:

-Mr Speaker, what I said was completely within order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I did not hear what the Prime Minister said.

Mr Anthony:

– It was not in order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There has been so much noise here tonight that it was quite obvious to me that as soon as the Prime Minister started his speech tonight there were so many howls of derision -

Mr Staley:

– That is what it deserved.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! In more than 19 years I have been in this House I have never seen such an exhibition of rowdyism. It was quite obvious to me that this was a deliberate attempt to try to destroy and ridicule the speech of the Prime Minister.

Mr WHITLAM:

– It is no solution to our current problems, as some would have it, that we cut government spending. If we were to take such a decision now we would risk aggravating unemployment, not to mention undermining the confidence of that section of the business sector which depends on government orders. A reduction of budgetary expenditure would of necessity have a primary impact upon areas which provide demand for products of the private sector. Cuts in government spending would simply aggravate our present problems. Our program of government expenditure has been achieved without excessive increases in the number of public servants. The staff ceiling control on the Australian Public Service will be retained in a modified form. This will be the subject of a separate statement. Further, and it cannot be stressed too often, the quality of life in Australia- the real standard of living of all Australians- cannot be maintained, let alone raised, unless governments accept responsibility for community services which individuals can no longer provide adequately for themselves.

The Government will have to maintain its close surveillance of the economy and retain its flexibility for the months ahead. We believe the new stimulus to the economy is appropriate to the problems we face. We must be wary of the possible re-emergence of excess demand pressures within our economy. The new measures announced tonight are designed to ensure that the private sector continues to grow. Equally we believe these measures, building upon the continuing program expressed in the Budget, provide a sound basis for co-operation with all sections of the community and between all sections of the community in the undoubtedly difficult days which lie immediately ahead. The requirements of a mixed economy in a democratic society are never simple, never easy. The whole nature of such a society involves a tremendous range of competing choices in making decisions- the decisions made by government, the decisions made by organisations, the decisions made by individuals.

The pressures created by these competing demands are now worldwide. Not for the first time an Australian Labor government finds itself in power at a time of profound international difficulty. As in those other times, the spirit of the nation is as important to ultimate success as the policies of the elected government. Quite apart from their economic thrust the measures I have announced tonight are aimed at strengthening the spirit of national co-operation and confidence by showing Australians that they have elected a government firm and vigorous in meeting the challenges of our times. These are difficult times indeed, yet like all such times a test for the essential great qualities of this nation; a test which together- Government, Parliament and people- I am confident we shall meet. I present the following paper:

Australian Economy- Ministerial Statement, 12 November 1974.

Motion (by Mr Daly) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Debate (on motion by Mr Snedden) adjourned.

page 3367

LOANS (AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AIRLINES COMMISSION) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– Among the many reversals of Government policy are the ones inherent in the Bill now before the House. That Bill relates primarily to borrowing overseas by a government agency. I know that the whole economic policy of the Government is now in tatters. We have seen our local Napoleon just make his retreat from Moscow.

Mr Riordan:

- Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. The honourable member is not speaking to the Bill at this stage.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I remind the honourable member for Mackellar that the cognate Bills before the House relate to airlines.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Of course, Sir. The Bills relate to the borrowing overseas by airlines. That is the main point of the legislation before the House. I think it is almost the sole point of the legislation before the House. The Government has approved the principle of overseas borrowing in the legislation which it has now brought into the House. This is a welcome reversal of Government policy because the Government by its refusal to countenance overseas borrowing and by the imposition of its variable deposit requirements imposed a credit squeeze and created the greatest wave of unemployment which Australia has ever known.

I welcome the fact that the Government sees in this area, as it has seen in other areas, the errors of its ways. It is notable that the policy set out in the legislation now before us is in line with the policy announced by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) in the House tonight by which he has abandoned most of his old policies and reverted to policies which like the policies set out in the legislation now before us are policies which the Liberal Government supported in its time and which the Liberal and Country Party Opposition now supports. The Government has taken over part of our pokey in regard to the legislation before us. This is a minor thing but the legislation before us is very indicative of the fact that the Government has followed in this comparatively minor matter the reversal of all of its economic policies and it now sees that its policies are wrong. The Government can now see that these wrong policies imposed tremendous burdens of unemployment and misery on the Australian people. While this legislation is only minor it can be welcomed as part of a goverment’s recantation and abandonment- its wide abandonment perhaps- of the principles which it has been trying to impose on the Australian economy for so long.

Sir, I need not remind you of the disastrous effect of those policies. I need not remind you of the way in which the Prime Minister in the most humiliating way- and I admired in a sense the way in which he ate humble pie in this House and the way in which he said a few moments ago that the Government had abandoned all the things that it was standing for -

Mr Mulder:

– I rise on a point of order. The honourable member is again wandering from the subject.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I would remind the honourable member that the Bills seek to provide money for aircraft.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Yes, Sir.

Mr SPEAKER:

– When I ask the honourable member to keep to the Bills I want him to do so permanently and not after about one minute divert to something else. I remind the honourable member that the legislation before the House is designed to provide money for the purchase of aircraft- you know, for things that fly in the air.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Yes Sir. The purpose is to authorise the raising of a certain sum of money and to authorise Australia to make certain moneys available. These are not Bills which are designed just to buy aircraft. I remind you, Mr Speaker, that they are Bills to authorise the raising of certain sums of money. They are not only Bills to authorise the raising of money but also Bills to authorise the raising of it in a particular way.

What I want to do is to turn my mind to what is inherent in the legislation and what is its main purpose. As I have said, the legislation is to authorise the raising of certain sums of money for overseas borrowing. It is therefore entirely within the Standing Orders for me to discuss the principles of the Government in regard to overseas borrowing. I think the principles of the Government in regard to overseas borrowing have in the past been entirely wrong. The Government by imposing variable deposit requirements and things of this character has impeded the flow of debenture money into Australia and therefore made Australia more open to the influx of equity money. This is really what the legislation is about- it is to raise debenture money. Insofar as this is what the legislation is designed to do, it marks a complete reversal of the Government’s policy. The Government has abandoned its policy. I am glad that the Government has done so because its past policy was wrong. The Government has announced stop-go policies. But here we have the Government really indulging in stop-go policies by the reversal of its pOliCy in this minor matter which is part- and I think this is relevant, Sir- of the reversal of the Government’s main policies. I know that supporters of the Government do not like to hear this. I know that the Government is humiliated. It is having a very difficult time tonight. I know that the nervous Nellies have something to be nervous about tonight.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– What about unemployment in the aircraft industry?

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Sir, I have been asked by my friend about unemployment in the aircraft industry. I do not think this is the real point. The real point is unemployment in the Australian community. As a result of its wrongful policies the Government has in this and other matters created unemployment. This is undeniable. It is very important to note that the Government in this legislation has reversed one of its cherished financial policies. It has gone away from the variable deposit requirements. There is no mention in this legislation of variable deposit requirements. I am glad that the Government has changed its course in this minor matter as earlier tonight it changed its course in respect of all the major matters.

This is part of a pattern, Mr Speaker. I think you would agree that it is entirely desirable that we should get back to the old ways by which we did have full employment in Australia. I believe that you would agree with me that we need to get back to the good times when people could get jobs, when unemployment was minor and resulted mainly from transfers from one job to another. I think that you would agree with me that it is entirely undesirable that we should maintain the present state of affairs in Australia where unemployment is not just a transfer from one job to another but has an appalling character of permanency. I do not think that the unemployed will be comforted. It will be cold comfort for them to be told that the Government did not mean to do it, that this was simply the result of muddling and incompetence.

Mr Mulder:

– I take a point of order. We are still straying further and further away from the aircraft. We are way underground!

Mr WENTWORTH:

– This is not a Bill about aircraft; it is a Bill about money, and the honourable member -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! This is a Bill to raise money to purchase aircraft.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Yes, and for purposes connected therewith.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I think if the honourable member reads through the Bill he will see that it is to purchase aircraft.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Yes, and for purposes connected therewith. It says so in the long title.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I think it might be advisable if the honourable member were to mention aircraft now and again.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I do not want to go into the technicalities of aircraft.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I should like you to do so.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Much as you would like me to do so, Mr Speaker, I do not think I could defer to your wishes in this regard. I would much rather keep to the technicalities of raising money and the matters which really are contained in this Bill. This Bill says nothing about the technical features of aircraft. There is not a word about technical matters relating to aircraft, but there is a lot about raising money on the overseas market. I am one of the people, as the House will know, who does not want to see unrestricted foreign investment in Australia by reason of equity investment, but I do think that we want to have more debenture investment from overseas. I very much welcome this Bill because in a small way- it is only a small thing -

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr MILLAR:
Wide Bay

-We are speaking to 3 Bills which are before the House and which, in simple terms, require the consideration of moneys being made available for the purchase of certain aircraft for our domestic and overseas airlines. The honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon) in addressing himself to these matters was reminded that he must confine himself to the terms of the Bills within very rigid limits. That necessarily rather restricts my debate and requires me to depart from my prepared address. But I feel that a few random thoughts might be pertinent to the matter. I should like to say initially that whilst it is possible to have aircraft without an aviation industry, we certainly cannot have an aviation industry without aircraft. While this may seem a trite thing to say, the truth of the matter is that the buying of aircraft is possibly the simplest part of the whole operation, assuming that finance is forthcoming. Having secured the aircraft, we are terribly dependent upon those concerned to see that the aircraft utilisation is effective and that all the ancillary services are maintained at full operational level.

In this respect we find quite often that there is a tendency m the purchase of new modern aircraft to endeavour to keep up with the Joneses. When the aircraft arrive in Australia we find ourselves under considerable threat in respect of the maintenance of flight service facilities and fire fighting facilities, so we may in truth be going down with the Joneses. We have had ample evidence in discussions of matters relating to the aviation industry of the considerable threat posed to the security and well-being of aviation passengers in the truncation of standing safety facilities which have been a feature of our industry for very many years. It is to be hoped that with these new modern aircraft, and particularly with the advent of the wide-bodied jets which substantially increase the load-carrying capacity, we shall not find ourselves in a situation- I hope members will pardon a little levity- where we are putting more eggs in the basket and diminishing the safety devices which ensure their well-being.

The wide-bodied jets which are foreshadowed in the second reading speech of the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) certainly bring considerable advantages in terms of economy and facility of operation. Yet axiomatically it is quite impossible to gain advantage without paying the price. The operating ability of these jets in terms of noise abatement and maintaining a reasonable condition of quietness for a sleeping city are not attained without cost. It is not all on the profit side and I think it behoves the Government in consideration of the industry as a whole to take cognisance of the fact that the industry is sustaining some of the costs to maintain our environment in the state which we would all prefer. We have also the situation of a multiplication of load carrying capacities. Our airline pilots currently are in some disfavour for what amounts to allegedly exorbitant pay demands. I shall not invite argument on this but the mathematics of the situation would appear to show, that, if there is to be a pilot-passenger relativity, clearly some thought must be given to the additional responsibility and economic effect of pilots carrying three times the passenger loading for possibly less than three times their previous salary. That is possibly an over-simplification, but I think all too often we pay too little regard to the enormous responsibility of a pilot in command of an aircraft.

The Boeing 727-200, an admirable aircraft and a worthy successor to the long line of Boeing aircraft which have achieved extraordinary safety records and a great deal of efficiency, is making a modicum of intrusion into aerodynamics integrity and requires that much extra skill of the pilot in command. Whilst it is not exposing the travelling public to any great danger, it does call for an additional degree of skill from the pilot I mention in passing that it should not be discounted as a light responsibility to entrust to one man an asset amounting to $8m and a group of people, well in excess of 100. He has to bring them safely back to earth through all the hazards and all die difficulties that are attendant on confronting the elements in our skies.

The wide-bodied jets, as I say, offer great prospects by more efficient aerial transportation in this country, but we must not be so ambitious in our undertakings that we lose sight of our capacity to pay. Not only do we have to pay for the aircraft but also we have to maintain all the attendant facilities to ensure their safe and efficient operation. We must look to matters such as pavement loadings, runway lengths and runway stresses. We find then that we become exposed to a threat which has shown itself to be a very real and vital thing in road transport where consistently this country, with its limited financial resources relative to the total population, endeavours to upgrade the standard of highways only to find that transport loadings, speed and general capabilities tend to continue to outreach the capacity of the road. Unless we embark on a project of continually trying to upgrade our roads and exceeding the limits of our financial resources, in time we will find that we do not have the roads to service our heavy transport and, in the aerial scene, we have not the facilities to keep pace with the advancing technology of aerial transportation.

Whilst it is all very fine to be on the front line with our domestic services- I do not suggest for one moment that the purchase of these aircraft exceeds that limit of prudence- I would say that in the expenditure of such substantial sums of money we always have to condition our thinking to whether or not it meets our basic requirements and dispenses with the temptation to embellish the situation and to engage in an overkill.

We have to take cognisance of the offsetting factor- the arrangment with Boeing and overseas concerns to ensure that the struggling Australian aircraft industry may derive some succour from the escalation of the transport industry in Australia. It is small comfort to see our industry gaining stature, highly regarded within the international aviation industry because of its safety record which is beyond comparison and which is built on the strictest code and demands of operational safety and efficiency. It would be tragic to see that while we achieve these great objectives our own aircraft construction industry and ancillary industries wither on the vine. We have been subjected to the trauma of seeing the production of an Australian designed and built aircraft, the Victa, come to a halt and that aircraft subsequently taken over by New Zealand, slightly modified and, I think, to the extent of $3. 5m sold to the Royal Australian Air Force as a trainer.

This is a tragic state of affairs. I am pleased to see that in the Airline Equipment (Loan Guarantee) Bill and the attendant Bills some measure is taken to ensure that in offsetting procedures sufficient work will be given to the Australian industry not only to enable it to derive a share of the wealth and prosperity of this Australian activity but also to maintain it in a viable state so that should the need arise it will be an effective base from which to launch more ambitious programs. Of course in Australia we have a rapidly escalating passenger-kilometer rate which would reasonably ensure a continuation of the viable utilisation of these aircraft. I think the rate is currently running at about 64 per cent. In the end it is simply a matter of seat utilisation.

It is rather discomforting to the average Australian traveller to realise that he is virtually paying for 2 seats wherever he travels. It is not always immediately evident on the trunk routes. Often we fly in aircraft that have a fairly handsome loading, but over the entire network of Australian aviation routes all too often we have to pay for seats that are not used. The tragedy of this of course is underscored by the very efficient operation of international charter flights with very high seat utilisation simply because they can go when they are full whereas our scheduled air services naturally must go when scheduled whether the aircraft are full or not. So it is to be hoped that the Government’s recommendationI give it full marks for this- will lead to some departure from the excessive rationalisation of air services in Australia and we will consequently derive benefits from more frequent services which do not carry the burden of relatively low seat utilisation.

I should also like to mention noise abatement, as it affects the operational procedures of our domestic air services. If we address ourselves excessively to the question of noise we must come to the logical conclusion and say that we shall not operate aircraft at all during the night periods or where silence is desired. I do not think the extent to which this subjects the flight crews of the aircraft and the passengers to additional operational hazards is generally recognised. While an aircraft is in the sky maintaining separation from other aircraft, particularly at busy airports, it is under risk. Whilst we have a flight service system and a radar and procedural separation system which is second to none, it cannot be denied that until an aircraft is safely to the ground it is exposed to some degree of risk. It is rather unfortunate that in adverse weather conditions quite often an aircraft and its complement must enter into an area of additional risk to maintain noise abatement procedures. This would be desirable in itself if it were not for the faa that human beings demonstrate a remarkably high tolerance to noise once they become adjusted to it. It is not uncommon for people living immediately adjacent to railway lines and busy highways to find the noise quite tolerable. Indeed, to digress, I might say there seems to be no reduction whatever in the impetus of building near highways and railway lines. It seems as though the noise is particularly tolerable to the people concerned and I would say in respect of airports also that the noise can be tolerated to a certain extent.

Possibly the strongest protest about aircraft noise is led by people who are not regularly or consistently subjected to the noise but who go into the area to make an assessment or appraisal and are rather shocked by the intensity of the noise, whereas people who live there and are conditioned to the noise find in time that it is not intolerable. Indeed, I recall the words of a woman who lived in Germany during the blitz when Germany was subjected to the most severe nightly raids. The people became so accustomed to the intrusion of the bomber fleets that on the rare nights when for one reason or another the bombers were not able to get through the people woke up because of the silence and not the noise. Some of them even expressed the hope that nothing had happened to the bomber boys because oddly enough something was astray. So I would suggest that the whole approach to the purchase and operation of aircraft on our domestic services should not be severely handicapped by this question of noise abatement. While it certainly warrants the attention of all those concerned it can tend to be exaggerated in many respects.

The purchase of the three 747 Qantas aircraft represents a considerable, I might even say hazardous, step in our current economic climate for international airlines. To embark on an expansionary program when the whole world is in an economic turmoil demonstrates a great deal of confidence on the part of Qantas in its ability to maintain its services in an economically viable condition. Overseas airlines are feeling the stress in the extreme and Qantas will be very much on guard to ensure that there are no substantial or grievious inroads into its economic viability. Clearly these international airlines will not readily surrender their entitlement to a share of international travel and may subject our airline to pressures which could be considered to be more than a little unreasonable.

I hope that the purchase of these aircraft will lead both our domestic and international airlines into a position of greater stature and will result in safer and cheaper travelling for the citizens of Australia and those who wish to visit our shores. There is no question that considerable riches flow to Australia from the operations of economically viable and efficient international air services. Some hundreds of millions of dollars flow to Australia in benefit as a result. As I said, I hope that the action initiated in these Bills will lead only to happier days and greater benefits for the people of Australia. I have pleasure in commending the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr Crean) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I would like the Treasurer (Mr Crean) if he would not mind to explain to me the way in which this Bill meshes in with the Loan Council arrangements of the Government. I am quite certain, of course, that this has already been foreseen and I would just like to know what the mechanism is. I have looked at the Financial Agreement and I looked at the Schedule to the Act, at Part III and particularly at the clauses which describe the borrowing when there is not a unanimous resolution and so on. Perhaps the Treasurer will tell us how these matters were dealt with at the Loan Council. I am certain that this has been covered, but I would like to know how it has been covered.

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP

– This point is covered in the second reading speech which I am sure the honorable gentleman must have read. I think he concentrated on so many other things that he did not notice it. The second reading speech observes that the detailed terms and conditions by which each of the loans to be arranged will be subject to approval by the Loan Council. The amount to be borrowed is included in the Australian Government’s loan program for 1974-75 approved by the Loan Council in June 1974. The honourable gentleman should know that when the loan arrangements are made, the Commonwealth indicates its likely resort to overseas borrowing and it is taken into account in the total program agreed upon. I simply observed that in my second reading speech.

Mr Wentworth:

– I do not think -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! As the honourable member has already spoken on the third reading he must seek leave if he wishes to speak again.

Mr Wentworth:

– I was misunderstood. The Minister has not understood the point I am making. I ask for leave to make a statement.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! Is leave granted?

Mr Crean:

– Yes, but I wish the honourable member would indicate the specific question he wants to ask.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-There being no objection, leave is granted.

Mr WENTWORTH (Mackellar)-I will do as the Treasurer (Mr Crean) asks. When the matter came before the Loan Council, as I understand it, the Commonwealth had a total loan program. I am not certain what that total was but as I would take it from the Treasurer’s second reading speech, which I did do him the honour of reading, the approval of the Loan Council has not yet been entirely conceded to this. It is something to be done in the future and therefore, as I understand what the Treasurer has said, would not fall within the terms of what the Loan Council has already done. I am asking a serious question; it is a question of mechanics. How is the Treasurer dealing with this matter? Is it part of the already approved program or is it part of a program, as would seem to be indicated by the Treasurer in his second reading speech, to be approved? If it is a program to be approved I rather doubt whether this House should be doing something which would appear to be in violation of the Financial Agreement. It is purely a question of mechanics.

Mr CREAN( Melbourne PortsTreasurer) by leave- Had the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) perhaps come and asked me this question a little bit earlier, I might have been able to obtain the precise details. But my understanding is that it is part of the already approved program, so there should not be any difficulties about that. I think the honourable gentleman knows that while the Loan Council is a formal body, its proceedings from time to time tend to be rather informal. There are exchanges of telegrams or letters rather than precise meetings. But this was part of the program agreed in the June meeting so it has already been taken into account in considering whatthe Commonwealth wanted and what the States accepted.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 3372

LOANS (QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 26 September on motion by Mr Crean:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 3373

AIRLINE EQUIPMENT (LOAN GUARANTEE) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 17 October on motion by Mr Charles Jones:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 3373

SEAMEN’S COMPENSATION BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 31 October on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr CREAN (Melbourne PortsTreasurer) Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation. Before the debate is resumed on the Bill, I suggest it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill and the Compensation (Australian Government Employees) Bill as they are associated measures. Separate questions will of course be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of both Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr LLOYD:
Murray

-This is a cognate debate on 3 companion pieces of legislation: the Compensation (Australian Government Employees) Bill 1974; the United States Naval Communications (Civil Employees) Act; and the Seamen’s Compensation Bill 1974. All of these concern worker compensation payments. The joint Opposition does not oppose the legislation. The Compensation (Australian Government Employees) Bill is the major piece of legislation as it affects all Commonwealth Government and statutory authority employees- approximately half a million people. In 1971 the previous Liberal-Country Party Government introduced the basis of the present legislation and updated it in November 1972. The Liberal Party and the Australian Country Party are proud of this legislation which they introduced because at that time it was a pioneering piece of legislation. The present Bill updates the levels of workers compensation payments in line with inflation. This is both necessary and, perhaps, even overdue. The Act already provides for compensation equal to the normal full sick pay rate for the first 26 weeks of incapacity. For long term cases beyond this a fixed weekly rate is specified in the Act. This is to be amended and updated from $43 a week to $57 a week, from $ 1 1 a week to $ 1 5 a week for a dependent spouse and from $5 to $7 a week for dependent children. This is slightly ahead of present sickness benefit payments. Lump sum payments for death have been increased from $14,500 to $20,000 and, among other increases, funeral benefits are up from $300 to $450. The Seamen’s Compensation Bill makes similar provisions, with the basic exception that the private employer rather than the Commonwealth Government provides the compensation.

In 1973 the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) introduced amendments to the Liberal-Country Party Government’s Act of November 1972, and if those amendments had been carried by the Senate they would have been both far reaching and expensive and would have added to the pace setter role of the Commonwealth Public Service, which at that time was Government policy. The Minister had earlier moved similar amendments in the 1972 debate when he was in opposition. These proposals in the 1973 attempted legislation would have provided several major variations from the existing legislation. They included full wages beyond the 26 weeks period with no limit, disease included as injury, and the lump sum payment to the widow on death of the breadwinner would have been replaced with a continuing weekly wage. It is interesting to note that none of these amendments which the Government considered so essential in 1973 has been attempted again in this legislation, although the Senate today has a different composition than it had prior to the double dissolution when these amendments were attempted.

Why is this so? Why has the Government not attempted to repeat these amendments? Does it mean that the Government’s principles are like its economic policy- more changeable than the weather and just as unpredictable? Does it mean that what in 1972 when the Government was in opposition and in 1973 in an attempted variation of the legislation was important Labor Party policy, was socially just and desirable, is not necessary today? Does it mean that the Senate really is not obstructionist, as the Government would have us believe and which it tells everyone? Does it mean that the Senate, in referring this attempted 1973 legislation, this pace setter legislation, to one of its committees was performing a nationally useful function in screening what the Government must be admitting now, because it is not attempting to reintroduce these amendments, was hasty legislation? The fact that the Government is not attempting to reintroduce them means that the Senate was right and the Government was wrong. The Government argues that since then the national compensation scheme legislation has been introduced. It has been introduced but not passed, and the Woodhouse proposals for national compensation actually reinforce or strengthen the point that what the Senate did at that time in rejecting the attempted 1973 legislation was right and sound. The proposals in the Woodhouse report are less generous than the Government’s lapsed Bill of 1973, and this supports the attitude of the Opposition that what the Government was attempting to do at that time was dangerous for die future of this country.

In using the Commonwealth Public Service as a pace setter in employment and conditions, of which the 1973 attempt was an outstanding example, the Government is now reaping a bitter harvest for itself, a bitter harvest which one sees in the Prime Minister’s reversal earlier tonight, for the third time in less than 4 months, of economic pokey. Tonight the Prime Minister has attempted to rekindle business confidence, private investment and a future for the private sector in this country. I say ‘attempted’ because there is no guarantee that this will actually occur. The Prime Minister is attempting to do this after 2 years of the most hostile anti-private enterprise, anti-individual initiative government that this country has ever seen. There is a story doing the rounds in various places at the moment suggesting that when the last businessman leaves Australia he turns the light out, and I think the light may have already failed.

Just think of the consequences this country would now be facing in private employment over the Christmas period if the 1973 compensation legislation had been carried, because the flow-on effect to private employment, to private industry, would be now being felt, just as some of the other Government measures will now be felt by private industry in the Christmas holiday period. This Christmas, private industry in Australia will be facing its worst period since the early 1930s, and private industry is still the major employer in this country. One can even refer to the Prime Minister’s speech tonight as proof of this. At the present time demand is down and wages are up and continuing upwards. On top of this there is a credit squeeze, and this credit squeeze is compounded by the quarterly tax payments that the Government is requiring of companies and by the flow-on of 4 weeks annual leave and the 11 Vi per cent holiday pay loading. The combined effect of aU of these things on the liquidity of many private companies, particularly smaller companies, will be disastrous. Many small companies will close down for Christmas and the holiday period this year and will not reopen because of the combined effects exhausting their credit resources. Eighty thousand small business in this country are at risk at the present time and the proud heritage of the self-reliant and individualistic Australian, which is preserved more in these self-employed business people than in any other sector of the Australian community, is being destroyed by the Government and some of its hasty and now considered even by itself ill-judged pace setter legislation. Nothing the Prime Minister can do will act quickly enough or to the required extent to save many of these people in private enterprise in the critical few months ahead. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Opposition supports the legislation.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KingsfordSmithSpecial Minister of State · ALP

-in reply-The honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) raised some matters, on which he felt he had to make explanations, about what was wrong with the first Bill. I must take him to task on this issue if he feels that the Government thought there was something really meritorious about the Senate ‘s action in not passing the previous legislation. It was clear evidence of obstruction. The facts show that that Bill was introduced into the Senate in April 1973 and was unable to get through the Senate by the time the Parliament was prorogued in April 1974. Many attempts were made by the Government to have the Bill passed, so it is a little bit naive to suggest that the Government has had second thoughts. The Government has had to take the view that it can do the next best thing and introduce this Bill, which the Opposition now applauds. It is not as good as the previous Bill. The Government wants to make a better Bill. In fact, the National Compensation Bill which is now before the

House is one that the Government feels the Opposition will again oppose because it is saturated with the view that the scheme is going to cost too much. The figures given in the debate on that Bill clearly show that premiums now being paid for workers’ compensation amount to $65 5m and that the cost of the scheme for all injuries for everybody, not only those who are in employment- a 24-hour a day cover- would be $350m. So on the basis of costs being the sole factor, that argument falls to the ground. The question of costs is not the sole factor. The Government says that this is the Bill which obviously the Opposition must now accept because it offers some relief. A far better Bill was rejected by the Senate, and an even better Bill is now before the House. We welcome the Opposition’s support for the Bill but we feel that it has shown its true colours by saying that it is worried about the cost. The honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) has just made a speech in the second reading debate which was more related to the economic factors of a person rather than the fact that the people to be covered by this legislation are the sick and the injured. Surely that ought to be taken into consideration when an Opposition spokesman makes a speech such as the one which has just been made. I have no further comment to make. I applaud the fact that the Opposition supports the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 3375

COMPENSATION (AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 31 October on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 3375

ADJOURNMENT

Unemployment- Divorce Law Reform Association of Queensland- Textile and Clothing Industries- Waite Agricultural Research Institute- Newspaper Article:

Australian Ambassador to

Ireland- Meat- Local Government Finance

Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr KING:
Wimmera

-I wish to raise the question of the very serious plight of some employees throughout the length and breadth of the country, particularly those in my electorate. I want to refer to the various angles of unemployment and unemployment relief as laid down by the present Government. There seems to be a lot of confusion as to just what is going on. We have heard quite a bit about the Regional Employment Development scheme and the general rate of unemployment benefit. The Government has introduced the payment of what it calls a special rate to employees who become redundant in their jobs as a result of Government decisions. It is in this regard that many people are becoming very confused.

Like many honourable members in this place, I have a number of textile industries in my electorate. Some, of course, are battling on and are affected only little by the current situation. Others are being affected greatly because of lack of sales and Government decisions. We have heard of some cases of firms having to close their doors completely. In the more populated areas if a person loses a job, he or she can try something else. But in many country areas there is little or no alternative. The people who live in these areas have no option but to take whatever rate of unemployment benefit is available. I want to draw attention to Prestige Ltd at Ararat which is situated some 100 miles or so west of Melbourne. This mill has done everything possible to secure sales in the interests, naturally, of keeping its staff employed. But the decision was reached last week to retrench a number of employees. Now it has reached the stage where 57.5 per cent of the total number of employees of this firm have been retrenched.

The case of another mill, North Western Woollen Mills Pty Ltd, comes to mind. It is situated at Stawell which is not very far away from the other mill. Not quite the same percentage of employees has been retrenched there but, nevertheless, the figure is much higher than is in the best interests of those people working there. Employees of these 2 firms qualify for the special retrenchment rate which is a rate equal to the average income of the employee for the previous 6 months. What concerns me- it concerns a lot of people outside this place- is that those people who are thrown out of work indirectly by decisions of the Government, if one likes to put it that way, will receive only the normal unemployment rate of benefit.

Government members have frequently talked about discrimination and the lack of discrimination and about how they want to treat everybody equally. How do they declare their position in relation to these 2 rates of benefit? How do they explain the difference? The anomalies in the unemployment rates are tremendous. A person who has been displaced from his employment in an industry which for official purposes has been affected by a government decision receives, as I said before, the average income that he received over the previous 6 months for a further 6 months. But if that person dares to take another job and perhaps loses that second job, providing it is of a permanent nature- the job itself may not be a permanent one- he does not qualify for a redundancy payment but rather he will receive the ordinary rate of unemployment benefit. What does this mean? Every person who is displaced because of redundancy can virtually automatically say to himself: ‘I have now got 6 months leave of absence’, because he dare not take another job because of the fact that he will not be permitted to claim a second bite of the cherry in the event of the industry in which he has taken his second job being put in the position where it must displace him. It is certainly a most undesirable situation and one into which I believe that the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) has a great responsibility to look very deeply.

The next point I wish to make is in relation to the actual delay in the making of payments. This is inevitable because of the huge number of inquiries that departmental officers are receiving. Naturally enough the officers of the Department must certainly be well and truly overworked in trying to sort out what category various people belong to. I want to make a suggestion to the Minister. I think it was the Minister’s intention to be in the House during the adjournment debate tonight but, as it has come on a little early, no doubt he is still attending to other commitments and is unable to be here. My suggestion to the Minister is that when a person applies for the increased rate- what I classify as the redundancy rate- he immediately automatically be paid the ordinary rate as a first payment. Then it does not matter so much about the delay. I know of some employees who have not received any income for 5 or 6 weeks, and I think there was an isolated case of a person not receiving an income for 8 weeks. To my mind this is just not good enough because these people are unaware when thenwages are going to stop being paid. In some instances they are told late in the afternoon that they will be finishing up that night. Naturally enough they receive a week’s pay, but the point is that at the present time they are not prepared to go without pay for a period of some 6 weeks or so.

I want to raise another point before I resume my seat. I want to commend to the Minister for the introduction of the RED scheme. It is a scheme of which he is very proud and it involves the Commonwealth Government making payments available to various municipalities and organisations so that they can employ personnel who are registered as unemployed to carry out certain works. In the broad I think this principle is very good, but we have some problems here. The first one I find in my country electorate is related to female labour. In many cases a female who has been retrenched or who loses her position finds that quite a few other people also have been put off and there is just no alternative work available to her. If such a person is in receipt of redundancy pay it is not so bad as she can survive, but if she is not it is very difficult for her to canyon.

The second problem, as I see it, is the delay involved in having certain projects accepted. I believe that the Minister has been pretty good in that he has been trying to do all he can to ensure that everything which is put to him receives immediate attention, but there seems to me to be a little too much duplication. We see where there is what he calls a special committee of RED Ministers. I am not sure what their role is. The Minister has informed us that he is checking with various honourable members to get the OK from them on certain projects within their electorates and that any honourable member who is interested in doing so can make a recommendation one way or the other. I commend him for that. Some cases are directed to what are called State committees. I have now been advised by telegram in response to a query I put to the Minister as late as 1 1 o ‘clock or so this morning- I compliment the Department for its efficiency- that a certain project which I have put forward has been approved by the Victorian State Committee and will be considered by the Officers Committee on 14 November. I had not previously heard of the Officers Committee. I would like to know just what the Officers Committee is. Who are its members? Is it not a further duplication? There must be many projects being put forward. After all there are just on 900 municipalities in Australia at the present time. If I am any judge, a very high percentage of them have put forward submissions. Today is the first occasion on which I have had acceptance of a proposal which I have put forward. I think that some of these matters have been under consideration for quite some time. I am concerned, as are the municipalities about looking after the interests of those who are waiting for employment.

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

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

-Tonight I wish to express my appreciation of the valuable information which is supplied to members of Parliament from time to time and which all or most of us never get the time to give recognition, due to the strains of other phases of our political duties. Of course, some honourable members may adopt the attitude that the organisation to which I am about to refer should not exist, but I wish to express my appreciation of the information which it has supplied to me from time to time and which gets very little recognition by way of being mentioned on the floor of the House. I refer to the Divorce Law Reform Association of Queensland.

I believe that the Association has played some part in bringing about the introduction of progressive legislation such as the Family Law Bill, which I feel rather happy about because it seeks to simplify the method of divorce and to obviate the public washing of dirty linen by marriage partners, which more or less brings about a situation in which the children of that marriage have to bear the stigma of that dirty linen being washed in public. Many sections of the legal profession reap a benefit from a marriage breakdown. That is to cease partially. Newspapers also benefit from sales to that section of society which gloats over some of the sordid details of the breakdown of a marriage. That is to be overcome. The Divorce Law Reform Association of Queensland has pointed out from time to time some of the exorbitant costs which are imposed upon those individuals who have had to go through the divorce courts because of an unfortunate breakdown of their marriage.

I recall a case in Newcastle some years agosince I have been a member of this Parliament -in which a constituent of mine was in the process of paying out some $300 to have dissolved a marriage which in my view was not a marriage at all because the woman concerned, who was of

Greek origin, had married in Newcastle a chap who had come to Australia from Greece only 12 months before. She had 2 children to him. When they were about ten or twelve years of age she found out that her husband, or the man whom she believed was her legal husband, had been married in Greece 12 months before he arrived in Australia. She was going through the legal processes to have an illegal marriage dissolved. It was going to cost her $300. My advice to her was that she should not spend a penny on having the form of marriage dissolved because it was an invalid marriage, that virtually she was like a single woman who had had 2 children out of wedlock and that she was free to marry whom she wished. She was astounded by my advice. I rang her lawyer and told him what my advice to her had been. He said: ‘I agree that your advice is better than mine, but I have to observe the ethics of the law institute and I have to have this illegal or bigamous marriage untangled by the legal processes in court. I agree that your advice is correct. ‘ I saved the woman $300.

The Divorce Law Reform Association of Queensland in its latest correspondence to me brought to my attention a letter concerning a divorce case. The letter gives the names of the people involved, but the Association has not said that they should be withheld from the Parliament. The letter is from W. McL. Smith of 29 Hornsey Road, Moggill, Queensland. It is dated October 1973 and reads:

A divorce heard on 17 October 1973 involved my ex- wife with 6 firms of solicitors acting for her over 6 years with the ex-wife having to pay her own costs. My solicitor’s charges for defending against the ex-wife:

Custody $470 Interim maintenance $ 35 Maintenance hearing $260 Access enforcement $220

Then, having no money I then issued my own divorce petition and defended myself for a total of $ 1 .40.

Although the ex-wife had a criminal history, and, a history of homosexuality, it was ignored by the Court, as well as the late neurotic condition of my ex-wife, and the fact that the children were dirty and neglected at the hands of my ex-wife whilst living apart.

Although my ex-wife assured the trial Judge that she would not remove our children out of the metropolitan area she immediately did so and took them to Cairns.

My ex-wife and the children cannot now be traced. Her solicitor Mellick of Cairns claims that all access to the children is in his hands. Searches by the Childrens Service Department have been futile and it cannot now be proved that the children are still alive.

Maintenance cheques to support the children are paid to an address in Brisbane but are being paid into a Bank 1,200 miles away to redeem a debt that has nothing to do with the interest of the children. The Clerk of the Court Brisbane has depended on me to keep the Court informed of the ex-wife’s whereabouts. I am unable to comply.

Why is it that in these circumstances children are not made Wards of the Court and their care given to the Childrens Service Department? Surely this aspect of Family Matters should not be in the Legal System.

Can I depend on your support for humanitarian justice?

I agree entirely. It is a pity that more of us have not the time to take a greater interest in some of these tragic cases which the Divorce Law Reform Association of Brisbane brings to the notice of members of Parliament here. I do not think the circulation of these letters follows any exclusive pattern. If the Parliament had not concluded its ordinary business for the day as early as it did tonight, I would not have had the opportunity of putting this letter and other matters on the record. I express to the Divorce Law Reform Association of Queensland my appreciation in the main of the wonderful work that it is doing in its own field together with informing members of Parliament of the great shortcomings and some of the hypocrisy to which the courts resort in divorce matters.

Mr HEWSON:
McMillan

– I take this opportunity tonight to tell the Parliament and the people of Australia of the plight of the textile and clothing industry in my electorate of McMillan. I am proud to say that because of the initiative of local government bodies in the area together with the co-operation of the State Government, we have had many thriving and clothing factories in my electorate. These have provided to the local community a good variety of job opportunities. I pay tribute here to the shires which have stretched themselves to their financial limits to encourage industry to decentralise their companies and business into the serenity of country life. We have heard so often from every member of the Government, whether in this House or outside the House at various public meetings throughout the various electorates, the good old propaganda phrase that they use- quality of life. This, they say, will be brought about by the present Government, particularly with assistance to local government for such services as social welfare measures, including child care and those sorts of things. They have pronounced the Government’s policy and said that it has a marvellous humane outlook They have said that the Government plans to change Australia.

This Government has certainly changed Australia. It has changed our financial stability. It has changed our people from a confident private enterprising race to a population bewildered and despairing. This Government has killed our industrial initiative by its inconsistent policies on economic matters. Whether this has resulted through bad advice or its inability to comprehend the end result of its policies, the fact remains that all of the policies of this Government have had a detrimental effect on the textile industry and the economy of that industry. In more simple terms, the policies of this Government have killed the textile and clothing industries. In fact, the Government has killed most industries and committed a most unforgivable crime. Having done that, the Government then set about to take care of those employees who are affected.

My friend, the honourable member for Wimmera (Mr King) pointed out some of the problems that these people face with regard to the RED scheme. The Government has set about to help those employees who have been affected by its poor economic decisions. Under that scheme their wages are paid for 6 months if they are retrenched from the textile industry. If I may say so, this is a poor consolation when a person lives in a country area where job opportunities depend on prosperous private enterprise operations. ‘We will retrain them’, says our Mend Cameron. ‘Retrain them where?’ I am askedand for what?

At the moment, businesses have closed in my electorate to the extent that what is happening has become of grave concern to me. The many proposals put by the Opposition parties have been ignored by this Government- until tonight, when we witnessed in this House the most disgraceful mockery of parliamentary government. Measures were introduced in a complete reversal of the policies which broke this country. Why did the Government persist in removing all import and tariff duties? Why were 56 million garments allowed to come into Australia which has a population of 13 million? The textile industry was expected to survive these imports. How ridiculous! Surely it must have been evident to the Government that chaos would result This has happened. We said it would. Now the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) makes a mockery of this Parliament and I have some doubts about the results of what we were told tonight. It is not good enough for the Government simply to reject and to ridicule the Opposition’s proposals without bringing forward proposals of its own to deal with the situation in which the Government’s actions clearly to date have been quite inadequate. It certainly is intolerable to have a Prime Minister refusing to answer any question at all about the economy and for Ministers to refuse to enter into any serious debate about it in the Parliament.

The situation that faced me last week in my electorate was also an intolerable one. It was necessary for me to bring the managers and managing directors of clothing and textile factories in my electorate together to discuss their problems. They confirmed the incredible story that unless the Government alters its policy, blocks further imports and grants some carry-on finance, hundreds more employees will be put off. I have been concerned for many months now about this situation. Despite my pleas to Ministers in this House, the Government has allowed these textile industries to go to the wall. This would appear to me to be quite deliberate. Perhaps it is because of their misguided belief that there would be cheaper goods for the wage earners.

Let me highlight this situation by referring to the ‘Latrobe Valley Express’ of 6 November 1974 which had the headline: ‘Textiles in Trouble ‘. The report states:

Eight Gippsland textile manufacturers told of 443 retrenchments as a direct result of the Federal Government’s tariff and import quota policies, at a meeting in Moe on Monday. Alarming as that was, even more so was the knowledge that those figures came from only 8 firms in textiles. How many more Gippsland manufacturers are suffering from unfair overseas competition? Shoe manufacturers, for instance, are involved. How many of them have retrenched workers or intend to do so? At the Moe meeting, the 8 manufacturers estimated that the monetary loss to the community by way of wages total $2.25m per annum. This is a worrying sum for shopkeepers and other traders, to say nothing of the depressing effect on families where retrenchments have created severe financial problems. True most of those retrenched are the second wage earners in the family and even then their wages are being continued for 6 months by the Government but how few families can afford a sudden cut in income now or in 6 months and how many of the women retrenched are, in fact, supporting their families? No matter how we look at it the picture throughout Gippsland is depressing.

That is an indictment of the Government.

Another headline in the same paper proclaims ‘500 Face Sack in Textiles’. Perhaps I may be permitted to compliment myself by saying that my photograph appears on the same page as a photograph of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam’ who, by his action, has caused concern among people in the Latrobe Valley. As a result of my meeting with representatives of the textiles industries last Monday week a telegram was sent to the Prime Minister telling him of the plight of the textile industries in the area, advising him of the number who already had been retrenched and informing him how many would be retrenched before the Christmas period if nothing were done. The Prime Minister was also asked by telegram whether he would send a representative to the Latrobe Valley to explain his statement of 22 October concerning country towns and assistance to their industries. It was such a negative and unpalatable sort of statement that nobody could make head or tail of it. They could get no sense from it.

Three days passed before I got an acknowledgement of the telegram. I had proposed having another meeting with representatives of these textile industries at which this matter could be explained to them so that they might get the immediate assistance they required. Because no reply had been received to the telegram I made several telephone calls to the Prime Minister’s Department and eventually got an acknowledgement that the telegram had been received. The following day I got a rebuff- an indication that the Prime Minister would not send a representative and that the matter had been referred to the Department of Manufacturing Industry. That Department could not send a representative to the area because it was too busy. It was probably concerned with all the other problems facing the textile industries throughout Australia. The textile industries in my electorate are still waiting for assistance and advice from the Prime Minister’s Department or from the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Mr Enderby). Up to the present they have had no assistance whatever

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr GILES:
Angas

-The first matter I wish to mention briefly this evening concerns a very famous agricultural research centre in South Australia- the Waite Agricultural Research Institute. I thank the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley) for responding to my telephone call and being present to hear my plea. In its original form the Waite Institute was endowed by the manager of a big pastoral concern. He did well enough out of his trade as manager to make this magnificent endowment to the people of South Australia. The Institute has been funded by private endowment and by the Federal Government. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation conducts special research, such as a soil unit, in association with the Waite Institute. The Waite Institute has a great international reputation. Indeed molybdenum, a trace element, was discovered at the Waite Institute. I mention that in passing to indicate that this is a famous research institute in the agricultural sphere.

I understand that for some time the Institute has been receiving approximately one-seventh of the funds that the Adelaide University receives from Federal sources. News that I have been given has caused me much disquiet. Because of a decision at the University council meeting to allocate funds on a pro rata basis for students the proportion of those funds available to the Waite Institute is to be reduced. The Director of the Waite Institute, Mr Quirk- one of a long line of famous agricultural scientists who have occupied the position of director- is perturbed about the future.

Mr O’KEEFE:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP; NCP from May 1975

-The Waite Institute is known throughout the width and breadth of this land.

Mr GILES:

– That is so, and I thank the honourable member for bis interjection. The Institute has 3 problems. Firstly, there is the matter of funding; secondly, there is the consequence resulting from inflationary pressures on returns from endowments; and, thirdly, there is the overall problem of higher wages for scientific officers and others. The importance of this institution is such that I ask the Minister to consider carefully this matter and, if I might proffer a suggestion from where I sit, perhaps examine the possibility of regarding the Waite Institute on a basis similar to the way in which research schools such as the John Curtin School of Medical Research are regarded and of making a separate subvention to it not necessarily in association with a university grant as such. It seems to me that this might be an appropriate way of giving the Institute its own independence so that it can provide a proper atmosphere in which research workers can work to the benefit of this nation.

In the few minutes remaining to me I wish to refer to a matter which I was unable to mention during the Estimates debate because the gag was applied before I could raise it I refer to 4 people who were refused loans under the Defence Service Homes Act. The first man is Robert Lloyd of Yumali and the second a Mr Aitchison of Mundoora. I believe that in the last week 2 more cases from the Karoonda area in my electorate have come to light. I make the point from the word go that the law has not been changed. I have no reason to suppose that the administration of the law has been changed but for some reason, about which I am not fully satisfied, 4 exservicemen have been refused loans for homes. Robert Lloyd is a former Vietnam soldier. He was refused a loan on the basis that the value of the land on which the home was to be built was insufficiently high presumably to give the Government, through the Department of Repatriation and Compensation, some chance of an adequate resale value if death occurred prior to the loan being discharged. I imagine that is the reason for the refusal of the loan.

I appeal to the Government to regard this matter in a non-political way. If there was a fault in the law when we were in government and that fault continues under this Government let us get together to produce appropriate amendments to the Defence Service Homes Act because it seems quite ludicrous for Vietnam ex-servicemen to be discriminated against because they choose to live outback in the country. That may be a slight over-simplification of the position but that is how it is regarded by branches of the Returned Services League in my electorate. Mr Lloyd has made one statement for which he can hardly be blamed and which gives perspective to the argument. I do not necessarily agree with his remark but he says:

It makes you think. Our country can spend $2m on a painting, but it can ‘t afford to lend us $ 1 2,000.

I do not necessarily agree with the logicality of that argument but one cannot blame people for thinking this way. Their applications for loans are turned down after they have given years of service to their country because they happen to live in an outback area.

Mr Lloyd:

– Coming from a Lloyd it would have to be a logical argument.

Mr GILES:

– Is the honourable member claiming relationship? The point I make is that although this person lives in an area 80 miles from Adelaide it is not really the outback. It is beside the Adelaide to Melbourne highway. Under these conditions the loan has been turned down because the value of the land is not great enough. Frankly, I can completely go along with his next remark in the newspaper article that it ‘stinks’ because I think that this country could do without this sort of discrimination. I ask the Government most respectfully to have a look at this matter which I would have brought up when the Estimates were being discussed except for other reasons which I have described.

Perhaps I might finish my remarks by saying that the local Returned Services League Branch at Coonalpyn took this matter up very heavily without any change in attitude by the authorities concerned. The sub-branches in my electorate took the matter up and I told them that I would try to raise the matter at the first opportunity in Parliament. I do so tonight. The Returned Services League of South Australia has taken it up. Mr Hunter from the Action Association of Exservicemen, as I think his organisation is called, has taken it up. I have no doubt that the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation (Senator Wheeldon) in another place who is responsible for these matters is probably being approached as well. I add my voice to those who seek some amendment to remove what I regard as an apparent injustice in the way the Act is now working, even if perhaps we did not see these particular instances in the past.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Minister for Education · Fremantle · ALP

– I shall draw the attention of the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation (Senator Wheeldon) to the case of Mr Lloyd which was raised by the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) a few moments ago. The honourable member indicated that Mr Lloyd has run into difficulties presumably because of the structure or regulations of the Defence Service Homes Act in relation to land values of the property on which he wants to build a home.

I am grateful to the honourable gentleman for drawing my attention to the Waite Institute. I am not aware yet of any representations from either the Waite Institute or the University of Adelaide in respect of the matter which the honourable member raised. But I will take the opportunity tomorrow morning to draw this matter to the attention of Professor Karmel and the Australian Universities Commission. From what the honourable gentleman said I gather that the endowments of the Waite Institute are losing value. I can certainly believe that any body which has existed on endowments would be experiencing that. That happened with the Hackett bequest to the University of Western Australia long ago.

The honourable member also said that the Waite Institute was receiving the impact of rising costs. I shall be introducing legislation tomorrow to add $51m to university grants because of the impact of rising costs on them. The honourable member also indicated the pro rata share that the Waite Institute gets according to enrolments as compared with enrolments of the University of Adelaide. If the case outlined by the honourable member is the position I could well understand that the Institute would be suffering deterioration because the ordinary enrolments of universities can of course increase very rapidly but the enrolments at a research institute would not be subject to the same expansion, although research is very expensive. The honourable member mentioned that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has a relationship with the Waite Institute. I am not the Minister for Education and Science, which is the old terminology. The Minister for Science (Mr Morrison) is in charge of the CSIRO and I shall certainly draw his attention to what the honourable gentleman has said.

Mr Giles:

– It is quite separate.

Mr BEAZLEY:

-Yes, but it may affect the finances of the Waite Institute and it is clearly not a matter which affects me alone. Therefore I must consult with the Minister. I shall do my very best to inquire urgently into this matter. I agree with what the honourable gentleman has said about the quality and the work of the Institute and if the Institute is suffering a serious threat this would very serious for the nation. I shall inquire into this matter and be in touch with the honourable gentleman.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Regrettably, the Government so curtailed the time available to honourable members in the Foreign Affairs segment of the Estimates debates that it was impossible then for me to raise the subject upon which I wish to speak tonight. Regrettably, too, the Special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen) who was Acting Leader of the House when the Parliament sat a fortnight ago so curtailed the adjournment debate that I did not have a chance then to raise this matter. Therefore I now wish to raise it in defence of someone who is no longer in Australia. I refer to an article which appeared on page 1581 in the ‘Nation Review’ of 27 September to 3 October this year. The article appears under the heading ‘News’. The headline reads: ‘Gair does the lair in Dublin’. The article was subscribed by Donal J. Tully who is the special correspondent of the ‘ Nation Re vie w ‘ in that area.

I have no reason to feel that I need discharge debts to ex-Senator Gair, who is now the Australian Abassador in Dublin, nor does he have any reason to feel obliged to me. The only reason why I am making this speech in this chamber on privilege is that I feel I have an obligation to truth. The following claim is made in the article:

However, within the walls or the Australian Embassy, which occupies an entire floor of Fitzwilton House, one of Dublin’s smartest office buildings, Gair has the reputation of being an Antipodean romeo- paunchy, perhaps, but nonetheless persistent. His persistence, indeed, combined with his romantic invitation to ‘Give me a peck, dear’, has caused three unappreciative female members of his staff to resign.

One said to me wistfully: ‘I thought that son of thing was an Italian habit. I didn’t know Australians were pinchers, too.’ And she told stories of cries of ‘help! help!’ coming from offices occupied by nubile girls, and of the great Australian adjective echoing resonantly through the corridors.

I thought this was a rather wild claim but in this world anything can happen. So on 14 October I wrote to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) and asked him whether or not there was any truth in the claims in the article. I received a reply from the Minister on 25 October and I have been waiting to speak on this matter ever since then. The Minister m his reply said: .

I refer to your letter of 14 October 1974 concerning a report in a recent edition of ‘Nation Review’ about our Ambassador in Ireland.

Five female members of our Embassy at Dublin have resigned during 1974.

That is fair enough. The letter continued:

These resignations took effect before the arrival of the Ambassador. There have been no resignations since the Ambassador’s arrival.

The only point that I want to raise tonight is the need for honesty in reporting. If the members of the Press who sit up in the Press Gallery like canaries waiting for their feed at question time, or like galahs in the cornfields waiting to pick up titbits, expect respect from parliamentarians they should realise that this is a two-way traffic. In fairness I acknowledge that there are times in this House when none of us could have any respect for ourselves because of the way in which we perform. But if people are to be paid salaries much greater than our own to sit in judgment on what is said and done here, surely those people, with the advantage of time to reflect upon performances, should come up with better than what I have just cited in this House.

Mr James:

– Why did these girls resign?

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I do not know why they resigned. They resigned before he arrived. Since he arrived there have been no resignations. It is obviously a very happy embassy. The article continues:

At the same function, Gair endeared himself to a girl colleague of mine -

Donal Tully is the writer of the article - from a Dublin evening paper. It was the week when the antics in Australia of the unspeakable lout Frank Sinatra had been prominently reported m Dublin. Gair’s greeting to the girl was: ‘ Frank Sinatra knew how to treat you journalists ‘.

I did not like the way Sinatra performed, but surely if he experienced what Senator Gair experienced it is little wonder that he is so contemptuous. Furthermore, a man of his voice and style does not need to rely on the Press. So many members of this Parliament accept what is said about them in the Press because they feel that they need to rely on the Press. If they are insulted they feel that if they complain they might be given the kiss of death through some editorial column or something else. So, for self preservation, they swallow their pride.

I am glad that the ‘Nation Review’ is not like the Brisbane ‘Courier-Mail’. It is not a paper which is read from front to back by hundreds of thousands of people from sun-up to sun-down each and every day; it is a paper which comes out only once a week. But there are many people who buy that newspaper. Even with the flippant approach which might be taken by journalists in Australia who contribute to that paper, or the flippant approach which might be taken by journalists who subscribe from overseas, I still believe that the newspaper has an obligation to ensure accuracy in reporting. In the case to which I have referred we have no more than a complete and utter fabrication. An individual may have a reputation for being a good speaker, for instance, but he should not necessarily be written up as a great orator. It is not right for newspapers and journalists to take such licence and to exaggerate a situation. In this case it has been proven to my satisfaction that no such event occurred. I say to Senator Gair over there in Ireland- I hope he reads my speech in Hansard- that he was appointed in a most contemptible manner and that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), who regrettably still continues as Prime Minister, exploited him. It may be a sign of age that Senator Gair accepted the position and sold out his previous principles. Senator Gair may be in Dublin or Edinburgh, but back here in Australia we who believe in truth and honesty will continue to defend what is right.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I want to make some remarks about meat. I wish to point to 2 salient things and to try to draw from them a conclusion. It is generally true that when commodities are in short supply the price goes up and when they are in more easy supply the price goes down. That is the normal law of supply and demand. The supply of meat is regulated very largely by the seasons, so one would expect that when the season is good the price of meat would fall and when the season is bad the price of meat would rise. But this is exactly the contrary to what we observe, and for a very simple reason. When the season is good graziers do not want to turn off their stock. They have grass and the supply dries up. When the season is bad, on the contrary, the graziers find that they have not feed for their stock and supply over a short term tends to increase.

So, we have this very peculiar situation with regard to meat. Of course the lifetime of a beast under slaughter goes over more than one season. This is the case usually with most animals. We have this rather peculiar situation that a good season means higher prices, other things being equal, and a bad season means lower prices. This is just the opposite to what would be expected at first sight. It is this disparity, this lack of phasing between the seasonal condition and the price, which is the engine driving what is known as the cow cycle which has the effect, as every member of the Country Party would well know, of getting the numbers of cattle througout the world up and down in fairly wide amplitudes of fluctuation. This is something which it is most important to keep in mind when we are looking at a proper meat policy.

I put this against a second fact which is, I should think, known to most honourable members in this House. In recent years the practice known as feed lotting has grown in various parts of the world. The cattle are brought in from their range and are finished off by grain feeding in a feed lot. This has happened to a small extent in Australia but it has happened to a far larger extent in Europe, Japan and the United States. In those countries a large proportion of finished cattle have come from feed lots. They have been fed with grain. Much of the grain originates from the United States. Coarse feed grains have been one of the United States main exports. Farmers in Japan, for example, instead of going out of business have imported grain, under various tariff and other arrangements, and have become feed lotters. The area in Japan is, of course, limited and the faculties for range feeding are much less. When grain is fed to cattle the resultant meat has perhaps only one-quarter of the gross nutriment that the grain had. It goes from onequarter to perhaps as low as one-seventh, but it is quite a small proportion. The protein may be of better quality. It may have some qualities that the grain did not have, but there is much less of it.

Now, when by reason of the failure of crops in the Northern Hemisphere and the greater demand for grain because of the increased population, we are suddenly faced with a grain crisis which has meant that the price of grain has gone up very considerably. Because of this feed lotting throughout the world is now uneconomic except in quite extraordinary conditions- perhaps as a way of saving cattle in drought, as a way of utilising pastures through mechanical reaping near the point of feed lotting. Of course there is one important exception which we in Australia are inclined to forget, that is, that in a great deal of the Northern Hemisphere there is snow cover and during the winter months feeding of cattle is necessary as a normal practice on a scale which does not occur in Australia and which we really do not think about to any great degree. We have some cold country and some snow cover but nothing like what occurs in some of the countries of Europe, in Canada and in the northern part of the United States.

I put these 2 propositions together now. When, by reason of failure of crops in the Northern Hemisphere and increasing population, grain has become very short, feed lotting becomes highly unprofitable and farmers are throwing meat on to the market because they cannot profitably maintain it. In these circumstances the price has fallen. But this is not, I think, a long term performance. I think the price of grain will stay up. I think that feed lotting is not likely to be profitable anywhere on the same scale as it has been in recent years. But the cattle numbers will decrease throughout the world. The cow cycle will operate and sooner or later- it may be a year or two years ahead- there will be a tremendous shortage of meat. If this is so we should be financing farmers to keep their herds.

Mr O’Keefe:

– Breeding stock.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Yes, their breeding stock, particularly their females. And we should be doing everything we can- I think my friends in the Australian Country Party have mentioned this previously- to preserve meat whether it be by freezing, by tinning, by drying or whatever kind of process may be available. I do not see any immediate help from the market for the meat industry. I think it may have even worse times ahead of it. I think we should be looking to the long term and we should have an agricultural POliCY in Australia which looks to that long term and takes farmers out of this short term trough. These are matters which require a great deal more consideration. I have been able in the short time allotted to me- I see my time is now running out- only to touch on these matters very tightly. I just say finally that when one looks at the figures the so-called mountain of beef in Europe is not so big. I am told it is of the order of 200,000 tons which is just about 1 lb a head for the population of Europe. That is not very much when one looks at it in those terms. But what is much more likely -

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr O’KEEFE:
Paterson

– It is coincidental that the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) has spoken about the meat industry, some aspects of which I intend to take up. Since this Government came into office it has introduced 2 Budgets and brought down legislation which have really declared war on our primary producers. In the first year it slugged our great primary industries to the extent of over $300m. It did this at a time when our wool, meat and wheat were difficult to produce and when we had unfavourable markets. This is difficult to understand because, apart from supplying local markets, our great primary industries provided over 50 per cent of our export income. I have here the latest figures supplied by the statistical section of the Parliamentary Library which show that our grains, our pastoral products and our dairy and farmyard products accounted for over 50 per cent of our total export income of $6,905m. Great though our mining industries are and great though the development of our mining industries is, our wool, wheat and meat are still far and away the greatest export earners for Australia, and the Government should not lose sight of that fact.

The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) often states how important it is to increase our primary exports but he does not introduce legislation to enable this to be done. He does nothing to assist in this field. Over the years we have developed a huge meat export industry and when this Government came to power in 1972 we immediately witnessed an onslaught on this valuable export meat industry. We had 3 revaluations. In the first 6 months there was one by the mini-Cabinet comprising the Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence (Mr Barnard), and we had two in the next 6 months. In addition there was levied an export tax of lc per lb and a levy of 6c per lb for the eradication of tuberculosis and brucellosis. These charges have had a great effect on costs and have assisted in causing our immediate problem of being priced out of the American market. I have some most interesting figures here which show the downturn in the Australian meat export markets and here the four main countries to which we export- United States of America, Japan, Canada and Great Britaincome to mind. I will quote the figures for the first 6 months in 1973 and for the first 6 months in 1974. To the United States of America in the first 6 months in 1973 we exported 130,818 tonnes of beef and veal. In the same period in 1974 we exported 96,769 tonnes.

Mr Adermann:

– That is a big drop.

Mr O’KEEFE:

– It is a big drop. To the United Kingdom in the first half of 1973 we exported 52,577 tonnes and in the same period in 1974 the figure was 14,87 1 tonnes. That is a big drop also. To Canada in the first half of 1973 we exported 13,003 tonnes and for the same period in 1974 it was down to 7,370 tonnes. Exports of beef and veal to Japan in the first half of 1973 totalled 55,870 tonnes and in the first half of 1974 they dropped to 20,672 tonnes.

Mr Adermann:

– Less than half.

Mr O’KEEFE:

– Less than half. Those are the figures for the first 6 months of 1973 compared with the same period in 1974. The latest figures reveal a further downturn in exports of our beef and veal. The cattle industry in Australia is in urgent need of finance, as the honourable member for Mackellar has said. We would say that at least $200m carry-on assistance to the cattle producers of this country will be required. About 1.75 million fewer head of cattle will be killed this year because of the export downturn. If the market had not collapsed to such an extent these cattle would have brought in something like $200m to producers. For producers who depend entirely on cattle this situation creates very serious liquidity problems. In Australia 13,000 farmers and graziers depend entirely on cattle for their livelihood. The Australian National Cattlemen’s Council estimates that many producers will suffer up to a 50 per cent drop in their gross farm income even before meeting a 20 to 25 per cent increase in their production costs. Calculations in some specific regions show that producers are getting a price for their meat that is little more than half the cost of producing.

The great danger in all this is that producers will be forced to sell off their basic breeding stock. We should be looking at this matter in a very serious vein to see that our breeding stock is not sold but is maintained and that those farmers who are holding this breeding stock are assisted financially. The industry is not asking for special treatment but merely for the Government to see that funds are available through the normal sources at ordinary commercial interest rates. It must be recognised, of course, that any action to make large sums available will have some slight inflationary effect. It must be weighed up against the very serious long term consequences that would flow from the sacrifice of very valuable breeding stock to help producers meet what seems likely to be only a short term liquidity problem.

The Government should give serious consideration to suspending the charges now imposed upon the industry for export inspection services and the eradication of brucellosis and tuberculosis. It is believed that the industry would be prepared to consider this matter again perhaps in a different form when the market situation returns to normal. At present these charges are proving a very heavy burden for a seriously depressed industry to bear. The Government will be collecting far more from the industry this year than it needs to finance these operations, so it would be reasonable for the Government to suspend the charges for the time being at least and look at the whole question again later.

Two of the most urgent needs are an all out effort to reopen Australia’s major beef market and in the meantime provision of finance to carry producers through the crisis period. No doubt the market situation is extremely difficult and there is little prospect of a quick recovery. As one who is connected with the meat industry and who meets people and representatives of various trading firms and exporters of beef, I can say that these people are of the opinion that it will take some 18 months for the market to pick up. A crash in the beef industry would be bigger than any of the other failures that have taken place over the years. We are very fortunate that we have had good seasons and the farmers and graziers have been able to hold their stocks, because we would have a real calamity in this country should drought conditions take over when we are holding 3 1 million cattle as we are at present.

Mr LUSHER:
Hume

– I am very pleased to have an opportunity to say a few words in the closing minutes of this adjournment debate. The matter to which I want to direct my attention this evening is the problem being experienced by shire councils, particularly those in the country areas. It is no exaggeration to say that local government organisations in rural areas are suffering one of the most severe squeezes they have ever experienced in their long history of serving the people and providing amenities and basic services to the community. When estimates were drawn up for the current year, shire and municipal councils estimated on the basis of a 20 per cent increase in costs. At the time that appeared to be a reasonable margin to allow for increases and to take up the inflation which most people knew was imminent in the current 12 months period. What in fact has happened is that already, before the yearly estimates have run their course, the increase factor has been an average of about 35 per cent. This has cut into the programs, the responsibilities and the commitments of local government organisations and bodies. How can any local government body be expected to carry out its major programs of public works within the community that it serves when we are going through a period of cost increases of as much as 35 per cent?

What options are open to shire and municipal councils? They can put up their rates. In fact it has been suggested in some of the reporting from the Grants Commission that a lot of shires should do so. However they are in the position of being answerable, as we are, to their constituents. They are facing a period in which their ratepayers are not able to afford an increase in rates. We have heard eloquent words this evening from my colleague the member for Paterson (Mr O’Keefe) and from the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) about the problems being experienced in the primary sector of our economy, and I also have drawn attention to this on several occasions. It just is not on to add further to the costs being experienced by farmers and primary producers by increasing rates which already are very high and are a very large cost component in their budgets.

The Government has come forward with some suggestions. It has said that it will give some money through the Grants Commission. It said originally that this money when it is available would not be available for expenditure on roads. There seems to have been some weakening in this respect but the point I want to make is that of the 8 shires in New South Wales that received no grant under the Grants Commission recommendations, my electorate of Hume contains four. It is all very well to talk about the generosity of this Government but if it is going to appear to discriminate or if it is unable to find funds for specific areas, it is only fair that this should be brought before the House and before the Minister who is responsible. This Government has caused a situation in which staff layoffs are now becoming quite serious. Those who have not been laid off are facing that possibility in the very near future. Road maintenance programs are being shelved. Local government organisations are unable to carry on the program of keeping roads in good repair, let alone to commence any new projects which fall within the responsibility of local government areas.

We have had the suggestion from the Government that under its manpower schemes we can use NEAT- the National Employment and Training system- but that is work orientated. There is no opportunity in country areas for people to be retrained for new employment because it just does not exist there. The RED scheme- the Regional Employment Development scheme- has been introduced but the money provided under that scheme is not available for use on roads. The Commonwealth aid roads grant is being cut to the extent that most shires will get between one-third and one-half less than they got before. The Government must clearly put its position in regard to local government. That position must be realistic.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! It being 11 o’clock, the House stands adjourned until noon tomorrow.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 3386

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Ministerial Councils: Contact with States (Question No. 56)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Will he provide a list of all formal committees, councils, etc., that have been established which enable him or officers of his Department to maintain contact with State Government Ministers or State Government officers.
  2. ) When was each body established and by whom.
  3. What is the (a) composition and (b) function of each body.
  4. On what occasions has each body met in the last 2 years and for what purpose.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) to (4) No such committees have been established.

Ministerial Councils: Contact with States (Question No. 59)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Will the Postmaster-General provide a list of all formal committees, councils, etc., that have been established which enable him or officers of his Department to maintain contact with State Government Ministers or State Government officers.
  2. 2 ) When was each body established and by whom.
  3. What is the (a) composition and (b) function of each body.
  4. On what occasions has each body met in the last 2 years and for what purpose.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

– The Postmaster-General has provided the following answer to the right honourable member’s question:

I refer the right honourable member’s attention to the answer provided by the Prime Minister to Parliamentary Question No. 41 (Hansard 3 October 1974 page 2233).

Postmaster-General’s Department: Research Grants (Question No. 87)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

  1. Will the Postmaster-General provide a list of all grants, to any organisation or individual, that are provided from moneys appropriated to his Department or authorities under his control, to undertake research.
  2. To what bodies have such moneys been advanced, and what was or is the nature of the research being undertaken as a result of the grants in each of the last 3 years.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

– The Postmaster-General has provided the following answer to the right honourable member’s question:

  2. The only grants provided by my Department are the annual grants to the Radio Research Board.

Grants to the Board in each of the last three years are as follows: 1971-72 $50,000; 1972-73 $60,000; 1973-74 $65,000.

The Radio Research Board is administered by the CSIRO and it is understood the Minister for Science will be providing information on the nature of the research being undertaken by the Board. I might mention that it is the policy of my Department that funds made available are subject to the limitation that the Post Office representative on the Board is satisfied that the Post Office contribution to the funds is less than, or equal to the total of grants made by the Board to projects and other activities that, in his judgment, are relevant to problems associated with the provision of telecommunication services provided by the Post Office.

The only authority under my control is the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) which does not receive appropriated funds.

Canberra: Servicing of Residential Land (Question No. 393)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the present mean cost of servicing residential land in the Canberra area with:

    1. electricity
    2. water
    3. gas
    4. sewerage
    5. roads, including kerbing?

  2. How much has the mean cost risen in the last 12 months?

Mr Uren:
Minister for Urban and Regional Development · REID, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. The estimated present mean cost of servicing a residential block in Canberra is $4,298 which includes water ($461), sewerage ($453), roads, including kerbing ($1,2 17). Another significant element is stormwater drainage, which can be as high as one-third of the total cost. Lesser amounts are involved for footpaths and entrance drives. Construction fees, overheads and land resumption are included in the total. The cost of electricity reticulation, which is the responsibility of the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority, is in the order of $250 per block. Residential land in the Australian Capital Territory is no serviced with gas.
  2. The cost of servicing residential land in the Canberra area has risen by approximately 12 per cent in the last 12 months.

Tidal Power: Research Projects (Question No. 445)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice:

  1. Will he provide a list of all research projects being undertaken in Australia into tidal power which are receiving financial support from the Government.
  2. What proportion does this represent of funds allocated by all sources in Australia to research projects into the applied use of tidal power.
  3. 3 ) What is the purpose of each project.
  4. How many people are involved in each project.
  5. Where is the research being undertaken.
  6. What support is the Government providing for each project, and how is it provided.
Mr Morrison:
ALP

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

  1. to (6) The Australian Government is not providing any specific financial support to research in this field. The opportunity exists, however, through the Australian Research Grants Committee and the Australian Industrial Research and Development Grants Board, for support of work in this field should acceptable applications be received.

Geothermal Energy: Research Projects (Question No. 446)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice:

  1. Will he provide a list of all research projects being undertaken in Australia into geothermal energy which are receiving financial support from the Government
  2. What portion does this represent of funds allocated by all sources in Australia to research projects into the applied use of geothermal energy,
  3. 3 ) What is the purpose of each project.
  4. How many people are involved in each project
  5. Where is the research being undertaken.
  6. What support is the Government providing for each project, and how is it provided.
Mr Morrison:
ALP

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

  1. to (6) The Australian Government is not providing any specific financial support to research in this field. The opportunity exists, however, through the Australian Research Grants Committee and the Australian Industrial Research and Development Grants Board, for support of work in this field should acceptable applications be received.

Wind Energy: Research Projects (Question No. 448)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Will he provide a list of all research projects being undertaken in Australia into wind energy which are receiving financial support from the Government?
  2. What proportion does this represent of funds allocated by all sources in Australia to research projects into the applied use of wind energy?
  3. What is the purpose of each project?
  4. How many people are involved in each project?
  5. Where is the research being undertaken?
  6. What support is the Government providing for each project, and how is it provided?
Mr Morrison:
ALP

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

  1. to (6) The Australian Government is not providing any specific financial support to research in this field. The opportunity exists, however, through the Australian Research Grants Committee and the Australian Industrial Research and Development Grants Board, for support of work in this field should acceptable applications be received.

Department of the Special Minister of State: Management Consultant Firms (Question No. 804)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) For what purpose has the Department used management consultant firms in the last 12 months.
  2. Which firms have been used.
  3. 3 ) What was the total cost.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: (l)and(2)

(3)$21 1,952.

Pensioners: Benefits (Question No. 1084)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. Is the welfare of pensioners primarily a Commonwealth responsibilty
  2. If so, did he agree to the State Health Ministers’ request for an increase in the Australian Government pensioner bed day benefit from $5 per day to $30 per day; if not, why not.
  3. 3 ) Is it a fact that when the benefit was fixed in 1 966-67 it represented one third of the total bed cost compared with one tenth today.
Mr Hayden:
Minister for Social Security · OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) It is considered that there is a responsibility for the welfare of pensioners at all levels of Government.

In regard to health care aspects, the honourable member will be well aware that the Australian Government has powers under Section 5 1 of the Constitution to make laws for the provision of certain benefits, allowances and services, including sickness benefits, hospital benefits and medical services. The Australian Government, by virtue of these powers, can assume certain responsibilities for the health care of the population generally, which of course, includes pensioners, but it does not have an exclusive or even dominant responsibility in that field. The State Governments have claimed that it is their role to control public hospitals and provide treatment from them when clearly, as a result, the States have an obligation to the public generally including pensioners in that respect.

  1. The National Health Act provides for the Australian Government to pay public hospitals $5 for each day that a pensioner eligible for the Pensioner Medical Service is provided with free treatment in a public ward.

Previous Liberal-Country Party Governments adopted the view that the general revenue grants made by the Australian Government to the States, to cover their broad range of responsibilities, included an element relating to the additional cost of pensioner hospitalisation above the $5 a day directly allocated for that purpose. The present Government agrees that this is a valid position.

At the Australian Health Ministers’ Conference on 17-18 August 1974, the State Ministers for Health sought an increase in the pensioner day bed benefit. The State Health Ministers were informed that, if they so wished, I would approach the Prime Minister to have the pensioner hospital benefit of $5 a day increased, subject to a corresponding adjustment of the general finance allocations to the States. This is in accordance with my view that if State Governments have difficulties in identifying appropriate amounts of the general financial allocations that assist them meet the cost of treating pensioners in public hospitals, the Australian Government could consider earmarking an appropriate portion of general allocation in the future.

  1. It will be apparent from my answer to the second part of the honourable member’s question that such comparison is inappropriate when considered in isolation from the finance made available under the general revenues grants.

Oral Contraceptives (Question No. 1101)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that a major cause of the delayed payment of pharmaceutical benefits claims by chemists is the large number of prescriptions for the oral contraceptive since it became eligible for benefit.
  2. ) Has he considered allowing a six months ‘ supply of the pill per script, as was the case prior to its inclusion on the benefit list, instead of the present restriction of two months.
  3. Would this proposal be cheaper both for the consumer and the Government.
Dr Everingham:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The prescribing of oral contraceptives is a contributing but not major factor in the delayed payment of pharmaceutical benefit claims. In 1973-74 pharmaceutical benefit prescriptions increased by 12.6 million or 16.9 per cent over the previous year. Oral contraceptives were responsible for 4.3 million of the additional prescriptions, or 34. 1 per cent of the overall increase.
  2. Yes. The matter was referred to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee which was not prepared to so recommend.

A maximum quantity providing six months supply would place oral contraceptives out of step with other benefit items used continuously for the treatment of chronic diseases and conditions. Maximum quantities which would allow six months supply of a drug on the one occasion may result in increased hazard from accidental ingestion, particularly by children, increased deterioration due to storage under possibly sub-standard conditions for a longer period, and possible wastage of unused quantities of the larger amounts supplied.

  1. This proposal in relation to oral contraceptives would, on the basis of 1973-74 prescribing experience, result in a saving to patients of $3.42Sm but additional government expenditure of $1. 348m, presuming that all prescriptions for the maximum quantity and repeats would be replaced by prescriptions for the new maximum quantity.

Consumer Goods (Question No. 1129)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for the Environment and Conservation, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did he say on 7 July 1974, in a prepared speech, that the Australian Government is finding it hard to stop people consuming goods which do not make them happy and which they do not really need.
  2. ) If so, to what types of goods was he referring.
  3. Does the Government intend to make decisions itself about what goods the Australian people do or do not need.
  4. If so, who will take these decisions.
  5. Will there be any right of appeal for those people who disagree with the Government’s decisions relating to their needs.
Dr Cass:
Minister for the Environment and Conservation · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. If the right honourable member had actually read my speech he would have noted my earlier suggestion that threeton motor vehicles, electric dishwashers, record selectors, and exotic cosmetics were symptoms of a system which artificially stimulates, relies upon, and profits from overconsumption.

To these examples, one can add excessive consumption of alcohol and tobacco. Both are heavily taxed (a Governmentimposed discouragement) and subject to medical assurances that they are harmful in excess- yet both are consumed in increasing quantities.

  1. Former Australian Governments have implicitly recognised the difference between necessary and luxury goods by the imposition of differential excise rates and sales taxes. This Government has not departed from that principle. No government- of any political complexion- would deny the distinction between essentials and luxuries.
  2. The general community in any country makes these decisions. It is the function of Government to interpret these decisions wisely before it makes political judgments about discouraging the use or consumption of unnecessary or luxury items. Discouragement can take the form of increased taxes as indicated in (3) or positive support for alternatives. For example, governments can encourage public as against private transport, or implement observance of the ‘polluter pays ‘principle.
  3. In a democracy which is allowed to work, the people can pass judgment on political decisions at the general election.

Australian Capital Territory: Builders’ Licences (Question No. 1198)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

  1. How many (a) builders’ licences and (b) builders’ special licences are current in the Australian Capital Territory.
  2. How many were there in each of the years 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74.
Mr Bryant:
Minister for the Capital Territory · WILLS, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. (a) There are 1,110 Builders’ Licences current in the Australian Capital Territory (as at 4 October 1974).

    1. There are no Builders’ Special Licences current in the Australian Capital Territory. Builders’ Special Licences were issued under the provisions of the Canberra Building Regulations 1964-71 which were repealed when the Building Ordinance 1972 came into operation on 1 September 1972.

(2)

National Employment and Training System (Question No. 1273)

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. How many people are being trained under the National Employment and Training System.
  2. What are the various categories.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. 11,000 (approx).
  2. Unemployed persons; redundant workers; persons threatened with redundancy; women returning to the workforce; widow pensioners; ex-national servicemen; former regular servicemen; defence and war widows; Aboriginals.

Retraining Scheme (Question No. 1276)

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

When may I expect an answer to question No. 705 which I placed on the Notice Paper on 30 July 1974.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

The answer to question No. 705 appeared in Hansard on 17 October 1974.

Export of Liquefied Petroleum Gas to the Philippines (Question No. 1337)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did he give an assurance to the Philippines Government that 30,000 tonnes of liquefied petroleum gas will be available for export from Australia each year.
  2. If so, what is Australia’s capacity to meet this assurance without jeopardising domestic requirements or export contracts already in existence.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) During my visit to the Philippines from 10-13 February 1 974, President Marcos raised with me the interest of an Australian company in exporting liquefied petroleum gas to the Philippines.

I gave no assurance that liquefied petroleum gas would be available for export from Australia. I mentioned that requests for export approval were considered against established yardsticks of an acceptable price by world standards and whether Australia had an exportable surplus.

Minister’s Public Duty and Private Interests (Question No. 1413)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

What procedures are adopted by the Cabinet to ensure that there is no conflict of interest between Ministers’ statutory responsibilities and their personal interests.

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

In accordance with established practice, I raised this subject at the outset of my Government. The attention of all Ministers has been drawn to the requirements and conventions operating in this area and, in particular, section 44 of the Constitution. Ministers have also been made aware that it is incumbent upon them, ahead of Cabinet discussions, to declare a private interest that might reasonably be held to give rise to conflict with their public duty.

Cable Conversions of Rural Telephone Exchanges (Question No. 1422)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

  1. Has the Postmaster-General’s Department investigated the comparative cost and speed of work of private contractor cable layers and Departmental teams for simple cable conversions of rural telephone exchanges; if so, what are the results.
  2. Is the Department increasing the use of private contractors for cable laying.
Mr Lionel Bowen:
ALP

– The Postmaster-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. No.
  2. No.

Department of Urban and Regional Development: Employment of Women (Question No. 114)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many women have been appointed to senior positions in his Department since 2 December, 1 972.
  2. Who are they.
  3. 3 ) To what position has each been appointed, and what is the function of the position.
Mr Uren:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) I refer the right honourable member to the reply provided by the Prime Minister in answer to Question No. 97 on page 625 of Hansard dated 24 July, 1974.

Sewerage: Grants to States (Question No. 195)

Mr Ruddock:

asked the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the total sum allocated to each State pursuant to the Sewerage Agreements Act 1 973.
  2. What are the names of the relevant authorities within each State that have received grants, and what part of the grant mentioned in answer to part ( 1 ) was received by these authorities.
  3. Have the moneys allocated been collected by the relevant authorities and spent
  4. Is so, what works have been completed or subsequently commenced by the authorities detailed in answer to part (2) and, in particular, what sums have been allocated to each project and spent, and in what Federal Electoral Divisions were these works carried out or commenced.
Mr Uren:
ALP

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

  1. All State sewerage works programs have received final Ministerial approval. Payments to the States are occurring as soon as requests for advances, or documented evidence of expenditures, are received from the States.

Medical and Hospital Benefits: Tax Deductions (Question No. 224)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

If present tax deductions for contributions to medical and hospital benefit funds were replaced by flat tax rebates, so that the taxpayer is given a rebate equal to a certain percentage of his expenditure, what would be the estimated cost to the Commonwealth if the percentage of such expenditure rebated was (a) 10 per cent, (b) 20 per cent, (c) 30 per cent, (d) 40 per cent and (e) 50 per cent.

Mr Crean:
ALP

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

Based on the latest relevant income tax statistics, which relate to the 1972-73 income year, it is estimated that the effect on revenue that would have resulted from replacing deductions allowed in that year for contributions to medical and hospital funds by income tax rebates equal to certain percentages of the expenditure would have been as follows:

Tax Deductions (Question No. 225)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

If present tax deductions for medical, dental, optical, hospital and funeral expenses were replaced by flat tax rebates, so that the taxpayer is given a rebate equal to a certain percentage of his expenditure, what would be the estimated cost to the Commonwealth if the percentage of such expenditure rebated was (a) 10 per cent, (b) 20 per cent, (c) 30 per cent, (d) 40 percent and (e) 50 percent.

Mr Crean:
ALP

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

Based on the latest relevant statistics, which relate to the 1972-73 income year, it is estimated that the effect on revenue that would have resulted from the replacement of the net amount of deductions allowed for medical, dental, optical, hospital and funeral expenses in that year by income tax rebates equal to certain percentages of the net expenditure would be as follows:

Tax Deductions for Dependants (Question No. 226)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

If present tax deductions for dependants were replaced by flat tax rebates, so that a flat rebate is given to the taxpayer for each dependant, what would be the estimated cost to the Commonwealth of each $ 10 of such rebates.

Mr Crean:
ALP

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

The cost to income tax revenue, disregarding the gain to revenue from abolition of present dependants allowances, of allowing a flat rebate of income tax of $10 for each dependant is estimated to be about $50m per annum.

Life Insurance and Superannuation: Tax Deductions (Question No. 227) Mr Snedden asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

If the present tax deductions of up to $1,200 for life insurance premiums and superannuation contributions were replaced by flat tax rebates, so that the taxpayer is given a rebate equal to a certain percentage of his expenditure up to $1,200, what would be the estimated cost to the Commonwealth if the percentage of such expenditure rebated was (a) 10 per cent, (b) 20 per cent, (c) 30 per cent, (d) 40 per cent and (e) 50 per cent.

Mr Crean:
ALP

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

The most recent relevant statistics are in respect of the 1972-73 income year and indicate that if the deductions allowed for life insurance premiums and superannuation contributions of individuals had been replaced by flat rebates equal to specified percentages of the relevant expenditure allowed as deductions in that year, income tax revenue would have been affected as follows:

Educational Expenses: Tax Deductions (Question No. 228)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

If the present tax deductions of up to $400 for educational expenses of children were replaced by flat tax rebates, so that the taxpayer is given a rebate equal to a certain percentage of his expenditure up to $400, what would be the estimated cost to the Commonwealth if the percentage of such expenditure rebated was (a) 10 per cent, (b) 20 per cent, (c) 30 per cent, (d) 40 percent and (e) 50 percent.

Mr Crean:
ALP

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

Based on the most recent relevant statistics, which relate to the 1972-73 income year, it has been estimated that if the deductions allowed in that year in respect of education of children had been replaced by flat rebates equal to certain percentages of such expenditure up to $400 the effect on income tax revenue would have been as follows:

Sydney, New South Wales: Street Lighting (Question No. 245)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice:

  1. What sums have been expended by local government authorities in metropolitan Sydney for the provision of street lighting during the last 1 2 months.
  2. What percentage of streets in Sydney and its built-up environs are provided with adequate street lighting.
  3. What is the average time period that elapses between the opening of new suburbs in outer Sydney areas and the subsequent provision of street lighting.
Mr Uren:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Details of street lighting expenditures by local government authorities in metropolitan Sydney during the last twelve months are not available. However the Australian Bureau of Statistics advises that expenditure from revenue (ordinary services) on street lighting by municipalities and shires in the Sydney Statistical Division during the calendar years 1971 and 1972 was $5,258,000 and $5,387,000 respectively.

These expenditures represent charges to municipalities and shires by the five county councils which are responsible for electricity distribution in the Sydney Statistical Division (Sydney, St George, Prospect, Mackellar, Nepean River).

All capital works relating to provision of street lighting in the Sydney Statistical Division are the responsibility of these five County Councils. The Australian Bureau of Statistics advises that separate details of these expenditures are not available.

  1. and (3) The information sought is not available in my Department. If the right honourable member wishes it, I will arrange for the five Sydney metropolitan area County Councils to be contacted to see if they can assist him with his inquiry.

Unsewered Dwellings (Question No. 246)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice:

Can he provide a list indicating, for each local government area in each State and Territory, (a) the number of dwellings by type that remain unsewered and (b) the number of people in each living in such dwellings.

Mr Uren:
ALP

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

  1. The information requested is not available for the years since 1971. I draw the right honourable member’s attention to the publication of the Australian Bureau of Statistics entitled- ‘Census of Population and Housing 1971, Bulletin 7, Characteristics of Population and Dwellings in Local ‘ Government Areas, Parts 1-9, (reference no. 2.89)’

Copies of computer tabulations of this data have been deposited in the Parliamentary Library by my Department.

  1. The information requested is not available for the current year. The Australian Statistician has advised that the information sought is not available for smaller population centres. The information for Capital City Statistical Divisions and the balance for each state is contained in the 1 97 1 computer tabulations which have been referred to in (a) above.

Freeways (Question No. 247)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Can he provide a list of all freeway projects currently being undertaken in Australia and their stage of progress.
  2. Can he also provide a list of all freeway proposals in the planning stages in each capital city.
  3. Is there an inter-departmental committee on which his Department is represented considering this matter.
  4. If so, what are its terms of reference, and what is its membership and timetable.
Mr Uren:
ALP

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

  1. Yes. The details are contained in the ‘Report on the Effects of Stopping Freeway Construction in State Capital Cities 1973’ which I commissioned of the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads last year.
  2. Yes. A list of freeway proposals is contained in the report referred to, and further details are in the report ‘Assessment of Freeway Plans, State Capital Cities 1974’ which the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads presented to me this year.
  3. Yes, the joint transport studies inter-departmental committee on inter and intra regional freight and passenger flows.
  4. The inter-departmental committee has no special terms of reference relating to freeways, and has no set timetable. It consists of the Departments of Transport, Urban and Regional Development, Manufacturing Industry, Treasury, Environment and Conservation, and Prime Minister and Cabinet.

Camden Park Estates (Question No. 248)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) With reference to his announcement in July 1 973 that he had requested the Committee of Inquiry on the National Estate to examine the case for and means of preserving the Camden Park Estates as part of the National Estate and to provide advice as soon as possible, has the Committee yet reported to him.
  2. ) If so, what is the nature of their advice.
  3. If not, when is the Committee expected to advise him, and will he be tabling their advice when it becomes available.
Mr Uren:
ALP

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

  1. In a confidential letter to me of 31 January 1974 the Chairman of the Committee of Inquiry on the National Estate dealt essentially with various means which could be adopted to preserve the Camden Park Estate in its present form and usage. The question as to whether the Estates should be preserved was well covered in a statement made by the New South Wales Minister for Local Government, Sir Charles Cutler, in January 1973 when he said that: ‘The conservation of these Estates in their present form is regarded by Government as an objective of State and national importance … In the event that circumstances in the future might make it difficult for the Estates to continue in their present ownership, the Government would wish to consider measures to ensure that this outstanding national asset is preserved in the public interest’. (Section 1S.33, page 84 of the publication entitled ‘The New Cities of Campbelltown, Camden, Appin- A Structure Plan’ published by the State Planning Authority of New South Wales.
  2. and (3) See the answer to 1 above.

Department of Northern Development: Interdepartmental Committees (Question No. 291)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Northern Development, upon notice:

  1. Does his Department maintain a record of interdepartmental committees in which it participates.
  2. If not, then how is he aware of all the interdepartmental consultations in which his Department is involved through inter-departmental committees.
  3. Will he ensure that such a list is in future available to him.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) I refer the right honourable member to the Prime Minister’s answer to Question No. 964 on the 1973 Notice Paper (Hansard, 27 September 1973, pages 1714/ 17 15) in which he drew attention to the impracticalities of attempting to list all the consultations in which Departments are engaged with other Departments. My Department keeps me properly informed of all important developmentsthis is a satisfactory procedure for the purposes of my Ministry.

Department of Urban and Regional Development: Training in Financial and Auditing Procedures (Question No. 382)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice:

  1. How many officers in his Department have been given some form of formal training in financial or auditing procedures used in Commonwealth departments in the last 12 months.
  2. 2 ) What is the division and classification of these officers.
  3. 3 ) How many of these officers were in operational as distinct from financial or accounting positions in the Service.
Mr Uren:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1), (2) and (3) I refer the right honourable member to the reply provided by the Prime Minister in answer to Question No. 329 on pages 626/627 of Hansard dated 24 July 1974.

Essendon Airport (Question No. 384)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has he had discussions with the Minister for Environment and Conservation and the Minister for Transport regarding the future use of the Essendon Airport.
  2. If so, when did these discussions take place.
  3. Has he expressed the view that the land should be set aside as a recreational reserve.
Mr Uren:
ALP

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

  1. No.
  2. Not applicable.
  3. No.

Following mention in the Coombs Report the future of Essendon Airport is being investigated by a working committee chaired by the Department of Transport and also comprising representatives of Treasury and DURD, to see whether the airport site should be turned over to other urban uses.

Urban Renewal Projects (Question No. 385)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice:

With reference to his answer to question No. 1002 (Hansard, 7 November 1973, page 974) in which he indicated that he may carry out a survey on urban renewal projects as the need arises and in line with the Government’s economic priorities:

a ) what will determine where a need has arisen, and

what is the criteria against which he will assess the Government’s economic priorities in order to decide when to carry out such a survey.

Mr Uren:
ALP

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

  1. I shall determine when a need has arisen in the light of circumstances.
  2. The main criterion is the aim of the Australian Government to rectify the social inequalities and inefficiencies that exist in the urban areas of Australia.

I refer the right honourable member to the paper published by the Department of Urban and Regional Development in May titled ‘A programme for Urban and Regional Development- An Interim Statement’.

Urban Studies (Question No. 387)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice:

What assistance has the Australian Government provided to the task force chaired by the General Manager of the South Australian Housing Trust which is undertaking a nationwide survey of ways to rejuvenate and improve existing cities.

Mr Uren:
ALP

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

This task force was established by the Australian Institute of Urban Studies. The Australian Government contributed $50,000 to the operation of the Institute in the last financial year.

Local Government Amalgamations (Question No. 389)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many amalgamations of local government have occurred since Federation.
  2. Where, when and why did these amalgamations occur.
  3. How many proposed amalgamations of local government have been rejected.
  4. Where, when and why did such proposed amalgamations not occur.
Mr Uren:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Adjustment of boundaries of local government areas, including amalgamation of local government bodies, is a matter for the respective State governments. Major enquiries into local government boundaries are undertaken from time to time and these may or may not lead to recommendations for or implementation of amalgamations on a relatively large scale.

Details of amalgamations are not held by my Department but the right honourable member could obtain them from the responsible Department in each State.

  1. , (3) and (4) See (1) above.

Residential Land: Cost of Servicing (Question No. 390)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the present mean cost of servicing residential land in the (a) Sydney, (b) Melbourne, (c) Brisbane, (d) Perth, (e) Adelaide and (0 Hobart area with (i) electricity, (ii) water, (iii) gas, (iv) sewerage and (v) roads including kerbing.
  2. How much has the mean cost risen in each category in the last 12 months.
Mr Uren:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The costs involved in providing services are an important component in the end price of residential land. In line with the Government’s policy of reducing the price of land my Department is attempting to establish the extent of the costs involved in all stages of the land conversion process.

The collection of data in this area is complex and time consuming in that a number of authorities, both municipal and State, are involved in different stages of the land conversion process, and because different standards of development are often required even within the one city area. This means that statistics which imply an average cost of servicing have to be extremely closely defined.

There has until now been no real attempt to collect precisely defined data on a continuing basis covering all aspects of land servicing. My department is currently involved in establishing a framework for such a collection and is approaching bodies within all tiers of government and the private sector which are likely to yield information.

The following figures have been received from a variety of sources and are of an extremely general nature, and care should be exercised in their application. The figures indicate the order of costs involved in providing roads, drainage, sewer and water reticulation, engineering design and survey, site preparation, and legal costs and registration fees in Australia’s major urban areas.

  1. Because the collection of cost data has been only recently commenced and because of the general nature of the data so far assembled it is not possible to accurately gauge the mean rise in costs in the last 12 months.

Unsewered Municipalities (Question No. 391)

Mr Snedden:

– asked the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice:

  1. How many municipalities in the metropolitan (a) Sydney, (b) Melbourne, (c) Newcastle, (d) Wollongong, (e) Brisbane, (f) Adelaide, (g) Perth and (h) Hobart are totally unsewered.
  2. Which municipalities are they, and what is the estimated cost of sewerage requirements to each of them.
Mr Uren:
ALP

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

  1. The information requested is not at present available in the form requested. It has been sought from the State Authorities and will be given to the right honourable member when it is available.
  2. See (1) above.

Partially Sewered Municipalities (Question No. 392)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many municipalities in metropolitan (a) Sydney, (b) Melbourne, (c) Newcastle, (d) Perth, (e) Brisbane, (f) Adelaide and (g) Hobart are partially sewered.
  2. Which municipalities are they.
  3. To what extent are they partially sewered, and what is the estimated cost of completing sewerage in each of them.
Mr Uren:
ALP

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

The information requested is not at present available in the form requested. It has been sought from the State Authorities and will be given to the right honourable member when it is available.

Electoral: Formal Votes (Question No. 820)

Dr Klugman:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for services and Property, upon notice:

What was the proportion of formal votes cast for candidates of (a) the Australian Labor Party; (b) the Liberal Party of Australia; and (c) the Australian Country Party- (i) at polling booths within the electors’ subdivision; (ii) by absentee votes; and (iii) by postal votes in each State and Territory at the election for the House of Representatives held on 18 May 1974.

Mr Daly:
ALP

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

To supply polling booth statistics relating to percentage of first preference votes to formal votes recorded, in each of the categories specified, would require more than thirty thousand calculations, a task which is beyond the current resources of the Australian Electoral Office.

However, I will supply the honourable member with copies of Election Form 62 for each House of Representatives division, relating to the 18 May 1974 election. These Forms set out the number of votes polled by each candidate at each polling booth, together with number of absentee and postal votes polled by each candidate for the Division as a whole.

Socialistic Organisations Established and Disbanded by the Liberal/Country Party Government (Question No. 849)

Mr Morris:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. How many socialistic organisations, such as statutory authorities, marketing boards and co-operatives, and producer co-operatives, were established by the Liberal/Country Party Government in fields of production, distribution and exchange during the period 1949 to 1972.
  2. What is the name, main function and year of establishment of each of these organisations.
  3. What similar organisations were disbanded in the .same period, and what was the main function and year of disbandment in each case.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) While I am reluctant to authorise the large amount of work required to list all the statutory authorities

established by Liberal/Country Party Governments during the period 1949 to 1972, some examples of the organisations in the fields of production, distribution and exchange which fit the description given by the honourable member are shown below. Further information would, of course, be available in the form of enabling legislation and reports to the Parliament by the authorities concerned.

  1. Examples of organisations which were established by previous Labor Governments but were subsequently disbanded by the Liberal/Country Party during 1 949 to 1 972 are provided below.

Department of Northern Development: Research and Development Staff (Question No. 871)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Northern Development, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many officers or employees of his Department or of authorities under his control are employed on research and development work.
  2. Where are they employed.
  3. 3 ) What is the nature of the work being undertaken.
  4. What is the total expenditure per annum in maintaining this research and development program.
  5. Who decides the nature of the programs or projects included in this research and development work.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

  1. to (5) No officers of the Department of Northern Development are engaged on work which could be described as ‘research and development work’ in the normally accepted sense of the term. However, the duties of a number of Departmental officers involve work of an investigatory and fact-finding nature in keeping with the Department’s concern for the development of that part of Australia north of the 26th parallel of south latitude.

Pilbara: Natural Gas (Question No. 922)

Mr Anthony:

asked the Minister for Northern Development, upon notice:

Have discussions occurred between officers of his Department and the Department of Minerals and Energy on the availability of natural gas from the North West Shelf gas deposits for industrial use in the Pilbara region; if so, what was the outcome of those discussions.

Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

Yes. The Government’s conclusions will be announced in due course.

Newspaper Advertisements for Transport Supervisors (Question No. 940)

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

asked the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Were the full page advertisements placed in The Canberra Times on 27 July 1974, advertising positions- in the Stores and Transport Section of his Department, only 4 of which were in the Australian Capital Territory and all of which have people already acting in the jobs, necessary.
  2. Were the advertisements, which were placed in major newspapers in all States for a total of 47 positions, all of which had been advertised in the Gazette, also necessary.
  3. What was the cost of these advertisements.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) There were three compounding errors in handling this matter (a) it was not necessary to advertise all the positions in the Press; (b) it was not necessary to advertise the positions so widely; and (c) proper consideration was not given to the form of advertising. The incident, although isolated, is regrettable and action has been taken to strengthen procedures so as to avoid any recurrence.
  2. $17,200.

Employment (Question No. 968)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. What has been the estimated (a) increase or (b) decrease in civilian employment in each month since January 1971.
  2. What has been the seasonally adjusted annual rate for each quarter since the March 1 970 quarter.
Mr Crean:
ALP

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

The Acting Commonwealth Statistician has provided the following reply to the honourable member’s question:

) Monthly variations in the estimated numbers of wage and salary earners in civilian employment (excluding employees in agriculture and private domestic service) for each month from January 1 97 1 to July 1 974 are shown in Table 1 .

Annual rates of growth in the seasonally adjusted number of civilian employees (excluding those in agriculture and private domestic service) for each quarter since the March quarter 1 970 are shown in Table 2.

Sugar (Question No. 1077)

Mr Anthony:

asked the Minister for Northern Development, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has Australia been aproached to join an international body involving world sugar purchasers.
  2. If so, what was the reaction of the Australian Government.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

  1. No.
  2. See (1) above.

Sale of Ikara Guided Missiles (Question No. 1078)

Mr Anthony:

asked the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, upon notice:

  1. To what countries has the Ikara anti-submarine weapon been supplied since S December 1 972.
  2. Was the weapon supplied by the Australian Government or by a foreign government in each case.
  3. What control does the Australian Government have over the supply of Australian weapon systems to foreign governments by third parties.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. 1) No sales of the Ikara anti-submarine weapon system or missiles have been made to any country since S December 1972. Deliveries have been made to the United Kingdom, against an order received prior to S December 1 972. Part delivery has also been made of the Ikara weapon system for the Brazilian Navy frigates, ordered prior to 5 December 1 972.
  2. The items delivered were supplied by the Australian Department of Manufacturing Industry.
  3. Supply of Australian weapons systems requires specific approval by the Australian Government. When such approval is given, the party to whom the sale is approved is required to enter a contractual undertaking that the equipment will not be sold or transferred to a third party unless prior consent is obtained from the Australian Government.

Civil Defence Exercises (Question No. 1131)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the answer to Question No. 548 (Hansard, 19 September 1974 page 1621) in which the Prime Minister indicated that the form and frequency of exercises in Government Departments in civil defence preparedness are as determined by individual Departments, on what dates in the last 18 months have exercises of this nature been conducted in his Department.
  2. Which officers and employees took pan.
  3. How many officers and employees took pan.
  4. What was the purpose of each of the exercises.
  5. Does he accept that this is an area where the Australian Government can give a lead to other employers.
Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 ), (2), (3) and (4) There have been no exercises of this type conducted by the Department of Overseas Trade during the past 18 months. Following occupation of the new Trade Group Offices in Canberra evacuation procedures are being developed and will be tested when completed.

  1. Yes. In this context I refer the right honourable member to pan 3 of Mr Whitlam ‘s answer to Question No. 548 which appeared in Hansard on 19 September 1974, page 1621.

Commonwealth Police Force: Recruitment (Question No. 1168)

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice:

  1. How many people have been recruited for the Commonwealth Police Force since December 1972.
  2. What are the qualifications of each appointee, and where have they come from in each case.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

– The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  2. The educational standards of the recruits are: Low Secondary, 66; Mid Secondary, 209; High Secondary, 52; Tertiary, 9.

The recruits came from all States and the Australian Capital Territory.

Electoral: Distribution Commissioners (Question No. 1190)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for Services and Property, upon notice:

What are the qualifications of each of the Commissioners appointed in each of the States to undertake a redistribution of electoral boundaries.

Mr Daly:
ALP

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

The names and qualifications of each of the Distribution Commissioners appointed in September 1974 are as follows:

Bureau of Animal Health: Appointment of Director (Question No. 1302)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for Health, who directed the question to the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture upon notice:

  1. Has he appointed a Director to head the Animal Health Bureau.
  2. If so, what is his name, and what are his qualifications.
  3. Was the position advertised; if not, why not.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) It is not a matter for a Minister to appoint the Director. The office is a public service position and promotions and transfers to public service positions are made under the terms of section 50 of the Public Service Act. In accordance with this section a selection has been made to fill the office of Director.
  2. Mr R. W. Gee. Mr Gee is a qualified and experienced Veterinarian with an extensive background in animal health. Immediately prior to his selection as Director, Bureau of Animal Health, Mr Gee occupied the position of First Assistant Director-General, Quarantine Division, Australian Department of Health.
  3. No. The transfer is strictly in accordance with section 50 of the Public Service Act and there is no need or requirement to advertise the position.

Fishing: Resource Surreys (Question No. 1329)

Mr Snedden:

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

With reference to the answer to question No. 352 (Hansard, 3 October 1974, page 2266), in which the Minister outlined resource surveys of the fishing potential in Australia which were commenced in 1 974, will the Minister inform me of the progress of each of these projects, the likely completion date and whether public reports will be issued on each of these projects.

Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) With regard to projects financed from Trust Accounts, whose administration is his responsibility, annual reports containing details of projects financed from the Accounts are tabled in this House each year.
  2. These annual reports are also available from the Department of Agriculture and copies are distributed to relevant fishery authorities, libraries, companies and interested individuals.
  3. Progress of projects financed from other sources, such as special grants, are reported in his Department’s monthly publication ‘Australian Fisheries’. This also applies to projects financed from the Fisheries Development Trust Account and the Fishing Industry Research Trust Account.

Fishing: Resource Surveys (Question No. 1330)

Mr Snedden:

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

With reference to the answer to question No. 353 (Hansard, 3 October 1974, page 2266), in which the Minister informed me which resource surveys of the fishing potential in Australia had been commenced to 2 December 1972, what progress has been made on each of the projects, and have public reports been made available or will they be made available on each.

Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

  1. As indicated in the answer to the right honourable member’s previous question (No. 1329) all projects financed through his Department are fully reported on in ‘Australian Fisheries’ and/or in the annual reports tabled in the Parliament as required by the Act under which the particular Trust Account is administered.

Meat Flown from New Zealand to Brisbane (Question No. 1477)

Mr Street:
CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA

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

  1. What quantities of meat have been flown from New Zealand to Brisbane since 3 1 July 1 974.
  2. What types of meat have been involved.
Dr Patterson:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics there were 1 5.9 tonnes of beef airfreighted to Brisbane from New Zealand during August 1974. Import data for September 1 974 is not yet available.

Ministerial Councils: Contact with States (Question No. 47)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Will he provide a list of all formal committees, councils, etc., that nave been established which enable him or officers of his Department to maintain contact with State Government Ministers or State Government officers.
  2. When was each body established and by whom.
  3. What is the (a) composition and (b) function of each body.
  4. On what occasions has each body met in the last 2 years and for what purpose.
Mr Crean:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 ), (2), (3) and (4) I refer the right honourable member to the answer provided by the Prime Minister to Parliamentary Question No. 41 on 3 October 1974. (Hansard pages 2233-2237.)

Department of Science: Inter-departmental Committees (Question No. 308)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice:

  1. Does his Department maintain a record of interdepartmental committees in which it participates.
  2. If not, then how is he aware of all the interdepartmental consultations in which his Department is involved through inter-departmental committees.
  3. Will he ensure that such a list is in future available to him.
Mr Morrison:
ALP

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

  1. to (3) I refer the right honourable member to the Prime Minister’s answer to Question No. 964 on the 1973 notice paper (Hansard, 27 September 1973, page 1714) in which he drew attention to the impracticalities of attempting to list all the consultations in which departments are engaged with other departments. My Department keeps me properly informed of all important developments- this is a satisfactory procedure for the purposes of my Ministry.

School Requisites: Sales Tax (Question No. 595)

Mr Berinson:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

What is the estimated cost to revenue of the proposal by the Australian Education Council, at its meeting of 1 March 1974, that school requisites, such as ans and crafts materials and stationery, should be exempt from sales tax.

Mr Crean:
ALP

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

If it were possible to provide for the exemption from sales tax of the primary and secondary school materials referred to by the Australian Education Council specifically where they were used in schools, there would be an estimated annual cost to revenue of about $4 million. In fact, however, it would not be practicable to restrict the exemption in that way without such consequences as imposing administrative burdens on shopkeepers or, if the exemption applied only to goods sold for use in schools by bodies dealing exclusively with students, putting shopkeepers at a competitive disadvantage. A wider exemption would, however, increase the total cost to $ 10 million or more.

Western Australia: Grants from the Community Arts Fund and Festivals Fund (Question No. 964)

Mr Bungey:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. What grants from the Community Arts Fund and the Festivals Fund have been made to Western Australia since 30 June 1972.
  2. Who received the grants, and for what purposes.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) The Community Ans Fund and the Festivals Fund were established early in 1973 when the Government announced new arrangements for SUPport for the Arts. Prior to that time assistance was provided through the Special Projects Committee of the Australian Council for the Ans.

The total of the grants made to Western Australia through the Special Projects Committee, the Community Ans Fund and the Festivals Fund since 30 June 1972 is $86,382.

Stellar Intensity Interferometer (Question No. 992)

Mr Street:

asked the Minster for Science, upon notice.

  1. 1 ) Have the operations of the University of Sydney’s stellar intensity interferometer at Narrabri been closed down because it has completed all the research programs for which it was designed.
  2. Has the Chatterton Department of Astronomy submitted to the Government a proposal for a more sensitive instrument of this type to carry on the initial work of the Narrabri stellar interferometer.
  3. If so, when does the Government expect to announce its decision on whether it is prepared to fund this project.
Mr Morrison:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1)1 understand that this is correct.

  1. The University of Sydney has submitted such a proposal.
  2. A grant to allow design studies for a new interferometer to proceed was announced in the Budget Speech on 17 September 1974.

Australian Council for the Arts- Assistance For Katanning Arts and Crafts Society (Question No. 1007)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Has a decision been made on assistance for the construction of toilets at Katanning Arts and Crafts Society submitted by the Katanning Community Committee to the Southern Region Social Development Board under the Australian Assistance Plan, and subsequently referred by the Social Welfare Commission to the Australian Council for the Arts.
  2. If so, what is the decision.
  3. If not, when will a decision be made.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. No
  2. and (3) The matter is receiving attention and a decision will be made as soon as possible.

Australian Council For The Arts- Assistance For The Murray Music And Drama Club (Question No. 1008)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Has a decision been made on assistance for improvements to be made to the Murray Music and Drama Club submitted by the Murray Community Committee to the Southern Region Social Development Board under the Australian Assistance Plan, and subsequently referred by the Social Welfare Commission to the Australia Council for the Arts.
  2. If so, what is the decision.
  3. If not, when will a decision be made.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. No
  2. and (3) The matter is receiving attention and a decision will be made as soon as possible.

Education: Private and Sponsored Overseas Students (Question No. 1045)

Mr MacKellar:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

How many overseas students holding that status are in Australia at present.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I am informed that the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

The latest available figures are those as at 30 June 1973 when there were 9,728 private and 2,676 sponsored overseas students in Australia.

Education: Private and Sponsored Overseas Students (Question No. 1046)

Mr MacKellar:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. How many overseas students left Australia to reside overseas during the years 1972 and 1973 and during the period 1 January-30 June 1974.
  2. 2 ) What is their nationality, and where were they born.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I am informed that the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) Statistical information of private and sponsored overseas students is collected once a year and relates to the student’s country of last permanent residence.

There were 1,345 private and 1,673 sponsored overseas students who departed from Australia during the twelve months ended 30 June 1972 and 1,124 and 2,065 respectively who departed in the year ended 30 June 1 973.

Figures for the year ended 30 June 1974 are not yet available.

  1. ) Private Overseas Students departed.

Education: Private and Sponsored Overseas Students (Question No. 1047)

Mr MacKellar:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. How many persons who have come to Australia to study have been given authority to remain in Australia with residence during the years 1972 and 1973 and during the period 1 January- 30 June 1974.
  2. 2 ) What is their nationality and where were they born.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I am informed that the answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. 1 ) Statistical information of private and sponsored overseas students is collected once a year and relates to the student’s country of last permanent residence.

During the 12 months ended June 1972 and 1973 respectively 603 and 423 private overseas students were given authority to remain in Australia.

Figures for 1 974 are not yet available.

The arrangements which exist with the governments of the sponsoring countries envisage that all sponsored students will return at the conclusion of their studies. Although statistics relating to the number of sponsored students who have been permitted to remain have not been maintained it would be in isolated individual cases only that decisions permitting stay would have been taken in the years concerned. These cases would in the main involve sponsored students who married Australian residents.

  1. Private/Overseas students permitted to stay for residence during the 1 2 months ended June:

Education: Private and Sponsored Overseas Students (Question No. 1048)

Mr MacKellar:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. How many persons were admitted to Australia for education purposes during the years 1972 and 1973 and during the period 1 January to 30 June 1 974.
  2. What is their nationality, and where were they born.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I am informed that the answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

Statistical information of private and sponsored overseas students is collected once a year and relates to the student’s country of last permanent residence.

1 ) The number of private students who were studying in Australia at 30 June 1972 and 1973 and who arrived in the preceding twelve months was 1164 and 1026 respectively.

The number of sponsored overseas students who were studying in Australia at 30 June 1 972 and 1 973 and who arrived in the preceding twelve months was 1808 and 2247 respectively. Figures for 1974 are not yet available.

The students arrived from the following countries:

Illegal Entrants (Question No. 1049)

Mr MacKellar:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many persons entered Australia illegally in the years 1972 and 1973 and during the period 1 January to 30 June 1974.
  2. What was their nationality and where were they born.
  3. What was their method of entry.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I am informed that the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. It is not possible to say how many persons may have entered Australia illegally. Desertions by crew members of ships are reported but the presence of others is not known until they are detected. Ships deserters make up the majority who come to notice. During the years 1972 and 1973 and the period 1 January to 30 June 1974 the number of reported desertions was as follows-

1972, 393; 1973, 521;

1 January to 30 June 1974, 106.

  1. The nationalities of the deserters were as set out in the following table-

To provide information as to the place of birth of each person would necessitate research of hundreds of individual files which would involve many valuable man hours. However, if the honourable member wishes to have the information in any specific individual case I will be happy to make this available to him.

  1. Ship desertion.

Deportees (Question No. 1050)

Mr MacKellar:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many persons were deported from Australia because they had entered illegally in the years 1972 and 1973 and during the period I January to 30 June 1974.
  2. What was their nationality and where were they born.
  3. 3 ) What was their method of entry.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I am informed that the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. l) It is not possible to relate the number of persons deported during 1972 and 1973 and during the period 1 January to 30 June 1974 to the number of persons who entered illegally during those periods. The number of ships deserters and other illegal entrants deported during the years 1972 and 1973 and the period 1 January and 30 June 1974 was as follows-

1972,259;

1973,231;

1 January to 30 June 1974, 106.

  1. The nationalities of the deportees were as set out in the following table-

To provide information as to the place of birth of each person would necessitate research of hundreds of individual files which would involve many valuable man hours. However of the Honourable Member wishes to have this information in any specific individual case I will be happy to make it available to him.

  1. Ships deserters would comprise the majority of illegal entrants deponed.

Illegal Entrants (Question No. 1051)

Mr MacKellar:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many illegal entrants were granted permission to remain in Australia during the years 1972 and 1973 and during the period 1 January to 30 June 1 974.
  2. 2 ) What was their nationality and where were they born.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I am informed that the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) 1972, 153; 1973, 146; 1 January to 30 June 1974, 211.
  2. The nationalities of the illegal entrants permitted to remain were as set out in the following table:

To provide information as to the place of birth of each person would necessitate research of hundreds of individual files which would involve many valuable man-hours. However, if the honourable member wishes to have this information in any specific individual case I will be happy to make it available to him.

Deportees (Question No. 1052)

Mr MacKellar:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many visitors have been deponed from Australia in the years 1972 and 1973 and during the period 1 January to 30 June 1974.
  2. What was their nationality and where were they born.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I am informed that the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. and (2) Separate statistics have not been maintained in relation to the number of persons admitted to Australia as visitors and subsequently deponed. The following table provides by nationality and year the number of persons who were admitted with temporary entry permits and subsequently deponed. The majority would have been visitors.

To provide information as to the place of birth of each person would necessitate research of individual files which would involve many valuable man hours. However, if the honourable member wishes to have this information in any specific individual case I will be happy to make it available to him.

Ikara Anti Submarine Missiles (Question No. 1079)

Mr Anthony:

asked the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Are there any limitations imposed by the Australian Government on the installation of Ikara anti-submarine missiles on frigates built in Britain and sold to overseas countries; if so, what are these limitations.
  2. Are there any limitations on the supply of these missiles to frigates acquired by Chile; if so, why.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. Yes. Limitations are in accordance with Australian Government policy on the export of defence equipment. Administration of this policy is vested in the Department of Foreign Affairs. My reply to Question No. 1078 is applicable.
  2. There has been no approach from Chile to purchase Ikara.

Jindivik Target Aircraft (Question No. 1082)

Mr Anthony:

asked the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, upon notice:

  1. What sales of Jindivik target missiles have been recorded during 1973 and in 1 974 to date.
  2. ) What is the monthly production of these missiles.
  3. What is the undelivered backlog of orders for these missiles.
Mr Enderby:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Jindivik is an unarmed pilotless aircraft developed to provide an aircraft-like target against which to fire missiles during either research or development or Service training; on a few occasions it has been used for allied purposes, for example to measure high-altitude clear-air turbulance. In the period January 1973 to mid-October 1974, one new order was received, for 32 aircraft, from the United Kingdom.
  2. Currently averaging about I aircraft per month.
  3. Forty aircraft, being 8 for the RAN and the new order for 32 referred to in ( I ) above.

Consumer Goods (Question No. 1127)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Is the Australian Government finding it very hard to stop people consuming goods which do not make them happy and which they do not really need.
  2. ) What types of goods are involved.
  3. Has the Government taken any steps to stop Australians consuming these goods.
  4. If not, are any such steps envisaged.
  5. Who takes decisions within the Government about what goods the Australian people do or do not need.
  6. Is there any right of appeal for those people who disagree with the Government’s decisions relating to their needs.
Mr Crean:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) If the Leader of the Opposition would care to explain the basis of his apparently fanciful question, I might be in a position to answer it.

Life Office Assets (Question No. 1167)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

What proportion of Australian life office assets was represented by housing (dwelling) mortgages (a) at the latest date for which figures are available, (b) 1 year previously, (c) 2 years previously, (d) 3 years previously and (e) 5 years previously.

Mr Crean:
ALP

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

The following information has been obtained from statistics published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The figures show the proportion of total selected assets in Australia of the statutory funds of life offices accounted for by housing mortgage loans:

5.9 per cent as at 30 June 1974- the latest date for which figures are available;

b ) 6.1 per cent- 1 year previously;

6.8 per cent- 2 years previously;

7.5 per cent- 3 years previously; and

8.5 per cent- 5 years previously.

These figures are percentages based on ledger balances of companies in respect of their statutory funds as at the date for which the information was supplied but do not include adjustments for any accrued or outstanding interest or other items not brought to account as at that date.

Arbitration Inspectorate (Question No. 1169)

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did he inform me that he has appointed a total of 42 people to the Arbitration Inspectorate, and that these people were appointed from within the Public Service.
  2. If so, what was their previous job, and how long have they been in the Public Service in each case.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The honourable member appears to have misread the information which I gave him in answer to question No. 600. On the 19 September 1974, 1 informed the honourable member in answer to that question that; under the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 125 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1 904- 1 973 ‘the Minister may appoint a person to be an Inspector for the purposes of this Act’, but that I had not, to that time, made any appointments under this provision.

I also explained that under sub-section (2A) of that Section of the Act an officer of the Public Service who occupies an office of Inspector in the Department is an Inspector for the purposes of the Act, and that 46 persons have been appointed or transferred to the position of Inspector within the Australian Public Service. I added that these appointments were made under the Public Service Act and did not require my approval.

  1. The names of the 46 persons appointed or transferred to the Arbitration Inspectorate, together with their previous job as shown in Departmental records, and date of permanent appointment to the Australian Public Service are as follows:

Canberra: Motor Vehicle Accidents (Question No. 1201)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What are the names of the street intersections in Canberra where most motor accidents have occurred during the last 12 months.
  2. When was each intersection completed, and how many accidents have occurred since at each of these intersections.
  3. 3 ) What actions are being taken to reduce the accident incidence at these intersections.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Based on the latest data available which are 1 974 accidents to 22 September 1974 the following twelve locations in order have the highest number of accidents reported.

These locations are also amongst the intersections with the highest traffic volumes in Canberra.

  1. Most of these intersections have existed although in various stages of development, since the early days of Canberra. Detailed accident data for all locations in Canberra has only been maintained since I July 1 968 and so a full accident history cannot be provided.
  2. The Department of the Capital Territory continually reviews the A.C.T road network and intersections for traffic safety improvements. Of the twelve locations listed, four have had modifications made to the traffic signal controls within recent months, two have had channelisation improvements, and two are listed for traffic signal modification in the near future.

Franklin, Huon: Upgrading of Watermains (Question No. 1243)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) When was the upgrading of the obsolete watermains in Franklin in the Municipality of Huon provisionally approved under the Regional Employment Development Scheme.
  2. Who provisionally approved this project.
  3. Has Cabinet approved of the project; if so, when.
  4. What progress has been made with this project
  5. When will it be completed.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: (1)- (5) When Cabinet approved the Regional Employment Development Scheme it established a Ministerial Committee to develop and oversight the Scheme. The Committee comprises myself as Chairman, the Minister for Social Security, the Treasurer, the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, the Minister for Environment and Conservation and the Minister for Tourism and Recreation. The Ministerial Committee has determined policy issues which have arisen, and approved areas within which projects may qualify for assistance, and taken decisions on a range of projects which have come to it.

At its meeting on 26.9.74 the Ministerial Committee adopted interim guidelines to aid consideration of proposals for assistance under the Scheme. Ministers then reviewed a considerable number of proposals in approved areas which required detailed evaluation in the terms of the interim guidelines which the Ministers had adopted. Where there was no apparent reason why projects should be deferred for later consideration, they were provisionally approved, i.e., assistance would be granted subject to it being established that they met, or, after discussion with the sponsoring organisation, could meet, the interim guidelines. This approach was aimed at enabling appropriate projects to be commenced without delay in the interests of the unemployed and the local community.

Sponsoring organisations are being advised directly regarding their requests for assistance. Members of the House are also being consulted on projects in their electorate and advised of the outcome.

All the projects referred to in the right honourable member’s Questions Nos 1243-1271 inclusive were provisionally approved on 26.9.74.

Christian Youth Centre Camps, Ulverstone: Extensions (Question No. 1244)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. When were the extensions to the Christian Youth Centre Camp at Ulverstone provisionally approved under the Regional Employment Development Scheme.
  2. ) Who provisionally approved this project.
  3. Has Cabinet approved of the project; if so, when.
  4. What progress has been made with this project.
  5. When will it be completed.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 )-(5) See my Answer to Question No. 1243.

Wynyard: Swimming Pool (Question No. 1245)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) When were the heating and wind breaks for the swimming pool at Wynyard provisionally approved under the Regional Employment Development Scheme.
  2. Who provisionally approved this project.
  3. Has Cabinet approved of the project; if so, when.
  4. What progress has been made with this project.
  5. When will it be completed.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 )- (5) See my Answer to Question No. 1243.

Waratah: Recreation Ground Amenities (Question No. 1246)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) When were the recreation ground amenities at Waratah provisionally approved under the Regional Employment Development Scheme.
  2. Who provisionally approved this project.
  3. Has Cabinet approved of the project; if so, when.
  4. What progress has been made with this project.
  5. 5 ) When will it be completed.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 )- ( 5 ) See my Answer to Question No. 1 243.

Burnie: Netball Courts (Question No. 1247)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) When were the netball courts and amenities at Burnie provisionally approved under the Regional Employment Development Scheme.
  2. Who provisionally approved this project.
  3. Has Cabinet approved of the project; if so, when.
  4. What progress has been made with this project.
  5. When will it be completed.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 )-( 5 ) See my Answer to Question No. 1243.

West Tamar: Scout Camp Development (Question No. 1248)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) When was the scout camp development-bunk house, lobby and recreation hall- at West Tamar provisionally approved under the Regional Employment Development Scheme.
  2. Who provisionally approved this project.
  3. Has Cabinet approved of the project; if so, when.
  4. What progress has been made with this project.
  5. 5 ) When will it be completed.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 )- (5) See my Answer to Question No. 1243.

New Norfolk: Sporting facilities (Question No. 1249)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. When were the sporting complex, fields and facilities at New Norfolk provisionally approved under the Regional Employment Development Scheme.
  2. Who provisionally approved this project.
  3. Has Cabinet approved of the project; if so, when.
  4. What progress has been made with this project.
  5. 5 ) When will it be completed.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 )-(5) See my Answer to Question No. 1243.

Geilston Bay High School: Sweat Track (Question No. 1250)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. When was the sweat track at Geilston Bay High School provisionally approved under the Regional Employment Development Scheme.
  2. Who provisionally approved this project.
  3. Has Cabinet approved of the project; if so, when.
  4. What progress has been made with this project.
  5. When will it be completed.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 )-(5) See my Answer to Question No. 1243.

Wentworth Park, Clarence: Foreshore

Development (Question No. 1251)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) When was the foreshore development at Wentworth Park, Clarence, provisionally approved under the Regional Employment Development Scheme.
  2. Who provisionally approved this project.
  3. Has Cabinet approved of the project; if so, when.
  4. What progress has been made with this project.
  5. ) When will it be completed.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 )-( 5 ) See my Answer to Question No. 1 243.

Latrobe, Wesley: Recreation and Sporting Centre (Question No. 1252)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. When was the recreation and sporting centre at Latrobe, Wesley, provisionally approved under the Regional Employment Development Scheme.
  2. Who provisionally approved this project.
  3. 3 ) Has Cabinet approved of the project; if so, when.
  4. What progress has been made with this project.
  5. 5 ) When will it be completed.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 )-<5) See my Answer to Question No. 1243.

Crabtree Grove, Huon: Upgrading of Watermains (Question No. 1253)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) When was the upgrading of the watermains at Crabtree Grove- Project 2- in the Municipality of Huon provisionally approved under the Regional Employment Development Scheme.
  2. Who provisionally approved this project.
  3. 3 ) Has Cabinet approved of the project; if so, when.
  4. What progress has been made with this project.
  5. When will it be completed.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 )-( 5 ) See my Answer to Question No. 1243.

Mountain River, Huon: Upgrading of Watermains (Question No. 1254)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) When was the upgrading of the watermain at Mountain River- Project 3- m the Municipality of Huon previously approved under the Regional Employment Development Scheme.
  2. Who provisionally approved this project.
  3. Has Cabinet approved of the project; if so, when.
  4. What progress has been made with this project.
  5. When will it be completed.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 )-( 5 ) See my Answer to Question No. 1 243.

Beaconsfield: Painting by Female Labour (Question No. 1255)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. When was painting by female labour- Project 1- in the Municipality of Beaconsfield provisionally approved under the Regional Employment Development Scheme.
  2. Who provisionally approved this project.
  3. Has Cabinet approved of the project; if so, when.
  4. What progress has been made with this project.
  5. When will it be completed.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 )-( 5) See my Answer to Question No. 1 243.

Beaconsfield Council Chambers: Female Labour (Question No. 1256)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. When was employment of female labour at Beaconsfield Council Chambers- Project 2- in the Municipality of Beaconsfield provisionally approved under the Regional Employment Development Scheme.
  2. Who provisionally approved this project.
  3. Has Cabinet approved of this project; if so, when.
  4. What progress has been made with this employment project.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 )-( 5 ) See my Answer to Question No. 1 243.

Lewis Park Beach, Clarence: Development (Question No. 1257)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) When was the development of Lewis Park BeachProject 2- in the Municipality of Clarence provisionally approved under the Regional Employment Development Scheme.
  2. Who provisionally approved this project.
  3. Has Cabinet approved of the project; if so, when.
  4. What progress has been made with this project.
  5. When will it be completed.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 )-( 5 ) See my Answer to Question No. 1 243.

Kentish: Olympic Swimming Pool (Question No. 1258)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) When was the improvement to the Kentish Olympic Swimming Pool- Project 7- in the Municipality of Kentish provisionally approved under the Regional Employment Development Scheme.
  2. Who provisionally approved this project.
  3. Has Cabinet approved of the project; if so, when.
  4. What progress has been made with this project.
  5. When will it be completed.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 )- (5) See my Answer to Question No. 1243.

Mount Roland, Kentish: Improvements (Question No. 1259)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) When were the improvements in the track to the summit of Mount Roland- Project 6- in the Municipality of Kentish provisionally approved under the Regional Employment Development Scheme.
  2. Who provisionally approved this project.
  3. ) Has Cabinet approved of the project; if so, when.
  4. 4) What progress has been made with this project.
  5. 5 ) When will it be completed.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 )- ( 5 ) See my Answer to Question No. 1 243.

Kentish Elderly Citizens Complex (Question No. 1260)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. When was the development of the elderly citizens’ complex- Project 1- in the Municipality of Kentish provisionally approved under the Regional Employment Development Scheme.
  2. ) Who provisionally approved this project.
  3. 3 ) Has Cabinet approved of the project; if so, when.
  4. What progress has been made with this project.
  5. When will it be completed.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 )- ( 5 ) See my Answer to Question No. 1243.

Railton, Kentish: Stormwater System (Question No. 1261)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) When were the stormwater drains and improvements to the stormwater system at Railton- Project 2- in the Municipality of Kentish provisionally approved under the Regional Employment Development Scheme.
  2. Who provisionally approved this project.
  3. 3 ) Has Cabinet approved of the project; if so, when.
  4. What progress has been made with this project.
  5. When will it be completed.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: (1)10(5) See my answer to Question No. 1243.

Kentish: Kerb, Channel and Drainage Works (Question No. 1262)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) When were the kerb, channel and drainage worksProject 3- in the Municipality of Kentish provisionally approved under the Regional Employment Development Scheme.
  2. Who provisionally approved this project.
  3. Has Cabinet approved of the project; if so, when.
  4. What progress has been made with this project
  5. 5 ) When will it be completed.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: (1)to (5) See my answer to Question No. 1243.

Lake Barrington Reserves, Kentish: Improvements (Question No. 1263)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. When were the improvements to Lake Barrington Reserves- Project 5- in the Municipality of Kentish provisionally approved under the Regional Employment Development Scheme.
  2. ) Who provisionally approved this project.
  3. Has Cabinet approved of the project; if so, when.
  4. What progress has been made with this project.
  5. When will it be completed.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) to (5) See my answer to Question No. 1243.

Risdonvale Creek, Clarence: Project (Question No. 1264)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. When were the clearing of Risdonvale Creek and repairs to the weir- Project 3- in the Municipality of Clarence provisionally approved under the Regional Employment Development Scheme.
  2. Who provisionally approved this project.
  3. 3 ) Has Cabinet approved of the project; if so, when.
  4. What progress has been made with this project
  5. When will it be completed.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. to (5) See my answer to Question No. 1243.

Clarence: Beach and Foreshore Cleaning (Question No. 1265)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) When was the beach and foreshore cleaning- Project 5- in the Municipality of Clarence provisionally approved under the Regional Employment Development Scheme.
  2. Who provisionally approved this project.
  3. Has Cabinet approved of the project; if so, when.
  4. What progress has been made with this project.
  5. 5 ) When will it be completed.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 )-(5) See my Answer to Question No. 1243.

South Arm Reserve, Clarence: Improvements (Question No. 1266)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) When were the South Ann Reserve improvementsProject 10- in the Municipality of Clarence provisionally approved under the Regional Employment Development Scheme.
  2. Who provisionally approved this project.
  3. Has Cabinet approved of the project; if so, when.
  4. What progress has been made with this project.
  5. 5 ) When will it be completed.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 )-(S) See my Answer to Question No. 1243.

Salmon Ponds, Plenty: Project (Question No. 1267)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) When was the work as Salmon Ponds, Plenty- Inland Fisheries Commission- provisionally approved under the Regional Employment Development Scheme.
  2. Who provisionally approved this project.
  3. 3 ) Has Cabinet approved of the project; if so, when.
  4. What progress has been made with this project.
  5. When will it be completed.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 )-( 5 ) See my Answer to Question No. 1 243.

Clarence Fire-fighting Access Trials (Question No. 1268)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. When was the improvement to fire-fighting access trails- Project 1- in the Municipality of Clarence provisionally approved under the Regional Employment Development Scheme.
  2. Who provisionally approved this project.
  3. Has Cabinet approved of the project; if so, when.
  4. What progress has been made with this project.
  5. When will it be completed.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 )-( 5 ) See my Answer to Question No. 1243.

Tasman Bridge-Bellarine, Clarence: Walking Track (Question No. 1269)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) When, was the walking track from the Tasman Bridge to Bellarine- Project 6- in the Municipality of Clarence provisionally approved under the Regional Employment Development Scheme.
  2. Who provisionally approved this project.
  3. 3 ) Has Cabinet approved of the project; if so, when.
  4. What progress has been made with this project.
  5. 5 ) When will it be completed.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. 1) and (5) See my Answer to Question No. 1243.

Beaconsfield: Employment of Typists (Question No. 1270)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. When was the project in relation to the employment of typists at Beaconsfield- Project 3- in the Municipality of Beaconsfield provisionally approved under the Regional Employment Development Scheme.
  2. Who provisionally approved this project.
  3. Has Cabinet approved of the project; if so, when.
  4. What progress has been made with this project.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: (l)and(4) See my Answer to Question No. 1243.

Cradle Mountain Road, Kentish: Upgrading (Question No. 1271)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. When was the upgrading of the Cradle Mountain Road- Project 4- in the Municipality of Kentish provisionally approved under the Regional Employment Development Scheme.
  2. Who provisionally approved this project.
  3. Has Cabinet approved of the project; if so, when.
  4. What progress has been made with this project.
  5. 5 ) When will it be completed.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: (l)and(S) See my Answer to Question No. 1243.

Christmas Island (Question No. 1311)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

With reference to the answers to my questions Nos 477 (Hansard, 23 July 1974, page 546) and 927 (Hansard, 19 September 1974, page 1635) and having regard to (a) the importance of Christmas Island as a source of phosphate for Australia, (b) its strategic significance and (c) the Government’s policy on de-colonisation, is it a fact that the Government still does not have any proposals under consideration to change the status of Christmas Island.

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

The Government does not have any proposals to change the status of Christmas Island.

Public Authority Expenditure (Question No. 1313)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

What was public authority expenditure as a percentage of gross national product on (a) cash benefits for persons and (b) education (i) as an average for 1968-69 to 1971-72 and (ii) in 1973-74.

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

  1. Public authority expenditure on cash benefits to persons represented 5.5 per cent of gross domestic product, on average, over the period 1968-69 to 1971-72 and 6.4 per cent in 1973-74.
  2. Public authority spending on education represented 3.9 per cent of gross domestic product, on average, over the period 1968-69 to 197 1-72 and 4.7 per cent in 1973-74.

Exchange Rate of Australian Dollar (Question No. 1325)

Mr Snedden:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How will the weighted exchange value of the Australian dollar be determined for the purposes of keeping that value constant.
  2. What currencies will be taken into account when making this calculation.
  3. On what basis will weights be assigned to each of these currencies to determine a weighted average.
Mr Crean:
ALP

– The answer to the right honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) In maintaining a constant effective exchange value for the Australian dollar daily movements in the values of the currencies of Australia’s major trading partners are weighted in accordance with the importance of the country concerned in Australia’s trade. Appropriate adjustment is then made on a daily basis to the rate for the Australian dollar to offset what would otherwise be a movement in the effective exchange value of the Australian dollar. Details of the weighting system and the foreign currencies involved have not been released.

Income Tax (Question No. 1354)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is the receipts component of the Budget based on an estimate of a 22.5 per cent increase in average weekly earnings during 1974-75.
  2. If so, will he provide details outlining how aggregate income tax receipts have been calculated using the 22.5 per cent statistic.
Mr Crean:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) No. Only the estimate of gross PAYE income tax proceeds is so based.
  2. The estimate of gross PAYE income tax proceeds for 1974-75 contained in the Budget documents was prepared on the same basis as comparable estimates in past Budgets. That basis involves estimating the increase in employment during the year, converting that increase to a male-unit basis, and making an assumption about the increase in average weekly earnings per employed male unit (22.5 per cent for 1974-75).

The estimate of aggregate income tax receipts also includes estimates of the levels of other incomes of individuals and of company taxpayers in the 1973-74 income year which are assessed to tax in 1 974-75.

Treasury: White Paper on the Economy (Question No. 1356)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

When does he expect the Treasury White Paper on the Economy to be published.

Mr Crean:
ALP

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

Owing to the election in May brought on by the Opposition’s decision to refuse Supply, and the consequential late timing of the Budget, the normal mid-year survey of the economy by the Treasury was not prepared this year and the question of its publication does not therefore arise.

Treasury: Economic Forecasts (Question No. 1357)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

Will he provide my office with the Treasury economic forecasts to December 1974.

Mr Crean:
ALP

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

Statement No. 2 attached to the Budget Speech contains a Treasury assessment of the economic prospect in 1974-75. The honourable member has available to him also Treasury’s ‘Round-up of Economic Statistics’, which provides an up-to-date assessment of the current economic situation each month. Any other material on the economy which I decide should be published- whether in my own name or the Treasury’s- will be made available to the honourable member. I am not prepared, however, to enter into a private arrangement to provide to the honourable member’s office, departmental material which is not generally available.

Devaluation of Australian Dollar: Speculation (Question No. 1359)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has he asked his Department to examine the extent of the speculative dealings which took place as a result of the premature disclosure of the Government’s decision to devalue the Australian dollar by 12 per cent.
  2. If so, will he make the results of the examination public.
  3. If not, will he ask his Department to conduct such an examination.
Mr Crean:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 ), (2) and (3) Following rumours of speculative dealing in London on the occasion in question, I asked the Reserve Bank to make enquiries. The Reserve Bank has reported to me that rumours did stimulate a flurry of interest in London late on the Tuesday afternoon (London time) but this interest did not appear to have been converted into any significant amount of actual business written.

Unemployment (Question No. 1363)

Mr Lynch:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. When did he receive official advice that unemployment would rise to 1 80,000.
  2. Will he outline the latest official advice available to him with respect to the forward trends in the labour market.
Mr Crean:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) There is altogether too much keyhole conjecture about what official advice is or is supposed to have been. As I indicated in the House recently, such conjecture is all the more likely to be mischievous when it is derived from one rather than from several keyholes and when there seems to be a high degree of selectivity about what is uttered through the keyhole.

The fact is that officials advise Ministers and their advice is based on frankly stated assumptions. If the day should come when, because of the keyhole activities to which I have referred, such advice can no longer be frankly given, the Government of the day (of whatever political complexion) will be the poorer for that. Ministers take the decisions and take responsibility for them.

With that background I inform the honourable member that it is my expectation that unemployment will rise in the coming months, especially as school-leavers enter the labour market, before declining later in the financial year.

Australian Diplomats: Uniforms (Question No. 1401)

Mr Garland:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has a uniform or a special type of dress to be worn by Australian diplomats been under consideration by the Minister or officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs.
  2. Have designs been made or costumes made up (a) within the Department or ( b ) outside the Department.
  3. If outside the Department, who (a) designed and (b) made such costumes, and what is the estimated cost.
  4. What are the main features of the costume at present under consideration.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. 1 refer the honourable member to my answer to Question Number 834 on 24 September 1974 (Hansard, page 1734) in which I confirmed that senior officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs were giving consideration to the possibility of devising an alternative style of formal dress which officers overseas might wear if they choose in place of less suitable European style formal wear.
  2. and (3) Consideration of possible designs for the formal dress has been a matter for senior officers of the Department and has not been undertaken outside the Department. For convenience, a local tailor was commissioned by the Department to make samples of two possible styles. Three suits have been tailored at a total cost of $570. Various designs of insignia were also purchased at a total cost of $80.
  3. The design has not yet been settled upon as the various possibilities are still under consideration.

Guinea-Bissau (Question No. 1421)

Mr Connolly:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

Is the Government’s attitude regarding the rights of the people of Guinea-Bissau towards self-determination the same as the Government’s attitude towards the future of Portuguese Timor; if not, what are the differences.

Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

Yes.

Vietnam- Provisional Revolutionary Government (Question No. 1467)

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many people have visited Australia on a Provisional Revolutionary Government passport.
  2. Is it the intention of the Government to support the Provisional Revolutionary Government in the United Nations Organisation.
  3. Does the Government intend to recognise the Provisional Revolutionary Government.
Mr Whitlam:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) In the period since May 1973, five PRG visitors have come to Australia. Three of the visitors, members of the joint North Vietnam/PRG delegation which visited Australia in May 1973, travelled on North Vietnamese passports issued by the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam. The other two visitors, representatives of the Students’ Union of the Republic of South Viet-Nam arrived last month on letters authorising their entry issued by the Australian Embassy in Hanoi. This is established procedure for visits to Australia by nationals holding passports issued by an authority not recognised by the Australian Government.
  2. No.
  3. The question of recognition of the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Viet-Nam is not under consideration.

Private Overseas Students (Question No. 1310)

Mr Connolly:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. How many private overseas students are currently studying at Australian tertiary institutions.
  2. Do these students benefit from the Government’s decision to abolish all tertiary fees.
  3. From which countries and in what numbers do private students come to Australia.
  4. Is the indirect financial assistance given to private overseas students included in Australia’s overseas aid statistics; if not, why not.
  5. Are private overseas students eligible to participate in Government-financed student assistance programmes; if so, how many applications have been granted and for what amounts.
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I am informed that the answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. 1 ) As at 30 June 1 973 there were 4,974 private overseas students studying at Australian tertiary institutions. The figure as at 30 June 1 974 is not yet available.
  2. Yes.
  3. As at 30 June 1973 there were 9,728 private overseas students in Australia. These students arrived from the following countries:
  1. No. The entry of private overseas students is not part of the aid program. Prior to the private overseas student policy revision in 1973, the positive effective demand concept formed the cornerstone of what was termed the private overseas student program. Students were admitted to Australia to study only for qualifications for which there was a positive effective demand in their homelands. This represented a form of aid to developing countries. The revised private overseas student policy has as its objective the provision of opportunities for the youth of other countries to study in Australia thus fostering good relations and cultural exchanges. The policy is intended to operate without geographical restriction.
  2. No. Student assistance schemes are restricted to Australian residents.

Canberra: Motor Vehicle Accidents (Question No. 1200)

Mr Hunt:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many accidents involving motor vehicles occurred at the Barney Crescent/ Anzac Parade intersections prior to the installation of ‘Stop’ signs.
  2. How many have occurred since the installation of these signs.
  3. 3 ) What are the details of each accident.
Mr Bryant:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The table below shows briefly the accident history of the intersection of Anzac Parade and Blamey Crescent from 1 966 to 22 September 1974. The average number of accidents prior to the installation of stop signs on 14 November 1972 was approximately 14 per annum.
  2. There was a total of six accidents in 1973 and eight accidents to date in 1974 only one of which produced personal injury. Before the installation of the stop signs there was on average five casualty accidents per annum.
  3. 3 ) Brief details are shown in the table.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 12 November 1974, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1974/19741112_reps_29_hor91/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant